On 11/02/2018 11:10, tim... wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Â* pamela wrote:
Maybe we should expect to get our most profitable trade from places
like Honduras, Nigeria or Egypt. Can you imagine buying an Egyptian
toaster?Â* Oh my!Â* It's come to that,

Keep on saying, but it doesn't sink in.

Out of the EU we can buy pretty well anything we want from anywhere.
Including anything from the EU too.

The real question is what are we going to sell to other countries to pay
for those purchases?

the EU

why do you persist with this nonsense that from outside the EU they will
stop buying our products?

tim




Why do you persist in stating this lie?

Nobody has said we can't sell to the EU, however without a trade deal
the tariffs will make it harder.

Some brexiteers don't want a trade deal so they obviously don't want to
sell as much to the EU.

We also lose the trade deals the EU has with about 65 other countries so
may well have tariffs there too.

It will take years to renegotiate these trade deals and they may not be
as favourable to us as they are now.

In article ,
pamela wrote:
On 23:54 10 Feb 2018, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
pamela wrote:
Maybe we should expect to get our most profitable trade from
places like Honduras, Nigeria or Egypt. Can you imagine buying an
Egyptian toaster? Oh my! It's come to that,

Keep on saying, but it doesn't sink in.

Out of the EU we can buy pretty well anything we want from
anywhere. Including anything from the EU too.

The real question is what are we going to sell to other countries
to pay for those purchases?

Don't you think that a country which agrees to accept our exports under
terms which are preferential to us will want a similar arrangement for
their goods in return?

What have we got to sell them that they can't buy elsewhere already much
cheaper?

Hence, more goods from obscure countries like Egpyt with whom we have
developed a new close trading relationship.

Countries like Egypt would only be a tiny market for us.

--
*If I throw a stick, will you leave?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 10/02/2018 17:43, Mark wrote:

IIRC it's £50bn.


The EU is arguing this is the amount we are already committed to as part
of our existing membership which indicates that the £350 million per
week is a lie - it's obviously much more than this! The payments we are
currently making don't include costs future costs already incurred, and
will increase even more if we stay in.

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

In article ,
alan_m wrote:
The EU is arguing this is the amount we are already committed to as part
of our existing membership which indicates that the £350 million per
week is a lie - it's obviously much more than this! The payments we are
currently making don't include costs future costs already incurred, and
will increase even more if we stay in.

Does anyone expect to be a member of a club with no fees? Most join a club
because they think the fees are worth paying for the benefits. Excepting a
gym club, obviously.

--
*Can atheists get insurance for acts of God? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 14:35:31 +0000, alan_m
wrote:

On 10/02/2018 17:43, Mark wrote:

IIRC it's £50bn.


The EU is arguing this is the amount we are already committed to as part
of our existing membership

Which is based on the maximum possible contribution in theory and not
the actual contributions.

which indicates that the £350 million per
week is a lie.

Of course it's a lie.

it's obviously much more than this!

No. It's much less as is ignores both the rebate and the benefits we
get from EU membership. In other words it's based on a gross figure,
not net.

The payments we are
currently making don't include costs future costs already incurred, and
will increase even more if we stay in.

No.

--
insert witty sig here

On 11/02/2018 14:35, alan_m wrote:
On 10/02/2018 17:43, Mark wrote:

IIRC it's £50bn.


The EU is arguing this is the amount we are already committed to as part
of our existing membership which indicates that the £350 million per
week is a lie - it's obviously much more than this!Â* The payments we are
currently making don't include costs future costs already incurred, and
will increase even more if we stay in.


Why not?

Some of the commitments are long term, tens of years.
The EU wants that before we leave or a commitment to continue to pay.
It could quite easily be included in the £200+ we pay as we don't pay
£350M a week as the lievers would like everyone to believe.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
alan_m wrote:
The EU is arguing this is the amount we are already committed to as part
of our existing membership which indicates that the £350 million per
week is a lie - it's obviously much more than this! The payments we are
currently making don't include costs future costs already incurred, and
will increase even more if we stay in.

