Chit Chat
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
I wonder what proportion of people think we are out, if they vote for Boris's deal this week. Were the deal to get voted & implemented by 31 Oct, we are not out then, After that, we would enter into a "temporary arrangement", were we first have until Dec 2020 to agree a trade deal. Were it to be agreed by Dec 2020 (Extremely unlikely), we would be then out. If/when it's not agreed, the "temporary arrangement" gets extended by a further TWO years! So, we would then be out on Dec 2023. I presume that you can't sign any trade deals during the temporary arrangement. You'd be pretty certain that we would still continue to pay the ca. 0.75 billion per month to the EU until the real exit.
While this will no doubt annoy plenty of people, if they really understood what a hard Brexit might mean for our economy, they might see it differently.
While this will no doubt annoy plenty of people, if they really understood what a hard Brexit might mean for our economy, they might see it differently.
Show More
'if they really understood what a hard Brexit might mean for our economy'
3 years on and still insinuating that people who voted leave are not very clever. Time to stop the niggling and deliver what we won without more waffle.
3 years on and still insinuating that people who voted leave are not very clever. Time to stop the niggling and deliver what we won without more waffle.
saddo typical brexiter - doesn't think he will be affected by brexit and wants other British people damaged because he "won".
this is what they voted for
surely they knew that ?
surely they knew that ?
I still don't understand the desire and rush to get Brexit "done". It's not going to go away for many years but needs to be right. This isn't a thing to be taken lightly or to be rushed. It's complex & difficult.
For the record, I'm not insinuating, the public were incredibly stupid
For the record, I'm not insinuating. The public were incredibly stupid.
Correct punctuation makes all the difference.
Correct punctuation makes all the difference.
Could take several years to finalise so all the rush rush is a smokescreen.
yet another dummie opening another topic repeating the same shîte as his predecessors because he/she thinks he knows more
btw think on this; if it means nothing to leave on October 31st then why keep stopping it?
They are not trying to stop it, they are trying to prevent a hard Brexit, which would likely have a large negative impact on our economy.
As a Times, Financial Times & Wall Street Journal reader, I am very well informed on the subject.
As a Times, Financial Times & Wall Street Journal reader, I am very well informed on the subject.
perhaps you should try The Sun & broaden your lefty outlook
not trying to stop it
not trying to stop it
which would likely have a large negative impact on our economy. Says who? YOU?
A good percentage of those who voted to leave ARE pretty thick, let's be honest. Whether that percentage is higher than those who voted to remain is open to debate. All Cameron's fault, of course. When I'm president, nobody gets a vote!
their aim has been to stop it all along - they swallow the eu propaganda whole
brexiteer desperate to all go down to brighton beach and unveil their union jack towels and chant we love tommy robinson,with mark francois giving a speech saying up yours adolph
if i had got the "hard Brexit" i wanted; the dummies in & out of Parliament would be looking for the nearest tree
How Boris Johnson’s hard Brexit would hit the UK economy
The Brexit deal that Boris Johnson, the prime minister, is seeking to strike with Brussels this week would push the UK down the route of a hard Brexit, resulting in the nation missing out on up to 7 per cent of growth, according to new estimates from UK in a Changing Europe. The analysis undertaken by Hanwei Huang, Jonathan Portes and Thomas Sampson of King’s College London and the London School of Economics said Mr Johnson’s “red lines” on regulation and trade policy pointed to a post-Brexit arrangement with the EU more distant than the deal struck by his predecessor Theresa May. Although the think-tank’s estimates differ from the government’s own long-term Brexit analysis, the core result is the same, showing that the looser Britain’s ties are with the EU, the more economic performance