Bobby Hundreds Posted 12 June 2018 Posted 12 June 2018 If you're still interested in goods for a quid, I remember seeing a thriving Pound Maze in Burnley town centre when I went to Turf Moor last season.
Guest Foxin_mad Posted 12 June 2018 Posted 12 June 2018 10 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said: Sorry, but I have to laugh at your description of Starbucks-supping, Twitter-tweeting, Amazon-shopping pseudo-socialists and clueless middle-class whiners...as if the only clueless whiners or users of Amazon and Starbucks were Labour Party members. Would it be reasonable of me to pretend that all Tories are Bullingdon Club lads trashing posh restaurants, pissing on the homeless and cackling as they stubbed their cigars out in the eyeballs of the poor? With regards to poundworld there are may factors at play, the cost of the shops, business rates, a certain amount of bad management, other successful players in the sector (poundland, home bargins, wilkos, B&M). Not you specifically Alf, but there are many on here who think that Tories or even Tory voters are exactly the phrase in the bottom line above. Of course I very much say it tongue in cheek. There are some Tories that absolute wankers, and there are equally some members of the left that are equally despicable, there are also some who have delusions as to what being a 'left winger' actually means. Many 'old school' (for want of a better word) left wingers are highly principled people and that is something overall I have immense respect for. Some of the younger generation want it all ways, they want their skinny latee, they want their cheap goods on amazon, sometimes they need to consider if their principles are matched by their actions. If we want companies to pay fair tax, until global action is taken the only thing we can do as much as possible is avoid those companies. If a country with a market as big as the UK started to boycott Amazon for example, I am sure they would quickly reconsider their tax affairs.
Alf Bentley Posted 12 June 2018 Posted 12 June 2018 2 minutes ago, Innovindil said: The best of all this "it's because of the fall in the pound" is that pound land were running well in the red long before the referendum took place. Undoubtedly, the fall in the pound exacerbated the problem, but these stores were all hearing their death knell's for a while. I've no special knowledge of Poundworld. Was just repeating what the experts said yesterday - suggesting its collapse might be a bit different to Woolies, BHS, Toys R Us, House of Fraser etc. It's rarely one single factor that causes the problem, I guess. For many of these chains, the shift to online shopping is clearly a major factor. But other factors applied, too: failure to adapt ranges, failure to develop online sales, other costs etc. With Poundworld, I'd imagine that online shopping was not really a factor - and that exchange rates v. business model was. But other factors may have applied, from mismanagement to increased rents and business rates etc.
Bellend Sebastian Posted 12 June 2018 Posted 12 June 2018 Fancy that Lee bloke resigning today of all days. Talk about timing!
Guest Posted 12 June 2018 Posted 12 June 2018 54 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said: With regards to poundworld there are may factors at play, the cost of the shops, business rates, a certain amount of bad management, other successful players in the sector (poundland, home bargins, wilkos, B&M). Not you specifically Alf, but there are many on here who think that Tories or even Tory voters are exactly the phrase in the bottom line above. Of course I very much say it tongue in cheek. There are some Tories that absolute wankers, and there are equally some members of the left that are equally despicable, there are also some who have delusions as to what being a 'left winger' actually means. Many 'old school' (for want of a better word) left wingers are highly principled people and that is something overall I have immense respect for. Some of the younger generation want it all ways, they want their skinny latee, they want their cheap goods on amazon, sometimes they need to consider if their principles are matched by their actions. If we want companies to pay fair tax, until global action is taken the only thing we can do as much as possible is avoid those companies. If a country with a market as big as the UK started to boycott Amazon for example, I am sure they would quickly reconsider their tax affairs. What's sent poundworld under is that they relied upon selling cheap foreign tat and the fall in the pound has meant that their profit margins have no longer been there. It's as simple as that. Footfall isn't massively decreased from a year or two ago.
