Bharat Rakshak

^^^^^
And the most valuable ask for India from the UK would be free movement of labour? That would benefit first and foremost the UK economy, just as the UK has historically been a huge beneficiary of immigration from India. Politically however “free movement” would not work. The UK will likely come up with some points based immigration scheme and undoubtedly many people from India will find work in the UK as a result; mainly benefiting the UK.

eklavya wrote:^^^^^
And the most valuable ask for India from the UK would be free movement of labour?

That's exactly what GoI has sought of them. None of these posts are of my opinions, except where I stated that I was making an opinion. These are GoIs actions . GoI has shown little interest in what UK has asked for, and in turn during May's last visit, emphasized the need to permit movement of Indian labour to UK. It's UK's own domestic politics to make the case in favour of the skilled immigration they gain in the process, in the face of Farage-level Brexit xenophobia.

GoI's position on UK ties is fairly clear. General apathy is the order of the day. Abe, Trump, Merkel, Xi, Macron all get far more time from him than any British PM does. That's been the case even as UK asserts its desire to seek greater trade. Under those circumstances, the fact is they have to lay out their offerings on the table to get us to respond.

Mort Walker wrote:

ashish raval wrote: This applies to all colonists of the past including Arabs who looted Somnath temple number of times in the past of its gold and Iranians who hod peacock throne too..atleast they cared about documenting how much they ripped India off. Try finding anything related to how much Spaniards and Portuguese ripped from North and south American gold mines!! No one knows exactly how much entire set of rich nations has looted but that is fact and we have to live with.heck we don't even know how much Indian gold adores mosques of Constantinople to Mecca after being looted for 500 years. All those who looted India reserve equal contempt and not just recent ones.

This is in the last 75-80 years. The survivors of this are still around as they may be some BRF members, our parents and grand parents. This is not something which happened over 500 years ago. The security situation of India is clearly the results of most recent British enforced partition of the sub continent. We don’t care what others did where and when in history, but those who committed genocide by starvation and theft of India most recently. The people impacted by this are still alive and are due reparations.

Going by your point if there is a single survivor who seek reparation, what stops them filing a case in our country and/or ICJ or EU court who would love to screw British govt? Lot of African colonies has done it we can do it too.

Suraj wrote:

eklavya wrote:Free movement of labour: Apart from the countries in the EU, which of the G20 states have “free movement of labour” with each other?

You're missing the point. The UK wants something from us quite keenly. It's been repeated in the British press very keenly. 'Trade deal with big countries like India'. It's a talisman almost. Scroll a few pages back and they justify giving up their ICJ seat as 'not offending India so they give us a good trade deal'. The Indian view of the same episode is WAY different - 'finally we kicked a P5 member out of something we want'. There's absolutely no reference to any quid pro quo in our case - we're grabbing what's ours to take.

In a negotiation position where one party is very keen on something, it's *their* (UK's) job to convince the other (us) why we should give them that . Particularly when - as pointed out in the earlier post - there's very little GoI interest in furthering UK ties. Modi has done multiple visits to US, China, Germany/France, Russia, China and SE Asia, and just one trip more than 2 years ago to UK, after he was done visiting all other major and near neighbor countries. The bottomline is that the UK seeks a good deal urgently with a country whose corresponding level of interest in offering them that is lukewarm at best.

What EU or anyone else offers is irrelevant. They're not the ones urgently seeking a trade deal with India. India has a very clear list of demands of the UK if they need something from us. This isn't a question of two equal parties negotiating with equal enthusiasm. It's a case of a weaker entity seeking to make up for a disastrous geopolitical decision they inflicted upon themselves, by hoping for a deals elsewhere to make up for it. India has no political desire today to seek better ties with UK. They're quite happy to simply default to standard WTO regime without any special bilateral FTA. Under those circumstances, when the UK is keen on something, it's their job to lay out sufficient sweeteners on the plate for us first.

Guess you are reading UK tabloids more than Financial times and I have hardly seen anything related to above.
The basic tenets that UK needs India or India needs UK has to be taken off the table. The talk rather should be how best to proceed in the direction which is beneficial to both countries. UK has no quota system for Indian financial services workers and they breeze in an out at their own will. I have worked with many teams from Wipro, TCS and Infosys and my current offshore team in India has TCS employees in it too. So to assert that UK is blocking free movement is totally incorrect. India is a developing nation without FDI inflows it will take many more decades to topple american or Chinese in terms of economic development. Modi might have some reason to be vary of British intentions and rightly so because they plundered nation in the past and nothing wrong being cautious. Right now UK is going through big churning process and if it strikes deal with EU, USA, Canada, Australia, Brazil, Japan and new zealand they will forget about deal with India because they are set to grow for next 100 years selling their overpriced products for which they have to wait for twenty more years to sell to India if they even can. Britain is courting nations just because they want to show that they can strike deals with other nations too and lining up the nations will give them upon hand in future negotiations with supranational body namely EU.
UK is a pirate nation who knows every corner of the world and fact that they are not championing the pension funds worth billions to invest in India has something to do with lukewarm response from Delhi because of brexit too.

ashish_raval: The talk rather should be how best to proceed in the direction which is beneficial to both countries.

Why should the talk proceed in that direction? This is a "you bring the rice, I will bring some chaff, and let's make pongal" type engagement, with UK bringing the Chaff and demanding to eat pongal, metaphorically speaking. UK is going to make money off India's market, and India has no reason to make it easy for UK, just like UK sees no reason to address India's concerns. Essentially this is a non starter from India's POV unless India sees engaging UK in its interests, and UK addresses India's concerns. Not happening, from all appearances, given the divergence of interests between the positions of both govts. during last year's official visit.

UK is a pirate nation who knows every corner of the world and fact that they are not championing the pension funds worth billions to invest in India has something to do with lukewarm response from Delhi because of brexit too.

