The economic consequences of Brexit

[steveatesh]

Dr Jekyll said:

What we are saying is quite simple. The Norway option means NOT BEING IN THE EU, because NORWAY IS NOT IN THE EU. Therefore you are wrong in stating that the Norway option means not leaving the EU.

Specifically in means that only a tiny fraction of EU rules will apply to us and judging from Norway's experience it will be a lot cheaper.

It also means being outside of CAP and Fisheries Policies and potentially having some control over immigration via the Lichenstein precedent. Ans paying less money too.

All up to the negotiations of course.

[anonymous-user]

Dr Jekyll said:

What we are saying is quite simple. The Norway option means NOT BEING IN THE EU, because NORWAY IS NOT IN THE EU. Therefore you are wrong in stating that the Norway option means not leaving the EU.

Specifically in means that only a tiny fraction of EU rules will apply to us and judging from Norway's experience it will be a lot cheaper.

I was under the impression that Norway paid about the same amount per person as the uk.

Does anyone have a link stating otherwise ?

[ATG]

Dr Jekyll said:

What we are saying is quite simple. The Norway option means NOT BEING IN THE EU, because NORWAY IS NOT IN THE EU. Therefore you are wrong in stating that the Norway option means not leaving the EU.

Specifically in means that only a tiny fraction of EU rules will apply to us and judging from Norway's experience it will be a lot cheaper.

That would be the great Norwegian experience that led Norwegians to warn us not to leave the EU and sign up to their arrangement.

[jjlynn27]

steveatesh said:

It also means being outside of CAP and Fisheries Policies and potentially having some control over immigration via the Lichenstein precedent. Ans paying less money too.

All up to the negotiations of course.

Genuine question, I hear fisheries, and to less extent CAP, as reasons, how much will that save us?

And Lich is not a precedent. You can read agreement with Lich to see that it's a pipe dream.

[Dr Jekyll]

ATG said:

That would be the great Norwegian experience that led Norwegians to warn us not to leave the EU and sign up to their arrangement.

That was one particular Norwegian who wants Norway to join the EU. The majority of Norwegians have absolutely no wish to join.

[jjlynn27]

Ghibli said:

I was under the impression that Norway paid about the same amount per person as the uk.

Does anyone have a link stating otherwise ?

Per/Capita

UK 139E
Norway 109E

Interesting graph on immigration (not sure who OE are, so don't know if numbers are correct).

[rs1952]

jjlynn27 said:

Does anyone know what 'reset' means?

"Reset" is Newspeak for "Emergency Budget." But the Right Honourable Member for Runnymede and Weybridge isn't allowed to call it that any more. "Emergency budget" is "Projct Fear" you see. I'm sure you'll understand

jjlynn27 said:

And rs1952, don't be so negative, recession is reading these posts and you'll type us into it.

[///ajd]

jjlynn27 said:

Ghibli said:

I was under the impression that Norway paid about the same amount per person as the uk.

Does anyone have a link stating otherwise ?

Per/Capita

UK 139E
Norway 109E

Interesting graph on immigration (not sure who OE are, so don't know if numbers are correct).

If only we'd be told before that Norway option was a poorer fudge of an option.

Oh, we were.

I do think there would be a significant "really?" moment if brexit started looking like norway - which seems most likely given Mays preference for SM access.

PS its interesting to see why Licht has a bespoke arrangement. One assumes North doesn't want to triple our immigration / capita to Licht levels? Anyone can see that using Licht as an argument is just pants.

Edited by ///ajd on Saturday 23 July 20:26

[anonymous-user]

jjlynn27 said:

Per/Capita

UK 139E
Norway 109E

Interesting graph on immigration (not sure who OE are, so don't know if numbers are correct).

The per/capita figure pretty much fit my fag packet calculations.

As for the immigration figures, let's just assume they are scaremongering for the moment.

[steveatesh]

jjlynn27 said:

Genuine question, I hear fisheries, and to less extent CAP, as reasons, how much will that save us?

And Lich is not a precedent. You can read agreement with Lich to see that it's a pipe dream.

I really have no idea and to be honest it's not something that bothers me, but Derek was conflating the Norway approach with the same as Being in the EU which it isn't.

My own preference as I have mentioned before is for the EEA/EFTA route to b a stepping stone to allow a soft landing for the economy, but then move on from there, a la Flexcit. There are already encouraging signs of potential trade deals around the world which suggests that is possible.