Guest Posted 12 June 2018 Posted 12 June 2018 55 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said: I've no special knowledge of Poundworld. Was just repeating what the experts said yesterday - suggesting its collapse might be a bit different to Woolies, BHS, Toys R Us, House of Fraser etc. It's rarely one single factor that causes the problem, I guess. For many of these chains, the shift to online shopping is clearly a major factor. But other factors applied, too: failure to adapt ranges, failure to develop online sales, other costs etc. With Poundworld, I'd imagine that online shopping was not really a factor - and that exchange rates v. business model was. But other factors may have applied, from mismanagement to increased rents and business rates etc. Precisely, the fall in the pound meant they could no longer make enough money.
Milo Posted 12 June 2018 Posted 12 June 2018 6 minutes ago, toddybad said: Precisely, the fall in the pound meant they could no longer make enough money. Not always as binary as that. A lot of companies borrowed money cheaply and over expanded. Any variation in interest rates or rents then has a bigger impact and leaves the company unable to service the debt. 1
Alf Bentley Posted 12 June 2018 Posted 12 June 2018 25 minutes ago, Bellend Sebastian said: Fancy that Lee bloke resigning today of all days. Talk about timing! I must admit that I'd never heard of him before. Certainly timed for maximum impact. Likely to be pretty heated today, I imagine. I hope that this means that at least the amendment requiring a meaningful vote on any deal gets passed. I gather that most amendments are likely to fail as Tory Remainers are concerned about potentially undermining May while negotiations are ongoing before the June Council meeting - or even causing her to be replaced by Gove, Boris or JRM.
Guest Foxin_mad Posted 12 June 2018 Posted 12 June 2018 Its not just that though. Its very simplistic to look at it in just that way, There have been rent increases and rates increases also. I also question some of these Private Equity buyouts, in 2015 profits c15 million, to fail in 3 years is pretty poor. The pound is probably trading at worse 20% less than 2015.
Webbo Posted 12 June 2018 Posted 12 June 2018 1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said: The EU has more free trade agreements than any nation/bloc in the world, according to this list (and that's not including trade within the EU itself - the world's richest trading bloc): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bilateral_free-trade_agreements No reason why the UK or EU cannot do a deal with Aus/NZ, but economic size and distance limit their importance. Australia is currently our 27th biggest trading partner (for goods), NZ not in top 50, so even a big increase wouldn't have a big impact: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_trading_partners_of_United_Kingdom It's true that the EU has a trade surplus with the UK, but it's a red herring. The EU27 economy is several times bigger than the UK economy, so a slightly smaller nominal impact on the UK would have a much bigger comparative impact. Here's a good neutral source about UK-EU trade: https://fullfact.org/europe/uk-eu-trade/ - EU takes 43% of UK exports; Exports to EU comprise 12% of the UK economy - UK takes 8% of EU27 exports; Exports to UK comprise 3-4% of the EU27 economy (That 8% becomes 18% if you exclude trade between the EU27 nations....but no reason to think they'll lose that. The potential trade loss is UK-EU trade.....which would harm both, but have a much bigger impact on the UK). So that's imports sorted if EU27 imports became unavailable or too expensive. It still creates problems (e.g. the important dependence of just-in-time production in the car industry). But exports are the big one. Exports have a big impact on employment, growth, our currency, public finances, domestic economy etc. 12% of the UK economy by value comprises exports to the EU. You then have all sorts of multipliers to that (domestic suppliers dependent on contracts with big exporters, purely domestic businesses dependent on purchases made by the employees of these exporting firms). Hopefully a good EU-UK trade deal will be done to minimise lost business/trade/employment....we're seriously in the shit if it isn't. We won't lose all that trade, but if we lose a sizable chunk, what will replace it? Global trade agreements might (or might not) be a long-term solution, but not short-term and not easy. Increasing exports to places like Australia, Africa or South America would be beneficial, but even a massive increase would only have a small impact - and is unlikely for Africa/SAm as they're short of cash. We'd mainly be reliant on much improved trade with.... - USA: Can't see Trump cutting us a generous deal given US economic power & his America First, tariff-raising policies - China: Similarly, a big economic power with a strongly protectionist, nationalist outlook - India: Has expressed willing, but wants increased Indian immigration in exchange - Canada: Has signed a free trade deal with the EU, so we'd be trading at a disadvantage until such time as we sign a deal - Japan: Economy fairly stagnant, domestic economy notoriously hard to penetrate, a long way away (affecting goods, not services so much) - East/SE Asia: Might be some decent options here, though EU already has a trade agreement with South Korea, so again we could be at a disadvantage initially maybe we'd have more trade with Australia and New Zealand if we weren't in the EU? We used to before we joined. why would food become dearer from the EU? That only happens if we put tariffs on . They've already said we can have a free trade deal, it's just the details that need to be agreed.
