The Labour Government

[hampshireblue]

The actual gdp data doesn't back up that estimate tho does it?

Ok this from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research:

• The difference between pre-pandemic trends and the current outlook cannot be solely ascribed to Brexit, considering the substantial economic disruptions caused by the Covid-19 pandemic and the Russia-Ukraine conflict in the post-Brexit era. A model-based approach is required to help identify the effect of Brexit on UK economic performance amongst these other factors.
• As a point of departure, we revisit the impact of Brexit on the UK economy considering the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA). We have modelled several macroeconomic factors affecting the UK economy associated with the beginning of the TCA in 2021: a trade decline with the European Union and an associated reduction in the UK terms of trade, a reduction in productivity, and a permanent reduction in the willingness to invest in the United Kingdom. In addition, we assume agents in 2016 (i.e., once the referendum result was known) perfectly anticipated that these shocks would happen in 2021.
• These estimates suggest that Brexit had already reduced UK real GDP relative to the baseline by just under one per cent in 2020 as consumers and businesses adapted their expectations even before the TCA came into force. Our estimates further suggest that three years after the transition period, UK real GDP is some 2-3 per cent lower due to Brexit, compared to a scenario where the United Kingdom retained EU membership. This corresponds to a per capita income loss of approximately £850.
• Our estimates indicate that the negative impact of Brexit gradually escalates, reaching some 5-6 per cent of GDP or about £2,300 per capita by 2035. The reduction in real incomes resulting from the fall in the UK terms of trade associated with changes in trading relations with the European Union and the fall in productivity are the largest contributors to the estimated reduction in real GDP, with each accounting for over 2.5 percentage points.

So apparently things actually deteriorate over time. Time will tell.

 

[hampshireblue]

Fact remains Mauritius has never owned it. And the other fact is, and I quote, from your link. "the UN advisory opinion and resolutions are not legally binding,"

I'll throw you a bone and say OK we decide to hand them over. Have you actually read the agreement? I took the time to do so, some months ago. It's an utter disgrace.

You should read up on the background to this before spouting complete bollocks.

AI suggests otherwise.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

Ok this from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research:

• The difference between pre-pandemic trends and the current outlook cannot be solely ascribed to Brexit, considering the substantial economic disruptions caused by the Covid-19 pandemic and the Russia-Ukraine conflict in the post-Brexit era. A model-based approach is required to help identify the effect of Brexit on UK economic performance amongst these other factors.
• As a point of departure, we revisit the impact of Brexit on the UK economy considering the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA). We have modelled several macroeconomic factors affecting the UK economy associated with the beginning of the TCA in 2021: a trade decline with the European Union and an associated reduction in the UK terms of trade, a reduction in productivity, and a permanent reduction in the willingness to invest in the United Kingdom. In addition, we assume agents in 2016 (i.e., once the referendum result was known) perfectly anticipated that these shocks would happen in 2021.
• These estimates suggest that Brexit had already reduced UK real GDP relative to the baseline by just under one per cent in 2020 as consumers and businesses adapted their expectations even before the TCA came into force. Our estimates further suggest that three years after the transition period, UK real GDP is some 2-3 per cent lower due to Brexit, compared to a scenario where the United Kingdom retained EU membership. This corresponds to a per capita income loss of approximately £850.
• Our estimates indicate that the negative impact of Brexit gradually escalates, reaching some 5-6 per cent of GDP or about £2,300 per capita by 2035. The reduction in real incomes resulting from the fall in the UK terms of trade associated with changes in trading relations with the European Union and the fall in productivity are the largest contributors to the estimated reduction in real GDP, with each accounting for over 2.5 percentage points.

So apparently things actually deteriorate over time. Time will tell.

As I said, the actual data doesn't back up that pessimistic forecast or the OBR forecast. I assume you now accept that.

As regards GDP deteriorating more over time. As time progresses more factors come into play which will affect the gdp and make any brexit link even more tenuous.