Re Lichenstein I read it on Dr Norths site of course but he is not the only one saying it. Personally I'll stick with his analysis of it, he says it is not a pipe dream and as usual gives his supporting arguments together with links to source treaties/documents etc but in any event migration was never an issue for my decision either.

[jjlynn27]

Population of Licht.



Official figures.

[sidicks]

Derek Smith said:

I'll explain it for you in as simple a way as I can. Oh, wait. I’ve already done that.

And you're still wrong.

Derek Smith said:

I pointed out that the second brexit is unknown so the statement, brexit means brexit, cannot stand. How could it when we don’t know what the result will be?

It is still leaving the EU, in whatever form that takes.

Derek Smith said:

I then said, in simple language, but without emoticons or initials, what I meant by not leaving the EU.

Yes, again you were wrong. You said we'd be like Norway and hence still in the EU. That is still wrong.

Derek Smith said:

The point is that you must have understood my point. I assume you have no trouble reading. So why just gainsay it? If you have a particular argument that the Norwegian option isn’t, in many ways, similar to being in the EU, then by all means share it with us.

Probably best / easiest for you simply to admit you were wrong, rather than try and question my comprehension?

Derek Smith said:

A statement of ‘you were wrong’ is a statement that you disagree. Nothing less and certainly nothing more.

If we follow the Norwegian option, if the EU allow it that is, which I doubt, the changes for us will be minimal. In essence the only difference will be that we will not have a seat at the table for the making of the regulations which we will have to comply with.

But, as I pointed out, we have no idea what brexit means for us. The negotiations have probably not even started at the moment, although the games, as we see on our southern motorways, are underway.

Let me put is clearly and precisely: brexit could mean something very much like not brexit.

It could mean any number of things, but it still means leaving the EU. Which was the original point being made and the post you (incorrectly) tried to dispute.

[jjlynn27]

steveatesh said:

I really have no idea and to be honest it's not something that bothers me, but Derek was conflating the Norway approach with the same as Being in the EU which it isn't.

My own preference as I have mentioned before is for the EEA/EFTA route to b a stepping stone to allow a soft landing for the economy, but then move on from there, a la Flexcit. There are already encouraging signs of potential trade deals around the world which suggests that is possible.

Re Lichenstein I read it on Dr Norths site of course but he is not the only one saying it. Personally I'll stick with his analysis of it, he says it is not a pipe dream and as usual gives his supporting arguments together with links to source treaties/documents etc but in any event migration was never an issue for my decision either.

Wish more posts were like yours.


Re trade deals;

I had a look and I really don't see how we can get significantly better deals given the UK market size. And they would have to be substantially better deals to make it worthwhile, imo.

The reason that I think it's a pipe dream is I've read a document (linked kindly from North's website) where it was explicitly said that it's not a precedent and that it only applies because of Liecht size (37000 people).

[anonymous-user]

Would it be safe to say that being a member of the EU costs each uk resident about 0.50p per day?

When we leave, it could cost about 0.40 per day?


With the pound losing say 8%, every £50.00 I spend on fuel costs me and extra £4.00.

[steveatesh]

jjlynn27 said:

Wish more posts were like yours.


Re trade deals;

I had a look and I really don't see how we can get significantly better deals given the UK market size. And they would have to be substantially better deals to make it worthwhile, imo.

The reason that I think it's a pipe dream is I've read a document (linked kindly from North's website) where it was explicitly said that it's not a precedent and that it only applies because of Liecht size (37000 people).

And I have no disagreement with you, they are valid opinions. It comes down to attitude to risk in my view, my assessment was and remains that the risks of leaving were a better bet than the risks of remaining. My view was and is that the EU acts like a ball and chain and is standing still as the other continents move forward with growth. So membership of The EU for me came with an opportunity cost as well as other issues around sovereignty and risk around supporting currency, risk around political direction and integration etc.

At the end of the day nobody knows what will happen or what the outcomes will be for many years, and a lot depends upon our negotiations. All this argument around immigration numbers and money is merely opinion at the moment but many posters are saying it all as fact.

It's just opinion and attitude to risk, that all.

[///ajd]

sidicks said:

Derek Smith said:

I'll explain it for you in as simple a way as I can. Oh, wait. I’ve already done that.

And you're still wrong.

