Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

Do you think there will be a Deal or No Deal?

  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
devilish said:
Regimes are built through violence and invasions + once in they dont allow anyone out.
Click to expand...

This is it isn't it? Our EU brother is taking us on a fishing trip to 'catch' us some big trade deals. The 'family' are not mad at us for quitting after all, we've finally made it. After all the clammy uncertainty we can begin to see the ligh...BANG! :(
 
What a tosser, everyone is virtually unanimous that existing EU citizens should stay.

Now Jeremy, what's your view on new migrants mate, how many? where from? what wealth or education? what constitutes a refugee?
Bit controversial eh, thought not.
 
Davis with the Brexit Committee:

Davis says government has not carried out assessment of economic impact of leaving EU with no deal since June
Q: Has the government made an assessment of the economic impact of leaving with no deal?

Davis says not since he has been secretary of state.

  • Davis says government has not carried out assessment of economic impact of leaving EU with no deal since June.
There was an assessment before the referendum, but that assessment has not turned out to be robust.

Updated at 9.53am GMT

FacebookTwitterGoogle plus

1h ago09:20

David Davis gives evidence to Commons Brexit committee
Hilary Benn, the Labour MP who chairs the Brexit committee, opens the proceedings.

David Davis is giving evidence with Olly Robbins, the permanent secretary at the Brexit department.

Q: If we left with no deal, would the UK face tariffs?

Davis says it is not simple, because the WTO most-favoured nation rules say little about non-tariff barriers, but Benn is probably right.

Q: Would there be customs checks between Northern Ireland and Ireland?

Davis says there are checks already. But they are done in a light way.

Q: Would the UK no longer be part of the US/EU open skies agreement?

Davis says we would be out of that. But there might be a successor agreement.

Q: Would passporting rights go?

Davis says he thinks so, but the situation on non-tariff barriers is uncertain.

Q: Would we be out of the European medical card?

Davis says he has not looked at this, but thinks so.
 
Maybe all the 'Remainers' in the UK who feel the UK Government isn't listening to them could go live in an Independent Scotland that's back in the EU.

No problems with language, culture, currency, climate, etc, that moving to Finland or Bulgaria would cause.

Only problem would probably be having to watch Motherwell V Partick Thistle as the highlight match on MOTD, but a small price to pay.

More seriously, Paul's post above shows how unprepared the UK Government was for an EXIT vote. Cameron and the rest of the Tories have a lot to answer for, taking it for granted that Project Fear on its own would be sufficient to keep the UK inside the EU. Any even half-decent PM should have had a Plan B other than walking out.

On the other hand, I'm not sure that the EU even had a Plan A, let alone a Plan B, other than ' Take it or leave it ' which is absolutely not the right way to treat your second highest contributor.
 
If this is things going well I'd hate to see things going badly.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
Q: Would we be out of the European medical card?

Davis says he has not looked at this, but thinks so.
Click to expand...

Jesus christ..

Full bodied red said:
Maybe all the 'Remainers' in the UK who feel the UK Government isn't listening to them could go live in an Independent Scotland that's back in the EU.

No problems with language, culture, currency, climate, etc, that moving to Finland or Bulgaria would cause.
Click to expand...

Jesus, have you ever actually been to Scotland? :nervous:
 
Paul the Wolf said:
Whether one agrees or not with Brexit, these people are a bunch of clowns who have no idea what they're doing ....
Click to expand...

Sure ??

I think they know absolutely, positively, definitely what they're doing.

I reckon they're fronting up to the EU with a ' bring it on ' attitude - which might or might not be the best approach, as the UK has more to lose than the EU if they don't get a deal with them, but until the EU actually starts coming up with a few constructive suggestions about ' where-to-from-here ' instead of ' the-UK-must-be punished ' comments which are all we've heard from them up to now.
 
Full bodied red said:
Sure ??

I think they know absolutely, positively, definitely what they're doing.

I reckon they're fronting up to the EU with a ' bring it on ' attitude - which might or might not be the best approach, as the UK has more to lose than the EU if they don't get a deal with them, but until the EU actually starts coming up with a few constructive suggestions about ' where-to-from-here ' instead of ' the-UK-must-be punished ' comments which are all we've heard from them up to now.
Click to expand...

Positive they don't.. yes they want to play the tough guy, but they can't even answer simple questions and contradict themselves continously.
They had no plan and still have no plan other than expecting the EU to roll over to their demands.