Guest Posted 12 June 2018 Posted 12 June 2018 7 minutes ago, Webbo said: maybe we'd have more trade with Australia and New Zealand if we weren't in the EU? We used to before we joined. why would food become dearer from the EU? That only happens if we put tariffs on . They've already said we can have a free trade deal, it's just the details that need to be agreed. The free trade deal the EU is offering doesn't include services. You willing to sign that? If you don't put tariffs on EU trade without a free trade deal then you can't have tariffs with anybody to meet WTO re regulations. With food what you forget is seasonality. You can't just buy anything from anywhere. It has to be the right part of the growing season. So, for example, lemons come from Spain for a couple of months then South Africa for a couple of months. You can't just get lemons from peru if lemons don't grow there.
Webbo Posted 12 June 2018 Posted 12 June 2018 2 minutes ago, toddybad said: The free trade deal the EU is offering doesn't include services. You willing to sign that? If you don't put tariffs on EU trade without a free trade deal then you can't have tariffs with anybody to meet WTO re regulations. With food what you forget is seasonality. You can't just buy anything from anywhere. It has to be the right part of the growing season. So, for example, lemons come from Spain for a couple of months then South Africa for a couple of months. You can't just get lemons from peru if lemons don't grow there. We can say no tariffs on food,the country would be better of at a stroke.
Alf Bentley Posted 12 June 2018 Posted 12 June 2018 11 minutes ago, Webbo said: maybe we'd have more trade with Australia and New Zealand if we weren't in the EU? We used to before we joined. why would food become dearer from the EU? That only happens if we put tariffs on . They've already said we can have a free trade deal, it's just the details that need to be agreed. So, you're not responding to any of my points, as usual? My post was mainly about the comparative impact that potential trade loss would have on the EU & UK - and about exports, not imports. I didn't claim that EU food imports would become dearer. Though they might - e.g. if the pound falls again, if the EU impose tariffs on us and we decide to reciprocate, if border delays make transport more expensive or cause food to go off. I addressed your Aus/NZ point in my post - even a major increase in trade with Aus/NZ (hard to achieve) would have only a minor impact as current trade levels are so low - and there are limits to the trade that is viable with countries that are on the other side of the world and do not have very large economies. Care to suggest which goods and services we might sell a lot more of in Australia and NZ? 1
Webbo Posted 12 June 2018 Posted 12 June 2018 3 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said: So, you're not responding to any of my points, as usual? Alf, I'm on a tablet and I can't be bothered to write an essay. If you want a straight answer just ask me a straight question
Alf Bentley Posted 12 June 2018 Posted 12 June 2018 3 minutes ago, Webbo said: Alf, I'm on a tablet and I can't be bothered to write an essay. If you want a straight answer just ask me a straight question 2 hours ago, Alf Bentley said: Hopefully a good EU-UK trade deal will be done to minimise lost business/trade/employment....we're seriously in the shit if it isn't. We won't lose all that trade, but if we lose a sizable chunk, what will replace it? Global trade agreements might (or might not) be a long-term solution, but not short-term and not easy. Increasing exports to places like Australia, Africa or South America would be beneficial, but even a massive increase would only have a small impact - and is unlikely for Africa/SAm as they're short of cash. We'd mainly be reliant on much improved trade with.... - USA: Can't see Trump cutting us a generous deal given US economic power & his America First, tariff-raising policies - China: Similarly, a big economic power with a strongly