will suffer. Mr Johnson’s negotiators are engaged in intense talks with their counterparts in Brussels ahead of a crucial two-day EU summit that starts on Thursday. Although the details of Mr Johnson’s plan to solve the major stumbling block of the Irish border have not been made public, his “double customs plan” would see Northern Ireland remain in the EU customs union to avoid the need for a hard border in Ireland but remain in the UK customs territory for legal terms. But while averting a no-deal would remove the immediate threat to the economy, his longer-term proposals suggest a harder Brexit that may struggle to convince the pro-Brexit Labour MPs who Mr Johnson may need to get his plan through parliament. Mary Creagh, Labour MP for Wakefield, said: “Brexit is not just about [the] Irish backstop, but [the] fact that Johnson’s aim to diverge from EU standards — workers rights, food standards and the environment — makes us all much poorer.” For Mr Johnson, an arrangement that keeps Northern Ireland effectively in EU arrangements would allow him to pursue his ambition of a future relationship, “based on a free trade agreement in which the UK takes control of its own regulatory affairs and trade policy”. The academics said that would, at best, be a “Canada-minus” model in which barriers to trade with the EU would be “notably lower than in a no-deal scenario, but considerably higher than under Theresa May’s withdrawal agreement”. The modelling work, predominantly carried out for the think-tank by the Centre for Economic Performance at the LSE, was done on the basis of the prime minister’s proposal to the EU from earlier this month rather than the precise compromise tabled by Mr Johnson last week. But Mr Portes of King’s College London said: “Nothing in the last few days changes the economic impacts here.” There would be significant friction for goods trade arising from full customs control between Dover and Calais and other trade routes between the UK and EU alongside new behind the border restrictions for services. In the long term, after about 10 years, these new trade barriers alone would reduce national income per head by 2.5 per cent, according to the analysis. The most controversial part of all long-term Brexit impact assessments is whether to add additional effects for the possibility of weaker productivity growth resulting from additional trade barriers. When the LSE team added these, the economic hit rose to 6.4 per cent, compared with 4.9 per cent under Mrs May’s withdrawal agreement. On the basis of Mr Johnson’s proposals, that reduction in future gross domestic product would be the equivalent of every person in the UK missing out on £2,000 of income on average each year. In comparison, a no-deal Brexit would reduce GDP per capita by £2,500 a year. The UK in a Changing Europe analysis was unique in adding additional effects based on the likely new Australian-style points-based migration system the government wants to introduce following Brexit, which would prioritise higher skilled workers without preferences for EU migrants. In a more liberal immigration regime modelled by the think-tank, the numbers of lower skilled migrants from the EU would fall by two-thirds, but increase skilled migration from outside the EU by 50 per cent.Overall numbers of migrants would fall, but the pay levels would rise, leading to a relatively small drop in UK GDP, but a 0.6 per cent rise in per capita incomes, due to the higher average skill levels of migrants. A more restrictive scenario estimated the effects of a 75 per cent drop in EU migrants earning less than £30,000 and only a 25 per cent rise in skilled migration from outside the EU. This saw a further 1.8 per cent hit to GDP with income per person also dropping because the skilled EU migration would also fall. In total, the effects of a more restrictive migration regime and the trade impacts could combine so that the UK missed out on 7 per cent of growth over the next decade, almost five years worth of expansion at current rates of economic performance. The analysis chimes with the government’s own long-term Brexit study, and recent statements by HM Revenue & Customs. That showed that customs checks and form-filling alone — which would still be needed if a free trade agreement with the EU was signed — would cost companies £15bn a year.
