Remove ads

Introducing the LemonFools Personal Finance Calculators

Hard vs Soft Brexit?

High levels of moderation
Forum rules
no trolling, name calling, no arguments.
Material posted here that is disparaging towards any group on the basis of race, faith, nationality, gender, disability or sexual orientation will be deleted and any poster of such material risks suspension.
dspp
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2440
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
Has thanked: 1490 times
Been thanked: 451 times

Re: Hard vs Soft Brexit?

#117736

Postby dspp » February 12th, 2018, 9:14 pm

1nv35t wrote:Much of UK relative lag is a consequence of instability. Yo-yo'ing between Tory and Labour and short (Parliament) term objectives (lack of longer term planning/stability). A public sector being supported by a smaller private sector resulting in micro management and regular changes. Parliament is more concerned about itself than the country, its sovereignty over the people, its revenues GDP expansion etc. The EU adds additional layers of governance on top of that.


I am in favour of free market economics, when that is the best way. Or in regulated markets when it is not. Or if necessary in state delivery if neither of the first two are appropriate. There are things that fit into all three categories, some less neatly than others. It does depend on the actual circumstances.

But to make the mistake in thinking that the EU is a net drag on free markets is simply false. Go check the data - Germany is a better exporter than the UK, to non-EU destinations. You cannot hide behind distractions. In this respect the anti-EU arguments are simply wrong.

(By the way I agree that UK political flip-flopping is part of the UK's problem. So the answer is to go to proportional representation - it has delivered for Germany; and was designed by the UK when writing the German constitution.)

- dspp

beeswax
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1953
Joined: December 20th, 2016, 11:20 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 172 times

Re: Hard vs Soft Brexit?

#117743

Postby beeswax » February 12th, 2018, 9:42 pm

I'm not sure this is being overlooked but being that Germany and others are very successful both exporting their goods to non EU countries and of course importing them too should make us all wonder what on earth we need the EU for, never mind freedom of movement and control of borders and laws and contributing all that money as a membership fee!

So why don't we just go to WTO and join all the rest outside the EU?

That's the hard goods sorted and so that just leaves financial services and that should be a doddle because its all mainly done via London and the Internet....And once again the EU have more to lose if they play silly sods and lose their access to the biggest financial market in the world...

Theresa? Move over Darling! ;)

Nimrod103
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1629
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:10 pm
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 128 times

Re: Hard vs Soft Brexit?

#117746

Postby Nimrod103 » February 12th, 2018, 9:54 pm

beeswax wrote:It doesn't do to be dogmatic re private sector vs public sector..

Both have their place in a free society and should do..

Carillion was a private company and the taxpayers are having to bail it out..

Ditto the Banks!

It's just my opinion but water, gas and electricity should all be in the public ownership notwithstanding security issues when most seem to be foreign owned but a matter of basic decency and humanity because these are essential for life and pensioners and people over say 80 years of age should not be held to ransom by private companies when many of these are not computer literate and tend to stay with the same company who will fleece them no problem. I know that I tend to look around for the best deal but then forgot to do that when my 2 year tariff ended and only noticed when looking at my bank account online DD and the buggers had doubled the tariff price and so what chance most elderly people?

Labour have exactly the right policy by wanting to put these back into the public sector. I would also put the railways back into the public sector as we are ending that way now when the private companies take the profits and leave us with the losses once again. They are still very much heavily subsidised even then, despite us having the highest fares in the world...so that has not worked at all...If you are not convinced, check the subsidies before and after privatisation and rail fares. But I have a vested interest by working for them all my life and it annoys me when we read some people's account based just on a few journeys back then...and then try and argue it was all cr8p...


Sorry, I profoundly disagree with most of what you have written. The private sector is the profit making part of the economy, the part which pays for the food on your plate, and all the other necessities and goodies.

Carillion was a private sector disaster because it was badly managed by accountants rather than engineers who would have understood what they were bidding on, and what risks were involved, so it was fundamentally not a profitable company. However, it managed to convince the public and Govt that it was profitable for several years. It had grown much bigger through acquisitions, but none of its business produced a good enough positive cash flow (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/201 ... tors-know/).

But, and this is important, these problems would just have likely to have occurred if Carillion had been a public sector contractor. The public would never have heard about the problems. Just an extra public subsidy, an un-noticed rise in tax, like the subsidy of £700M which has kept TfL in London going, singing the praises of Sadiq Khan. Look at Network Rail. Hardly an example of a business in control of costs, and apparently hopelessly unable to competently build its business, with curtailed electrification projects in several lines.

