we have and will spend some amounts on implementing Brexit, customs etc but we'll get that back in tariffs
Oh yeah? The number of things we'll now need is looking pretty big.
Will tariffs depress exports though?
we have and will spend some amounts on implementing Brexit, customs etc but we'll get that back in tariffs
hilarious
jambalaya - Member
@mike the Tories aren't spending anything on Brexit
At it again I see. from the Sun too, so hardly a hostile newspaper.
THE £1.5 billion cost of delivering Brexit was hidden deep in the Budget small print, the Sun can reveal.
The Chancellor has earmarked £400 million a year for the two Whitehall departments set up to oversee our EU divorce
Interesting all this stuff about Keynesian economics and whether it's a workable solution, but I actually think the labour party are thinking far more radically. Something along the lines of this.
I don't. I think they want to offer a giveaway manifesto and scream spend, spend, spend. I don't think there's any logic behind it.
HOWEVER, the growth ponzi sceme we're all living in is mental, so anyone who [b]did[/b] offer a controlled worldwide economic decline instead of growth until we all die like rabbits would win my vote. Can't see that being popular in poorer nations, of course.
hilarious
80% of the tariffs we already collect from the rest of the world (and we are the EU's largest importer from outside the block) are sent to Brussels.
Net tariffs from a WTO deal with the EU are projected to be in the region of €12bn pa
If we have a free trade deal we don't need all the extra customs
Whatever we spend on customs infrastructure and jobs the French, Dutch, Irish etc have to spend the same and then they have to send 80% of anything collected to Brussels, we get to keep the money.
[ delete ]
I don't. I think they want to offer a giveaway manifesto and scream spend, spend, spend. I don't think there's any logic behind it.
If they weren't interested in new ideas they wouldn't be looking at things like a universal basic income. In terms of implementation I think they probably are looking to spend a lot up front, then move to a more sustainable model. You can't do a managed decline (or more likely standstill) from such a low base, people won't accept it. You have to invest and make the gains first, then move to something based on long term sustainability.
jambalaya - Member
@daz pretty well, they have halved the deficit. That's incredibly difficult (and painful) to do.
At least the people who died as a direct result of the Tories (and by default yours, if you voted for them) austerity policies won't get to feel any more of that pain.
If we have a free trade deal we don't need all the extra customs
Mmm but since we have no idea IF we will have a trade deal (and time is running out) we will have to start implementing things anyway because they will need to be operational straight away. Do you agree?
Whatever we spend on customs infrastructure and jobs the French, Dutch, Irish etc have to spend the same and then they have to send 80%
Surely not? We have to double our capacity - they will only have to increase by a small amount?
Net tariffs from a WTO deal with the EU are projected to be in the region of €12bn pa
Net meaning minus the tariffs we will have to pay as well?
we will have to start implementing things anyway because they will need to be operational straight away. Do you agree?
I don't.
We don't need to have better customs on day 1 or rigidly enforce import tarrifs on day 1. It's up to us. Our borders won't be any more leaky than they already are. (If you think our borders are leaky.)
jambalaya - Member
hilariousNet tariffs from a WTO deal with the EU are projected to be in the region of €12bn pa
hilarious indeed, uncited jambafact, plus ca change...
£12bn gross maybe, but a little lie here, a little lie there, you should really go back to the brexit thread, its the perfect home for BS!
edit . William Norton, “Mitigating the impact of UK-EU tariffs”, Civitas, 9 January 2017. reckons 5.2bn off that from reciprocal tarrifs,
Treasury reckons long term WTO -7% gdp
NIESR reckons up to -7.8%
All threads lead back to brexit I see. It’s almost becoming a STW Godwin’s law 🙂
On the subject though, and relevant to the thread, I think I trust Kier Starmer a million times more than boris, Davis and Liam Fox to provide a better outcome.
If you want some light relief re brexit read the manifesto section on it. It’s like a send up off snake oil salesman and populist clap trap.
Amazed a smart bloke like Starmer was happy to stand behind such tosh
@kimbers prominent Remain econimist (I forget his name) said an “opportunity cost” of 2%, ie we’d still grow but by 2% less. None of that of course assumes we sign new trade deals or factors in the likelihood of a true eurozone crises. The Treasury has hugely discredited itself via its role in Osbourne’s Project Armageddon. Anyway Corbyn is a lifelong Leaver and Labour are supporting Brexit where it counts, in the Parliamentary votes. The rest is just trying to score political points in opposition.
