O/T:- Withdrawal Agreement - 'Peace in our time'

[SmiffyPie]

It happens all the time doesn't it? US soldiers in WW1, British soldiers in Iraq, Peacekeeping missions etc

Can't really cite the US considering how long it took them to commit to WW1 and WW2 and peacekeeping missions are a given. I think if ever there became a need for a tactical/strategic deployment for the proposed EU army as a whole there would be considerable foot dragging at national level.

[GranthamPie]

I’m no economist (clearly) but I simply don’t understand the headlines today that state that the economy will be worse off by £100billion over the next 15 years. If the country had a trade deficit with Europe of £60billion per year... we will be much better off surely?

Que... explanation from an economist please?

[drillerpie]

Can't really cite the US considering how long it took them to commit to WW1 and WW2 and peacekeeping missions are a given. I think if ever there became a need for a tactical/strategic deployment for the proposed EU army as a whole there would be considerable foot dragging at national level.

Ok possibly but it's no different from NATO in principle. I'm not really a fan of the idea by the way but just because I think the EU should concentrate on other things.

[Disturbed]

I’m no economist (clearly) but I simply don’t understand the headlines today that state that the economy will be worse off by £100billion over the next 15 years. If the country had a trade deficit with Europe of £60billion per year... we will be much better off surely?

Que... explanation from an economist please?

As with all these predictions and figures that have been mentioned, you can get the numbers to show how you want things to be perceived. This £100 billion is over 15 years with the assumption of figures they want it to be, not what it will be (unless they get very lucky in their guess). You could say that GDP will grow by £250 billion over 20 years with a different set of made up figures. It all depends on which side are releasing these predictions.
Myself, I really do not care. I just want it over with, one way or another and then deal with things then. If I have more money to spend, then great. If I have to budget smarter, then fine, but as long as I have my health and family, then I know I will be fine.

[sidders]

Frankfurt is proudly acclaiming its success in luring 30 financial operators (banks, hedge funds, etc) from London. They claim it will be nearer 40 by March. Hundreds of billions of pounds involved.
This isn't Project Fear, it's Project Reality.
Some leavers remind me of that lady in the US who filmed the people fleeing from the shootings at a country concert in Las Vegas. She is now frightened to walk the streets because supporters of the gun lobby attack her for posting a 'fake video' designed to promote restrictive gun laws. Don't let reality get in the way of your prejudiced views.

[Chicken Balti Pie]

Frankfurt is proudly acclaiming its success in luring 30 financial operators (banks, hedge funds, etc) from London. They claim it will be nearer 40 by March. Hundreds of billions of pounds involved.
This isn't Project Fear, it's Project Reality.
Some leavers remind me of that lady in the US who filmed the people fleeing from the shootings at a country concert in Las Vegas. She is now frightened to walk the streets because supporters of the gun lobby attack her for posting a 'fake video' designed to promote restrictive gun laws. Don't let reality get in the way of your prejudiced views.

They're sending EU clearing stuff there, nothing much more as EU banking regulations are deemed Draconian. The 800bn is a misnomer, that's how much passes through the system, it's actually just a few million that is made from that amount of money

[drillerpie]

I’m no economist (clearly) but I simply don’t understand the headlines today that state that the economy will be worse off by £100billion over the next 15 years. If the country had a trade deficit with Europe of £60billion per year... we will be much better off surely?

Que... explanation from an economist please?

In economics as with politics there are different schools of thought rather than one unquestionably correct explanation. I mentioned the other night some economists day any debt is bad, others say debt doesn't matter as long as the economy is going well and the interest payments are low (like Japan for example).

Some people (Trump) see trade deficits as a humiliation and bad for the economy, others see it as potentially damaging but just one part of the economy. It can reduce domestic production but gives consumers more choice and lower prices.

It also depends on how trade relations are with other countries, if you have a deficit with every country you need to find the money to pay for it all either by borrowing or through selling natural resources.