Fundamental to the efficient working of the private sector is competition, but if we are all forced to pay the same tariff to energy companies, where is the competition? We will all just have to pay the higher standard rate.

ursaminortaur
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2242
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:26 pm
Has thanked: 126 times
Been thanked: 88 times

Re: Hard vs Soft Brexit?

#117756

Postby ursaminortaur » February 12th, 2018, 10:30 pm

1nv35t wrote:Much of UK relative lag is a consequence of instability. Yo-yo'ing between Tory and Labour and short (Parliament) term objectives (lack of longer term planning/stability). A public sector being supported by a smaller private sector resulting in micro management and regular changes. Parliament is more concerned about itself than the country, its sovereignty over the people, its revenues GDP expansion etc. The EU adds additional layers of governance on top of that.

Less central government, longer term planning and encouraging rather than hindering wealth creation are the keys. The US generates 5 trillion/year new wealth creation, the UK in contrast will tend to criticise and punish (or sell to others) those that do well. Wiping out a whole layer of bureaucrazy (EU) is a step in the right direction, more so given that that EU bureaucracy is intentionally designed primarily to benefit others (Germany). Another step in the right direction is devolution. Cameron had originally promised to reduce the number of MP's down to 600, but Parliament decided that wasn't what it wanted. More Lords have been appointed, 21,000 local councils, 280 assembly members (NI, Scotland, Wales) etc. We don't need 1 MP, Lord or Councilor for every 3000 people across the country. Nor their efforts to justify their existence. Nor a tax code that is 12 times the size of the Bible (17.000 pages long). Vogons.

A MEP gets 8000 Euros month standard pay, and a further 304 Euro's/day for turning up. And a further 4300/month in allowances. And there's 750 of them looking to see what next they might change.


Seems strange to be talking about removing a layer of government by leaving the EU and at the same time lauding the US. The EU layer of government is equivalent to the federal layer in the US.

beeswax
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1953
Joined: December 20th, 2016, 11:20 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 172 times

Re: Hard vs Soft Brexit?

#117767

Postby beeswax » February 13th, 2018, 12:36 am

Nimrod103 wrote:
beeswax wrote:It doesn't do to be dogmatic re private sector vs public sector..

Both have their place in a free society and should do..

Carillion was a private company and the taxpayers are having to bail it out..

Ditto the Banks!

It's just my opinion but water, gas and electricity should all be in the public ownership notwithstanding security issues when most seem to be foreign owned but a matter of basic decency and humanity because these are essential for life and pensioners and people over say 80 years of age should not be held to ransom by private companies when many of these are not computer literate and tend to stay with the same company who will fleece them no problem. I know that I tend to look around for the best deal but then forgot to do that when my 2 year tariff ended and only noticed when looking at my bank account online DD and the buggers had doubled the tariff price and so what chance most elderly people?

Labour have exactly the right policy by wanting to put these back into the public sector. I would also put the railways back into the public sector as we are ending that way now when the private companies take the profits and leave us with the losses once again. They are still very much heavily subsidised even then, despite us having the highest fares in the world...so that has not worked at all...If you are not convinced, check the subsidies before and after privatisation and rail fares. But I have a vested interest by working for them all my life and it annoys me when we read some people's account based just on a few journeys back then...and then try and argue it was all cr8p...


Sorry, I profoundly disagree with most of what you have written. The private sector is the profit making part of the economy, the part which pays for the food on your plate, and all the other necessities and goodies.

Carillion was a private sector disaster because it was badly managed by accountants rather than engineers who would have understood what they were bidding on, and what risks were involved, so it was fundamentally not a profitable company. However, it managed to convince the public and Govt that it was profitable for several years. It had grown much bigger through acquisitions, but none of its business produced a good enough positive cash flow (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/201 ... tors-know/).

But, and this is important, these problems would just have likely to have occurred if Carillion had been a public sector contractor. The public would never have heard about the problems. Just an extra public subsidy, an un-noticed rise in tax, like the subsidy of £700M which has kept TfL in London going, singing the praises of Sadiq Khan. Look at Network Rail. Hardly an example of a business in control of costs, and apparently hopelessly unable to competently build its business, with curtailed electrification projects in several lines.