If they want to invest that money because they think they will get ROI, they can do so, or not. There is nothing to suggest that the opportunity costs of forgoing UK investments are high enough to warrant giving up India's concerns to attract such investment.

ramana wrote:ashish raval, Thanks for your other side perspective.

To me I want the capital market to shift from Londonistan to Mumbai(after cleaning up the underworld)

At first for Africa and Asia economies.


Are you in finance?

Do you UK members get together?
there are quite a few folks from there and nearby countries.

periswamy, I would have London shift their capital firms to Mumbai.

I do too to the last line. Rightly guessed working in capital markets and trading. I know Indians are minting lot of money in London and hence comfortable with saying that India can make lot of money with access to financial backbone of London for rapid funds for development as they have everyone from Sheikh's, Russian oligarchs, to African warlords to Indian and Chinese politicians money buried into its financial sector. I don't care about right and wrongs of fund and where it comes from if it helps my countrymen to have a shiny new roof and a car to travel comfortably at his work place in wide roads. Politicians should let history be the judge of what is right or wrong.

Would love to meet folks here if they plan to meet up. Can arrange for pub tour if folks are around..

periaswamy wrote:

ashish_raval: The talk rather should be how best to proceed in the direction which is beneficial to both countries.

Why should the talk proceed in that direction? This is a "you bring the rice, I will bring some chaff, and let's make pongal" type engagement, with UK bringing the Chaff and demanding to eat pongal, metaphorically speaking. UK is going to make money off India's market, and India has no reason to make it easy for UK, just like UK sees no reason to address India's concerns. Essentially this is a non starter from India's POV unless India sees engaging UK in its interests, and UK addresses India's concerns.

UK is a pirate nation who knows every corner of the world and fact that they are not championing the pension funds worth billions to invest in India has something to do with lukewarm response from Delhi because of brexit too.

If they want to invest that money because they think they will get ROI, they can do so, or not. There is nothing to suggest that the opportunity costs of forgoing UK investments are high enough to warrant giving up India's concerns to attract such investment.

And what exactly are India's concerns Vis a vie UK?

Free movement of people? Give me one example of a nation which allows Indians to work without interview or allows Indian students to stay and settle after their studies without any strings of them being hired?

If there is one You should say that particular nation allows us this and therefore demand that not otherwise. I see largest concentration of Indian outside India after US being in London so I will have to beg to differ on your points.

World trade and diplomacy is a zero sum game. Sooner you realise it the better.

Suraj wrote:

eklavya wrote:^^^^^
And the most valuable ask for India from the UK would be free movement of labour?

That's exactly what GoI has sought of them. None of these posts are of my opinions, except where I stated that I was making an opinion. These are GoIs actions . GoI has shown little interest in what UK has asked for, and in turn during May's last visit, emphasized the need to permit movement of Indian labour to UK. It's UK's own domestic politics to make the case in favour of the skilled immigration they gain in the process, in the face of Farage-level Brexit xenophobia.

GoI's position on UK ties is fairly clear. General apathy is the order of the day. Abe, Trump, Merkel, Xi, Macron all get far more time from him than any British PM does. That's been the case even as UK asserts its desire to seek greater trade. Under those circumstances, the fact is they have to lay out their offerings on the table to get us to respond.

Sir, that is the point if you are on the table for chai biskoot you may very well ask for the moon knowing that other party will not be able to do it. It is the only point they can raise as a concern? Why don't they show such concern to UK, Canada or Australia? To have unlimited free movement of labour?

I don't care what other countries get in terms of Delhi attention. Talking about Farage i can say London is still safest place for Indians to be outside India. He is a nobody like Hardik Patel of India is gets lot of press but for entertainment purposes only.

ashish_raval: Free movement of people? Give me one example of a nation which allows Indians to work without interview or allows Indian students to stay and settle after their studies without any strings of them being hired?

This was sort of the norm during the Y2K days, actually. We are talking about skilled people to fill the gap in sectors like health or technology. This is not about immigration to the host country or "stealing jobs" which would of course be a political non starter anywhere.

If there is one You should say that particular nation allows us this and therefore demand that not otherwise. I see largest concentration of Indian outside India after US being in London so I will have to beg to differ on your points.

A good number of Indians have settled in the UK, so that is not really germane to this discussion -- we are not discussing immigration, but visas that allow people to work in the UK in sectors where UK needs such people.

World trade and diplomacy is a zero sum game. Sooner you realise it the better.

we are just discussing bilateral trade outside of "world trade" as it pertains to WTO and other such orgs. If it is a zero sum game, the negatives for not having UK investing in India, is probably a price the Indian govt. is willing to pay. Otherwise, we would have seen positive movement to raise UK-India relations in the past year. UK would have to have something to offer to make India respond positively, but looks like it does not have any such thing to offer at this point in time.

Guess you are reading UK tabloids more than Financial times and I have hardly seen anything related to above.

You guessed wrong. I’m paraphrasing multiple UK leaders.

What’s more, you’re essentially blind to the Indian governments relative apathy to Indo-UK ties compared to those with Japan, US, China, EU, Russia and more, as quantified by amount of intergovernmental interaction .

I’m not concerned about whether we ‘should’ interact with UK more . I don’t care either way.

Unlike you, I’m not asserting emotional personal opinions - I’m stating what GoI has done, or not done . Those are self evident . Indo-UK ties are lukewarm at best and shows no sign of improving . UK is a long way down trading partner lists .

Whether or not they deserve to be there is not of any interest to me . All that interests me is what is in it for us . Then I’ll offer my opinion on whether it’s a bad thing that we haven’t given them attention .

As it stands , they’re offering nothing . London’s list of capabilities is orthogonal to this . The British PM needs to come, make an offering , and then we decide our response .

The basic tenets that UK needs India or India needs UK has to be taken off the table.

Yeah, not happening . Its on the table because that’s where the last two Tories have put it .

Britain wants something of India to deal with their post Brexit life . Our interest is solely how much is the most we can extract out of them.