The Brexit deal that Boris Johnson, the prime minister, is seeking to strike with Brussels this week would push the UK down the route of a hard Brexit, resulting in the nation missing out on up to 7 per cent of growth, according to new estimates from UK in a Changing Europe. The analysis undertaken by Hanwei Huang, Jonathan Portes and Thomas Sampson of King’s College London and the London School of Economics said Mr Johnson’s “red lines” on regulation and trade policy pointed to a post-Brexit arrangement with the EU more distant than the deal struck by his predecessor Theresa May. Although the think-tank’s estimates differ from the government’s own long-term Brexit analysis, the core result is the same, showing that the looser Britain’s ties are with the EU, the more economic performance will suffer. Mr Johnson’s negotiators are engaged in intense talks with their counterparts in Brussels ahead of a crucial two-day EU summit that starts on Thursday. Although the details of Mr Johnson’s plan to solve the major stumbling block of the Irish border have not been made public, his “double customs plan” would see Northern Ireland remain in the EU customs union to avoid the need for a hard border in Ireland but remain in the UK customs territory for legal terms. But while averting a no-deal would remove the immediate threat to the economy, his longer-term proposals suggest a harder Brexit that may struggle to convince the pro-Brexit Labour MPs who Mr Johnson may need to get his plan through parliament. Mary Creagh, Labour MP for Wakefield, said: “Brexit is not just about [the] Irish backstop, but [the] fact that Johnson’s aim to diverge from EU standards — workers rights, food standards and the environment — makes us all much poorer.” For Mr Johnson, an arrangement that keeps Northern Ireland effectively in EU arrangements would allow him to pursue his ambition of a future relationship, “based on a free trade agreement in which the UK takes control of its own regulatory affairs and trade policy”. The academics said that would, at best, be a “Canada-minus” model in which barriers to trade with the EU would be “notably lower than in a no-deal scenario, but considerably higher than under Theresa May’s withdrawal agreement”. The modelling work, predominantly carried out for the think-tank by the Centre for Economic Performance at the LSE, was done on the basis of the prime minister’s proposal to the EU from earlier this month rather than the precise compromise tabled by Mr Johnson last week. But Mr Portes of King’s College London said: “Nothing in the last few days changes the economic impacts here.” There would be significant friction for goods trade arising from full customs control between Dover and Calais and other trade routes between the UK and EU alongside new behind the border restrictions for services. In the long term, after about 10 years, these new trade barriers alone would reduce national income per head by 2.5 per cent, according to the analysis. The most controversial part of all long-term Brexit impact assessments is whether to add additional effects for the possibility of weaker productivity growth resulting from additional trade barriers. When the LSE team added these, the economic hit rose to 6.4 per cent, compared with 4.9 per cent under Mrs May’s withdrawal agreement. On the basis of Mr Johnson’s proposals, that reduction in future gross domestic product would be the equivalent of every person in the UK missing out on £2,000 of income on average each year. In comparison, a no-deal Brexit would reduce GDP per capita by £2,500 a year. The UK in a Changing Europe analysis was unique in adding additional effects based on the likely new Australian-style points-based migration system the government wants to introduce following Brexit, which would prioritise higher skilled workers without preferences for EU migrants. In a more liberal immigration regime modelled by the think-tank, the numbers of lower skilled migrants from the EU would fall by two-thirds, but increase skilled migration from outside the EU by 50 per cent.Overall numbers of migrants would fall, but the pay levels would rise, leading to a relatively small drop in UK GDP, but a 0.6 per cent rise in per capita incomes, due to the higher average skill levels of migrants. A more restrictive scenario estimated the effects of a 75 per cent drop in EU migrants earning less than £30,000 and only a 25 per cent rise in skilled migration from outside the EU. This saw a further 1.8 per cent hit to GDP with income per person also dropping because the skilled EU migration would also fall. In total, the effects of a more restrictive migration regime and the trade impacts could combine so that the UK missed out on 7 per cent of growth over the next decade, almost five years worth of expansion at current rates of economic performance. The analysis chimes with the government’s own long-term Brexit study, and recent statements by HM Revenue & Customs. That showed that customs checks and form-filling alone — which would still be needed if a free trade agreement with the EU was signed — would cost companies £15bn a year.
C&P all the lefty diatribe you want; it means nothing as there is opposing views from other learned scholars. You seem to be rather pompous but without a view of your own & trust so-called experts who are invariably WRONG! Just like the IMF
The most obvious part of a hard Brexit is where we would be left with trade. WTO covers goods, not services. ca 80% of our economy consists of services. We would have no rules for services & no trade deals. I don't think it takes a lot of reasoning to expect our economy to be devastated in the short term in those circumstances.
btw, we should by now all be living in hovels & sniffing for scraps if the 'experts' were correct 3 years ago
nobody has ever suggested there wouldn't be pain in the "short term" well not in my world. I made my decision on the basis that it would be worth it in the very long term; as did many others. What galls me is people like you still using that as a bat to hit us with. Now about my question you haven't answered?
you see, making presumptions because you obviously have no idea what you're talking about
but i will give you a personal reason from me of a benefit:
to completely & utterly pîss off people like you!
to completely & utterly pîss off people like you!
what a seething rant from baphornet, another brexiter who is certain that he won't be badly affected by hard brexit, so f-ck anyone who will be.