Fundamental to the efficient working of the private sector is competition, but if we are all forced to pay the same tariff to energy companies, where is the competition? We will all just have to pay the higher standard rate.


I've said there is a place for both public and private...

There should be NO competition for gas, water and electricity for a very good principled reason that I gave and why we should all have the same tariffs where ever you live in the UK..We give 13bn in foreign aid and 12bn to help other EU countries and yet we see old age pensioners too scared to put their heating on. I know people who only flush their toilets once to save money. This is disgraceful and there is no competition just rip offs with sometimes loss leaders hoping you won't notice when the prices go up.

The Railways are probably badly managed now because all the expertise was lost and the fact is that taxpayers are paying more now despite privatisation and more and more franchises are being taken back into public ownership and so we pay and the private companies pocket the cash. BR could only dream about how much subsidy is now given and how highly paid all of their executives are now....A unified system worked very well and was starved of investment that is all. Not just that the ticket prices are the highest in the developed world and so what price success again? I know that the excuse for privatisation bill going through Parliament was passed on the sole basis that the taxpayer would not have to contribute one penny afterwards. They lied through their back teeth as usual. They are all dead now mostly but they want their corpses digging up and strung up on Big Ben that is how I feel what they did at the time....The same people are in Parliament now defending being in the EU...

Nimrod103
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1629
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:10 pm
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 128 times

Re: Hard vs Soft Brexit?

#117799

Postby Nimrod103 » February 13th, 2018, 8:49 am

beeswax wrote:There should be NO competition for gas, water and electricity for a very good principled reason that I gave and why we should all have the same tariffs where ever you live in the UK..We give 13bn in foreign aid and 12bn to help other EU countries and yet we see old age pensioners too scared to put their heating on. I know people who only flush their toilets once to save money. This is disgraceful and there is no competition just rip offs with sometimes loss leaders hoping you won't notice when the prices go up.

Water in the UK costs a bit less than 1 penny for a gallon, enough for 2 toilet flushes of a modern toilet. People can't afford that?
In a sense the power market is already state controlled, seeing as we all have to pay more to subsidize renewables. In a market without competition, everybody would pay more.
You are complaining about the workings of the market, where those who can move supplier get a better deal than those who cannot be bothered. Perhaps there is a market opportunity for an organization to help the computer illiterate to move supplier. The more people change supplier, the more the prices will level down. Look at bank accounts in the UK, all offering much the same benefits, all essentially free, all much better than those that operate in other countries I have lived in, and all provided by the private sector.


The Railways are probably badly managed now because all the expertise was lost and the fact is that taxpayers are paying more now despite privatisation and more and more franchises are being taken back into public ownership and so we pay and the private companies pocket the cash. BR could only dream about how much subsidy is now given and how highly paid all of their executives are now....A unified system worked very well and was starved of investment that is all. Not just that the ticket prices are the highest in the developed world and so what price success again? I know that the excuse for privatisation bill going through Parliament was passed on the sole basis that the taxpayer would not have to contribute one penny afterwards. They lied through their back teeth as usual. They are all dead now mostly but they want their corpses digging up and strung up on Big Ben that is how I feel what they did at the time....The same people are in Parliament now defending being in the EU...

IMHO the problem with the railways is that steel wheel on steel rail is fundamentally no longer competitive in the modern World, so we have to decide what is the best way of preventing the mushrooming of subsidy. At the same time the only way of turning rail into a vaguely useful mode of transport for the future is massive investment in new lines and electrification. These types of changes and improvements are entirely beyond the capability of the public sector to achieve. Look at how little investment was made in British Rail when it was in complete public ownership.

johnhemming
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1391
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:13 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 136 times

Re: Hard vs Soft Brexit?

#117818

Postby johnhemming » February 13th, 2018, 10:03 am

Nimrod103 wrote:I wasn't really trying to make a blinkered party political point, so much as pointing out that other parties contain mainly members and politicians who reject the unfettered private sector, and who believe that the state sector should be the cornerstone of of the UK economy.

The conservatives don't all believe that the private sector should be unregulated. The majority agree with some regulation. Furthermore in my experience the Lib Dem Parliamentary Party did not "believe that the state sector should be the cornerstone of of the UK economy."

johnhemming
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1391
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:13 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 136 times

Re: Hard vs Soft Brexit?