This has nothing to do with Britain . Its simply an assertion of the power dynamic . When A comes to B asking for a favor, Bs policy prerogative is to maximize what it can extract out of A for it . The only question for UK is ‘what do you have to offer OFFICIALLY ?’

^^^^
India already has a substantial trade surplus with the UK, operating under the rules that govern trade with the EU. Fewer trade constraints will likely improve the situation further in India’s favour.

https://visual.ons.gov.uk/uk-trade-partners/

However, Theresa May is a xenophobe and is obsessed with immigration figures, much to the annoyance of the economic and financial bureaucracy in Whitehall. But she will be gone soon enough.

Lisa wrote:The UK pays on average over 13 billion net every year anyway, so what's the big deal with 40 billion? Latvia can go to hell. If its a hard exit UK pays nothing. What will Latvia do then, file a suit, and where? The elephant in the room is the EU budget. UK pays almost 20% of it. What happens when the 40 billion runs out? Latvia will carry the load!

The point is Latvia has contributed 4 tons of its gold to the ECB as a membership fee. Its called gold receivable.

UK though signed the Washington agreement in 1999 did not buy into ECB membership. Its because they did not buy into the membership, the UK is forced to pay a higher contribution to the running to the EU. If UK chooses not to pay, they do not get to trade with EU. From my understanding, the returns UK gets from EU are higher than what they pay in.

The alternative option is UK gives up the pound and joins ECB. This decreases contributions to EU budget, but there will be no pound sterling.

I think there is more chance of UK giving up pound than of Brexit coming to pass.

ashish raval wrote: So as a observer i could say it is a great city not sure about britain as a power but I certainly don't see them disappearing from world scene any sooner however bad they may be doing certain things or you may want to believe so.

I completely concur. I love London. I do not however like what it represents i.e. historical impoverishment of India.

ashish raval wrote: Why do people choose London to raise money then from international money market including Indian rupee denominated bonds if they don't believe in UK law system? Fact is London money market is deepest in the world and everyone in the trade knows about it.

That is patently inaccurate.

Ever notice how many important middle eastern people, Slavic people, Oriental people, etc. keep a residence in London. It's not because of the climate. The most powerful banks in the world today are the ones that trade oil and gold. It is in the "city" that the deals are done by people who understand "value"!

panduranghari wrote:

ashish raval wrote: So as a observer i could say it is a great city not sure about britain as a power but I certainly don't see them disappearing from world scene any sooner however bad they may be doing certain things or you may want to believe so.

I completely concur. I love London. I do not however like what it represents i.e. historical impoverishment of India.

It is the last statement that makes me feel despise the city.

panduranghari wrote:

ashish raval wrote: Why do people choose London to raise money then from international money market including Indian rupee denominated bonds if they don't believe in UK law system? Fact is London money market is deepest in the world and everyone in the trade knows about it.

That is patently inaccurate.

Ever notice how many important middle eastern people, Slavic people, Oriental people, etc. keep a residence in London. It's not because of the climate. The most powerful banks in the world today are the ones that trade oil and gold. It is in the "city" that the deals are done by people who understand "value"!

Why don't you just do a Google search and just confirm some facts rather than plucking out tales about London. London has been a great economic centre for last 1000 years and not just last 5 years. Fact that it is no:1 financial centre of the world has backing of hard facts scrutinised by hundreds of economists and businessmen's who have been in their trade for last 50 years. You may want to ignore that but fortunately most don't.

I am really surprised about things being presented as facts and London being owned by rest of the world like NASA being 33 percent Indian and 50 percent doctors in America are Indians and half of Manhattan being owned by house of sauds and now Chinese..i don't want to even laugh on them. You are free to believe in those tales.

Perhaps you may also want to enlighten me as to why those people chose to have houses in London and not in Hongkong..paying double and triple digit millions..

eklavya wrote:^^^^
India already has a substantial trade surplus with the UK, operating under the rules that govern trade with the EU. Fewer trade constraints will likely improve the situation further in India’s favour.

What special rules existing that 'govern trade with the EU' ? They're all bound by WTO rules. India has no special regime of trade agreements with them, and the WTO imposes guidelines on what barriers anyone may define. UK simply defaults to WTO rules in 2019.

We have shown no inclination to give them anything special. This isn't my emotional claim or desire. It's just not there, from a reading of GoI's actions, and a look at Modi's future planned visits through 2019.

eklavya wrote:However, Theresa May is a xenophobe and is obsessed with immigration figures, much to the annoyance of the economic and financial bureaucracy in Whitehall. But she will be gone soon enough.

During May's state visit, her lack of statements on official support for Indian professionals and students to access the UK easily, were as conspicuous as Modi's clear statement about the same right after. In fact, this was one of the several things that made that trip a disaster for her. Clearly Modi did not seem to care much about the visitor, since there was little they said on common ground.

That is the whole problem with this bilateral situation. India has demonstrated no official will for better ties. UK seeks a trade deal from India. They'll not get anything UNLESS they offer substantial benefits to us to convince us. Talk about 'tell me who else liberally lets Indians in ??' is not an Indian problem in this situation. It's UK's domestic politics for them to figure out, because *they* seek a change to the apathetic status quo of bilateral ties.

All this talk about London's capabilities are just fluff. It has no direct relevance to how Indian purposes and interests are served. Unless a British leaders brings with her a collection of big bank and pension fund bosses who invest 10s of billions of pounds into India as FDI or investments in long tenor debt, they're not doing anything worthwhile on the capital inflow front.

Yes, UK has invested ~$25 billion in FDI over quarter of a century. Singapore had invested more than that. Japan has a single investment twice that, in a railway project. And we get over $50 billion in FDI a year anyway. So 25 billion in quarter of a century is not anything significant for one of the most significant financial centers in the world. Based on their reputation, they should have invested more than 10 times as much as they have. They're simply punching way below their claimed weight as far as data on our end shows.