"a seething rant" a bit over the top there from dummie dave there we go again - "hard brexit" you lot are watching far too much MSM as that little beaut has only reared it's head again since Saturday
there we go again - "hard brexit" you lot are watching far too much MSM as that little beaut has only reared it's head again since Saturday
The betting still suggests there is a 20% chance that Article 50 gets revoked.
dave is certain that staying in the EU is best for him so f-c anyone for whom it won't be.
saddo is certain that leaving the EU is best for him so **** anyone for whom it won't be.
Jonathan Portes, professor of economics and public policy at King’s College London and one of the
academics leading publicly funded research into the effects of Brexit, says: “The conclusion that,
very roughly, Brexit has already reduced UK growth by 1 per cent or slightly less seems clear.”
Companies are becoming more vocal over the economic hit, blaming the government’s slow
handling of the Brexit negotiations for a weaker business climate. In October, the International
Monetary Fund highlighted Britain as a “notable exception” to an improving global economic
outlook, while the OECD, the Paris-based club of mostly rich nations,
Thomas Sampson and colleagues at the London School of Economics have examined the direct
effect of sterling’s depreciation since the EU referendum on prices and living standards. With the
pound falling about 10 per cent following the June 2016 result, inflation has risen more in Britain
than in other advanced economies. It started with petrol prices and spread to food and other goods,
pushing overall inflation up from 0.4 per cent at the time of the referendum to 3.1 per cent last
month .
When looking at prices, depending on the level of import exposure of different goods and services,
the LSE study estimates that the Brexit vote directly increased inflation by 1.7 percentage points of
the 2.7 percentage-point rise in the 12 months after the referendum. And with wage inflation stuck
at just over 2 per cent, “the increase in inflation caused by the Leave vote has already hurt UK
households”, Mr Sampson says. He calculates that “the Brexit vote has cost the average worker almost
one week’s wages”, but adds the figure could be higher or lower if a complete evaluation of the economic
impact was applied rather than just the initial squeeze on incomes from leaving the EU.
Other effects are more apparent. Business investment grew at an annual rate of 1.3 per cent in the
third quarter, compared with a March 2016 official forecast for annual growth of 6.1 per cent for
the whole of 2017. Exports, boosted by sterling’s depreciation, have proved more resilient. The
OBR now expects a 5.2 per cent rise in the volume of goods and services sold abroad in 2017
compared with a pre-referendum prediction of 2.7 per cent.
Net migration to the UK from the EU fell by 40 per cent in the first 12 months after the vote.
Professor Portes last year predicted an ultimate decline of between 50 and 85 per cent on net
migration levels before the referendum. “Arithmetically, this reduction [of 40 per cent] of net EU
migration translates into a reduction in growth of 0.1 to 0.2 per cent,” he says.
Depending on the period of comparison chosen, the UK economy would normally have been
expected to expand by between 2.5 per cent and 3.2 per cent over the same period. The lower end
of the range comes from more recent history, such as the average since a Conservative-led
government came to office in 2010, while the upper boundary reflects Britain’s long-term
performance in the 30 years before the financial crisis. The hit to the economy on this comparison
is between 0.6 per cent and 1.2 per cent of national income.
Geographical comparisons produce a similar conclusion. Britain’s year-on-year growth rate
tended to be close to the G7 upper range of outcomes over the past 25 years. Had that performance
continued, British GDP would have grown 2.9 per cent since the referendum. The statistical
algorithm produces a significantly larger estimate of what would have been possible, suggesting
Brexit has already removed 1.3 per cent from GDP since the vote.
Overall, 14 different counterfactuals estimated by the FT and others give a range of a hit
between 0.6 per cent of national income and 1.3 per cent, with an average of 0.9 per cent. With
national income of £2tn in the year ending in the third quarter of 2017, it means the UK is likely to
be producing £18bn less a year than would have been reasonable to expect and this is directly
attributable to Britain’s decision to leave the EU. That is just short of £350m a week.
Of course, we have not left yet.
Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, says that “for every 1 per cent of GDP you
lose, that’s getting on for £10bn a year of foregone tax revenues”. If 0.9 per cent of GDP has been
lost over the five quarters for which data exists, there has already been a £9bn hit to the public
finances. So even before the UK has left the EU, the referendum result is costing the UK
government more than can possibly be recovered by ending net contributions to Brussels.
academics leading publicly funded research into the effects of Brexit, says: “The conclusion that,
very roughly, Brexit has already reduced UK growth by 1 per cent or slightly less seems clear.”
Companies are becoming more vocal over the economic hit, blaming the government’s slow
handling of the Brexit negotiations for a weaker business climate. In October, the International
Monetary Fund highlighted Britain as a “notable exception” to an improving global economic
outlook, while the OECD, the Paris-based club of mostly rich nations,
Thomas Sampson and colleagues at the London School of Economics have examined the direct
effect of sterling’s depreciation since the EU referendum on prices and living standards. With the
pound falling about 10 per cent following the June 2016 result, inflation has risen more in Britain
than in other advanced economies. It started with petrol prices and spread to food and other goods,
pushing overall inflation up from 0.4 per cent at the time of the referendum to 3.1 per cent last
month .
When looking at prices, depending on the level of import exposure of different goods and services,
the LSE study estimates that the Brexit vote directly increased inflation by 1.7 percentage points of
the 2.7 percentage-point rise in the 12 months after the referendum. And with wage inflation stuck
at just over 2 per cent, “the increase in inflation caused by the Leave vote has already hurt UK
households”, Mr Sampson says. He calculates that “the Brexit vote has cost the average worker almost
one week’s wages”, but adds the figure could be higher or lower if a complete evaluation of the economic
impact was applied rather than just the initial squeeze on incomes from leaving the EU.
Other effects are more apparent. Business investment grew at an annual rate of 1.3 per cent in the
third quarter, compared with a March 2016 official forecast for annual growth of 6.1 per cent for
the whole of 2017. Exports, boosted by sterling’s depreciation, have proved more resilient. The
OBR now expects a 5.2 per cent rise in the volume of goods and services sold abroad in 2017
compared with a pre-referendum prediction of 2.7 per cent.
Net migration to the UK from the EU fell by 40 per cent in the first 12 months after the vote.
Professor Portes last year predicted an ultimate decline of between 50 and 85 per cent on net
migration levels before the referendum. “Arithmetically, this reduction [of 40 per cent] of net EU
migration translates into a reduction in growth of 0.1 to 0.2 per cent,” he says.
Depending on the period of comparison chosen, the UK economy would normally have been
expected to expand by between 2.5 per cent and 3.2 per cent over the same period. The lower end
of the range comes from more recent history, such as the average since a Conservative-led
government came to office in 2010, while the upper boundary reflects Britain’s long-term
performance in the 30 years before the financial crisis. The hit to the economy on this comparison
is between 0.6 per cent and 1.2 per cent of national income.
Geographical comparisons produce a similar conclusion. Britain’s year-on-year growth rate
tended to be close to the G7 upper range of outcomes over the past 25 years. Had that performance
continued, British GDP would have grown 2.9 per cent since the referendum. The statistical
algorithm produces a significantly larger estimate of what would have been possible, suggesting
Brexit has already removed 1.3 per cent from GDP since the vote.
Overall, 14 different counterfactuals estimated by the FT and others give a range of a hit
between 0.6 per cent of national income and 1.3 per cent, with an average of 0.9 per cent. With
national income of £2tn in the year ending in the third quarter of 2017, it means the UK is likely to
be producing £18bn less a year than would have been reasonable to expect and this is directly
attributable to Britain’s decision to leave the EU. That is just short of £350m a week.
Of course, we have not left yet.
Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, says that “for every 1 per cent of GDP you
lose, that’s getting on for £10bn a year of foregone tax revenues”. If 0.9 per cent of GDP has been
lost over the five quarters for which data exists, there has already been a £9bn hit to the public
finances. So even before the UK has left the EU, the referendum result is costing the UK
government more than can possibly be recovered by ending net contributions to Brussels.
