[Politics] Brexit

[JC Footy Genius]

Not being pious but it seems to me that the thread has de-generated somewhat to a new low of abuse. I know that folk on either side are passionate and I recognise that thread's title does rather invite a certain level of 'edge'. I appreciate we are not the Oxford University Debating Society but the way in which 'debate' is conducted here means there is no room at all for any concessions. So - cards on table - I'm as firm a Remainer as most and from where I stand events post-Referendum have served only to re-inforce this view. However, I admit that 'Project Fear' (how I dislike this term!) was wrong about the short-term consequences of the vote and that this was counter-productive.
Are there any Brexiteers out there who would concede that they are concerned about any of the longer term impacts of leaving the EU particularly via a hard Brexit i.e. things are panning out in a way that you didn't expect and that concern you?

Things that were unexpected/concern me.

The lack of planning by the government before the referendum to at least have begun contingency plans for a Leave vote.

The gamble of calling the GE which backfired weakening our position (although I can understand the reason why they did it.)

The response of many on the Remain side who seek to reverse or undermine the result.

As you point out the short term impact was grossly overstated by many which begs the question how accurate are their long term forecasts likely to be. We will have no real understanding of the long term impact until the negotiations about leaving and future trade with the EU have been concluded. On the plus side numerous countries are queuing up for trade deals.

 

[Baldseagull]

Get your Windolene stained gnashers into this one http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...rope-cost-the-british-taxpayer-3m-a-day-last/ which is based on this https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/235

I will start with the headline, "Immigration from Europe 'cost the British taxpayer £3m a day' last year"

That could lead the reader to think that this was what EU migrants arriving last year cost us, upon reading the article, a careful reader should be able to discern that although that may have been the cost last year, it was not the cost of migrants arriving last year, or even in the last 15 years which the piece says is cost neutral. Headlines of all kinds are often misleading and sensationalist, so I won't assume a particular agenda just from a Headline, but in this case it does indicate the direction of bias.

The opening of the piece is crafted to include "the overall cost of immigration from Europe – including recent arrivals and those who have lived here many decades - was £1.2 billion last year."
Now depending on your own bias, you may read into the "those that have lived here many decades" part, that this cost of immigration has been going on for many decades, but in truth it is those that have been here many decades that are creating the cost, and recent arrivals are cost neutral.
Those that have been here many decades will include the many Irish and Italian people that are of retirement age, have families here and I would presume are not going to go away after we leave the EU.
The piece helpfully makes this point, that the costs include retirement aged people, that migrated in the "60's for example" and their increased healthcare needs, when considering the much larger cost to the nation of non EU migration, yet chooses not to be quite so explicit for European migration, why is that? (they also chose European migration for the headline, not the total, or the higher cost non European migration)
The piece goes on to say that there was a positive net contribution between 1995 and 2011 of 4.4Bn, so whilst the piece does not say it, a careful reader could discern that there was probably a net positive contribution to the UK economy over the last 20 years or so, but that this has declined since the recession in 2008.I think that as the deficit has been rising ever since 2008, it would be fair to say that the population as a whole has had a net negative effect to the UK finances, so a cost neutral one is quite good.

I find fault mostly though with the piece under "Undercounting?" which compares the number of EU immigrants into the UK, which I presume is an annual net figure, with the number of NI numbers issued.
No text to offer an explanation except the "Undercounting?" headline to it. Do you think there is another explanation, other than the suggested undercounting behind this? Perhaps seasonal workers, and persons returning home after arriving in previous years, that would drop the net figure, compared to the numbers of new NI numbers required wouldn't it?
This, in the middle of the article but without context, could suggest to the less careful reader, that has not managed to extrapolate that current migration is around neutral, and over the last 20 years, been positive, and still has the headline in mind, that the costs are greater still.

I am sure that you managed to understand from the piece, that despite the headline, recent EU migration is at worst cost neutral to the treasury, and over the last 20 years, has made a positive contribution. Do you reckon everyone that read that will though?

Are you sure the piece is based on the report you linked to?

 

[Buzzer]

If somebody has left NSC over 'abuse' then I think it must have been NSC wide, or the user is a bit oversensitive. Remove yourself from a thread, fair enough. From NSC.. a bit daft, and I doubt it is the case tbh.