They have waited 9 months to trigger A50 , there has been no reason to wait, for what..?

The EU can't say or do much until A50 is triggered but one thing is guaranteed - the EU has been suggesting by their comments is that whatever deal will be negotiated eventually it will be less favourable than the one they have now, it can't be anything else.

As soon as A50 is triggered the ball moves from the UK's court and their posturing to the EU's court and then the timetable will be up to the EU.

As time progresses I believe how unprepared the UK is for this will become more apparent.

Till now nothing has really happened, May is just about to release the brake on the roller coaster, hold on for dear life?
 
fcbforever said:
Funny thing is, England has no means to take the Pound from them.
Click to expand...

What does Ronald McDonald think about that?

"Sterlingisation in any of its forms - formal or informal - is a very bad idea for an independent Scotland since it means that the exchange rate (the rate at which the currency of an independent country trades with its main trading partner, the rest of UK) is rigidly fixed at a one-to-one parity. As we have been recently reminded, the oil sector plays a dominant role in the Scottish economy, both in terms of employment and economic activity, but also in terms of the fiscal deficit which is currently around 10% of GDP and would not be sustainable in an independent Scotland, requiring cuts to public spending and probably tax rises.

"Scotland's fiscal deficit is, however, sustainable as part of the fiscal sharing agreement it has from being part of the UK. An independent Scotland, by definition, would not have such a fiscal sharing agreement but would desperately need to become more competitive in its non-oil private sector to help create jobs for those shed in the oil and public sectors (due to the expenditure cuts).

"With a fixed exchange rate this can only be achieved by wage and price cuts - the so-called internal adjustment mechanism that Greece has had to undergo. But with an independent currency that is not tied to sterling and is free to adjust (a flexible exchange rate) this would bring about adjustment much more quickly without the need for a protracted period of recession such as Greece has faced."

 
When Farage was asked about plans for Brexit he said he didn't have any. Now, after 9 months, Davis says there has been no assessment of the economic consequences of May's plan to walk away with no deal. Some people have said the "Well, we haven't left yet" explanation for the relative calm is wearing thin. If that is thin, what is this ?
 
Classical Mechanic said:
What does Ronald McDonald think about that?

"Sterlingisation in any of its forms - formal or informal - is a very bad idea for an independent Scotland since it means that the exchange rate (the rate at which the currency of an independent country trades with its main trading partner, the rest of UK) is rigidly fixed at a one-to-one parity. As we have been recently reminded, the oil sector plays a dominant role in the Scottish economy, both in terms of employment and economic activity, but also in terms of the fiscal deficit which is currently around 10% of GDP and would not be sustainable in an independent Scotland, requiring cuts to public spending and probably tax rises.

"Scotland's fiscal deficit is, however, sustainable as part of the fiscal sharing agreement it has from being part of the UK. An independent Scotland, by definition, would not have such a fiscal sharing agreement but would desperately need to become more competitive in its non-oil private sector to help create jobs for those shed in the oil and public sectors (due to the expenditure cuts).

"With a fixed exchange rate this can only be achieved by wage and price cuts - the so-called internal adjustment mechanism that Greece has had to undergo. But with an independent currency that is not tied to sterling and is free to adjust (a flexible exchange rate) this would bring about adjustment much more quickly without the need for a protracted period of recession such as Greece has faced."
Click to expand...

I wasn't saying it's a good idea to keep it (in it's current form, it clearly isn't anyway and it would be way easier to just introduce their own) but just that all the "they will lose the pound" fearmongerers are talking bullshit. It's not like England can take the pound from them the day they gain their independence. There's a lot of countries in the world using currencies which aren't theirs and of which they are not officially part off.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
Positive they don't.. yes they want to play the tough guy, but they can't even answer simple questions and contradict themselves continously.
They had no plan and still have no plan other than expecting the EU to roll over to their demands.

They have waited 9 months to trigger A50 , there has been no reason to wait, for what..?

The EU can't say or do much until A50 is triggered but one thing is guaranteed - the EU has been suggesting by their comments is that whatever deal will be negotiated eventually it will be less favourable than the one they have now, it can't be anything else.

As soon as A50 is triggered the ball moves from the UK's court and their posturing to the EU's court and then the timetable will be up to the EU.

As time progresses I believe how unprepared the UK is for this will become more apparent.