^^How can you miss the reparations that UK pays to us with which we launch rockets instead of building toilets for indians.

OK ashish i concede that london is the most successful city for 1000s of years, even WEF has agreed to that.

Can we move on from future londonistan, coz I can still feel the pain of those blown away from cannons in 1857 and stench of those who died in different famines
and Joker Churchil's the word's still echo in my ears "india is no more a country than equator is". For me britain is no more than a turd in my flush. No matter how successful or rich it becomes and no matter how many tages it gets.

ArjunPandit wrote:OK ashish i concede that london is the most successful city for 1000s of years, even WEF has agreed to that.

Can we move on from future londonistan, coz I can still feel the pain of those blown away from cannons in 1857 and stench of those who died in different famines
and Joker Churchil's the word's still echo in my ears "india is no more a country than equator is". For me britain is no more than a turd in my flush. No matter how successful or rich it becomes and no matter how many tages it gets.

I concur that every Indian heart should carry the pain of the history and this happens not only when I visit Landmarks of London but Arabian and Persian landmarks too. However it should not cloud us into our decisions for economic future of our children. Japanese and Germans did not cloud their judge ments based on what Allied and communist forces did to them and joined hands for greater prosperity. For India too it will help to be practical than nostalgic and that shall help us to be top 3 powers in 2 decades.

ArjunPandit wrote:^^How can you miss the reparations that UK pays to us with which we launch rockets instead of building toilets for indians.

There are dogs who bark when elephant is walking does that mean elephant takes up fight with dogs? If so we should ignore tabloids where few barking dogs and xenophobes reside. Certainly this is not view of UK govt.

ArjunPandit wrote:^^How can you miss the reparations that UK pays to us with which we launch rockets instead of building toilets for indians.

Both the official sources and the British press have a uniquely twisted notion of entitlement regarding this . It was quite funny after the ICJ denouement. The British ambassador spoke of how they stepped aside valuing their ties with India and hoped it would help generate future trade deals, whereas India did not even bother to acknowledge or respond, essentially stating that the seat was ours to take from them anyway.

Therein lies the disconnect in bilateral ties. GoI simply does not care about ties with UK enough. UK is asking for something from someone who has no interest in talking to them, much less offering them something they seek. The only way that status quo is going to change is in the form of substantial *official* moves by UK to capture our interest by making offering upfront.

Suraj wrote: What special rules existing that 'govern trade with the EU' ? They're all bound by WTO rules. India has no special regime of trade agreements with them, and the WTO imposes guidelines on what barriers anyone may define. UK simply defaults to WTO rules in 2019.

Ok here is the situation. What if India remains lukewarm with UK and UK gets a free trade deal with EU, USA, Canada, Australia, China and New Zealand!! Why would they need any deal or market in India when they can have other 2 billion wealthy population who are willing to pay for whatever overpriced products they seek to sell. India currently do not consume British products or services as much at the moment and perhaps will not till next decade or so. What happens when they start to up the taxes on Indian products and services under WTO rules and seek to ask us to balance trade with India. What is that really India can do in this situation and who will be their allies at world level stopping UK take measure to rebalance trade?

That is the whole problem with this bilateral situation. India has demonstrated no official will for better ties. UK seeks a trade deal from India. They'll not get anything UNLESS they offer substantial benefits to us to convince us. Talk about 'tell me who else liberally lets Indians in ??' is not an Indian problem in this situation. It's UK's domestic politics for them to figure out, because *they* seek a change to the apathetic status quo of bilateral ties.

Why it is not an issue in the trade talk when you ask free movement of a billion people in a country which is 60 million and 40 million of which is cramped into area smaller than Maharastra? I would be very happy if someone convinces me that EU with huge landmass and low people density and birth rate would allow us to have unlimited free passes to our students and professionals. I think having such items on agenda should literally turn any talks into chai biscuit sessions and nothing more.

All this talk about London's capabilities are just fluff. It has no direct relevance to how Indian purposes and interests are served. Unless a British leaders brings with her a collection of big bank and pension fund bosses who invest 10s of billions of pounds into India as FDI or investments in long tenor debt, they're not doing anything worthwhile on the capital inflow front.

Let's keep it that way perhaps because you have already made up your mind. Britain does not invest in India via UK Fdi route alone. It uses all those countries with which India has favourable tax arrangement be it Singapore, Mauritius or any other nation. So there is plenty of British fund and hedge money flowing into India from UK through other locations too.

Yes, UK has invested ~$25 billion in FDI over quarter of a century. Singapore had invested more than that. Japan has a single investment twice that, in a railway project. And we get over $50 billion in FDI a year anyway. So 25 billion in quarter of a century is not anything significant for one of the most significant financial centers in the world. Based on their reputation, they should have invested more than 10 times as much as they have. They're simply punching way below their claimed weight

Japan has its own strategic interest in Indian subcontinent and Asia in general. UK funds have invested heavily in China and other emerging markets too so India is not their the only market for this century.

I still think we should play long term game and not a short term with Britain.

ashish raval wrote: Ok here is the situation. What if India remains lukewarm with UK and UK gets a free trade deal with EU, USA, Canada, Australia, China and New Zealand!! Why would they need any deal or market in India when they can have other 2 billion wealthy population who are willing to pay for whatever overpriced products they seek to sell. India currently do not consume British products or services as much at the moment and perhaps will not till next decade or so. What happens when they start to up the taxes on Indian products and services under WTO rules and seek to ask us to balance trade with India. What is that really India can do in this situation and who will be their allies at world level stopping UK take measure to rebalance trade?

Did you say 2 billion wealthy population? You are counting everyone in US and China to be wealthy?
BTW what's definition of a free trade that you are talking about? It's an agreement between two countries that trade products or goods that can't be produced in their own country. So what exactly does UK offer that other countries don't or can't? Again, you don't seem to get this point that we don't think that UK has to offer anything valuable in this regard. No matter how many people explain it to you. Your admiration, love for erstwhile crown is perhaps hampering your understanding ability.