Not daft, not over-sensitive and it was NSC-wide. He'd post in another completely unrelated thread and then get grief often for quite innocuous comments. He PM'd me to tell me and the reasons why and sure enough, he's not posted on here since either as far as I can tell. I think I'll leave it at that regards the subject.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

The response of many on the Remain side who seek to reverse the result.

Surely we can only reverse the result via the democratic tools and mechanisms enschrined within the UK's sovereignty, laws and "unwritten" constitution? 1) What's there to worry about and 2) Why can't one use these lovely sovereign tools and mechanisms?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Not daft, not over-sensitive and it was NSC-wide. He'd post in another completely unrelated thread and then get grief often for quite innocuous comments. He PM'd me to tell me and the reasons why and sure enough, he's not posted on here since either as far as I can tell. I think I'll leave it at that regards the subject.

How come he's messaging you and not the mods? Or did he also message the mods? If so did they have a "chat" with anyone about this?

 

[BigGully]

I don't really see the point of looking at figures in the first 6 months post referendum. In my view, lost EU business will be more of a constant drip. We've spent 50 years building an economy that has been able to move freely across EU nations without attracting tariffs - for example, car components moving back and forth across the channel until the final product is completed and ready to be sold. Now of course, that will no longer be possible without attracting those tariffs.

Hopefully, car companies and other large manufacturers of complex goods won't immediately shut down entire plants because that wouldn't be cost effective, but when those plants come to their end of life, who on earth would build a new plant in the UK with a view to selling across Europe?

The GDP of France in 2016 was 2.465 trillion USD, UK in 2016 was 2.619 trillion USD. I'll be amazed if France isn't far wealthier than us in 10 years time. Obviously clowns like Ian Duncan-Smith and David Davies will wash their hands of any responsibility if that happens.

I do not entirely agree, I posted two subsequent quarters in response to another poster that stated otherwise, but I tend to agree that singular economic indicators do not prove much either way, but only time will tell if comparatively those indicators show your scenario of a constant drip of decreasing or stagnant growth or something different.

Where we differ is your damning future forecast, which I sense is just as much about personal relationships with other EU countries as much as your economic view of its outcome. I don't share your pessimism, I am hopeful that we will continue to be a hub for business and trade just like most other functioning democracy's, we can argue the toss about car plants but we are a big enough market to be relevant to them just as the EU might be

France are hardly a current stand out performer within the EU so I am not so sure that they are bound to overtake us, we will see.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

I will start with the headline, "Immigration from Europe 'cost the British taxpayer £3m a day' last year"

That could lead the reader to think that this was what EU migrants arriving last year cost us, upon reading the article, a careful reader should be able to discern that although that may have been the cost last year, it was not the cost of migrants arriving last year, or even in the last 15 years which the piece says is cost neutral. Headlines of all kinds are often misleading and sensationalist, so I won't assume a particular agenda just from a Headline, but in this case it does indicate the direction of bias.

The opening of the piece is crafted to include "the overall cost of immigration from Europe – including recent arrivals and those who have lived here many decades - was £1.2 billion last year."
Now depending on your own bias, you may read into the "those that have lived here many decades" part, that this cost of immigration has been going on for many decades, but in truth it is those that have been here many decades that are creating the cost, and recent arrivals are cost neutral.
Those that have been here many decades will include the many Irish and Italian people that are of retirement age, have families here and I would presume are not going to go away after we leave the EU.
The piece helpfully makes this point, that the costs include retirement aged people, that migrated in the "60's for example" and their increased healthcare needs, when considering the much larger cost to the nation of non EU migration, yet chooses not to be quite so explicit for European migration, why is that? (they also chose European migration for the headline, not the total, or the higher cost non European migration)
The piece goes on to say that there was a positive net contribution between 1995 and 2011 of 4.4Bn, so whilst the piece does not say it, a careful reader could discern that there was probably a net positive contribution to the UK economy over the last 20 years or so, but that this has declined since the recession in 2008.I think that as the deficit has been rising ever since 2008, it would be fair to say that the population as a whole has had a net negative effect to the UK finances, so a cost neutral one is quite good.