#117820

Postby johnhemming » February 13th, 2018, 10:05 am

Nimrod103 wrote:Margaret Thatcher was a strong supporter of the Single Market in its complete form to include services (AIUI not implemented in the EU) but finally baulked at the cost in terms of submitting to Maastricht and Lisbon. Which is of course why she was defenestrated by the Tory grandees.

Lisbon was such a long time after Thatcher was removed that it cannot be part of causality. The main thing in the tory party is normally winning elections (unsurprisingly). She was deposed because they thought she would lose and to be fair to Major he won in 1992.

Nimrod103
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1629
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:10 pm
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 128 times

Re: Hard vs Soft Brexit?

#117901

Postby Nimrod103 » February 13th, 2018, 4:00 pm

johnhemming wrote:
Nimrod103 wrote:Margaret Thatcher was a strong supporter of the Single Market in its complete form to include services (AIUI not implemented in the EU) but finally baulked at the cost in terms of submitting to Maastricht and Lisbon. Which is of course why she was defenestrated by the Tory grandees.

Lisbon was such a long time after Thatcher was removed that it cannot be part of causality. The main thing in the tory party is normally winning elections (unsurprisingly). She was deposed because they thought she would lose and to be fair to Major he won in 1992.


It is true that Mrs Thatcher's popularity had waned, mainly perhaps because she had outlived all but one of her early ministers, so did not give the impression of leading a united Govt any more. The coup de grace was given by her longest surviving minister Geoffrey Howe (to quote Wikipedia):
On 1 November 1990, Geoffrey Howe, the last remaining member of Thatcher's original 1979 cabinet, resigned from his position as Deputy Prime Minister over her refusal to agree to a timetable for Britain to join the European Exchange Rate Mechanism
Subsequent events showed that on this, like so much else, she had been right and the establishment, party grandees and civil servants were wrong, very wrong.
After the Delors and Bruges speeches, it is inconceivable that Mrs Thatcher would have signed Maastricht if she had still been PM. But her successor and all the other Tory grandees supported Maastricht and ERM with gusto, and that was the fateful mistake.

Sundance13
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1858
Joined: March 15th, 2017, 1:02 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 60 times

Re: Hard vs Soft Brexit?

#117918

Postby Sundance13 » February 13th, 2018, 4:53 pm

Nimrod103 wrote:
johnhemming wrote:
Nimrod103 wrote:Margaret Thatcher was a strong supporter of the Single Market in its complete form to include services (AIUI not implemented in the EU) but finally baulked at the cost in terms of submitting to Maastricht and Lisbon. Which is of course why she was defenestrated by the Tory grandees.

Lisbon was such a long time after Thatcher was removed that it cannot be part of causality. The main thing in the tory party is normally winning elections (unsurprisingly). She was deposed because they thought she would lose and to be fair to Major he won in 1992.


It is true that Mrs Thatcher's popularity had waned, mainly perhaps because she had outlived all but one of her early ministers, so did not give the impression of leading a united Govt any more. The coup de grace was given by her longest surviving minister Geoffrey Howe (to quote Wikipedia):
On 1 November 1990, Geoffrey Howe, the last remaining member of Thatcher's original 1979 cabinet, resigned from his position as Deputy Prime Minister over her refusal to agree to a timetable for Britain to join the European Exchange Rate Mechanism
Subsequent events showed that on this, like so much else, she had been right and the establishment, party grandees and civil servants were wrong, very wrong.
After the Delors and Bruges speeches, it is inconceivable that Mrs Thatcher would have signed Maastricht if she had still been PM. But her successor and all the other Tory grandees supported Maastricht and ERM with gusto, and that was the fateful mistake.



For once we agree!

Thatcher had come to realise the direction the EU was taking and certainly wouldn’t have supported Maastricht. That said I don’t think the Federalist threat is as strong now as it was back then, partly because the EU now has more members, many of whom are opposed to a US of Europe.

I also don’t believe she’d be daft enough to take us out of the single market and she wouldn’t have suffered fools like Boris and his bizarre deregulation fantasies.

Nimrod103
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1629
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:10 pm
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 128 times

Re: Hard vs Soft Brexit?

#117940

Postby Nimrod103 » February 13th, 2018, 6:15 pm

Sundance13 wrote:Thatcher had come to realise the direction the EU was taking and certainly wouldn’t have supported Maastricht. That said I don’t think the Federalist threat is as strong now as it was back then, partly because the EU now has more members, many of whom are opposed to a US of Europe.