protectionist, nationalist outlook - India: Has expressed willing, but wants increased Indian immigration in exchange - Canada: Has signed a free trade deal with the EU, so we'd be trading at a disadvantage until such time as we sign a deal - Japan: Economy fairly stagnant, domestic economy notoriously hard to penetrate, a long way away (affecting goods, not services so much) - East/SE Asia: Might be some decent options here, though EU already has a trade agreement with South Korea, so again we could be at a disadvantage initially 9 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said: Care to suggest which goods and services we might sell a lot more of in Australia and NZ? 1
Jon the Hat Posted 12 June 2018 Posted 12 June 2018 21 minutes ago, toddybad said: The free trade deal the EU is offering doesn't include services. You willing to sign that? If you don't put tariffs on EU trade without a free trade deal then you can't have tariffs with anybody to meet WTO re regulations. With food what you forget is seasonality. You can't just buy anything from anywhere. It has to be the right part of the growing season. So, for example, lemons come from Spain for a couple of months then South Africa for a couple of months. You can't just get lemons from peru if lemons don't grow there. Seasonality in fresh produce has been massively reduced by the vast greenhouses in places like Spain and the Netherlands. Crazy but true.
Jon the Hat Posted 12 June 2018 Posted 12 June 2018 14 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said: So, you're not responding to any of my points, as usual? My post was mainly about the comparative impact that potential trade loss would have on the EU & UK - and about exports, not imports. I didn't claim that EU food imports would become dearer. Though they might - e.g. if the pound falls again, if the EU impose tariffs on us and we decide to reciprocate, if border delays make transport more expensive or cause food to go off. I addressed your Aus/NZ point in my post - even a major increase in trade with Aus/NZ (hard to achieve) would have only a minor impact as current trade levels are so low - and there are limits to the trade that is viable with countries that are on the other side of the world and do not have very large economies. Care to suggest which goods and services we might sell a lot more of in Australia and NZ? Your figures on the comparative impact on respective economies are correct, however they don't weight the importance of certain exports to certain countries. BMW, VAG and Daimler Group for example would not be very happy with tariffs on cars into the UK, and they have significant influence in Germany and Brussels. The point is everyone has a lot of skin in the game, and it is in everyones interests to sign a free trade deal which keeps tariffs off the table for goods and services. Re services you will probably try to tell me Frankfurt can replace London a globally important financial center, but London is 10 times the size of Frankfurt - it just isn't practical, so there will be a deal including Services else the EU financial institutions will end up paying tariffs on the services they need from London, which would risk losing activity to Singapore or New York, which helps no one in this negotiation.
Webbo Posted 12 June 2018 Posted 12 June 2018 1 minute ago, Alf Bentley said: I would say that with the rest of the world growing fasting than the EU there is plenty of opportunity to sell more to them. Also, you assume that trade with Europe will stop, unless the rest of the EU decide to impose sanctions on us, why would it? Our strength is services. Could we sell more to them? Don't know. The fact that we can buy stuff off them more cheaply than we could before will be a boost to our economy on its own. There is more to the world than just Australia and New Zealand. India alone has a bigger population than the EU. If we got a trade deal with them the Scotch whisky industry would have to double production. Then you've got China, Brazil and a whole host of growing countries.