So I played the game here. I named a Labour policy (nationalising stuff at below market value - eg utilities at historic valuation rather than current) ... now STW lefties have to name a country successfully following such a policy. It’s neither Germany nor Sweden.
Hmmmm....
You said it's ok for Brexit to have an opportunity cost, but it's not ok for renationalisation to have one?
Railways [i]should[/i] be nationalised - who cares if some money is lost in the process? It's the principle.
(Note, I am paraphrasing here to make a point)
(The point being that you seem to be cherry picking arguments to confirm your existing bias)
How to nationalise railways. Don't renew any deals on them.
You have picked a tough policy there because most of the countries that have successfully run state owned stuff were the ones who didn't sell them off for peanuts to their mates.
Now maybe list the countries trading on WTO terms alone (ie no trade deals)
jambalaya - Memberie we’d still grow but by 2% less.
Considering our economy grew by 1.6% in the last year and 1.8% the year before, that's mathematically challenging
Northwind that was cumulative over 15 (?) years. Personally I am expecting a healthy jump upwards in our GDP post any resolution inc wto as investment returns once there is certainty
@molgrips yes I would expect trade with the EU to decline further (has fallen materially in last 10 years), more locally sourced products, imports/exports better distributed globally.
@kimbers that was a net number I saw (admittedly highest one) your number is £5.4bn mine was about £10bn (I quoted €)
Apologies for Brexit diversion but that’s a Labour policy too
Labour want to nationalise utilities esp water at below market value. That will lead to legal challenges from shareholders and French (supported by their government)
Railways are arguably “better” in state hands but for sure they’ll cost a lot more to run that way and either fares and/or subsidies will be higher. They’ll be many more strikes (Unions knowing a Labour Govt will cave in or making a political point to Tories)
we have and will spend some amounts on implementing Brexit, customs etc but we'll get that back in tariffs
Magic Money Tree located !!
They’ll be many more strikes (Unions knowing a Labour Govt will cave in or making a political point to Tories)
jambafact
1898 con
1912 lib
1913 coalition
1921 coalition
1926 con
1972 con
1979 lab
1981 con
2011 con
https://visual.ons.gov.uk/the-history-of-strikes-in-britain/
It's about far more than simple GDP.
The Thatcher years saw GDP jump significantly, but the benefits were concentrated on a relatively small group and geographical area, not to be distributed across the entire economy. One of the few things I agree with Osborne on is the need to create a more evenly distributed economy in the North - northern powerhouse if you will.
It's fast becoming apparent that Hayekian economics simply shift wealth upward and offshore. It's simply not working for the majority.
As for nationalisations, please remember that our rail and utilities are in part owned by state run organisations from Europe (in particular France and Germany). It's truly the worst of all worlds right now. Better to nationalise the basic utilities and transport, one of the reasons why utilities and transport is so expensive for the end user is that we're paying for cumulative decades of no investment (thank you Tories, both blue and red).
And if Tory policies aren't popular with ordinary people, then I would go so far as to suggest that there are extremely good reasons for that.
more locally sourced products
Right. So how is this going to work? A few scenarios:
1) The product is much cheaper from an EU country because it's cheaper/easier to make there (like say, wine). If we source locally prices will go up, which will drive inflation.
2) The product isn't cheaper from an EU country, in which case it'll be being sourced locally anyway cos transport is cheaper.
3) If there's a local product available, that is competitive we'd already be buying it (see 2) but if it's not available, we can't simply start buying it. Take wine for instance - to start sourcing wine locally we'd need 20 years of investment in vineyards before this would work. So we're back to 1.
Any thoughts Jam?
(to clarify, I am accusing you of over-simplification to suit your bias - brushing details under the carpet, if you like)
Excuse Brexit talk here ...
Mols you seen to have missed the fact we are are talking about how WTO will change trade flows between the UK and the EU. I am assuming new trade deals with countries (so zero tariffs) and WTO with the EU. The EU loses its tariff advantage and has to stand on its own two feet. As we are open8ng up new relationships and removing EU penal tariffs (like on African coffee producers) trade with the EU will go down and Rest of the World will go up. Even if we have a free trade deal with the EU they will lose out as we sign new free trade deals elsewhere, why not tariff free cars and components from Japan and USA ?