The fact remains that despite a pretty inept government being in charge during Brexit and a poor brexit deal by most accounts the UK has done better than expected since leaving.

We should now be pushing on doing even better, as long as the PM improves ties further with the EU ans our other trading partners and the Chancellor doesn't mess the UK economy up.

 

[Chippy_boy]

As I said, the actual data doesn't back up that pessimistic OBR forecast. I assume you now accept that.

As regards GDP deteriorating more over time. As time progresses more factors come into play which will affect the gdp and make any brexit link even more tenuous.

The fact remains that despite a pretty inept government being in charge during Brexit and a poor brexit deal by most accounts the UK has done better than expected since leaving.

We should now be pushing on doing even better, as long as the PM improves ties further with the EU ans our other trading partners and the Chancellor doesn't mess the UK economy up.

Your last paragraph IMO needs a caveat. I am all in favour of frictionless trade, but absolutely in striving for that, we must not bind ourselves to further EU restrictions and regulations, which risk us losing the very freedoms that have enabled us to perform better than the EU since we left.

 

[Don Karleone]

"Sir, you've lost Led by Donkeys"

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

Ah, right on cue, mention Labour Party / Muslim/ Grooming or rape gangs in the same paragraph and out will pop a Muslim Rape gang apologist!
So @Ifwecouldjust....... you were very vocal about the no need for a Judicial inquiry into the Muslim Rape gangs . I presume given this latest post you are still of the same opinion and Baroness Casey and Starmer are wrong. Is that right ?

How wrong can you be ?

I see no need for a further enquiry as the 20 plus recommendations from the first enquiry (which cost £186 million and took seven years ) have not been implemented.

In your constant tirade against the Labour Party for initially refusing to hold a further enquiry (you appear to be solely focused on ''Muslim Rape Gangs'' rather than rape gangs in general ), do you ever stop to think why the Conservatives failed to take on board and implement the initial enquiry recommendations ?

My preferred outcome (rather than another enquiry which will take a few years cost another fortune and is just kicking the can into the tall grass ) would be to implement the initial recommendations and to monitor to make sure that they are effective.

To demand another enquiry is to simply vote for a delay.

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

What a childish post.

You clearly don't understand what the average non-dom is like. These are not Anglophiles who will stay in the UK because it's all jolly nice here. They are uber-rich and extremely mobile. They will go and live wherever in the world they fancy. If they like London and don't get fleeced for the privilege of staying here, they may stay for a while, buying a Rolls-Royce from HR Owen in Berkley Square perhaps? Buying expensive suits from Saville Row. But more generally, spending their money, paying tax on their UK income, paying VAT, employing people. This is MASSIVELY beneficial to the UK economy.

Now, question: Do you want more of these people in the UK or fewer? If the answer is fewer, there is no hope for you and the debate is finished.

Hopefully you will recognise that we want more of them. You will recognise that their contribution to the UK economy is significant. Now, how much more likely do you think is that these uber rich people will choose the UK after the changes to apply tax all of their global income and take 40% of their global wealth off them in IHT?

I don't have the stats to hand - I can look them up as you can. But it stands to reason they will fuck off in droves. There's endless stories of financial advisers who had many wealthy non-doms on the books, but that they are losing their customers at an alarming rate.

This is just another example of flawed Labour thinking driven by bitterness and resentment. They'd rather see everyone worse off them some continuing to be extremely rich. And the policy will not work. Just like a wealth tax and other such tripe won't work. It doesn't raise any money, actually less, and will make everyone in the UK, poorer.

Rolls Royce pay little or no tax in the UK ..... 2012/ 2013 Was in fact zero.

Aero engines are a 'destination tax' .. that is the tax is paid in the country that the aircraft is manufactured ...

 

[Chippy_boy]

AI suggests otherwise.

Whether it does or not mate, let's park that, since we have different views.