Guest Posted 12 June 2018 Posted 12 June 2018 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Webbo said: I would say that with the rest of the world growing fasting than the EU there is plenty of opportunity to sell more to them. Also, you assume that trade with Europe will stop, unless the rest of the EU decide to impose sanctions on us, why would it? Our strength is services. Could we sell more to them? Don't know. The fact that we can buy stuff off them more cheaply than we could before will be a boost to our economy on its own. There is more to the world than just Australia and New Zealand. India alone has a bigger population than the EU. If we got a trade deal with them the Scotch whisky industry would have to double production. Then you've got China, Brazil and a whole host of growing countries. If we don't have a free trade deal with them they will have no option but to impose the exact same tariffs that they impose on the rest of the world. I wish you'd stop pushing the idea of world trade hugely expanding given its nothing but a pipe dream. It takes on average 2 years to negotiate a basic trade deal and a further 5 to implement it. Even the US only has a handful of trade deals. Without a specific trade deal you can't remove tariffs and have to go on WTO terms which must be equal across the board. If you want to unilaterally remove all import tariffs then why would anybody bother diving a free trade deal with us? Edited 12 June 2018 by Guest
Guest Kopfkino Posted 12 June 2018 Posted 12 June 2018 When historians of the future look back on Britain in our time, they will surely see our row over Brexit as extraordinary. Not because people disagree and campaign: that is normal and healthy. But because an influential section of the country, and particularly of its upper classes, are refusing to accept the will of the majority as legitimate or binding. It is no exaggeration to call this a revolt, even though it rarely hits the streets. Caveat: yes there are a handful refusing to accept the referendum result at all. Whilst I do see this argument as having some merit, I also think its a strange view of democracy that sees majority as always absolute and any questioning of the 'will of the majority' as illegitimate. Even in a binary case like the referendum, you can't really establish the 'will of the people' so it is only right that, and especially as it was so tight, that implementing the result doesn't just become an interpretation of what 52% voted for, that's tyranny of the majority and particuarly on huge constitutional matters that is undesirable. Democracy is always at the mercy of the agenda-setter which makes literal interpretations impossible. Of course, had we voted to remain, there'd be zero further consideration of the feelings of leave voters, there'd be no further renegotiation of our relationship to take into account those concerns. Having reflected on my previous feelings, it can't just be 'leave won a majority and anyone questioning what that means refuses to accept the will', nor can every decision just be defended as democracy. That being said, I still think it'd be a struggle to interpret the vote to leave in any way other than leaving the frameworks and institutions that are fundamental for the functioning of the EU; that means leaving SM and CU. Its unusual nature is shown by the arguments of its hardline supporters – arguments that would undermine any democratic system, and which have rarely been heard in any advanced country since the nineteenth century. For example: that most voters do not know what they are voting for; that working-class voters are too ignorant to make a choice; that people without advanced education should have their political rights reduced; that older people’s opinions have inferior legitimacy. Leaving aside ethical questions concerning equal rights – questions that most of us would have thought had been resolved by the end of the 19th century – these views show astonishing misunderstanding of what democracy is and what it is for. They lack the slightest degree of historical awareness. Yet they are put forward with assurance by people who openly regard themselves as superior in education and intelligence. This is most agreeable. In fact I think two costs have come about as a result of Brexit. First, the opportunity cost of all political bandwidth being consumed by Brexit and a government paralysed by it. Second, and possibly not so much a cost, but it has shown up the immaturity of our polity. It has fully unmasked a really ugly, sneering class that, when results go against them, resort to pure nastiness. It's sad and worrying. But also, you can make that same argument on the other side. 'Saboteurs' and 'traitors' as words to describe anyone that dare not just go with the leave flow is most deplorable and fits that first sentence as much as any remain behaviour. It's basically Brexit Maoism.
Webbo Posted 12 June 2018 Posted 12 June 2018 Just now, toddybad said: If we don't have a free trade deal with them they will have no option but to impose the exact same tariffs that they impasse on the fact of the world. The average tariffs is around 3%. On cars it's 10% but I don't think the German car manufacturers will want Merkel to impose those tariffs on us as we'd do the same and were their biggest market.