I find fault mostly though with the piece under "Undercounting?" which compares the number of EU immigrants into the UK, which I presume is an annual net figure, with the number of NI numbers issued.
No text to offer an explanation except the "Undercounting?" headline to it. Do you think there is another explanation, other than the suggested undercounting behind this? Perhaps seasonal workers, and persons returning home after arriving in previous years, that would drop the net figure, compared to the numbers of new NI numbers required wouldn't it?
This, in the middle of the article but without context, could suggest to the less careful reader, that has not managed to extrapolate that current migration is around neutral, and over the last 20 years, been positive, and still has the headline in mind, that the costs are greater still.

I am sure that you managed to understand from the piece, that despite the headline, recent EU migration is at worst cost neutral to the treasury, and over the last 20 years, has made a positive contribution. Do you reckon everyone that read that will though?

Are you sure the piece is based on the report you linked to?

My bad, wrong briefing paper. The article didn't provide a link apparently it was this one https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/381

After reading summations of several reports on this subject I came to the conclusion any benefits or costs of migration have been marginal. Which contradicts those who always claim huge benefits.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Surely we can only reverse the result via the democratic tools and mechanisms enschrined within the UK's sovereignty, laws and "unwritten" constitution? 1) What's there to worry about and 2) Why can't one use these lovely sovereign tools and mechanisms?

1.) The consequences if they succeed. 2.) Who said they can't try to use them?

 

[Buzzer]

How come he's messaging you and not the mods? Or did he also message the mods? If so did they have a "chat" with anyone about this?

My final, final post on it! Honestly.

Complaints were made previously to the mods. I know this because I made at least two complaints and also made my thoughts public on the bullying on each occasion in this thread. I'm pretty sure you got involved in the conversations arising from those and I think I recall someone even promising to ban themselves from this thread as a response, the first time I mentioned it.

I can't speak for him so don't know if he contacted the mods or not but he PM'd me to tell me his decision, not to ask me to try to do anything about it. I'm guessing he contacted me because I was the one who had originally pointed it out on here and because he also asked my advice on what to do when one of those people who was following him around the board and picking on him, PM'd him to say that he would stop harrassing him only on the proviso that Soulman write an embarrassing and grovelling apology for spreading what that person viewed as 'fake news'. I know it may sound trivial, but it was, by the sounds of it, really getting Soulman down.

My advice was either to report the person to the Mods or go public with it and post it on here. I don't know if Soulman did report the post, I don't recall him going public with it and he PM'd shortly afterwards to say that he'd stop posting on NSC for all the reasons stated.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

1.) The consequences if they succeed. 2.) Who said they can't try to use them?

1) That's democracy, or "get over it, you lost" as you lot might put it.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

1) That's democracy, or "get over it, you lost" as you lot might put it.

Many people wouldn't accept it and they would have far better reasons to ignore the democratic outcome than your lot.

 

[Jim in the West]

Very good article in today's FT.....I realise it will wind up Brexiteers, so I apologise for that in advance - but I think it's worth a read:


The soon-to-be commissioned aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth presents an unfortunate metaphor for Britain’s Brexit woes. The biggest ship ever built for the Royal Navy was conceived as a statement of the nation’s global ambition. Britannia would once again ride, if not quite rule, the waves across the world’s far flung oceans. That, anyway, was the plan. The snag is that the government cannot now afford to buy the expensive American fighter aircraft due to sit on the carrier’s flight deck without decimating the rest of the defence budget. The US navy’s flagships carry 60 or more planes. The Queen Elizabeth could accommodate 40, but will have to make do with a dozen or less. A carrier short of aircraft and an army shrunk to its smallest since the Napoleonic wars? The power projection has a hollow ring. Brexit, Theresa May’s government insists, is another affirmation of the nation’s historic global reach.