My view has been and remains that the federalist threat is the biggest issue of all. The organs of the EU are specifically designed to give rise to a unelected dictatorship of technocrats, outside of normal democratic control. The European Parliament is very large, riven by faction and nationality, well remunerated and toothless. Post Brexit I am sure we will see a further consolidation of the Franco-German axis, running things very much to their own advantage, while the outlying and smaller countries are dependent on EU handouts, and on the stability to their economies which being assoiated with Germany brings. Those countries will probably not rock the boat, and any dash for self determination will be squashed.

ursaminortaur
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2242
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:26 pm
Has thanked: 126 times
Been thanked: 88 times

Re: Hard vs Soft Brexit?

#119563

Postby ursaminortaur » February 21st, 2018, 11:24 pm

Nimrod103 wrote:
Sundance13 wrote:Thatcher had come to realise the direction the EU was taking and certainly wouldn’t have supported Maastricht. That said I don’t think the Federalist threat is as strong now as it was back then, partly because the EU now has more members, many of whom are opposed to a US of Europe.


My view has been and remains that the federalist threat is the biggest issue of all. The organs of the EU are specifically designed to give rise to a unelected dictatorship of technocrats, outside of normal democratic control. The European Parliament is very large, riven by faction and nationality, well remunerated and toothless. Post Brexit I am sure we will see a further consolidation of the Franco-German axis, running things very much to their own advantage, while the outlying and smaller countries are dependent on EU handouts, and on the stability to their economies which being assoiated with Germany brings. Those countries will probably not rock the boat, and any dash for self determination will be squashed.


The number of MEPs is 751. The number of UK MPs is currently 650 but has in the past been more eg 707 between 1918 and 1922.
The current number in the House of Lords is just under 800 - which is a reduction from the 1,330 in 1999.

So yes the European parliament is large but then it is representing a far larger electorate than the UK parliament.
The legislative power is all with the Council of ministers representing the states of the EU and the EU parliament representing the citizens of the EU.
Many decisions in the Council of Ministers still require unanimity and where votes are decided by QMV it requires 55% of member states representing at least 65% of the EU population to agree. Hence although France and Germany, like the UK, by virtue of being big countries have a large amount of influence they do not form an axis controlling the EU.

gbjbaanb
Lemon Slice
Posts: 405
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:17 pm
Has thanked: 87 times
Been thanked: 53 times

Re: Hard vs Soft Brexit?

#119566

Postby gbjbaanb » February 21st, 2018, 11:45 pm

ursaminortaur wrote:The number of MEPs is 751. The number of UK MPs is currently 650


The EU population is 512m people or 680,000 people per MEP
UK, 66m people, or 100,000 per MP.

So is the EU under-represented, or the UK over-represented?

ursaminortaur
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2242
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:26 pm
Has thanked: 126 times
Been thanked: 88 times

Re: Hard vs Soft Brexit?

#119652

Postby ursaminortaur » February 22nd, 2018, 11:16 am

The EU has ruled out May's 3 basket strategy for regulatory alignment.


https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/22/eu-rules-out-uks-preferred-approach-to-future-trade-deal

Under what is understood to be Mays preferred model, the UK would be in regulatory alignment with the EU in some areas while finding different ways to achieve the same outcomes in other sectors. In the so-called third basket of sectors, the UK would in time diverge from the EU and go its own way under the model.
Yet, with something close to incendiary timing, the European commission, hours abefore the cabinet get-together, has published a document ruling out the model.
It is claimed by Brussels that such an approach would breach an agreement among EU27 leaders to prevent cherry-picking by the UK that it is said would pose a risk to the integrity of the single market.

dspp
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2440
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
Has thanked: 1490 times
Been thanked: 451 times

Re: Hard vs Soft Brexit?

#119712

Postby dspp » February 22nd, 2018, 4:16 pm

The UK's politicians are used to postponing, fudging, and stonewalling each other, and the media, and the electorate.

Unfortunately for the Brexiteers amongst them they have set in chain a process whereby they are up against a set of EU institutions and processes that generally try to drive out ambiguity, and against a deadline that the UK is no longer in control of.

Yesterday the lady in my local bakery apologised when she gave me change, and said the price of their bread had gone up because of all the Brexit price rises. The penny is dropping out there, bit by bit. Even if they don't always get the causal connections neatly lined up in PhD terms they can sense when they've been conned.