leicsmac Posted 12 June 2018 Posted 12 June 2018 2 minutes ago, Kopfkino said: Caveat: yes there are a handful refusing to accept the referendum result at all. Whilst I do see this argument as having some merit, I also think its a strange view of democracy that sees majority as always absolute and any questioning of the 'will of the majority' as illegitimate. Even in a binary case like the referendum, you can't really establish the 'will of the people' so it is only right that, and especially as it was so tight, that implementing the result doesn't just become an interpretation of what 52% voted for, that's tyranny of the majority and particuarly on huge constitutional matters that is undesirable. Democracy is always at the mercy of the agenda-setter which makes literal interpretations impossible. Of course, had we voted to remain, there'd be zero further consideration of the feelings of leave voters, there'd be no further renegotiation of our relationship to take into account those concerns. Having reflected on my previous feelings, it can't just be 'leave won a majority and anyone questioning what that means refuses to accept the will', nor can every decision just be defended as democracy. That being said, I still think it'd be a struggle to interpret the vote to leave in any way other than leaving the frameworks and institutions that are fundamental for the functioning of the EU; that means leaving SM and CU. This is most agreeable. In fact I think two costs have come about as a result of Brexit. First, the opportunity cost of all political bandwidth being consumed by Brexit and a government paralysed by it. Second, and possibly not so much a cost, but it has shown up the immaturity of our polity. It has fully unmasked a really ugly, sneering class that, when results go against them, resort to pure nastiness. It's sad and worrying. But also, you can make that same argument on the other side. 'Saboteurs' and 'traitors' as words to describe anyone that dare not just go with the leave flow is most deplorable and fits that first sentence as much as any remain behaviour. It's basically Brexit Maoism. 6 TBH that's nationalism of any flavour pretty much to a tee right there - those two terms are the clarion calls of any good nationalist.
Guest Posted 12 June 2018 Posted 12 June 2018 1 minute ago, Webbo said: The average tariffs is around 3%. On cars it's 10% but I don't think the German car manufacturers will want Merkel to impose those tariffs on us as we'd do the same and were their biggest market. Average tariffs tell you nothing about how you will personally be hit. On cheeses it's about 40%. I quite like mozzarella on my pizza and parmesan on my pasta. You think we'd slap additional export tariffs on our goods? Well this just gets better and better doesn't it?
Alf Bentley Posted 12 June 2018 Posted 12 June 2018 5 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said: Your figures on the comparative impact on respective economies are correct, however they don't weight the importance of certain exports to certain countries. BMW, VAG and Daimler Group for example would not be very happy with tariffs on cars into the UK, and they have significant influence in Germany and Brussels. The point is everyone has a lot of skin in the game, and it is in everyones interests to sign a free trade deal which keeps tariffs off the table for goods and services. Re services you will probably try to tell me Frankfurt can replace London a globally important financial center, but London is 10 times the size of Frankfurt - it just isn't practical, so there will be a deal including Services else the EU financial institutions will end up paying tariffs on the services they need from London, which would risk losing activity to Singapore or New York, which helps no one in this negotiation. I take your point about comparative impact on different economies. That was covered in the Full Fact article that I linked to. This point about the influence of the German car industry has been around since the referendum. I'm sure there's some truth in it, but if it so powerful, how come it has been the UK, not the EU making most of the concessions so far? Influence overstated, I suspect, when compared to the interests of the EU as a whole (not least their existential interest in not giving other EU nations the idea that they can quit the EU and get deals nearly as good as before). I completely agree with your "skin in the game" point. It benefits everyone for there to be a free trade deal that avoids tariffs, non-tariff barriers, red tape over regulations, customs snarl-ups and the rest. Whether you can achieve that while leaving the Customs Union and Single Market is the big question.... I won't tell you that Frankfurt can replace London (maybe over several decades, but certainly not quickly). I'm not expecting the City of London to close down - but I'd expect some of it to go abroad over coming years, which would be detrimental to our economy and society (lost growth, jobs and tax revenues).
Webbo Posted 12 June 2018 Posted 12 June 2018 1 minute ago, leicsmac said: TBH that's nationalism of any flavour pretty much to a tee right there - those two terms are the clarion calls of any good nationalist. Let's be fair here, how much of that has there been, on here anyway. For every traitor quote there's a hundred accusations of racism of stupidity from the remainers. If people are attacked for voting for what they believe to be for the best, then it's unsurprising if they get a little shifty in their replies.
Recommended Posts