Does anyone expect to be a member of a club with no fees?

the Poles, Hungarians and Bulgarians

to name but 3

Until very recently the Irish

tim

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
pamela wrote:
Maybe we should expect to get our most profitable trade from places
like Honduras, Nigeria or Egypt. Can you imagine buying an Egyptian
toaster? Oh my! It's come to that,

Keep on saying, but it doesn't sink in.

Out of the EU we can buy pretty well anything we want from anywhere.
Including anything from the EU too.

The real question is what are we going to sell to other countries to
pay
for those purchases?

the EU

why do you persist with this nonsense that from outside the EU they will
stop buying our products?

nobody is saying that. The qquestion is can we get them to buy more of our
goods so that we can afford to import things from abroad.

why would we need to sell more of our goods to buy things from aboard

we already sell them things which enables us to buy things from abroad

where do you think oranges in our supermarkets come from

tim

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
charles wrote:
In article ,
tim... wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
pamela wrote:
Maybe we should expect to get our most profitable trade from places
like Honduras, Nigeria or Egypt. Can you imagine buying an Egyptian
toaster? Oh my! It's come to that,

Keep on saying, but it doesn't sink in.

Out of the EU we can buy pretty well anything we want from anywhere.
Including anything from the EU too.

The real question is what are we going to sell to other countries to
pay for those purchases?

the EU

why do you persist with this nonsense that from outside the EU they
will stop buying our products?

nobody is saying that. The qquestion is can we get them to buy more of
our goods so that we can afford to import things from abroad.

Rather simple, isn't it Charles? But the concept seems beyond many on
here.

yes it's simple

we carry on selling them our stuff

we continue to use the proceeds to buy their stuff

what do you think is going to change here?

tim

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
pamela wrote:
Maybe we should expect to get our most profitable trade from places
like Honduras, Nigeria or Egypt. Can you imagine buying an Egyptian
toaster? Oh my! It's come to that,

Keep on saying, but it doesn't sink in.

Out of the EU we can buy pretty well anything we want from anywhere.
Including anything from the EU too.

The real question is what are we going to sell to other countries to
pay for those purchases?

the EU

why do you persist with this nonsense that from outside the EU they will
stop buying our products?

Ah - the eternal optimism of the confirmed Brexiteer. The UK is already
running a massive trade decifit in goods.

funded by borrowing, as it is on in the US

as it has been for as long as I can remember

No-one expects the UK to go broke tomorrow

Within the relatively protected
EU. And you really think that will suddenly change in a world market?

what will suddenly change?

Where so many countries have lower production costs than the UK?

But they always have had (lower costs).

Why do we not buy them at this lower cost now? Because we have to impose
the EU protectionist tariffs even if we have no home production to protect

Outside the EU, where we have a home market to protect, we will have tariffs
just as we do now.

Where we have no home production to protect we can lower tariffs so that I
citizens can take advantage of the lower ROW prices that they have so far
been unable to be belays EU protectionist tariffs have stopped us.

This will mean that we buy less from rEU and more from ROW but our overall
trade balance will remain the same (actually should go down a little)

You really don't understand how this works. You are making up problems
where none exist.

And if there's one thing the EU will be delighted to get their hands on
after we leave it is our trade in financial services, which is what keeps
us afloat at the moment.

They might like to grab this. The reality is that they won't

Banks don't want to form a major European hub in central Europe

Frankfurt is too small (and the banker don't want to go there because it is
Boringsville). Paris has employment taxes that are far too high and
employment protection legislation that is draconian.

Providing cost efficient Financial services required economies of scale.
80% of the City's business is with non-EU countries, there is no reason for
that to move. Whilst a small percentage of the EU business may be better
conducted via a local offer the rest will stay where the economies of scale
from the other 80% make it sensible.

This is why I voted remain. Brexiteers don't seem to have even a
schoolboy's grasp of basic economics.

Nope

I understand perfectly well thank you very much

It's you who doesn't appear to understand

tim

"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 11:39 11 Feb 2018, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
tim... wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
pamela wrote:
Maybe we should expect to get our most profitable trade from
places like Honduras, Nigeria or Egypt. Can you imagine buying
an Egyptian toaster? Oh my! It's come to that,

Keep on saying, but it doesn't sink in.