But seriously, don't you think we could have negotiated better, saying to Mauritius, "We're not caving in to your demands and we are not bound by any laws compelling us to do so. However, we may consider letting you have the islands provided you guarantee us free access to the airbase". I find it just outrageous that we've commited to giving them £50bn. And yes, it is £50bn, even at modest RPI rates. It's £150m per year for the first 3 years, £120m for the subsequent 12, and then is index linked for the remainder of the 99 year contract term.

I used to negotiate commercial contracts for a living and I am absolutely shocked that this is what we ended up with.

I am also shocked and appalled that our own Attorney General, Lord Hermer, was advising THEM!

Do you not agree, that on the face of it, this looks pretty awful?

 

[west didsblue]

Fact remains Mauritius has never owned it. And the other fact is, and I quote, from your link. "the UN advisory opinion and resolutions are not legally binding,"

I'll throw you a bone and say OK we decide to hand them over. Have you actually read the agreement? I took the time to do so, some months ago. It's an utter disgrace.

You should read up on the background to this before spouting complete bollocks.

Mauritius as a sovereign state has never owned it because Mauritius didn’t become a sovereign state until 1968. The Chagos Islands were always considered part of the same entity as Mauritius prior to this, and also the indigenous people of the islands were forcibly removed mostly to Mauritius.
Saying Mauritius never owned it is pure semantics.

 

[Brewster's millions]

Ok this from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research:

• The difference between pre-pandemic trends and the current outlook cannot be solely ascribed to Brexit, considering the substantial economic disruptions caused by the Covid-19 pandemic and the Russia-Ukraine conflict in the post-Brexit era. A model-based approach is required to help identify the effect of Brexit on UK economic performance amongst these other factors.
• As a point of departure, we revisit the impact of Brexit on the UK economy considering the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA). We have modelled several macroeconomic factors affecting the UK economy associated with the beginning of the TCA in 2021: a trade decline with the European Union and an associated reduction in the UK terms of trade, a reduction in productivity, and a permanent reduction in the willingness to invest in the United Kingdom. In addition, we assume agents in 2016 (i.e., once the referendum result was known) perfectly anticipated that these shocks would happen in 2021.
• These estimates suggest that Brexit had already reduced UK real GDP relative to the baseline by just under one per cent in 2020 as consumers and businesses adapted their expectations even before the TCA came into force. Our estimates further suggest that three years after the transition period, UK real GDP is some 2-3 per cent lower due to Brexit, compared to a scenario where the United Kingdom retained EU membership. This corresponds to a per capita income loss of approximately £850.
• Our estimates indicate that the negative impact of Brexit gradually escalates, reaching some 5-6 per cent of GDP or about £2,300 per capita by 2035. The reduction in real incomes resulting from the fall in the UK terms of trade associated with changes in trading relations with the European Union and the fall in productivity are the largest contributors to the estimated reduction in real GDP, with each accounting for over 2.5 percentage points.

So apparently things actually deteriorate over time. Time will tell.

That really is a poorly written summary from the NIESR.

The negative impact of Brexit, according to their analysis, does not escalate over time. It reduces, and becomes less significant. But it remains a negative influence in marginal terms, and therefore over time the level of GDP still moves gradually further away from the alternative, assumed profile of GDP, which is based on the UK remaining in the EU.

According to their analysis, in the five years following the end of the transition period - by 2025 - the level of GDP would be 3.2% below the no Brexit hypothesis. It then takes a further ten years for the level of GDP to be 5.7% below the no Brexit profile. So the impact on the economy is not escalating over time, it is diminishing.

Also it’s worth noting that the NIESR analysis incorporates the OBR’s estimates of how Brexit is seen to reduce productivity growth, and as such it’s not really a true alternative to the OBR analysis . Given how terrible the OBR has proved at forecasting productivity growth - utterly useless in fact - I would tend to disregard anything they have to say on the matter, including their Brexit impact estimates.

 

[The perfect fumble]

How wrong can you be ?

I see no need for a further enquiry as the 20 plus recommendations from the first enquiry (which cost £186 million and took seven years ) have not been implemented.