Till now nothing has really happened, May is just about to release the brake on the roller coaster, hold on for dear life?
Click to expand...


I agree with most of what you say, other than that BOTH the EU and May COULD have started talking at any time since 23rd June - my understanding is that the EU said they couldn't until Art 50 and that the UK is forbidden to start Trade Negotiaitions with, say, USA or Australia until the UK has actually left the EU

On the basis that Art 50 was always going to be followed ( and I agree should have been done asap, but a big blame on Gina Miller and her backers / supporters for that ) but it would have helped everyone if the UK and EU had started talking while they were waiting for an official Art 50 notification.

As you say, we're on a roller coaster now - both the UK and the EU.
 
fcbforever said:
I wasn't saying it's a good idea to keep it (in it's current form, it clearly isn't anyway and it would be way easier to just introduce their own) but just that all the "they will lose the pound" fearmongerers are talking bullshit. It's not like England can take the pound from them the day they gain their independence. There's a lot of countries in the world using currencies which aren't theirs and of which they are not officially part off.
Click to expand...

If they really want to be independent they need their own currency.
 
I think some of the English elite, and many people in general, just don't get how important the Euro-elite see this issue. I believe the EU see it as an existential threat to the union, whose acrimonious disintegration, or even worse, chaotic collapse, could lead to disaster on a major scale.

The dilemmas ahead may be resolved relatively well - or with great and bloody-nosed anger. People seem to have forgotten what the European project was all about in the first place, which is a sign of how successful it has been and what has been achieved by it.
 
Full bodied red said:
I reckon they're fronting up to the EU with a ' bring it on ' attitude - which might or might not be the best approach, as the UK has more to lose than the EU if they don't get a deal with them, but until the EU actually starts coming up with a few constructive suggestions about ' where-to-from-here ' instead of ' the-UK-must-be punished ' comments which are all we've heard from them up to now.
Click to expand...

The UK already have probably the best deal in the EU given the rebates and things we've opted out of. Why would any EU country agree to give us an even better deal without contributions. They'd be voting to make themselves worse off just so we could be better off. It makes absolutely no sense, yet somehow May and the rest have sold people on this idea that they're just trying to 'punish' us. It's mental.
 
Full bodied red said:
How and why if they'd be switching to the Euro very shortly afterwards.
Click to expand...

They won't want to join the Euro and will probably want want to stay in a currency union with the UK like last time, which will still give Westminster significant influence over their fiscal policy.

You can't be a true independent country if you are in the EU and especially if you adopt the Euro. One of Sturgeons challenges in any vote will be convincing the 400000 voters for Scottish independence/Brexit combined that this isn't the case. This demographic could swing the referendum in the wrong direction for the SNP.
 
Did anyone see the classic rant from SF's Martina Anderson the other day in relation to Brexit and specifically the impact on any Irish border control? (don't know if its been posted here yet)
 
Kentonio said:
The UK already have probably the best deal in the EU given the rebates and things we've opted out of. Why would any EU country agree to give us an even better deal without contributions. They'd be voting to make themselves worse off just so we could be better off. It makes absolutely no sense, yet somehow May and the rest have sold people on this idea that they're just trying to 'punish' us. It's mental.
Click to expand...

I'm sure the UK won't get a 'better' deal than they appear to have at the moment.

But neither will the EU get a better deal than it appears to have with the UK at the moment.

As far as I'm aware, the main things that the UK opted out of are the Euro, Schengen and ??

And the rebates - nothing written in stone that these would last forever. They're renegotiated every seven years and require the other 27 to agree how much the UK's rebates will be for the next seven years.

I agree with lots of the REMAINERS's concerns which haven't been thought through yet, let alone resolved, but the EU has as much to lose in these negotiations so I don't think that it's only the UK who are on the back foot.
 
fcbforever said:
I wasn't saying it's a good idea to keep it (in it's current form, it clearly isn't anyway and it would be way easier to just introduce their own) but just that all the "they will lose the pound" fearmongerers are talking bullshit. It's not like England can take the pound from them the day they gain their independence. There's a lot of countries in the world using currencies which aren't theirs and of which they are not officially part off.
Click to expand...
Has England actually said we would take the pound from Scotland?
 