Out of the EU we can buy pretty well anything we want from
anywhere. Including anything from the EU too.

The real question is what are we going to sell to other
countries to pay for those purchases?

the EU

why do you persist with this nonsense that from outside the EU
they will stop buying our products?

Ah - the eternal optimism of the confirmed Brexiteer. The UK is
already running a massive trade decifit in goods. Within the
relatively protected EU. And you really think that will suddenly
change in a world market? Where so many countries have lower
production costs than the UK?

And if there's one thing the EU will be delighted to get their
hands on after we leave it is our trade in financial services,
which is what keeps us afloat at the moment.

I don't much care about loss of manufacturing but loss of financial
services is a potentially colossal matter. The Europeans have been
eyeing the lucractive business done in the City for a long time and
I doubt they will give such trade with the City a free pass after
Brexit.

Firstly there are no tariffs on financial services so the only way that they
can impede us from selling to them is by putting up non-tariff barriers.

Theses will make the costs of financial services to their own economies rise
by a considerable amount.

If they were to do this, they will be "stealing" a small part of London's
financial services industry at the expense of crippling all of the other
businesses in their economy

And when I say a small part, I have told you all before that only 15-20% of
the CoLs business is with EU countries.

The 80% that isn't, will always stay here no matter how hard the Europeans
try to steal it. It would cost billion to move it for zero benefit..

tim

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...
On 11/02/2018 11:10, tim... wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
pamela wrote:
Maybe we should expect to get our most profitable trade from places
like Honduras, Nigeria or Egypt. Can you imagine buying an Egyptian
toaster? Oh my! It's come to that,

Keep on saying, but it doesn't sink in.

Out of the EU we can buy pretty well anything we want from anywhere.
Including anything from the EU too.

The real question is what are we going to sell to other countries to pay
for those purchases?

the EU

why do you persist with this nonsense that from outside the EU they will
stop buying our products?

tim




Why do you persist in stating this lie?

I'm not lying

I'm giving you my interpretation of Dave's post

i he doesn't mean this then he needs to explain himself, because so far,
that's the only interpretation I can put on his post


Nobody has said we can't sell to the EU,

Dave's post implies that we will;

however without a trade deal the tariffs will make it harder.

I agree

but I am not expecting there not to be a trade deal.

No-one with any sense is.

Some brexiteers don't want a trade deal so they obviously don't want to
sell as much to the EU.

They are in the loony minority

We also lose the trade deals the EU has with about 65 other countries so
may well have tariffs there too.

This is a bit of a problem agreed. But the important countries have said
that they will agree to continue the terms with us

Most of the 65 countries are economically insignificant, some of them are
our "friends" which the EU has agreements with so they we can continue to
trade with them. These states will certainly want to continue to deal with
us

OTOH some of the countries are friends of the French, put on the list so
that France can continue to trade with them. We will have minimum trade
with these countries ATM.



It will take years to renegotiate these trade deals

No, it wont

and they may not be as favourable to us as they are now.

one or two perhaps

the rest will just roll over on similar terms

tim

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article , tim...
wrote:

[Snip]

Then you will be surprised to hear that major suppliers of white goods
and electronic equipment in the UK are Turkish companies


ah, yes - the ones that catch fire.

Nokia batteries

Samsung phones

Whirlpool washers/driers

Nope

remind me?


tim

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
pamela wrote:
On 23:54 10 Feb 2018, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
pamela wrote:
Maybe we should expect to get our most profitable trade from
places like Honduras, Nigeria or Egypt. Can you imagine buying an
Egyptian toaster? Oh my! It's come to that,

Keep on saying, but it doesn't sink in.

Out of the EU we can buy pretty well anything we want from
anywhere. Including anything from the EU too.

The real question is what are we going to sell to other countries
to pay for those purchases?

Don't you think that a country which agrees to accept our exports under
terms which are preferential to us will want a similar arrangement for
their goods in return?

What have we got to sell them that they can't buy elsewhere already much
cheaper?

education services

tim

In article , tim...
wrote:


"charles" wrote in message
...
In article , tim...
wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article , pamela
wrote:
Maybe we should expect to get our most profitable trade from places
like Honduras, Nigeria or Egypt. Can you imagine buying an Egyptian
toaster? Oh my! It's come to that,

Keep on saying, but it doesn't sink in.