Why it is not an issue in the trade talk when you ask free movement of a billion people in a country which is 60 million and 40 million of which is cramped into area smaller than Maharastra? I would be very happy if someone convinces me that EU with huge landmass and low people density and birth rate would allow us to have unlimited free passes to our students and professionals. I think having such items on agenda should literally turn any talks into chai biscuit sessions and nothing more.

Saar what 40 million? Entire UK is smaller than Maharashtra. Nobody is asking them to take poor people. It's movement of skilled and qualified professionals. Yes, this is what WE want, if they can't provide, that's fine.
BTW did you know in early 2000s someone in Germany govt did suggest the same regarding Indian professionals, it was overturned and now they let people from ME hoping to use them as "skilled" workers. They preferred ME "refugees" to skilled and qualified Indians. (I saw this in a video of Prof Vaidyanathan)

Let's keep it that way perhaps because you have already made up your mind. Britain does not invest in India via UK Fdi route alone. It uses all those countries with which India has favourable tax arrangement be it Singapore, Mauritius or any other nation. So there is plenty of British fund and hedge money flowing into India from UK through other locations too.

I don't know what you are talking about here. BTW, we all know what Mauritius route was all about all these years.

Japan has its own strategic interest in Indian subcontinent and Asia in general. UK funds have invested heavily in China and other emerging markets too so India is not their the only market for this century.

I still think we should play long term game and not a short term with Britain.

Yes, Japan is taking care of interests and it's win win for both. This is called TRADE, when it's win win for UK and India, we'll trade with you too.

ashish raval wrote:Ok here is the situation. What if India remains lukewarm with UK and UK gets a free trade deal with EU, USA, Canada, Australia, China and New Zealand!!

I am not discussing what ifs. I am not discussing could/should/would. In short, this isn't a battle of subjective opinions or imaginary situations, as you push it.

ashish raval wrote:What happens when they start to up the taxes on Indian products and services under WTO rules and seek to ask us to balance trade with India.

a) WTO rules offer nothing regarding 'balancing trade'. E.g PRC maintains huge surpluses with US, India. Saudis maintain huge surpluses with ROW. All WTO compliant. There's no requirement for the Saudis to balance trade. They buy western goods and weapons in bulks because their commodity is transacted in western currency that they need to recycle into goods.
b) Maybe you missed it, but current Indo-UK trade is WTO regime based already. UK is the one seeking sweeter terms than that. India is the one that's been happy with the status quo of standard rules.

ashish raval wrote:Let's keep it that way perhaps because you have already made up your mind. Britain does not invest in India via UK Fdi route alone. It uses all those countries with which India has favourable tax arrangement be it Singapore, Mauritius or any other nation. So there is plenty of British fund and hedge money flowing into India from UK through other locations too.

Think though this please - what's in it for them ? Look at the situation: GoI's treatment of Indo-UK ties today is apathetic, *despite* your argument that British money may be coming through these routes. In fact, Singapore has a FTA with us , but GoI had no interest in talking to UK . Singapore's visa regime for Indians is miles better than UK's too. If your argument is indeed true, UK is effectively a cuckold - others use their money for those countries' own benefit, while UK's getting nothing out of it and India has no time for them. So what's all this worth to them ? As it stands, India gets tons of supposedly (as you claim) British $$s anyway, despite GoI's apathy to UK... So we have no basis to offer them anything directly ; your argument indicates we already get our cake and eat it too. No need to pay the UK for something that comes to us freely through third parties.

ashish raval wrote:Why it is not an issue in the trade talk when you ask free movement of a billion people in a country which is 60 million and 40 million of which is cramped into area smaller than Maharastra?

The details of the British problem with our demands are a British problem. The bottomline is that *they* still need to offer us something across the table in official government-government interaction for us to care to raise the temperature of bilateral conversation. If they can't offer labour, they bend over backwards to offer something else.

Let me restate again:
* Current India-UK ties are at best lukewarm. Whether you think it should be better is just your opinion (I have no separate opinion to offer), and GoI's position is completely different.
* UK wants a trade deal from India. It's been officially stated by two UK PMs now.
* India has shown no interest in a conversation, short of stating two major demands - inbound capital and outbound labour.

It's the UK's choice what to do here:
* Give up on the idea they'll ever get a favorable trade deal with India
* Offer what we demand
* Offer something equally attractive.
That is their situation. They're talking to someone who's barely listening to them, that they want something from saying "Please give us a trade deal. What? Allow lots of Indian professionals into UK ? Sorry we can't do that because blah blah. Can you still give us a trade deal ?" How do you expect that disinterested party to listen ?

Just saying "we should listen to them" is just your opinion. GoI has shown no sign they care.

India has been negotiating a free trade deal with the EU (India’s largest trading partner) since 2007, and the end is nowhere in sight. Hard to see why progress with the UK should be any faster.

http://indianexpress.com/article/busine ... t-4939148/

Launched in June 2007, the negotiations for the proposed BTIA have witnessed many hurdles with both sides having major differences on key issues like intellectual property rights, duty cut in automobile and spirits, and liberal visa regime. The two sides have to iron out differences related to movement of professionals.

Besides demanding significant duty cuts in automobiles, the EU wants tax reduction in wines, spirits and dairy products, and a strong intellectual property regime.

On the other hand, India is asking for ‘data secure nation’ status to be granted by the EU. The country is among the nations not considered data secure by the EU. The matter is crucial as it will have a bearing on Indian IT companies wanting market access.

Suraj wrote:

eklavya wrote:^^^^
India already has a substantial trade surplus with the UK, operating under the rules that govern trade with the EU. Fewer trade constraints will likely improve the situation further in India’s favour.

What special rules existing that 'govern trade with the EU' ? They're all bound by WTO rules. India has no special regime of trade agreements with them, and the WTO imposes guidelines on what barriers anyone may define. UK simply defaults to WTO rules in 2019.

http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countr ... dex_en.htm

The EU claims to give India “unilateral trade preferences”.