- dspp

Sundance13
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1858
Joined: March 15th, 2017, 1:02 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 60 times

Re: Hard vs Soft Brexit?

#119722

Postby Sundance13 » February 22nd, 2018, 5:15 pm

ursaminortaur wrote:The EU has ruled out May's 3 basket strategy for regulatory alignment.


https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/22/eu-rules-out-uks-preferred-approach-to-future-trade-deal

Under what is understood to be Mays preferred model, the UK would be in regulatory alignment with the EU in some areas while finding different ways to achieve the same outcomes in other sectors. In the so-called third basket of sectors, the UK would in time diverge from the EU and go its own way under the model.
Yet, with something close to incendiary timing, the European commission, hours abefore the cabinet get-together, has published a document ruling out the model.
It is claimed by Brussels that such an approach would breach an agreement among EU27 leaders to prevent cherry-picking by the UK that it is said would pose a risk to the integrity of the single market.



Noticed the Commission are also pointing out other impacts of Mays decision to leave the Single Market, in terms of type approvals for vehicle manufacturers and driving licences.

There will be similar issues around accessing the Single Market, for other sectors such as Pharma and chemicals.

Notice also inward EU migration (which we can’t control) has hit a 10 year low, while non EU migration (which we supposedly can control) carries on upwards!

Sundance13
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1858
Joined: March 15th, 2017, 1:02 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 60 times

Re: Hard vs Soft Brexit?

#119723

Postby Sundance13 » February 22nd, 2018, 5:22 pm

The Economist sees the light! Bit late mind.

https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/ ... -do-brexit

gryffron
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1205
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:00 am
Has thanked: 62 times
Been thanked: 232 times

Re: Hard vs Soft Brexit?

#119725

Postby gryffron » February 22nd, 2018, 5:23 pm

dspp wrote:bread had gone up because of all the Brexit price rises.

Those would be the "price rises blamed on brexit even though the dollar is now cheaper than its pre-referendum low".

£1=$1.40 today. Was $1.38 on 27 feb 2016.

:|

Nimrod103
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1629
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:10 pm
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 128 times

Re: Hard vs Soft Brexit?

#119732

Postby Nimrod103 » February 22nd, 2018, 5:54 pm

gryffron wrote:
dspp wrote:bread had gone up because of all the Brexit price rises.

Those would be the "price rises blamed on brexit even though the dollar is now cheaper than its pre-referendum low".

£1=$1.40 today. Was $1.38 on 27 feb 2016.

:|


Indeed this is what is so worrying. This poor lady baker has been completely taken in by fake news. The wheat price has been falling for quite a while, and futures are on a long term downtrend. The £/$ rate is stable. Of course after Brexit, I expect sugar prices to go down as we don't have to buy French and Polish beet sugar.

What has gone up are minimum wages (a good thing - you should be pleased to pay for them), business rates (just a waste of money), shop rents (just an extortion racket) and energy costs (just the price of subsidising wind turbines).

SalvorHardin
Lemon Slice
Posts: 381
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:32 am
Has thanked: 444 times
Been thanked: 227 times

Re: Hard vs Soft Brexit?

#119735

Postby SalvorHardin » February 22nd, 2018, 6:02 pm

gryffron wrote:Those would be the "price rises blamed on brexit even though the dollar is now cheaper than its pre-referendum low".

£1=$1.40 today. Was $1.38 on 27 feb 2016.

:|

Wheat isn't a commodity I follow, but wheat prices contain lots of information relevant to the claim. Now wheat is an internationally traded commodity where distance doesn't greatly influence the price (unlike say natural gas). Let us consider the price of a benchmark monthly wheat future, the generic W1. Link below.

https://www.bloomberg.com/quote/W%201:COM

Since the Brexit vote the price of W1 wheat in US dollars has fallen. It's pretty hard to justify a major price rise when the price of a major input has fallen.

W1 is however up by about 10% in 2018. Seems as credible a claim as Unilever raising the price of Marmite by 10% because of Brexit, even though Marmite is almost 100% made from British inputs.

Producers lying through their teeth about the effect that a high profile event has upon their prices, when the influence of the event is very small if any, is as old as economics. Brexit is a good one to use if you want to fool those who are only too willing to believe the worst about it.


Return to “Polite Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: TahiPanasDua and 4 guests