Out of the EU we can buy pretty well anything we want from anywhere.
Including anything from the EU too.

The real question is what are we going to sell to other countries to
pay for those purchases?

the EU

why do you persist with this nonsense that from outside the EU they
will stop buying our products?

nobody is saying that. The qquestion is can we get them to buy more of
our goods so that we can afford to import things from abroad.

why would we need to sell more of our goods to buy things from aboard

because when we lose the income from financial service we need to sell
something else.



--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

In article , tim...
wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article , tim...
wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article , pamela
wrote:
Maybe we should expect to get our most profitable trade from places
like Honduras, Nigeria or Egypt. Can you imagine buying an Egyptian
toaster? Oh my! It's come to that,

Keep on saying, but it doesn't sink in.

Out of the EU we can buy pretty well anything we want from anywhere.
Including anything from the EU too.

The real question is what are we going to sell to other countries to
pay for those purchases?

the EU

why do you persist with this nonsense that from outside the EU they
will stop buying our products?

Ah - the eternal optimism of the confirmed Brexiteer. The UK is already
running a massive trade decifit in goods.

funded by borrowing, as it is on in the US

as it has been for as long as I can remember

No-one expects the UK to go broke tomorrow

nobody expect Carrilon to go broke.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

In article ,
tim... wrote:


"charles" wrote in message
...
In article , tim...
wrote:

[Snip]

Then you will be surprised to hear that major suppliers of white goods
and electronic equipment in the UK are Turkish companies


ah, yes - the ones that catch fire.

Nokia batteries

Samsung phones

Whirlpool washers/driers

Nope

remind me?

Beko

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On 11/02/2018 19:25, tim... wrote:

The 80% that isn't, will always stay here no matter how hard the
Europeans try to steal it.Â* It would cost billion to move it for zero
benefit..

But to do stuff in the EU requires a financial passport and banks are
moving business to other EU countries to keep that passport.

They will be taking business with them, like all the EU business and may
well take other stuff.

This is a loss to the UK and means less tax revenue and less jobs and
less exports to pay for imports.


Its quite simple, even brexiteers should be able to understand it.

In article ,
tim... wrote:
nobody is saying that. The qquestion is can we get them to buy more of our
goods so that we can afford to import things from abroad.

why would we need to sell more of our goods to buy things from aboard

we already sell them things which enables us to buy things from abroad

I'd suggest you look at the balance of payments situation. Not quoted as
often as it once was. Wonder why.

--
*Drugs may lead to nowhere, but at least it's the scenic route *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
tim... wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
alan_m wrote:
The EU is arguing this is the amount we are already committed to as
part of our existing membership which indicates that the £350 million
per week is a lie - it's obviously much more than this! The payments
we are currently making don't include costs future costs already
incurred, and will increase even more if we stay in.

Does anyone expect to be a member of a club with no fees?

the Poles, Hungarians and Bulgarians

to name but 3

Until very recently the Irish

Each according to their means, then? Investing in the future. Not
something a Brexiteer would understand.

--
*I don't have a license to kill, but I do have a learner's permit.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:
nobody is saying that. The qquestion is can we get them to buy more of
our
goods so that we can afford to import things from abroad.

why would we need to sell more of our goods to buy things from aboard

we already sell them things which enables us to buy things from abroad

I'd suggest you look at the balance of payments situation.

I did. We have a deficit. Have done for as long as I can remember.
Doesn't stop anybody trading with us.

the point is, what will change here when we leave the EU?

We'll still have a deficit. People will still trade with us even though we
have a deficit.

tim

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...
On 11/02/2018 19:25, tim... wrote:

The 80% that isn't, will always stay here no matter how hard the
Europeans try to steal it. It would cost billion to move it for zero
benefit..

But to do stuff in the EU requires a financial passport and banks are
moving business to other EU countries to keep that passport.

Yes, a very very very small amount of their business, not the complete
business.

They will be taking business with them, like all the EU business and may
well take other stuff.

No, they won't be taking the other stuff. The bits that will have to move
are too small a part of the whole for it to be cost effective for it to
encourage them to take everything.