I hope you don't expect anybody to read all that $hit
Remainers totally cacking themselves because even THEY can see the end is in sight.Duplicitous to$$ers the lot of em .
Oct 21, 2019 -- 1:19PM, saddo wrote:
dave is certain that staying in the EU is best for him so f-c anyone for whom it won't be.
As it happens hard brexit won't affect me very much other than perhaps a longer queue at passport control when travelling to the EU and a bit of a hit on currency, but unlike you I think it's reasonable to consider people who will be badly affected.
Stow Judge
Mark Twain once said "Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."
There's little point.
As for the economic evidence that Baphornet refuses to provide, let me enlighten you....
"We send the EU £350m a week, let's fund our NHS instead."
And that economic evidence is from The Prime Minister himself.
Mark Twain once said "Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."
There's little point.
As for the economic evidence that Baphornet refuses to provide, let me enlighten you....
"We send the EU £350m a week, let's fund our NHS instead."
And that economic evidence is from The Prime Minister himself.
dave, to me the evidence suggests that those people who will be most badly affected in the short term are more likely to have voted for BREXIT. So the argument I'm going to be alright Jack, feck those that aren't is largely redundant.
Of course in the longer term the old codgers with alzheimers, dementia and a general lack of intelligence, will be dead, and the younger members of our country will have to pay for their folly. We'll end up joining the EU again.
Of course in the longer term the old codgers with alzheimers, dementia and a general lack of intelligence, will be dead, and the younger members of our country will have to pay for their folly. We'll end up joining the EU again.
Also worth pointing out that the
"simpler the message, the more it resonates"
so quoting an article from Johnathan Portes professor of economics serves no purpose other than to emphasize that twizzle and baph like simple messages, rather than long complicated study and reasoning. Perhaps that's the point.
So comments like Boris's "We send the EU £350m a week, let's fund our NHS instead." is all their brains can register
"simpler the message, the more it resonates"
so quoting an article from Johnathan Portes professor of economics serves no purpose other than to emphasize that twizzle and baph like simple messages, rather than long complicated study and reasoning. Perhaps that's the point.
So comments like Boris's "We send the EU £350m a week, let's fund our NHS instead." is all their brains can register
tell the brexiteers stood outside commons on Saturday chanting theres only one tommy robinson
You hardly ever hear any coherent arguments from the extremists. They seem unable to tell you what the benefits of Brexit are. They want Brexit implemented, regardless of the consequences. When many people lose their jobs after the economy is trashed, it may clarify things for them.
It seems likely to me that we'll re-join on worse terms in the future.
It seems likely to me that we'll re-join on worse terms in the future.
What are the benefits of starting a thread to show everyone how clever you are, do you feel even smugger for it?
When many people lose their jobs after the economy is trashed
absolute b/s from an extreme remainer, & as for you clydebank, i could supply plenty of evidence & have many times on here. I just don't like repeating myself to dummies with the IQs of goldfish, including the OP
absolute b/s from an extreme remainer, & as for you clydebank, i could supply plenty of evidence & have many times on here. I just don't like repeating myself to dummies with the IQs of goldfish, including the OP
Saddo, I suspect that your utterly pointless presence on the forum, mirrors real life, where you are likely to be universally disliked.
Oh dear, true colours are showing, never trust a remainer.
LSE - now there's a name to conjure with. Loads a munny from the Eu - but it wouldn't influence them when they get so much dosh WOULD IT??
Now now mo, stop being naughty or you will never be as universally liked as some on here seem to think they are.
i dont know what the fuss is all about the vote is going to take place tommorow isnt it ?