Corbyn wanted out of the EU as it ties his hands re Nationalisation and Govt support/subsidy
Corbyn wanted out of the EU as it ties his hands re Nationalisation and Govt support/subsidy
and he'll go back to that view if he ever got in...
s we are open8ng up new relationships and removing EU penal tariffs (like on African coffee producers) trade with the EU will go down and Rest of the World will go up.
For food, yes. This is great. More food miles is exactly what we need. Why get green beans from Spain when you can get them from Kenya?
But anyway - that only applies to food.
why not tariff free cars and components from Japan and USA ?
Cos US cars are shite. I don't want EU cars to be more expensive than US cars. We'll even be able to fudge our own safety rules to let them in. Hoo bloody ray.
Anyway. Off-topic.
TurnerGuy - Member
Corbyn wanted out of the EU as it ties his hands re Nationalisation and Govt support/subsidy
and he'll go back to that view if he ever got in...
Love it! Brexiter & anti-corbyn lies all bundled up into one package
Love it! Brexiter & anti-corbyn lies all bundled up into one package
just like saying John McDonnell is a marxist...
just like saying John McDonnell is a marxist...
Difficult to deny when he says the words 'I'm a marxist' 😆 and is lauded by self confessed marxist Ernie Lynch 'I find McDonnell's politics closest to my own' 😆
I guess voting for a marxist chancellor can get folk into this odd state of denial.
Jezza’s been keeping his head down on Brexshit - but as a leaver must be tickled [s]pink[/s] red at what’s happening - but couldn’t help having a crack at financial services again yesterday and a Trumpesque attack on Morgan Stanley for not being “with the program”. With Haringay Hollow Out I am surprised he has time for all this.
What have we done to deserve these kind of politicians. And to think he could easily be the next PM 😯
Except that's not what happened, is it?
He was responding to Morgan Stanley's comments about him.
[url= https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/30/jeremy-corbyn-morgan-stanley-labour-brexit ]Link.[/url]
Still, don't let the facts get in the way.
Indeed don’t
Not being with the program is the direct reference to the MS note. Obviously hit a raw nerve for poor old jezza.
I guess voting for a marxist chancellor can get folk into this odd state of denial
Who's denying it.
THM, the irony is strong this morning.
The only Trumpesque thing about this is you attempting to spin it as an unprovoked attack on Morgan Stanley by JC.
It wasn't.
Your post is the very definition of fake news.
On the contrary I make specific reference to MS not being with the program. I am well aware of what they said - read the “offending” report
Only you are claiming that it is unprovoked
Jezza obviously a bit upset about MS views!!
but couldn’t help having a crack at financial services again yesterday and a Trumpesque attack on Morgan Stanley for not being “with the program”
So you meant that Corbyn didn't say the words "with the program" but included it in your sentence anyway because it was in reference to what Morgan Stanley told its investors. Yes, of course you did...
I can't find a link to the text of Morgan Stanley's statement. Did they use the words "with the program?" (That's a genuine question...not doubting that that's exactly what thm meant in his post.)
On the contrary, I think he's quite happy that his views have been reported.
Oh look, he's even made a sick edit about it...
How many CEOs did jezza refer to in his diatribe? Why did he mention the (insert number) of CEOs that he did?
He even went as far as to say that (insert name) should not be running “our country” - he clearly was a bit emotional
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/nov/29/east-coast-rail-franchise-terminated-three-years-early-virgin-trains ]Capitalism at its best[/url]
FFS, how is this allowed to go on every time?
Well if anyone knows about emotional outbursts, it’s you thm.
Why did you use “with the program” as a quote? Who said that? I’ve asked if it was MS because I didn’t hear those words in JC’s YouTube video. I can only assume you got it from the MS statement, which I haven’t seen. Is it in there somewhere?
It's almost as if he's using the killfile on you DD
Why use a Killfile? You would miss the fun of the posts especially when people make such an effort these days...
teamhurtmore - Member
Why use a Killfile?
When thm basically admits to trolling or just posting pissed as he did I'm hurting eu thread
No I enjoy reading what people think and say. You can chose how/if you want to respond/join in or not
What have we done to deserve these kind of politicians. And to think he could easily be the next PM
Obviously Corbyn can't be PM if he disagrees with Morgan Stanley. I do find it hilarious that you guys still don't get this. Whilst you ask this, millions more are asking 'What have we done to deserve all these bankers and parasites who get obscenely rich at the expense of everyone else'. This is why he could easily be the next PM. If/when it happens, like with brexit are you going to stop moaning and accept the democratic outcome?
