So Johnson has 30 days to come up with an alternative to the backstop......

[Bearbehind]

This will be interesting to watch!

So what would you do about NI @Thornhill58

and we gain significantly more than that in trade, jobs and investment

UK has a trade deficit with EU since 1999 and cumulative figure is £64 Billion. In addition to that there is UK subscription to EU which is about £10 Billion per year net.

To balance the books and plug the trade gap UK has the following options;

Increase taxes

This is counter productive as the less people can spend the less the economy can grow

Increase borrowing

This passes the problem to future generations

Reduce Public Spending

Cuts in public services.

Countries that have trade surplus don’t have to do any of the three above options as they have profits to spend.

The shift from manufacturing to services has not helped as many imports are goods that UK used to manufacture.

Services are 80% of UK economy, but are not 80% of jobs. Easy to services relocate too. To avoid that UK may have to pursue a low tax enterprise economy.

Codswallop The UK is the third largest contributor of 10 net contributors - with Italy only just behind the UK.

It is only the fifth largest contributor per capita. Iirc The Netherlands is the largest contributor per capita.

And two of the (apparently) "net takers" are Belgium and Luxembourg, purely because so many of the EU institutions and employees are located in those (small) countries.

And FWIW, unlike the UK's curmudgeonly attitude, Ireland is proud that it is now a net contributor after years of being a net taker. Because, unlike the UK, it recognises that developing the other member countries will actually, in the long run, ensure more growth for everyone.

Link with back-up.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48256318

You are talking about monetary contributions such as UK £350 Million before rebates per week and ignoring trade.

UK has a £64 Billion trade deficit with EU as imports more from EU than it exports to the EU.

Because, unlike the UK, it recognises that developing the other member countries will actually, in the long run, ensure more growth for everyone

EU world share of world trade is declining. EU has 28 members out of a total of 195 countries in the world. About 15% which is almost same as EU % of world trade. I can’t see what’s is so spectacular about 15% of the worlds countries making up 15% of world trade.

EU world share of world trade is declining. EU has 28 members out of a total of 195 countries in the world. About 15% which is almost same as EU % of world trade. I can’t see what’s is so spectacular about 15% of the worlds countries making up 15% of world trade.

This is all very cherry picked and predictably dishonest.

Those trade figures ignore the trade that EU countries do with each other. Around 2/3 of EU trade is done with other EU members, which by extension means that the EU does around 22-23% of all world trade. This is consistent with the EU's share of world GDP which is around 22-23%. EU share of world population is under 7%.

In recent years the share of all developed countries has decreased, because of the phenomenal growth in China which is now the world's largest economy (the EU is second).

Spectacular early morning stats fail there

Anyway point being that the EU does a big chunk of world trade and that it's a much bigger number if you include the intra-EU trade between EU countries (which is most of EU trade).

By at least one measure (CIA figures) EU exports dwarf those of its nearest rival, China ($6 trillion vs $2 trillon - this includes intra-EU trade. Goods only.).

This is of course why most countries want to make preferential trading agreements with the EU rather than walk away from them.

The calculations for our annual EU membership fee have been published by the UK’s Office of National Statistics.

(Source: ONS)

When deducting from the EU membership fee all the money we get back from the EU, including our £5 billion rebate that’s never actually sent to the EU, the net cost of EU membership in 2016 was only £8.1 billion – or £156 million a week, or just 34p per person per day

That’s far short of the claim made on Boris Johnson’s campaign bus that we send £350m a week to the EU. That was entirely incorrect.

But after the referendum, the Vote Leave campaign director, Dominic Cummings wrote:

“Would we have won without £350m/NHS? All our research and the close result strongly suggests no.”

(Source: Spectator)

So, we are leaving the EU based on a whopper of a lie (actually, lots of whopping lies).

Ok, if Mr Johnson had instead put ‘£156m a week’ on his bus, it would still have seemed a lot of money. But something Brexiters never like to do is reveal how much we get back in return for the membership fee.

Back in 2011, this was estimated by the government to be between £30 billion and £90 billion a year – a return of between 800% and 2370%.

(Source: UK government)

Can anyone name any other government expenditure that gives a return of over 800%?

Let’s put this in another context.

In 2016, the government spent £814.6 billion on all aspects of public spending. This means that the net annual EU membership fee represented only 1% of all UK government expenditure. (A miniscule amount).

Furthermore, the EU funds many thousands of projects in the UK every year, that our national government would be unlikely to finance. Such as Liverpool’s John Lennon Airport, or superfast broadband in Cornwall.

(Source: European Commission)

In addition, across Europe, our annual membership fee helps to fund projects that benefit our continent and its people as a whole – such as Galileo, to give Europe its own satellite navigation system.

And the Horizon 2020 project – the world’s biggest multinational research programme, funding leading-edge research in all aspects of science and innovation that will directly benefit all EU citizens.