The prime minister has adopted “Global Britain” as an official mantra. No one has explained quite why abandoning influence in Europe will enhance Britain’s standing elsewhere. Logic travels in the other direction. As for trade, Germany sells quite a lot to China from within the EU. Never mind. Whisper it ever so quietly but Downing Street’s sights are being lowered. Ministers are starting to admit that Britain simply cannot afford a sharp, clean break with the EU. Everything will change, but please be assured that nothing much will be different. Such is the ambiguous message of the several position papers published by the government ahead of the next round of negotiations. Voters are assured that Brexit means Brexit; business that the meaning of Brexit is, well, susceptible to interpretation. Britain will leave the EU customs union but, guess what, Mrs May wants a new agreement to replicate present arrangements. The European Court of Justice will be banished, but Britain will accept the jurisdiction of another court that takes a lead from, yes, the very same European Court of Justice. Business will no longer benefit from the single market but, not to worry, Mrs May promises a “deep and special” partnership to ensure frictionless access. There are a few more circles to be squared. The government has yet to admit that it will have to continue to mimic EU regulatory regimes long after Brexit. There is no other way to safeguard Britain’s place in European supply chains.

One of the curious things about the Brexiters is their stubbornly old-fashioned view of international trade. It is all, they insist, about tariffs. This fits, you could say, with a worldview rooted in imperial nostalgia. The modern reality is that most of the time standards and norms are what really matter. You cannot sell food unless it meets agreed hygiene standards, automobile parts must be certified as safe, and so on. For its part, trade in services — Britain sells about £95bn-worth to the EU every year — rests on common rules or mutual recognition arrangements.

Immigration presents another contradiction. Mrs May says she will more than halve the numbers to below a net 100,000 a year. But scarcely a day passes without a promise that hospitals will not lose EU doctors and nurses, that farmers are assured of a continuing supply of cheap eastern European labour, and that foreign bankers and technology wizards will always be welcome. One could, I suppose, congratulate ministers for re-establishing some slight contact with reality. In proposing a post-Brexit transition, the government recognised the folly of a cliff-edge departure; now by softening talk of a decisive break with Brussels it is trying to mitigate the economic damage of Brexit.

The underlying problem is that most ministers know that Brexit comes with a hefty cost, but are unwilling to confront voters with the consequences of the referendum. How, they ask, can we tell the voters they made a rotten choice? So these ministers promise to make a success of what they know to be a failure. The present set of fudges will not provide the fix. They ignore the unavoidable fact that 27 other governments have also to take a view; and that if anything unites those sitting on the other side of the table it is that Britain cannot be allowed, in the facile phrase of Boris Johnson, the foreign secretary, “to have its cake and eat it”. The only way to replicate the advantages of EU membership is to remain a member.

The costs, of course, reach beyond the economic. Just as the government does not know what to do with its new aircraft carriers (a second, HMS the Prince of Wales will soon join the Queen Elizabeth) it has nothing of substance to say about its vaunted “Global Britain”. Without a voice in the counsels of Europe, is it going to strike an independent pose on Russian revanchism, Islamist terrorism, mass migration or climate change? At another time Britain might just have fallen completely into the arms of the US. After all, the first aircraft to operate from the Queen Elizabeth will belong to the US Marines. But Donald Trump’s presidency has stripped any remaining lustre from claims to a special relationship. Doubtless Britain’s navy chiefs are even now thinking hard about how to deploy two shiny aircraft carriers carrying precious few planes. The government perhaps should follow their lead and consider what global role there might be for a nation set on casting itself adrift from its own continent.

 

[CHAPPERS]

huge benefits.

Nurses, doctors, teachers, researchers, fruit pickers, cleaners etc etc

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

My final, final post on it! Honestly.

Complaints were made previously to the mods. I know this because I made at least two complaints and also made my thoughts public on the bullying on each occasion in this thread. I'm pretty sure you got involved in the conversations arising from those and I think I recall someone even promising to ban themselves from this thread as a response, the first time I mentioned it.

I can't speak for him so don't know if he contacted the mods or not but he PM'd me to tell me his decision, not to ask me to try to do anything about it. I'm guessing he contacted me because I was the one who had originally pointed it out on here and because he also asked my advice on what to do when one of those people who was following him around the board and picking on him, PM'd him to say that he would stop harrassing him only on the proviso that Soulman write an embarrassing and grovelling apology for spreading what that person viewed as 'fake news'. I know it may sound trivial, but it was, by the sounds of it, really getting Soulman down.

My advice was either to report the person to the Mods or go public with it and post it on here. I don't know if Soulman did report the post, I don't recall him going public with it and he PM'd shortly afterwards to say that he'd stop posting on NSC for all the reasons stated.