Derek Smith said:

I pointed out that the second brexit is unknown so the statement, brexit means brexit, cannot stand. How could it when we don’t know what the result will be?

It is still leaving the EU, in whatever form that takes.

Derek Smith said:

I then said, in simple language, but without emoticons or initials, what I meant by not leaving the EU.

Yes, again you were wrong. You said we'd be like Norway and hence still in the EU. That is still wrong.

Derek Smith said:

The point is that you must have understood my point. I assume you have no trouble reading. So why just gainsay it? If you have a particular argument that the Norwegian option isn’t, in many ways, similar to being in the EU, then by all means share it with us.

Probably best / easiest for you simply to admit you were wrong, rather than try and question my comprehension?

Derek Smith said:

A statement of ‘you were wrong’ is a statement that you disagree. Nothing less and certainly nothing more.

If we follow the Norwegian option, if the EU allow it that is, which I doubt, the changes for us will be minimal. In essence the only difference will be that we will not have a seat at the table for the making of the regulations which we will have to comply with.

But, as I pointed out, we have no idea what brexit means for us. The negotiations have probably not even started at the moment, although the games, as we see on our southern motorways, are underway.

Let me put is clearly and precisely: brexit could mean something very much like not brexit.

It could mean any number of things, but it still means leaving the EU. Which was the original point being made and the post you (incorrectly) tried to dispute.

As pointed out above, what is the intent of the pedantry?

Surely as an intelligent individual you can see what Derek meant - i.e. that a norway option is very similar indeed from many outcome perspectives to being in the EU.

Why do you want to focus only on the technicality of whether it is OUT even though its probably as close you can come to being an associate member with nearly all the benefits and strings?

It seems very likely to me there would not have been a majority if Norway was (factually not fasely) presented as the outcome.

[///ajd]

Ghibli said:

Would it be safe to say that being a member of the EU costs each uk resident about 0.50p per day?

When we leave, it could cost about 0.40 per day?


With the pound losing say 8%, every £50.00 I spend on fuel costs me and extra £4.00.

Yes, and when you tot it all up we'll be £4300 worse off......

[sidicks]

///ajd said:

As pointed out above, what is the intent of the pedantry?

Derek was trying to be clever by 'correcting' the previous poster and making demonstrably false statements.

Rather than accept he was wrong (in typical police officer style?), he then had to try and be clever and sarcasticly blame other people for his error.

///ajd said:

Surely as an intelligent individual you can see what Derek meant - i.e. that a norway option is very similar indeed from many outcome perspectives to being in the EU.

In some respects yes, in some respects no. However, my intelligence is unrelated to that of the poster, therefore I don't assume to interpret what other people mean, particular when, having had their error highlighted to them, they go out of their way to pretend they meant something else entirely.

///ajd said:

Why do you want to focus only on the technicality of whether it is OUT even though its probably as close you can come to being an associate member with nearly all the benefits and strings?

It seems very likely to me there would not have been a majority if Norway was (factually not fasely) presented as the outcome.

Who knows? It's far too early to say where we will end up, but once thing is for certain, if we end up like Norway, we won't be in the EU!

[s2art]

jjlynn27 said:

And Lich is not a precedent. You can read agreement with Lich to see that it's a pipe dream.

The emergency brake is in the treaty. It can be pulled, not a pipe dream. Even if challenged it would take years to go through the courts.

[powerstroke]

RYH64E said:

powerstroke said:

They will be really upset when we pick up the ball and while the EU is worrying about keeping all the members and vested interests happy, we sign some real trade deals!!!! We have done the right thing Brexit rocks .....country is going places the world beckons ....

You say 'we' but according to your profile you're a 'service tech/mecanic', so I assume that by 'we' you mean other people with more brains than you, other people who most probably never thought it was a good idea to leave in the first place.
.”

You don't give a job description in your profile , I put mechanic in mine because thats what I like to do , In truth I could put MD , property developer and landlord as well , We is our country, BUT yes some of my business will involve overseas trade ,,,
Sorry but I imagine the remainans on here to be very average boring desk jockeys middle management ,annaliyst types who drive dull average german cars and live in dull identikit houses on some dreary estate, because of a huge mortgage they have to have no sense of adventure or the possibilities of life outside their dull average lives...... se we can all jump to conclusions about others yours is a mile out how is mine???? ,