Individual European countries could not afford to take on the projects that the EU helps to fund for the welfare and prosperity of its half-a-billion citizens.

The advantages of EU membership considerably outweigh the cost of membership. So, why are we leaving?

I cannot find one valid or validated benefit for Brexit. Not even one.

Indeed, by NOT paying the annual EU membership fee, we will all be poorer, according to the UK government’s own impact assessment reports.

(Source: The Guardian)

How does intra-trade within the EU represent World Trade? EU is a single block.

If someone from Paris buys from a shop in Lyon and another person from Lyon buys from a shop in Paris, is that included in France's trade figures?

That's same as saying if someone has two bank accounts and they move money between them then they are trading. If they move the same money between the same accounts more often the following day does that mean they are growing and creating wealth?

If you look at intra-trade figures it is a gloomy picture for the UK as it has a trade deficit of 64 Billion with the EU.

“Would we have won without £350m/NHS? All our research and the close result strongly suggests no.”

Johnson was taken to court about that claim and the case was thrown out. Easy to look up that it was the gross figure before rebate. Might have swayed some, but my feeling is that leave was based on two more dominant factors;

EU leaders in Brussels are not elected

Immigration out of control

EU is an elected body
Immigration is under Uk control.
You got anything else?

EU is an elected body
Immigration is under Uk control.

Leave voters did not see it that way. The leave campaign was based on those two key issues and that UK would save billions by not paying into the EU was likely to be the third factor.

Oh dear MysteryTrip - you are not singing from the correct Leavers' hymn sheet. They keep telling us that it wasn't about immigration, and that they would welcome immigration from the whole world.

Shows how wrong people were; they voted to leave something they didn’t understand which although needed restructuring and wasn’t perfect, is hugely better than leaving and sending the country into a negative future.

They keep telling us that it wasn't about immigration, and that they would welcome immigration from the whole world

They may say it was not about immigration, but I think it was. Tabloids were full of how much UK was losing out due to immigration, particularly from Eastern European Countries as it was easy for them to enter UK under the EU rules. Benefits sent out of the UK, fewer jobs for UK nationals, wages been driven down, etc.

One of the red lines is FOM. Does that not suggest immigration is part of Brexit?

is hugely better than leaving and sending the country into a negative future

The plan was to leave with a deal. So far a deal has not been agreed. This is primarily due to the backstop subject. Hence the possibility of UK leaving the EU with no deal has appeared.

I think it was about immigration for large numbers of people, but there are Leavers who vehemently deny it.

Even with a deal things would still be worse than remaining.

UK has a trade deficit with EU since 1999 and cumulative figure is £64 Billion. In addition to that there is UK subscription to EU which is about £10 Billion per year net

Why would that change/improve by leaving the EU? we will just import more from the ROW.
The UK has been running a trade deficit for decades, not just from '99, the outsourcing of manufacturing to Asia isn't about to change.

Of course 'services employ people, per sector far more than manufacturing which is increasingly automated.

We can improve our manufacturing base whilst in the EU, its not a reason to brexit.

Why would that change/improve by leaving the EU

UK would have more freedom to deal with other Countries direct. At present UK has a trade surplus with non EU Countries of 44 Billion. If that can be increased it is to UK benefit.

we will just import more from the ROW

At lower cost as there are no EU tariffs

The UK has been running a trade deficit for decades

And most of it is attributable to the EU. Three EU Countries in particular account for the widening deficit, Germany, Netherland and Belgium in that order Take a look at;

www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/articles/whyhastheuktradeingoodsdeficitwidenedinrealterms/2018-09-24#three-countries-accounted-for-675-of-the-widening-trade-in-goods-balance-with-the-eu-in-current-prices

We can improve our manufacturing base whilst in the EU

That will take decades. Sadly UK never got its act together with manufacturing like Germany.

@MysteryTripAgain - How does intra-trade within the EU represent World Trade? EU is a single block.

The EU is made up of individual countries. Selling from from country to another is exporting.

@MysteryTripAgain - The plan was to leave with a deal. So far a deal has not been agreed. This is primarily due to the backstop subject.

It is primarily due to the UK not being willing to comply with their obligations under the GFA.

@MysteryTripAgain - how would freedom of movement be controlled without a hard border in Ireland without a border in the Irish Sea (which DUP would be v unhappy with)?

I think the Leave camp has probably not wanted to dwell on this as it would cause them a lot of problems. I suspect many people voted because of immigration/FoM, but in order to control this, would have to have hard border somewhere - which would cause even more problems with GFA and people in Ireland.

The EU is made up of individual countries. Selling from from country to another is exporting

If UK calculates its figures like that then they are fudging too. How does one EU member trading with another EU member make any inroads to the emerging markets outside the EU?

If two members import and export the same value of goods between themselves how does that represent growth for the EU?