In your constant tirade against the Labour Party for initially refusing to hold a further enquiry (you appear to be solely focused on ''Muslim Rape Gangs'' rather than rape gangs in general ), do you ever stop to think why the Conservatives failed to take on board and implement the initial enquiry recommendations ?

My preferred outcome (rather than another enquiry which will take a few years cost another fortune and is just kicking the can into the tall grass ) would be to implement the initial recommendations and to monitor to make sure that they are effective.

To demand another enquiry is to simply vote for a delay.

No one can argue with your last line, but this continues to rumble on because now it's about zeitgeist and complicity. We're no longer concentrating so much on what happened and how we stop it in the future, the focus has changed. Powerful political forces, some with honourable intentions, some not so much, smell blood in the water and want to know why it happened and why was it allowed to go on for so long.

One suspects this broader net is going to drag to the surface stuff some folk would rather not see exposed.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Rolls Royce pay little or no tax in the UK ..... 2012/ 2013 Was in fact zero.

Aero engines are a 'destination tax' .. that is the tax is paid in the country that the aircraft is manufactured ...

Funnily enough, bearing in mind me post directly above, I worked with Rolls-Royce for several years and negotiated one of the largest ever IT contracts with them, so know quite a bit about them. It's true they paid no tax in the period you suggest, but not for the reason you suggest.

It's because of carried forward losses, and further offsets with R&D tax credits/expentiture allowances. And also, because they pay tax on where their profits are made, not where their engines are made.

And the idea of taxes being paid where an aircraft is used or sold is a misconception. Corporate tax is determined by where profits are earned and attributed, not where products ultimately end up.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Mauritius as a sovereign state has never owned it because Mauritius didn’t become a sovereign state until 1968. The Chagos Islands were always considered part of the same entity as Mauritius prior to this, and also the indigenous people of the islands were forcibly removed mostly to Mauritius.
Saying Mauritius never owned it is pure semantics.

Fair enough mate, I was unaware of that. I do however, stand by my assertion that none of the various international rulings that we should hand them back, were legally binding on us to do so. And that being the case, I am strongly of the opinion that we negotiated a very poor deal. I cannot imagine Mauritius would not have been perfectly content with a zero cost deal, not one costing us £50bn.

And the fact we have one of our own, who is now our Attorney General, advising THEM, doesn't sit comfortably with me AT ALL.

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

Funnily enough, bearing in mind me post directly above, I worked with Rolls-Royce for several years and negotiated one of the largest ever IT contracts with them, so know quite a bit about them. It's true they paid no tax in the period you suggest, but not for the reason you suggest.

It's because of carried forward losses, and further offsets with R&D tax credits/expentiture allowances. And also, because they pay tax on where their profits are made, not where their engines are made.

And the idea of taxes being paid where an aircraft is used or sold is a misconception. Corporate tax is determined by where profits are earned and attributed, not where products ultimately end up.

Ritchie gets Rolls Royce\’s taxes wrong. As you would expect - Tim Worstall

His post is here. A decent post explaining things is here. The basic point is that Rolls Royce doesn\'t have many sales in the UK therefore has little profit in the UK. And Ritchie manages to get this bit wrong too: And they say its because they have to pay tax where they make their

www.timworstall.com

 

[hampshireblue]

Whether it does or not mate, let's park that, since we have different views.

But seriously, don't you think we could have negotiated better, saying to Mauritius, "We're not caving in to your demands and we are not bound by any laws compelling us to do so. However, we may consider letting you have the islands provided you guarantee us free access to the airbase". I find it just outrageous that we've commited to giving them £50bn. And yes, it is £50bn, even at modest RPI rates. It's £150m per year for the first 3 years, £120m for the subsequent 12, and then is index linked for the remainder of the 99 year contract term.

I used to negotiate commercial contracts for a living and I am absolutely shocked that this is what we ended up with.

I am also shocked and appalled that our own Attorney General, Lord Hermer, was advising THEM!

Do you not agree, that on the face of it, this looks pretty awful?