You just ignore his questions then. Rude.
teethgrinder - MemberCapitalism at its best
FFS, how is this allowed to go on every time?
Not so much allowed as encouraged. What a joke. It's almost as though it was frantically privatised because the success of the public-run east coast didn't fit with the privatisation agenda eh.
teamhurtmore - Member
No I enjoy reading what people think and say. You can chose how/if you want to respond/join in or not
You raised this topic, in fact you started the thread.
How about answering the point raised by DD?
He was responding to Morgan Stanley's comments about him
So do we get to call him a grudge holding spoilt man child who can’t take criticism?
As for Morgan Stanley... I hope nobody looks at their board of directors
https://www.morganstanley.com/about-us-governance/board
when people make such an effort these days...
😆
You think a quick fact check of some of your posts takes “such an effort”?*
*Note the use of quotation marks. You said “such an effort” so I used quotation marks. You do know how these work don’t you?
Anyway, this is turning into my question to you on your BS post about Irish domestic politics on the EU thread. Your lack of an answer is an answer in itself - just a more cowardly version of the grown-up one.
So do we get to call him a grudge holding spoilt man child who can’t take criticism?
Corbyn?
You can if it makes you feel better sweetie.
But responding to criticism seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Ah the studs are back 😉
What's that supposed to mean?
Genuine question btw.
But responding to criticism seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Especially when he uses it to make a political point, cos that's his job and all.
What's that supposed to mean?
It means “I can’t answer the question that has been asked.”
Watch out for future mentions of “abuse”, “posse”, “bullied off the thread”.
I guess voting for a marxist chancellor can get folk into this odd state of denial
Who's denying it.
Unfortunately for those of you who are proudly far left, the vast majority who voted for a marxist chancellor did so in blissful ignorance.
the vast majority who voted for a marxist chancellor did so in blissful ignorance.
How do you know that. What if the vast majority of people who are voting Labour are doing so because they think the Labour economic model is a fairer / better model ?
I would say more people vote for the Conservative party in blissful ignorance as they are not part of the 5% that actually benefit from having a Conservative party.
Whilst you ask this, millions more are asking 'What have we done to deserve all these bankers and parasites who get obscenely rich at the expense of everyone else'.
The city pays around £72B of tax each year - enough to pay more than half of the NHS budget or the cost of Army, Police and Fire combined. Although banker bonuses give a cheap headline most of the wealth flows into the pension schemes etc that anyone not in the public sector will rely on in their old age.
What "millions" should be asking is - if Corbyn's crackpot policies do result in a flight of capital (as most international commentators seem to agree), how much more will those millions themselves have to pay? Each £2B increase the government spends is around 1p on the basic rate of income tax or thereabouts. Perhaps people will only really be able to connect the dots on Corbynomics when they are paying more than 50% tax.
How do you know that. What if the vast majority of people who are voting Labour are doing so because they think the Labour economic model is a fairer / better model ?
Clearly no normal person would vote for a Marxist. Normal people don't support a system that requires millions to die.
Clearly no normal person would vote for a Marxist. Normal people don't support a system that requires millions to die.
I look forward to your explanation.
It is likey that labour will win the next election, this is simply down to the Tory party being unable to keep sufficient voters happy to win. We can discuss the merits of fiscal approach but the reality is that people now vote against things rather than for things. I think Cornyn understands this and the Tory party have yet to come to terms with this and the right wing dogma of the Tory Party is destroying their ability to win an election.
It is likey that labour will win the next election, this is simply down to the Tory party being unable to keep sufficient voters happy to win. We can discuss the merits of fiscal approach but the reality is that people now vote against things rather than for things. I think Cornyn understands this and the Tory party have yet to come to terms with this and the right wing dogma of the Tory Party is destroying their ability to win an election.
PMSL! Really? The tories have run every campaign for the past 40 years purely on attacking the opposition.
MS note was a statement of the bleeding obvious. A Corbyn Government with John The Marxist as Chancellor would be many times more distruptive to the UK econony than will be Brexit. Easy responce from Corbyn to say banks should be afraid, appeals to his Momentum core. Just a tiny bit inconvenient that Alasdair McDonald is a MS emoyee with a million dollars in stock rewards
@oldman well the polls (*) don’t show that. Tory vote is static and Labour are not making sufficient inroads to win more seats despite all the Brexit disruptions
What’s really worrying for Labour is Bristol Labour council planning a trebling of council tax for “the rich”. Leopards and spots. The Middle classes are well aware of the tax raid a Corbyn Labour government will bring
(*) yes I know but thats all we have to go on here
The city pays around £72B of tax each year
Ahaha! Are you lot still using that line of argument?