Full bodied red said:
I agree with most of what you say, other than that BOTH the EU and May COULD have started talking at any time since 23rd June - my understanding is that the EU said they couldn't until Art 50 and that the UK is forbidden to start Trade Negotiaitions with, say, USA or Australia until the UK has actually left the EU

On the basis that Art 50 was always going to be followed ( and I agree should have been done asap, but a big blame on Gina Miller and her backers / supporters for that ) but it would have helped everyone if the UK and EU had started talking while they were waiting for an official Art 50 notification.

As you say, we're on a roller coaster now - both the UK and the EU.
Click to expand...

No they can't have any official discussions about any trade deal until they have completely left, the Uk is still part of the EU. Until the date they leave which presumably will be some time in 2019 they have to work on behalf of the EU under the regulations of the treaties. Would be a conflict of interest otherwise.

If the UK had done things correctly there wouldn't have been a need for Gina miller or anyone else, May thinks she has absolute power and can do what she wants.

The Uk have threatened to leave but until they officially resign nothing could happen.

It's like someone threatening to leave their job and then not handing in their resignation. How can the company plan ahead. Also no-one knew what type of leaving plan the UK wanted and actually at this moment, even now, until A50 is officially triggered, no-one really knows for sure.
 
Full bodied red said:
I agree with lots of the REMAINERS's concerns which haven't been thought through yet, let alone resolved, but the EU has as much to lose in these negotiations so I don't think that it's only the UK who are on the back foot.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. The EU is 27 countries each with their own economies and interests and bound together with an over-riding desire for the EU to work as well as possible moving forward for all their benefits. Why do they have as much to lose? The EU accounts for 50% of the UK's trade. The opposite is most certainly not true.
 
But Mr Davis hinted no assessment of the Brexit options will be carried out, saying: “You don’t need a piece of paper with numbers on it to have an economic assessment.”
Click to expand...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-leave-no-deal-select-committee-a7630626.html

I want to laugh but simultanteously smash my head into a wall until I wake up from this horrific dream I seem to have been having for the last 8 months..

And he appeared to downgrade the Government’s pledge that the UK will enjoy the “same economic benefits” outside the EU, telling the MPs: “I was expressing an ambition.”
Click to expand...

Oh that's ok then..
 
Paul the Wolf said:
No they can't have any official discussions about any trade deal until they have completely left, the Uk is still part of the EU. Until the date they leave which presumably will be some time in 2019 they have to work on behalf of the EU under the regulations of the treaties. Would be a conflict of interest otherwise.

If the UK had done things correctly there wouldn't have been a need for Gina miller or anyone else, May thinks she has absolute power and can do what she wants.

The Uk have threatened to leave but until they officially resign nothing could happen.

It's like someone threatening to leave their job and then not handing in their resignation. How can the company plan ahead. Also no-one knew what type of leaving plan the UK wanted and actually at this moment, even now, until A50 is officially triggered, no-one really knows for sure.
Click to expand...

I don't think the UK threatened to leave - that's what Cameron did when he said that he would support the UK leaving the EU if the EU didn't make concessions to further reforms.

The EU declined to make concessions and reforms; the UK voted to leave; May told the world that BREXIT means BREXIT; the EU insisted on Artb 50 before starting informal discussions / negotiations

It seems to me that the UK is not the only one contributing to the mess....
 
During the evidence session, with the committee shadowing his Department for Exiting the European Union, Mr Davis also:

* Said it was “probably right” that holidaying Britons will lose EHIC cards, which provide free or subsidized healthcare across the EU, but added: “I have not looked at that one.”

* Admitted he did not know the implications of leaving with no deal on the transfer of personal data, which is crucial issue for the booming tech industry.

* Acknowledged UK producers of dairy and meat would face tariffs of up to 40 per cent under World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules – “the numbers in agriculture are high”.

* Described the argument that the UK could walk away without paying a penny to the EU, if no deal is reached, as “interesting” – “a very good start in this exercise”.

* Said he expected Northern Ireland would end up with a “very light border, not a hard border” with the Republic.

* Said he “assumed” the ‘Open Skies’ agreement – which has slashed airfares across the EU - will be lost, although he would fight for a successor.

* Confirmed financial services firms are poised to lose ‘passporting rights’ to trade in the EU, saying: “I would expect that to be the case, that’s an area of uncertainty.”

However, Mr Davis protested that the committee had not “asked me about the upsides” – which included being able to “relax things” for the 60 per cent of trade with countries outside the EU.
Click to expand...

We are so completely fecked..
 