It didn't influence Ebbw Vale, the part of the UK that received more money from the EU than anywhere else, completely transforming the area. They had the highest BREXIT percentage in the country
#turkeys voting for xmas #complete muppets
#turkeys voting for xmas #complete muppets
you are finnish saddo you have done it now grrrrrr
all these nice grants the LSE and its students get WOULD NEVER INFLUENCE ANY SURVEY OR PAPER ho fkn ho ho
especially when such studies may be led by a german and italian professors (anyone remember that one?)
just waiting for the accusations of lying because I can't be bothered to put a link up
all these nice grants the LSE and its students get WOULD NEVER INFLUENCE ANY SURVEY OR PAPER ho fkn ho ho
especially when such studies may be led by a german and italian professors (anyone remember that one?)
just waiting for the accusations of lying because I can't be bothered to put a link up
the MSM are partly funded (including pensions) by the EU. Funny old world innit
the goldfish who ask for answers never answer the ones put to them
The local remain voters have organised a play in the local town hall in Ebbw Vale. Dumb, Dumber & Even Dumber Than Dumber.
who on earth is talking about the vale ? most odd and we do send them 13.5 billion and twice to my knowledge we have had to send something like another 1.5 billion extra each time
The eu has been involved in helping to facilitate companies moving OUT of the uk with financial contributions also.
just saying
The eu has been involved in helping to facilitate companies moving OUT of the uk with financial contributions also.
just saying
I do hope the EU intend to offer grants to help all the welchers leave this country. We can't possibly expect them to live among so many uneducated types when the land of milk and honey is just across the water.
approximate spending by the eu propaganda departments is approaching half a billion
Every country pays the same proportion of its GDP into the EU. When we rejoin in the future we'll be paying less because we'll be worse off.
From the ONS
Using the latest available figures published by the EC, a wider estimate of flows between the UK and the EU can be calculated. This calculation considers the abatement, the money the EU sends to the UK government, and the money the EU sends directly to the UK private sector.
This is arguably a more complete picture of the money that flows between the UK and the EU and in 2018 the net flow was £8.6 billion.
However, in the last few years the EC figures have been volatile and so a five-year average has been taken to better represent a “typical” contribution.
The UK’s annual five-year average (2014 to 2018) net contribution on this wider basis was £7.8 billion; lower than the £9.8 billion ONS estimate of the annual five-year average which only captures official transactions between the EU and the UK government.
Using the latest available figures published by the EC, a wider estimate of flows between the UK and the EU can be calculated. This calculation considers the abatement, the money the EU sends to the UK government, and the money the EU sends directly to the UK private sector.
This is arguably a more complete picture of the money that flows between the UK and the EU and in 2018 the net flow was £8.6 billion.
However, in the last few years the EC figures have been volatile and so a five-year average has been taken to better represent a “typical” contribution.
The UK’s annual five-year average (2014 to 2018) net contribution on this wider basis was £7.8 billion; lower than the £9.8 billion ONS estimate of the annual five-year average which only captures official transactions between the EU and the UK government.
Clydebank, it's the rebate that might disappear to some extent, were we out, then later back in.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_rebate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_rebate
What Adam Smith showed is that that’s not correct, that trade is a positive-sum game. Both countries can gain from both exporting and importing.
Imports are good for an economy: they help consumers, they lower prices, they increase variety. They provide necessary inputs for firms in their production process and allow for more specialist inputs that help their productivity."
Not being in the EU, where we have all the benefits of the free trade that helps our businesses in the production of it's good and services is going to have a massive negative effect on our wealth that is going to dwarf the £7.8Bn we currently pay imo.
Imports are good for an economy: they help consumers, they lower prices, they increase variety. They provide necessary inputs for firms in their production process and allow for more specialist inputs that help their productivity."
Not being in the EU, where we have all the benefits of the free trade that helps our businesses in the production of it's good and services is going to have a massive negative effect on our wealth that is going to dwarf the £7.8Bn we currently pay imo.
Cheers Stow. Not good news clearly.
For me this is the key point that is going to devastating...
They provide necessary inputs for firms in their production process and allow for more specialist inputs that help their productivity
For me this is the key point that is going to devastating...
They provide necessary inputs for firms in their production process and allow for more specialist inputs that help their productivity
Businesses have to compete in a very competitive global arena. Making that more difficult will make many of our businesses uncompetitive, that does not just mean within the EU, but worldwide too and it could be devastating. If there were no statistics or information at all that would be my instinctive thinking and that is why I am instinctively strongly remain.
neither does the news of germany entering recession exactly make good news for the eurozone
Most economies are at, near, or past end of cycle. The USA-china trade war & other pending Trump trade wars are not helping!
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539