Mercantilism is the economic system which prioritises the reduction of imports and maximisation of exports at all costs, to facilitate the accumulation of reserves like precious metals. It was fashionable a couple of hundred years ago but led to wars either for natural resources to produce stuff to sell, or because another country put import tariffs on your goods and you decided to teach them a lesson. Working conditions actually got worse because manufacturers were under immense pressure to make everything, even goods which weren't easily made in a certain country, and make it cheaper than everyone else.

In the end most modern economies have decided that if you import a lot of something from another country it's because they make it better or cheaper or both, so it's pointless trying to beat them at their own game so to speak. This is generally a good system but harsh on countries with no resources that don't produce anything.

If we all buy goods from the countries that make them better and/or cheaper then the market is efficient and consumers get the best deal, the total number of transactions is maximised and so on, although again if the country's overall deficit is too large it could have problems with unemployment because it's not manufacturing enough and won't have money to invest in the economy unless they borrow it.

Of course you can try to become completely self sufficient, like the USSR did, but that's when you end up driving Ladas and eating pickled gherkins and selling a kidney for a pair of American jeans.

As with everything I'd say moderation is the way forward, a deficit with certain countries is OK but ideally you would have a surplus with others, and you would protect a few key industries from competitom in the interest of national security.

[sidders]

Are you not able to see that such large amounts invested within our borders act as a confidence boost when it gets to squeaky bum time. The only leaver claim with any credibility is 'I don't care how much it costs. it will be worth it for the freedom and restoration of our sovereignty'.
Well, I do care how much it costs and nor do I feel stripped of my sovereignty.

[BigFatPie]

In economics as with politics there are different schools of thought rather than one unquestionably correct explanation. I mentioned the other night some economists day any debt is bad, others say debt doesn't matter as long as the economy is going well and the interest payments are low (like Japan for example).

Some people (Trump) see trade deficits as a humiliation and bad for the economy, others see it as potentially damaging but just one part of the economy. It can reduce domestic production but gives consumers more choice and lower prices.

It also depends on how trade relations are with other countries, if you have a deficit with every country you need to find the money to pay for it all either by borrowing or through selling natural resources.

Mercantilism is the economic system which prioritises the reduction of imports and maximisation of exports at all costs, to facilitate the accumulation of reserves like precious metals. It was fashionable a couple of hundred years ago but led to wars either for natural resources to produce stuff to sell, or because another country put import tariffs on your goods and you decided to teach them a lesson. Working conditions actually got worse because manufacturers were under immense pressure to make everything, even goods which weren't easily made in a certain country, and make it cheaper than everyone else.

In the end most modern economies have decided that if you import a lot of something from another country it's because they make it better or cheaper or both, so it's pointless trying to beat them at their own game so to speak. This is generally a good system but harsh on countries with no resources that don't produce anything.

If we all buy goods from the countries that make them better and/or cheaper then the market is efficient and consumers get the best deal, the total number of transactions is maximised and so on, although again if the country's overall deficit is too large it could have problems with unemployment because it's not manufacturing enough and won't have money to invest in the economy unless they borrow it.

Of course you can try to become completely self sufficient, like the USSR did, but that's when you end up driving Ladas and eating pickled gherkins and selling a kidney for a pair of American jeans.

As with everything I'd say moderation is the way forward, a deficit with certain countries is OK but ideally you would have a surplus with others, and you would protect a few key industries from competitom in the interest of national security.

Bloody hell Driller, I was just about to post all of that. Beat me to it again.

[BigFatPie]

So you like the idea of an Army fatboy .What about a EU Navy as well? Maybe not a good idea . Instead of defending us against potential threats or carrying out humantirian duties we might be to busy bumming each other.

ps. Before others jump in, the guy as made many homophobic remarks against the Navy.

Hahahaha Pugwash, you’re a funny bloke. I fully support the idea of an EU navy as well, with as much bumming as permitted.

I’m not sure about your homophobia allegations. I’ve made lots of (imo) humorous remarks about you being in a ***ual relationship with your captain, but is that homophobic? Your captain might have been a woman, but even if they weren’t, nothing wrong with that. You’ve got to pass those long, lonely hours at sea somehow.

If you’re offended by that, who’s the homophobe then?