How can Hammond announce in the Budget about the NIC and then within a week do a complete U-turn.

It's an incompetent government. If any of them came for an interview for a job they'd be turned down flat. It's humiliating and these fools are going to lead the country through their most challenging episode in their history since they joined the EEC.
 
Full bodied red said:
I don't think the UK threatened to leave - that's what Cameron did when he said that he would support the UK leaving the EU if the EU didn't make concessions to further reforms.

The EU declined to make concessions and reforms; the UK voted to leave; May told the world that BREXIT means BREXIT; the EU insisted on Artb 50 before starting informal discussions / negotiations

It seems to me that the UK is not the only one contributing to the mess....
Click to expand...

Cameron met with the EU , came back and supported the Remain campaign- his gamble backfired with the voters.
As I said the EU has to wait until A50 is triggered, there is no other choice, when I said "threatened to leave" I mean by Leave winning the referendum.

Although it's not beneficial for the EU that the UK leaves, the mess will be in the UK.
May said Brexit is Brexit which means everything goes but then keeps alluding to be part of the single market , Boris saying it would be insane to leave the single market.

If a complete break is what the UK gets and if that's what it really wants, there has to be so much change it's inconceivable how the UK can manage this, especially under the guidance of the current government.
 
Kentonio said:
No it doesn't. The EU is 27 countries each with their own economies and interests and bound together with an over-riding desire for the EU to work as well as possible moving forward for all their benefits. Why do they have as much to lose? The EU accounts for 50% of the UK's trade. The opposite is most certainly not true.
Click to expand...

You're almost correct so I won't argue with you.

In 2015, the UK's exports were £510 billion, and £220 billion went to the EU. About 44% or close to the 50% you said.

In 2015, the UK had a defecit of £43 billion in its trade with EU countries.

That's what the finanial risks to both parties are - failure to reach an agreement will be catastrophic for both the UK and the EU.

The other risk to the EU is, of course, which other country in the EU is going to be able to provide about 300,000 jobs per year to intra-EU Economic Migrants, and it is this which is the only reason why the EU wouldn't and still won't compromise on its Freedon of Movement requirements in its negotiations with the UK.
 
Full bodied red said:
You're almost correct so I won't argue with you.

In 2015, the UK's exports were £510 billion, and £220 billion went to the EU. About 44% or close to the 50% you said.

In 2015, the UK had a defecit of £43 billion in its trade with EU countries.

That's what the finanial risks to both parties are - failure to reach an agreement will be catastrophic for both the UK and the EU.

The other risk to the EU is, of course, which other country in the EU is going to be able to provide about 300,000 jobs per year to intra-EU Economic Migrants, and it is this which is the only reason why the EU wouldn't and still won't compromise on its Freedon of Movement requirements in its negotiations with the UK.
Click to expand...

That's nice numbers you are putting out there, but they are intentionally misleading.
You completely fail to acknowledge that 263 billion pounds of trade is, in the grand scheme of the EU trade, not nearly as significant as 220 billion is for the UK. As an example, while 15% of your imports are from Germany and that might seem a lot, that is just 7,1% of German exports.

Also, it's not like, shouldn't there be an agreement, that all trade would fall flat. It would get a bit more expensive, yes. But for most things, the UK has just no other options that the EU due to its geographic position. Which in the end means the UK has got a lot more to lose and will swallow everything to stay in the single market.
 
Full bodied red said:
You're almost correct so I won't argue with you.

In 2015, the UK's exports were £510 billion, and £220 billion went to the EU. About 44% or close to the 50% you said.

In 2015, the UK had a defecit of £43 billion in its trade with EU countries.
Click to expand...

It's also worth remembering that in 2015 53% of our imports were from the EU. We talk about the trade deficit being bad, but I'm damn sure the UK population isn't slightly interested in having its range of foods and consumer items reduced, or replaced with much more expensive versions.

Full bodied red said:
That's what the finanial risks to both parties are - failure to reach an agreement will be catastrophic for both the UK and the EU.

The other risk to the EU is, of course, which other country in the EU is going to be able to provide about 300,000 jobs per year to intra-EU Economic Migrants, and it is this which is the only reason why the EU wouldn't and still won't compromise on its Freedon of Movement requirements in its negotiations with the UK.
Click to expand...