You regularly quote AI to back up your views and clearly trust the sources. You make a statement as "fact" and when pointed out that AI disagrees with your assertion, you want it "parked". It's not about having different views.

As for the "deal", I don't know enough about it but I'm sure you could easily have got a better deal for the UK if only the governement knew you had so much free time on your hands :-)

 

[west didsblue]

Fair enough mate, I was unaware of that. I do however, stand by my assertion that none of the various international rulings that we should hand them back, were legally binding on us to do so. And that being the case, I am strongly of the opinion that we negotiated a very poor deal. I cannot imagine Mauritius would not have been perfectly content with a zero cost deal, not one costing us £50bn.

And the fact we have one of our own, who is now our Attorney General, advising THEM, doesn't sit comfortably with me AT ALL.

It’s a bit of a basic thing to be unaware of considering you say you’ve read the agreement in detail. Unlike you I’m not going to pretend that I understand all the intricacies of this agreement but I’m reasonably sure that we wouldn’t be spaffing that much away for absolutely no reason, and all it would take is someone playing hardball to get a zero cost deal.

 

[Chippy_boy]

How wrong can you be ?

I see no need for a further enquiry as the 20 plus recommendations from the first enquiry (which cost £186 million and took seven years ) have not been implemented.

In your constant tirade against the Labour Party for initially refusing to hold a further enquiry (you appear to be solely focused on ''Muslim Rape Gangs'' rather than rape gangs in general ), do you ever stop to think why the Conservatives failed to take on board and implement the initial enquiry recommendations ?

My preferred outcome (rather than another enquiry which will take a few years cost another fortune and is just kicking the can into the tall grass ) would be to implement the initial recommendations and to monitor to make sure that they are effective.

To demand another enquiry is to simply vote for a delay.

Interesting. So you completely disagree with Keir Starmer, then? Just for the record.

 

[Chippy_boy]

It’s a bit of a basic thing to be unaware of considering you say you’ve read the agreement in detail. Unlike you I’m not going to pretend that I understand all the intricacies of this agreement but I’m reasonably sure that we wouldn’t be spaffing that much away for absolutely no reason, and all it would take is someone playing hardball to get a zero cost deal.

It's a commercial agreement, it doesn't go into Mauritius' history, and neither would you expect it to. And, being pedantic, I didn't say I had read in "in detail". I was interested in the financial aspects at the time.

We will never know, but were I on the Mauritius side of the table and I thought I could get all the islands back apart from a military base, for nothing, I'd be thinking that was a pretty good result. It stinks to high heaven that a senior official from the UK was telling them otherwise!

All agreements are of course based upon a compromise and a reasonable one would have been OK, you can have the islands but in return you need to guarantee us access to our military base. Not, oh, and you can have £50bn quid thrown in. Whoever actually negotiated that needs firing.

 

[west didsblue]

It's a commercial agreement, it doesn't go into Mauritius' history, and neither would you expect it to. And, being pedantic, I didn't say I had read in "in detail". I was interested in the financial aspects at the time.

We will never know, but were I on the Mauritius side of the table and I thought I could get all the islands back apart from a military base, for nothing, I'd be thinking that was a pretty good result. It stinks to high heaven that a senior official from the UK was telling them otherwise!

All agreements are of course based upon a compromise and a reasonable one would have been OK, you can have the islands but in return you need to guarantee us access to our military base. Not, oh, and you can have £50bn quid thrown in. Whoever actually negotiated that needs firing.

Maybe you should have read the explanatory memorandum that does go into the history of the situation. It’s quite easy to find. There’s a link to a download directly below the agreement. Maybe you should read that before making judgments based on zero knowledge of the background.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...o-including-diego-garcia-cs-mauritius-no12025

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

What is the next step beyond condemning Israel's actions in the strongest possible terms? Is it summoning their ambassador to the foreign office to explain what on earth they are doing shooting civillians who are just queuing for food every day?

Can we expect David Lammy to do this or is that a step too far?