Instead, what will happen, is that the costs of using the bits that have
moved will go up, for the people who have to use them.

They idea that the EU can leverage up forcing a part of the City's Business
to move, to grab the whole lot is an idea from wonderland.

This is a loss to the UK and means less tax revenue and less jobs and less
exports to pay for imports.

I'm perfectly capable of working that out for myself thank you very much

The point is that it will only be a small percentage of the total number of
jobs/income. Not the whole lot as some claim.

Its quite simple, even brexiteers should be able to understand it.

I do

It's the Remoaners who don't understand that the harm will be small.

tim

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:


"charles" wrote in message
...
In article , tim...

wrote:

[Snip]

Then you will be surprised to hear that major suppliers of white goods
and electronic equipment in the UK are Turkish companies


ah, yes - the ones that catch fire.

Nokia batteries

Samsung phones

Whirlpool washers/driers

Nope

remind me?

Beko

Hadn't heard that

tim



--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On 12/02/18 08:03, tim... wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Â* tim... wrote:
nobody is saying that. The qquestion is can we get them to buy more
of our
goods so that we can afford to import things from abroad.

why would we need to sell more of our goods to buy things from aboard

we already sell them things which enables us to buy things from abroad

I'd suggest you look at the balance of payments situation.

I did.Â* We have a deficit.Â* Have done for as long as I can remember.
Doesn't stop anybody trading with us.

the point is, what will change here when we leave the EU?

We'll still have a deficit.Â* People will still trade with us even though
we have a deficit.

tim



It is extraordinary and I can only conclude its a result of rather low
intelligence coupled with effective propaganda, that so many people seem
to think the world will end when we leave the EU.

In fact the only thing that is likely to end is the EU itself. With Club
Med and the former Eastern Bloc countries in revolt, and the UK
contributions missing it's becoming an international joke.



--
I would rather have questions that cannot be answered...
....than to have answers that cannot be questioned

Richard Feynman

On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 08:11:05 -0000, "tim..."
wrote:



"dennis@home" wrote in message
...
On 11/02/2018 19:25, tim... wrote:

The 80% that isn't, will always stay here no matter how hard the
Europeans try to steal it. It would cost billion to move it for zero
benefit..

But to do stuff in the EU requires a financial passport and banks are
moving business to other EU countries to keep that passport.

Yes, a very very very small amount of their business, not the complete
business.

They will be taking business with them, like all the EU business and may
well take other stuff.

No, they won't be taking the other stuff. The bits that will have to move
are too small a part of the whole for it to be cost effective for it to
encourage them to take everything.

Instead, what will happen, is that the costs of using the bits that have
moved will go up, for the people who have to use them.

They idea that the EU can leverage up forcing a part of the City's Business
to move, to grab the whole lot is an idea from wonderland.

This is a loss to the UK and means less tax revenue and less jobs and less
exports to pay for imports.

I'm perfectly capable of working that out for myself thank you very much

The point is that it will only be a small percentage of the total number of
jobs/income. Not the whole lot as some claim.

Its quite simple, even brexiteers should be able to understand it.

I do

It's the Remoaners who don't understand that the harm will be small.

tim


Remember the scaremongering when the Bank of Scotland was in line for
a relocation of head office to London after the Scots referendum?

Doom, Gloom and the end of civilisation in the UK.

No wonder the Brexiters didn't pay too much heed to the threats
associated with the EU referendum.

AB

In article , tim...
wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article , tim...
wrote:
nobody is saying that. The qquestion is can we get them to buy more
of our goods so that we can afford to import things from abroad.

why would we need to sell more of our goods to buy things from aboard

we already sell them things which enables us to buy things from abroad

I'd suggest you look at the balance of payments situation.

I did. We have a deficit. Have done for as long as I can remember.
Doesn't stop anybody trading with us.

the point is, what will change here when we leave the EU?

we will have an eevn bigger deficit

We'll still have a deficit. People will still trade with us even though
we have a deficit.

until we run out of credit.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

In article , Archibald Tarquin
Blenkinsopp wrote:

[Snip]


Remember the scaremongering when the Bank of Scotland was in line for a
relocation of head office to London after the Scots referendum?