I’m sure the millions of people cast into poverty by austerity and suffering with lower incomes as a result of the financial crisis are deeply grateful for their largesse. The more this rubbish is repeated, the more people flock to the ‘marxists’.
(*) yes I know but thats all we have to go on here
150 😉
jambalaya - MemberWhat’s really worrying for Labour is Bristol Labour council planning a trebling of council tax for “the rich”.
Cite? And provide an answer to my query on the eu hmrc thread while you're at it 😉
[i]Clearly no normal person would vote for a Marxist. Normal people don't support a system that requires millions to die. [/i]
You clearly need to learn about the various political ideologies - because that statement demonstrates you presently don't have a clue. 🙄
SOURCE and proof please I am calling BS on thatAlthough banker bonuses give a cheap headline most of the wealth flows into the pension schemes etc that anyone not in the public sector will rely on in their old age.
SOURCE and proof please Also calling BS on thatEach £2B increase the government spends is around 1p on the basic rate of income tax or thereabouts.
Jezzas diatribe on MS was brilliant for the fact it had so many factual errors - it would make a Brexshiteer blush!
But McDonald is being sensible. Populism succeeds despite being BS indeed arguably because of it. Even he doesn’t understand what he is saying about borrowing and ruturnd so his safe with the voters. Offer free snake oil for all and Bob’s your uncle
Jezzas diatribe on MS was brilliant for the fact it had so many factual errors - it would make a Brexshiteer blush!
Cite.
5thElefant - MemberClearly no normal person would vote for a Marxist. Normal people don't support a system that requires millions to die.
You're getting your ideologies mixed up a bit, that's Sauron you're thinking off
How else do you propose to sweep the bourgeoise out of the way?
How else do you propose to sweep the bourgeoise out of the way?
I thought they were all going to be leaving the country ?
I thought they were all going to be leaving the country ?
Incompatible with the concept of united international proletarian action
Corbyn "fan" here- did his comments on MS did contain some factual errors? As covered here for those who want to read further:
https://news.sky.com/story/corbyn-takes-on-wall-street-but-do-his-claims-stand-up-11151621
This view now seems to have taken hold generally- that MS and other institutions who [b]didn't need a bailout[/b] were therefore blameless.
But thats wrong. MS had to pay a $3.2B settlement in the US over sub-prime lending:
"Morgan Stanley knew that it was selling securities backed by residential mortgages with "material defects" — such as loans that were "underwater," where the loan was larger than the value of the house.
Internal emails helped document that the company was fully aware of the high risks of the loans it was securitizing, the New York attorney general's office writes:
In a May 31, 2006 email, the head of Morgan Stanley's team tasked with doing due diligence on the value of properties underlying the mortgage loans asked a colleague, 'please do not mention the 'slightly higher risk tolerance' in these communications. We are running under the radar and do not want to document these types of things.'
"In another email on November 21, 2006, a member of the Morgan Stanley due diligence team forwarded a list of questionable loans, seeking review and approval to purchase them and adding 'I assume you will want to do your 'magic' on this one?' "
The settlement announced Thursday was negotiated by a working group including both federal and state authorities, led by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman."
Corbyn is right- bailout or no, they were up to their necks in it.
This view now seems to have taken hold generally- that MS and other institutions who didn't need a bailout were therefore blameless.
Nope.
But nice diversion from your hero’s actual comments. Still who needs facts these days. One or two sugars with your snake oil sir?
teamhurtmore - Member
This view now seems to have taken hold generally- that MS and other institutions who didn't need a bailout were therefore blameless.
Nope.But nice diversion from your hero’s actual comments. Still who needs facts these days. One or two sugars with your snake oil sir?
I'm not attempting a diversion from his comments. To assert that I am is t allege that I'm trying to dissemble.
What I'm saying is- his comments are correct.
Jamba it's best not to look at the polls, the last election was a Tory landslide apparently?
No they are not. Far from. Lots of errors. Your choice if you want to “believe” them though
Corbyn is right- bailout or no, they were up to their necks in it.
That’s right, Morgan Stanley we’re up to their necks in it,..
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/markets/2811167/Blair-Junior-banks-on-Morgan-Stanley.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/2810381/Brown-picks-banker-for-top-job.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7133843.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35046961