EU-India trade negotiations

Negotiations for a comprehensive FTA started in June 2007 and discussions are currently taking place on a number of key outstanding issues.

This FTA would be one of the most significant trade agreements, touching the lives of 1.7 billion people.

The negotiations cover mainly but not exclusively:

* access to each other's markets, for goods, services and to public procurement contracts
* the framework for investment, including investment protection
* the rules that frame trade, such as intellectual property and competition
* sustainable development, to ensure growth in trade is in tandem with the environment, social and labour rights.

In the meantime, India continues enjoying unilateral trade preferences when accessing the EU market under the EU Generalised Scheme of Preferences.

Interesting that the EU does not even mention movement of labour as a topic of negotiations.

eklavya: access to each other's markets, for goods, services and to public procurement contracts

"services" would require movement of people, no?

^^^^

https://data.oecd.org/trade/trade-in-services.htm

Trade in services records the value of services exchanged between residents and non-residents of an economy, including services provided through foreign affiliates established abroad

So, if an Indian accountant/lawyer/banker based in India does some accounting/legal/banking work for a UK based client, that is trade.

But, if an Indian accountant/lawyer/banker based in the UK does some accounting/legal/banking work for a UK based client, that is not trade.

eklavya wrote:http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countr ... dex_en.htm
The EU claims to give India “unilateral trade preferences”.

I already posted a page ago that an EU-FTA has been under negotiation, but that since Brexit, UK has no role in it. The 'unilateral preferences' mentioned here is Generalized System of Preferences (GSP). It applies to a large number of low / middle income countries . UK exits the GSP regime from 2019 once Article 50 takes effect. They will default to standard WTO rules.

As for GSP, India doesn't qualify for GSP+, while SAARC neighbors do. As with China, Thailand and other 'threshold countries' we are already excluded from GSP for certain goods. We'll soon stop qualifying for GSP entirely, since our per capita income and export volume will probably exceed the threshold for it.

None of this applies to UK anyway, because Brexit.

^^^^
EU trade with India goes beyond WTO rules. So your assertion above was inaccurate.

ashish raval wrote:

ArjunPandit wrote:OK ashish i concede that london is the most successful city for 1000s of years, even WEF has agreed to that.

Can we move on from future londonistan, coz I can still feel the pain of those blown away from cannons in 1857 and stench of those who died in different famines
and Joker Churchil's the word's still echo in my ears "india is no more a country than equator is". For me britain is no more than a turd in my flush. No matter how successful or rich it becomes and no matter how many tages it gets.

I concur that every Indian heart should carry the pain of the history and this happens not only when I visit Landmarks of London but Arabian and Persian landmarks too. However it should not cloud us into our decisions for economic future of our children. Japanese and Germans did not cloud their judge ments based on what Allied and communist forces did to them and joined hands for greater prosperity. For India too it will help to be practical than nostalgic and that shall help us to be top 3 powers in 2 decades.

Ok you really want to continue on this, I agree with your point that past should not cloud our judgment. Now let me pose the same question to you in two different ways without any malice.
1. While past should not cloud our judgment, past performance is a good indicator of future performance (unless I can account for exogeneous factors). In case of UK i can 2 exo factors: a. Islam, b. their literally killing the study & earn route for global talent. Not sure if there are cheap education loans in UK for locals.
2. please dont take take this case personally, if say someone beats your dad or grandfather. Will you be friends with that guy, because that guy can give your son a good job? I certainly wont. If law doesnt take its case, I for one would certainly like to kill that guy.

This is even excluding the fact that brits are snooty and more racist than americans. They dont come with the mindset that we ruled over 200 years and you were subjugated people and indians are good for nothing. This is not govt but majority of common brits i interacted with. This is even after excluding what matters most to me that in '65 it was british only because of which we had to concede a lot of ground around sir creek area which emboldened pukis. They sided with porkis in '71.

They are just acting nice, because their technological advantage out of industrial revolution and imperialism has gone and they are back to their old size and they need india. The moment their need is done, they will be back to their snooty ways. I dont ascribe to JLN school that we will start our relationship without acrimony, even after queen comes and says Jalianwala bagh deaths were exaggerated.

ArjunPandit wrote:

ashish raval wrote: I concur that every Indian heart should carry the pain of the history and this happens not only when I visit Landmarks of London but Arabian and Persian landmarks too. However it should not cloud us into our decisions for economic future of our children. Japanese and Germans did not cloud their judge ments based on what Allied and communist forces did to them and joined hands for greater prosperity. For India too it will help to be practical than nostalgic and that shall help us to be top 3 powers in 2 decades.

Ok you really want to continue on this, I agree with your point that past should not cloud our judgment. Now let me pose the same question to you in two different ways without any malice.
1. While past should not cloud our judgment, past performance is a good indicator of future performance (unless I can account for exogeneous factors). In case of UK i can 2 exo factors: a. Islam, b. their literally killing the study & earn route for global talent. Not sure if there are cheap education loans in UK for locals.
2. please dont take take this case personally, if say someone beats your dad or grandfather. Will you be friends with that guy, because that guy can give your son a good job? I certainly wont. If law doesnt take its case, I for one would certainly like to kill that guy.

This is even excluding the fact that brits are snooty and more racist than americans. They dont come with the mindset that we ruled over 200 years and you were subjugated people and indians are good for nothing. This is not govt but majority of common brits i interacted with. This is even after excluding what matters most to me that in '65 it was british only because of which we had to concede a lot of ground around sir creek area which emboldened pukis. They sided with porkis in '71.

They are just acting nice, because their technological advantage out of industrial revolution and imperialism has gone and they are back to their old size and they need india. The moment their need is done, they will be back to their snooty ways. I dont ascribe to JLN school that we will start our relationship without acrimony, even after queen comes and says Jalianwala bagh deaths were exaggerated.