No, it wasn't the Bank of Scotland - it was the Royal Bank of Scotland

Doom, Gloom and the end of civilisation in the UK.

No. it was the loss of jobs in Scotland that would have been the problem

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 08:37:58 +0000 (GMT), charles
wrote:

In article , Archibald Tarquin
Blenkinsopp wrote:

[Snip]


Remember the scaremongering when the Bank of Scotland was in line for a
relocation of head office to London after the Scots referendum?


No, it wasn't the Bank of Scotland - it was the Royal Bank of Scotland

Doom, Gloom and the end of civilisation in the UK.

No. it was the loss of jobs in Scotland that would have been the problem

Similar propaganda though.

And dammned little effect if they did move.

Unlike the EU, where the prospective loss is considerably higher.

AB

In article ,
Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 08:37:58 +0000 (GMT), charles
wrote:

In article , Archibald Tarquin
Blenkinsopp wrote:

[Snip]


Remember the scaremongering when the Bank of Scotland was in line for a
relocation of head office to London after the Scots referendum?


No, it wasn't the Bank of Scotland - it was the Royal Bank of Scotland

Doom, Gloom and the end of civilisation in the UK.

No. it was the loss of jobs in Scotland that would have been the problem

Similar propaganda though.

And dammned little effect if they did move.

it would have had a significant effect on jobs in the area.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 09:14:25 +0000 (GMT), charles
wrote:

In article ,
Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 08:37:58 +0000 (GMT), charles
wrote:

In article , Archibald Tarquin
Blenkinsopp wrote:

[Snip]


Remember the scaremongering when the Bank of Scotland was in line for a
relocation of head office to London after the Scots referendum?


No, it wasn't the Bank of Scotland - it was the Royal Bank of Scotland

Doom, Gloom and the end of civilisation in the UK.

No. it was the loss of jobs in Scotland that would have been the problem

Similar propaganda though.

And dammned little effect if they did move.

it would have had a significant effect on jobs in the area.
In the area yes, but in all of Scotland?

Debateable if they would have gone through with it anyway, there
wouldn't be any problems with cross border banking then, so no real
point in moving at all.

Having tried to spend Scottish banknotes in England, I would think the
presence of a Scots bank might give the English some other cause for
concern apart from Poles and bent bananas.

AB

In article , Archibald Tarquin
Blenkinsopp wrote:
On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 09:14:25 +0000 (GMT), charles
wrote:

In article , Archibald
Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 08:37:58 +0000 (GMT), charles
wrote:

In article , Archibald
Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:

[Snip]


Remember the scaremongering when the Bank of Scotland was in line
for a relocation of head office to London after the Scots
referendum?


No, it wasn't the Bank of Scotland - it was the Royal Bank of Scotland

Doom, Gloom and the end of civilisation in the UK.

No. it was the loss of jobs in Scotland that would have been the
problem

Similar propaganda though.

And dammned little effect if they did move.

it would have had a significant effect on jobs in the area.
In the area yes, but in all of Scotland?

Debateable if they would have gone through with it anyway, there wouldn't
be any problems with cross border banking then, so no real point in
moving at all.

IF Scotland had opted for independence, then RBS would have had problems.
being outside the EU. Similar situation for the international banks at
presnt in London

Having tried to spend Scottish banknotes in England, I would think the
presence of a Scots bank might give the English some other cause for
concern apart from Poles and bent bananas.

RBD own NatWest and also has a number of branches in England.

AB

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 09:47:55 +0000 (GMT), charles
wrote:

In article , Archibald Tarquin
Blenkinsopp wrote:
On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 09:14:25 +0000 (GMT), charles
wrote:

In article , Archibald
Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 08:37:58 +0000 (GMT), charles
wrote:

In article , Archibald
Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:

[Snip]


Remember the scaremongering when the Bank of Scotland was in line
for a relocation of head office to London after the Scots
referendum?


No, it wasn't the Bank of Scotland - it was the Royal Bank of Scotland

Doom, Gloom and the end of civilisation in the UK.

No. it was the loss of jobs in Scotland that would have been the
problem

Similar propaganda though.