I understand now. I thought you were suggesting the issue was primarily the Brexit exchanges in this thread; to me this certainly seemed the case. I'm not necessarily excusing the name calling, or belittling it, but following someone and pressuring someone to post an apology is above and beyond name calling. I can only presume he didn't tell the mods as this behaviour would certainly lead to a ban.

Feel free to reply even though you said you wouldn't.

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

You know full well it was Soulman and he only ever got abusive at the end after he was constantly bullied and trolled.

Compare his posts early in this thread to the ones at the end where exasperation got the better of him after the trolling.

some of these CLOWNS don't like the truth but still think they're all high and mighty on the subject, # taking back control and still leaving the EU
regards
DR

 

[5ways]

Very good article in today's FT.....I realise it will wind up Brexiteers, so I apologise for that in advance - but I think it's worth a read:


The soon-to-be commissioned aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth presents an unfortunate metaphor for Britain’s Brexit woes. The biggest ship ever built for the Royal Navy was conceived as a statement of the nation’s global ambition. Britannia would once again ride, if not quite rule, the waves across the world’s far flung oceans. That, anyway, was the plan. The snag is that the government cannot now afford to buy the expensive American fighter aircraft due to sit on the carrier’s flight deck without decimating the rest of the defence budget. The US navy’s flagships carry 60 or more planes. The Queen Elizabeth could accommodate 40, but will have to make do with a dozen or less. A carrier short of aircraft and an army shrunk to its smallest since the Napoleonic wars? The power projection has a hollow ring. Brexit, Theresa May’s government insists, is another affirmation of the nation’s historic global reach.

The prime minister has adopted “Global Britain” as an official mantra. No one has explained quite why abandoning influence in Europe will enhance Britain’s standing elsewhere. Logic travels in the other direction. As for trade, Germany sells quite a lot to China from within the EU. Never mind. Whisper it ever so quietly but Downing Street’s sights are being lowered. Ministers are starting to admit that Britain simply cannot afford a sharp, clean break with the EU. Everything will change, but please be assured that nothing much will be different. Such is the ambiguous message of the several position papers published by the government ahead of the next round of negotiations. Voters are assured that Brexit means Brexit; business that the meaning of Brexit is, well, susceptible to interpretation. Britain will leave the EU customs union but, guess what, Mrs May wants a new agreement to replicate present arrangements. The European Court of Justice will be banished, but Britain will accept the jurisdiction of another court that takes a lead from, yes, the very same European Court of Justice. Business will no longer benefit from the single market but, not to worry, Mrs May promises a “deep and special” partnership to ensure frictionless access. There are a few more circles to be squared. The government has yet to admit that it will have to continue to mimic EU regulatory regimes long after Brexit. There is no other way to safeguard Britain’s place in European supply chains.

One of the curious things about the Brexiters is their stubbornly old-fashioned view of international trade. It is all, they insist, about tariffs. This fits, you could say, with a worldview rooted in imperial nostalgia. The modern reality is that most of the time standards and norms are what really matter. You cannot sell food unless it meets agreed hygiene standards, automobile parts must be certified as safe, and so on. For its part, trade in services — Britain sells about £95bn-worth to the EU every year — rests on common rules or mutual recognition arrangements.

Immigration presents another contradiction. Mrs May says she will more than halve the numbers to below a net 100,000 a year. But scarcely a day passes without a promise that hospitals will not lose EU doctors and nurses, that farmers are assured of a continuing supply of cheap eastern European labour, and that foreign bankers and technology wizards will always be welcome. One could, I suppose, congratulate ministers for re-establishing some slight contact with reality. In proposing a post-Brexit transition, the government recognised the folly of a cliff-edge departure; now by softening talk of a decisive break with Brussels it is trying to mitigate the economic damage of Brexit.

The underlying problem is that most ministers know that Brexit comes with a hefty cost, but are unwilling to confront voters with the consequences of the referendum. How, they ask, can we tell the voters they made a rotten choice? So these ministers promise to make a success of what they know to be a failure. The present set of fudges will not provide the fix. They ignore the unavoidable fact that 27 other governments have also to take a view; and that if anything unites those sitting on the other side of the table it is that Britain cannot be allowed, in the facile phrase of Boris Johnson, the foreign secretary, “to have its cake and eat it”. The only way to replicate the advantages of EU membership is to remain a member.