So why would like you want to be friends with every other middle Eastern nations who beat up someone's great grandfather instead of grandfather by your logic ones blood should equally boil at sight who had beaten up their great grand father's and took their bones to be put into footsteps of a mosque !! No? !!! American not racist towards Indians!! Lol they had black and brown slaves throughout their history till 1970!! First Indian hardly set foot after 1970 in UsA (this is an analogy not to ve misconstrued as fact) to have known anything about racism in USA. USA was even a bigger foe to India sending aircraft carrier during 1971 war and suddenly becomes BFF? Wow good logic. I see loads of American sitcoms and movies laughing at Indian accents and there are hardly any sitcoms now a days in UK which stereotype Indian population baring some by BBC documentary once every five year which had always been anti Indian and left leaning. It still sells state of the art weapons to your neighbours and you want to hug them at every opportunity. This smells like double standard to me.
Even french were colonists in India and the very fact that you are writing the language of science and business here is because Brits beat french up in India. Indian situation would not have changed because India was fundamentally never a united nation and if they did they would not have changed situation much as we have seen in last 70 years of our independence. From Jagatguru to loosing talent seeking work overseas.

Past is good indicator of future as per your theory and by that theory American behaviours had never been friendly in the past either including voting on ICJ or UN reforms and dangling carrot of NSA.

If we were a confident nation of 400 million people what stopped us to go and capture pukes, pok or lahore after 48, 65, 71 or 99? After all UK post world war 2 was a vulnerable nation too hardly with bread to feed the nation !!

It is easy to blame external factors but after 3 generations it becomes an old record the really do not have much left to play.

Karthik S wrote: Did you say 2 billion wealthy population? You are counting everyone in US and China to be wealthy?
BTW what's definition of a free trade that you are talking about? It's an agreement between two countries that trade products or goods that can't be produced in their own country. So what exactly does UK offer that other countries don't or can't? Again, you don't seem to get this point that we don't think that UK has to offer anything valuable in this regard. No matter how many people explain it to you. Your admiration, love for erstwhile crown is perhaps hampering your understanding ability.

I meant to say relatively wealthy population and large middle class. Just like when we say market size of a billion people does not necessarily mean a billion Armani or Ralf Lauren or iphones in sales. Indian middle class size compared to the ones I quoted earlier.

Saar what 40 million? Entire UK is smaller than Maharashtra. Nobody is asking them to take poor people. It's movement of skilled and qualified professionals. Yes, this is what WE want, if they can't provide, that's fine.
BTW did you know in early 2000s someone in Germany govt did suggest the same regarding Indian professionals, it was overturned and now they let people from ME hoping to use them as "skilled" workers. They preferred ME "refugees" to skilled and qualified Indians. (I saw this in a video of Prof Vaidyanathan)

Europe is patently racist continent and India is no exception either. There are no tales of racism ever emerged because till 50 years back there would have been may be 100 Indians living in entire Europe so they really don't know us very well to be subjective. This figure is for analogy and not a statistical fact. But if you start debating it becomes clearer that their supremacist due to their history does exist. Britain is way better in that term and friendlier. EU wants population whose religion inherently wants to wipe and outbreed them in 100 years Vs people from dharma ho invented 0 and taught them how to count and gave modern number system!! And yet you seek free trade deal good luck if India ever gets to agreeing to chapter 3 of 50 odd chapters to do trade with them on their terms and their standards.

I don't know what you are talking about here. BTW, we all know what Mauritius route was all about all these years.

It still is open route to get tax benefits.

Yes, Japan is taking care of interests and it's win win for both. This is called TRADE, when it's win win for UK and India, we'll trade with you too.

So how many skilled people japan is going to settle in Japan or students going to study and earn? It does not have any powerful friend in the region except us to stand in event of war with China and NoKo. So this pappi jappi others Japanese were first to sit in sanctions boat when be tested nbum.

It is easy to blame external factors but after 3 generations it becomes an old record the really do not have much left to play.

Americans (or any other country) did not cause the death of 3 million and more Indians by handing over their food to british troops (and callously ignoring a famine) and millions more due to the partition by deliberately changing the date of independence and killing innocents and traumatizing millions of families in India -- these things cannot be forgiven or forgotten as it happened less than a century ago, during the times of our parents/grandparents. So not 3 generations yet.

But we should not let our feelings towards these murderous racist UK vermin cloud our judgement with respect to our present actions, obviously. India should just conduct cold, hard business negotiations, which is what is happening. I am sure when the UK makes the necessary trade concessions to India, there will be a resurgence in trade relations between UK and India, and Theresa May hold hands with Indians and sing kumbaya. It is all going to be peachy and awesome, no reason to worry.

India should just conduct cold, hard business negotiation, which is what is happening. I am sure when the UK makes the necessary trade concessions to India, there will be a resurgence in trade relations between UK and India

This is my friend is what I am trying to talk since yesterday. Nothing more nothing less.

One cannot change history. They have learned lessons and we have learned our lessons. It is time to be economically strong by whatever way and once we are mighty with big stick we can command obedience from everyone and establish our rightful place as Jagatguru.

ashish_raval: This is my friend is what I am trying to talk since yesterday. Nothing more nothing less.

Of course, this has been pointed out repeatedly by Suraj and others that the lack of any new trade relations with the UK is precisely because india is conducting hardball negotiations with the UK, asking for a proverbial pound of flesh from the UK, for this relationship to proceed forward. UK's unreasonable position, where it refuses to part with its right thigh and a buttock or two, metaphorically speaking, is currently blocking the way forward to a fruitful and mutually beneficial relationship between UK and India. Basically, looks like everyone here is in violent agreement with each other.

ashish raval wrote:Japanese and Germans did not cloud their judge ments based on what Allied and communist forces did to them and joined hands for greater prosperity. For India too it will help to be practical than nostalgic and that shall help us to be top 3 powers in 2 decades.