And dammned little effect if they did move.

it would have had a significant effect on jobs in the area.
In the area yes, but in all of Scotland?

Debateable if they would have gone through with it anyway, there wouldn't
be any problems with cross border banking then, so no real point in
moving at all.

IF Scotland had opted for independence, then RBS would have had problems.
being outside the EU. Similar situation for the international banks at
presnt in London

I was under the impression that Scotland was fairly certain to stay in
the EU, if the referendum had worked in their favour?

Having tried to spend Scottish banknotes in England, I would think the
presence of a Scots bank might give the English some other cause for
concern apart from Poles and bent bananas.

RBD own NatWest and also has a number of branches in England.

And the Ulster Bank in Ireland, although I notice that they have not
highlighted their association to any great extent over recent years.

I wonder why ;-)



AB

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article , tim...
wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article , tim...
wrote:
nobody is saying that. The qquestion is can we get them to buy more
of our goods so that we can afford to import things from abroad.

why would we need to sell more of our goods to buy things from aboard

we already sell them things which enables us to buy things from abroad

I'd suggest you look at the balance of payments situation.

I did. We have a deficit. Have done for as long as I can remember.
Doesn't stop anybody trading with us.

the point is, what will change here when we leave the EU?

we will have an eevn bigger deficit

but how much bigger

and why?


We'll still have a deficit. People will still trade with us even though
we have a deficit.

until we run out of credit.

we seem to have tested that to the limit over the past 8 years and still
haven't fallen off the edge

tim



--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

In article ,
tim... wrote:
I'd suggest you look at the balance of payments situation.

I did. We have a deficit. Have done for as long as I can remember.
Doesn't stop anybody trading with us.

Never said it did. But funding imports by borrowing is the economics of
the madhouse. No surprise Brexiteers approve of it.

--
*What happens if you get scared half to death twice? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
It is extraordinary and I can only conclude its a result of rather low
intelligence coupled with effective propaganda, that so many people seem
to think the world will end when we leave the EU.

In fact the only thing that is likely to end is the EU itself. With Club
Med and the former Eastern Bloc countries in revolt, and the UK
contributions missing it's becoming an international joke.

It's extraordinary that some on here wish to see the EU collapse. Can only
speculate on the reasons.

--
*He who laughs last has just realised the joke.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
Having tried to spend Scottish banknotes in England, I would think the
presence of a Scots bank might give the English some other cause for
concern apart from Poles and bent bananas.

I've never had a problem spending Scottish notes in London.

--
*Great groups from little icons grow *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
I was under the impression that Scotland was fairly certain to stay in
the EU, if the referendum had worked in their favour?

They would have had to apply for membership, as a new country. And Spain,
with the same sort of problem as the UK as regards bits wanting to leave
may not have been happy about that.

--
*My dog can lick anyone

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
tim... wrote:
We'll still have a deficit. People will still trade with us even
though we have a deficit.

until we run out of credit.

we seem to have tested that to the limit over the past 8 years and still
haven't fallen off the edge

So you can remember when the balance of payments wasn't anything like as
bad as now? Under the previous Labour government?

--
*Toilet stolen from police station. Cops have nothing to go on.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 11:14:54 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
Having tried to spend Scottish banknotes in England, I would think the
presence of a Scots bank might give the English some other cause for
concern apart from Poles and bent bananas.

I've never had a problem spending Scottish notes in London.

A more enlightened society, here in Stoke On Trent, One has had a
multitude of problems.

Even my own watering hole wouldn't take them and the place had been a
second home for over 20 years.

There again they are fanatical Brexiteers here.

AB

On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 11:55:13 GMT, pamela wrote:

On 11:29 12 Feb 2018, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:

On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 11:14:54 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp
wrote:
Having tried to spend Scottish banknotes in England, I would
think the presence of a Scots bank might give the English some
other cause for concern apart from Poles and bent bananas.

I've never had a problem spending Scottish notes in London.

A more enlightened society, here in Stoke On Trent, One has had a
multitude of problems.

Even my own watering hole wouldn't take them and the place had
been a second home for over 20 years.

There again they are fanatical Brexiteers here.

AB

Many isolated communities tend to think like that.

It's the inbreeding :-(

AB