The costs, of course, reach beyond the economic. Just as the government does not know what to do with its new aircraft carriers (a second, HMS the Prince of Wales will soon join the Queen Elizabeth) it has nothing of substance to say about its vaunted “Global Britain”. Without a voice in the counsels of Europe, is it going to strike an independent pose on Russian revanchism, Islamist terrorism, mass migration or climate change? At another time Britain might just have fallen completely into the arms of the US. After all, the first aircraft to operate from the Queen Elizabeth will belong to the US Marines. But Donald Trump’s presidency has stripped any remaining lustre from claims to a special relationship. Doubtless Britain’s navy chiefs are even now thinking hard about how to deploy two shiny aircraft carriers carrying precious few planes. The government perhaps should follow their lead and consider what global role there might be for a nation set on casting itself adrift from its own continent.

Great article. It really is a desperate state of affairs. I am nervous about where the many disaffected who voted for Brexit will vent their anger when any supposed upside fails to materalise and they get simply more of the same.

 

[beorhthelm]

One of the curious things about the Brexiters is their stubbornly old-fashioned view of international trade. It is all, they insist, about tariffs. This fits, you could say, with a worldview rooted in imperial nostalgia. The modern reality is that most of the time standards and norms are what really matter. You cannot sell food unless it meets agreed hygiene standards, automobile parts must be certified as safe, and so on. For its part, trade in services — Britain sells about £95bn-worth to the EU every year — rests on common rules or mutual recognition arrangements.

so if tariffs are so unimportant, why doesnt the EU do away with them? its a shame the FT chose to use the well known operational limitations of the new aircraft carriers at a backdrop to their objections, but who can we blame that on? *cough Brown*

 

[CHAPPERS]

Weak pound not boosting exports.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/aug/24/weak-pound-spending-uk-trade-sterling-manufacturing

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Brexit economy: outlook positive but rocky negotiations could bring instability

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/aug/23/brexit-economy-guardian-eu-exit-talks

Net migration falling

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...s-migration-uk-hits-lowest-level-three-years/

Car crash never happened, dealers admit

The decline in the British car market has been greatly exaggerated . . . by its own chief flag waver, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders.

One wrong turn for the society might have sent the industry cursing the satnav but two U-turns yesterday have put a wholly different perspective on the state of the country’s carmakers and dealers.

It transpires that not only are we buying and selling more second-hand cars than we thought, but our factories are still churning out Nissans, Minis, Range Rovers and Jaguars at a fair lick.

In one of the biggest muddles in industry statistics in recent times, the society was forced to withdraw last week’s announcement that used car sales had plunged in the second quarter of the year by a record-breaking 13.5 per cent. Instead in a sheepish “update” on the figures, the society admitted that it had run the numbers again and that in fact the drop was only 0.7 per cent, leaving second-hand sales for the first six months ahead at 1.3 per cent.

The original announcement had some predicting a recession for the market: registrations of new cars were down 9 per cent last month and 10 per cent in the second quarter.

The society, one of the more anti-Brexit industry bodies, had sought to make capital out of the apparent sales crash.

Mike Hawes, its chief executive, said: “It is vital that government secures the conditions that will maintain consumer and business confidence if we are to see both markets [new and used] continue to prosper.”

Society officials blamed a rogue algorithm for the statistical howler. “There was a problem with the system, an issue with the algorithms,” a spokesman said. The fault had been in its numbercrunching of raw data from the government’s motoring agency, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency.

The society also reversed its monthly manufacturing data. The statistics for June showed a 14 per cent fall in UK car factory output. Those stats led Mr Hawes to say that the industry would not hit the forecast annual two million production by 2020.

However, the latest monthly numbers show an 8 per cent increase in July production....

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/car-crash-never-happened-dealers-admit-t05bpd6vk

 

[beorhthelm]

Weak pound not boosting exports.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/aug/24/weak-pound-spending-uk-trade-sterling-manufacturing

that is not what the article says, though probably the impression its trying to leave. it quite deliberately does not say exports are not increasing. instead its commenting on balance of trade, then has a dig with the old "we dont make stuff" lament.