Germans had the Nazis and Japanese had their own share of atrocities committed on the European and Asian populace, respectively. Are you comparing their atrocities to OUR sufferings?

In case you forget, were were the oppressed, NOT the oppressors, even temporarily.

Germany and Japan apologised for their actions, paid reparations to the countries and people they wronged. Not only that, you do not see them come out with justification of their actions. Can you say the same for UK when it comes to India? Has the crown or any UK PM expressed regret for their colonial actions? Japanese emperor and PMs have gone on record, doing so, repeatedly.

Leave aside rhetoric and emotional aspects. Please clarify what Britain can and is willing to offer us if we were to sign this trade deal.

ashish raval wrote: So why would like you want to be friends with every other middle Eastern nations who beat up someone's great grandfather instead of grandfather by your logic ones blood should equally boil at sight who had beaten up their great grand father's and took their bones to be put into footsteps of a mosque !! No? !!!

This is a thread about UK, my views about those nations are not very positive either. WIll answer this in end of this post.

ashish raval wrote: American not racist towards Indians!! Lol they had black and brown slaves throughout their history till 1970!! First Indian hardly set foot after 1970 in UsA (this is an analogy not to ve misconstrued as fact) to have known anything about racism in USA.
....
I see loads of American sitcoms and movies laughing at Indian accents and there are hardly any sitcoms now a days in UK which stereotype Indian population baring some by BBC documentary once every five year which had always been anti Indian and left leaning.

I think you're mistaking native Indians for Indians . I did not say americans have high morals than brits. In my personal experience dealing with brits and americans, I have found brits way more racist even in public transport and everywhere. Now as for mocking indian accent, dont take sitcoms more seriously than matrix movie. Not sure if you saw any old bond movie with Indians at best as Darbans. Just for info, Danny boyle the slumdog millionare director was a britard too.

ashish raval wrote: USA was even a bigger foe to India sending aircraft carrier during 1971 war and suddenly becomes BFF? Wow good logic.It still sells state of the art weapons to your neighbours and you want to hug them at every opportunity. This smells like double standard to me.

When did i say I USA is our BFF. If you think international relationships as chuddy buddy (not sure if you know this slang, coz its not british), then you are utterly mistaken. I am for international relationships as purely transactional from sole objective of India's benefit with an eye on future and another on past. Britain has a very very bad chequred past with is and has nothing to offer to us. If they offer us something like Russians did during '71 why not, but even then they should not be be forgiven for what they did for over 200 years to my nation.

ashish raval wrote: Even french were colonists in India and the very fact that you are writing the language of science and business here is because Brits beat french up in India. Indian situation would not have changed because India was fundamentally never a united nation and if they did they would not have changed situation much as we have seen in last 70 years of our independence. From Jagatguru to loosing talent seeking work overseas.

This is again a british/western argument that british united india and brits were far nicer than french/italians or spaniards. You are bordering on JNU/Aaptard liberal logic. India was never united the way westerners think of unification as a modern nation state. Even the unified india was way ahead of small britain. Not clear what you are trying to say in the underlined part. Keep your brishit sarcasm to yourself. Indians working overseas in this generation is a different breed as compared to that of past. It is going with the intent of coming back and many do come back.

ashish raval wrote: Past is good indicator of future as per your theory and by that theory American behaviours had never been friendly in the past either including voting on ICJ or UN reforms and dangling carrot of NSA.

1. It is not my theory, entire branches of mathematics and physics are based on this presumption. If you dont agree to this, then i think you are missing teh recent wave of AI/ML/DL. But anyways not sure if anything material is happening in Britain on that field.
Anyways, you intentionally ignored the caveat in "theory", exogeneous factors.

ashish raval wrote: If we were a confident nation of 400 million people what stopped us to go and capture pukes, pok or lahore after 48, 65, 71 or 99? After all UK post world war 2 was a vulnerable nation too hardly with bread to feed the nation !!
It is easy to blame external factors but after 3 generations it becomes an old record the really do not have much left to play.

[/quote]
They got huge amounts of money through marshal plan. yes we were not confident, and we were weakend by centuries of brishit kleptocracy and a significant factor was the fact that Nehruvians made 3 generations educate on the history of denouncing everything that was indian and keeping a large portion of nation on subsidy doles and below poverty line. The narrative was india has all the problems. That narrative has been dying its natural death our debate is the result of this.
So please try preaching this liberal gyan about forgetting history to Jews about HItler. I will not forget and ensure that everyone in my next generation of family knows that too.
As for Pukis: their time will come too. They will meet the same fate as austro hugarian empire.
For US:
1. I am not asking to sleep with US.
2. What US or anyeone else has done to india pales in comparison to what brishits did. Malsis came, they destroyed our temples and killed in war, but brishits looted us for 2-3 centuries and beggared us for next 100 years. In case you've forgotten it was brishits who created the boundaries, and brishit generals who caused all the mess in J&K not to forget tharki chicha. Without Indian loot they are gradually falling in their true place.
3. US is not our BFF but we have a common enemy in china & if there is some scope for cooperation why not.
4. In my interaction with Americans even rednecks, their only worry is Indians are taking their jobs and their kids are not getting jobs, but they acknowledge that Indians are hardworking and intelligent. Indian intelligence is considered as an aberration in Britain unless of course it comes with denouncing India and Indian hardwork is considered as an outcome of 'british discipline'. Remember S Chandrashekar's story? he had to leave UK and did wonders in US. Yes there are good folks there too, but I would rather say american individuals are way more appreciative of Indians. That has been my experience. You may have different, I can't help with that. My experience with brishits/yankees has been similar to a very good number of other Indians.

you are welcome to proselytize for brits, but i rather chose to stand tall against brishits and anyone else who is just wooing india without anything ot offer.

eklavya wrote:^^^^
EU trade with India goes beyond WTO rules. So your assertion above was inaccurate.

What is inaccurate ? Keep in mind UK for practical purposes is not part of EU any more, i.e. not part of GSP either.