I don't buy catastrophic for the EU because its all a matter of scale. 44% of UK exports to the EU, while EU exports to the UK are only 6%-7% of the EU total. In terms of EU imports its only 4%-5%. 300,000 jobs a year is a lot, until you consider the EU population is 500,000,000. That's manageable. Meanwhile UK business and agriculture are saying they absolutely cannot replace those workers in the short term, which means inevitable price rises and potentially loss of businesses and trade.

The EU is a behemoth compared to the UK in both size and economy. Brexit is damaging to them, but nothing even comparable to how much damage it could potentially do to Britain. We desperately need goodwill from the EU, and we're not going to get it by loudly claiming we have an upper hand or an even playing field. It's fantasy land.
 
Kentonio said:
It's also worth remembering that in 2015 53% of our imports were from the EU. We talk about the trade deficit being bad, but I'm damn sure the UK population isn't slightly interested in having its range of foods and consumer items reduced, or replaced with much more expensive versions.



I don't buy catastrophic for the EU because its all a matter of scale. 44% of UK exports to the EU, while EU exports to the UK are only 6%-7% of the EU total. In terms of EU imports its only 4%-5%. 300,000 jobs a year is a lot, until you consider the EU population is 500,000,000. That's manageable. Meanwhile UK business and agriculture are saying they absolutely cannot replace those workers in the short term, which means inevitable price rises and potentially loss of businesses and trade.

The EU is a behemoth compared to the UK in both size and economy. Brexit is damaging to them, but nothing even comparable to how much damage it could potentially do to Britain. We desperately need goodwill from the EU, and we're not going to get it by loudly claiming we have an upper hand or an even playing field. It's fantasy land.
Click to expand...

Shhh, don't let reason get in the way of glorious Brexit and glorious Great Britain!

Will be funny to see May bend over eventually tbh.
 
fcbforever said:
That's nice numbers you are putting out there, but they are intentionally misleading.
You completely fail to acknowledge that 263 billion pounds of trade is, in the grand scheme of the EU trade, not nearly as significant as 220 billion is for the UK. As an example, while 15% of your imports are from Germany and that might seem a lot, that is just 7,1% of German exports.

Also, it's not like, shouldn't there be an agreement, that all trade would fall flat. It would get a bit more expensive, yes. But for most things, the UK has just no other options that the EU due to its geographic position. Which in the end means the UK has got a lot more to lose and will swallow everything to stay in the single market.
Click to expand...

No...Not intentionally misleading.

I would have liked to confirm / correct what the $43 billion represented as a % of each country's exports, but didn't know the numbers, so thanks for adding them.

While I was waiting your response, I had a dig around for some numbers....Still not got the numbers I was looking for, but a few 'finds' and comments below -

Germany - after the USA, the UK is Germany's most profitable export market with a surplus on trade with the UK at £43 billion. As most of Germany's exports are high quality / high value hard products, not services, then I wonder how may other EU countries can afford to buy all those expensive ( and desirable ) cars and machine tools to make up for the reduced sales to the UK ?

Netherlands - the UK is their second most profitable export market with a surplus of $21 billion surplus. I sanyone else inside the EU going to buy all those greenhouse grown flowers, tomatoes and cucumbers ?

Italy - the UK is second after the US with a surplus of $13 billion. Wine, pasta, Fiats and what else ?

Belgium - the UK is their third most prfitable export market with a surplus of $16 billion. That's a lot of chocolate and beer to find new homes for.

France - the UK is their most profitable export market with a $7.3 billion surplus in trade with the UK. I'm surprised - I thought the surplus would be more than that, but it's still gGoing to be difficult to find any other buyers in the EU for all that wine and cheese seeing as most other EU countries are self-sufficient in wine or cheese or both.

Spain - the UK is the third most prrofitable export market with a surplus of $5 billion. OK, they can just stop growing the fruit and veg and the grapes for the Rioja, but the EU will then have to compensate the farmers, I suppose.

Austria - the UK is the fifth most profitable market, with a surplus of $2 billion. No idea what, I can't recall buying anything here in France which came from Austria.

Portugal - another country for whom the UK is the most profitable export market with a surplus of $1.8 billion.

I still haven't got the numbers for the others...I'll also add that with the devaluation of the £, these surpluses are probably even more now.


Of course the UK has got more to lose than the EU if an agreement which doesn't suit everyone doesn't get done. But as I said, the problems with a 'no-deal' deal aren't just a problem for the UK.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.