The economic consequences of Brexit

[anonymous-user]

sidicks said:

Ghibli said:

Digga said:

Former empire, circa 5th/6th biggest single economy in the world.

Not to much self importance then.

Both are factual statements not opinions!

And we are where we are today because it's the EU's fault ?

[sidicks]

Ghibli said:

And we are where we are today because it's the EU's fault ?

Is that genuine question, a rhetorical question or a statement?

[anonymous-user]

sidicks said:

Ghibli said:

And we are where we are today because it's the EU's fault ?

Is that genuine question, a rhetorical question or a statement?

It's a question.

Is everything going well ? If it's not, is it the EU's fault ?

[sidicks]

Ghibli said:

It's a question.

Is everything going well ? If it's not, is it the EU's fault ?

Some things are going well, some things less so. Some things might be linked to the EU.

[anonymous-user]

sidicks said:

Some things are going well, some things less so. Some things might be linked to the EU.

Being the 5/6 wealthiest country why are we not investing in our own country. I personally don't think it's the EU stopping us.

Why are we selling everything ?

[sidicks]

Ghibli said:

Being the 5/6 wealthiest country why are we not investing in our own country. I personally don't think it's the EU stopping us.

Why are we selling everything ?

??

[anonymous-user]

sidicks said:

Ghibli said:

Being the 5/6 wealthiest country why are we not investing in our own country. I personally don't think it's the EU stopping us.

Why are we selling everything ?

??

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/08/selling-off-britain-ownership-crisis-debate

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/expatpicturegalle...

[sidicks]

el stovey said:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/expatpicturegalle...

1. Isn't this a sign of increased globalisation?
2. Most of the 10-12 examples provided in the Telegraph link are from 8-10 years ago - is this really a sign of 'selling everything'?
3. Are there no examples of foreign businesses being owned by UK companies?
4. This is UK shareholders selling their assets and receiving cash in return - what are they reinvesting this money in?

[anonymous-user]

To me it looks like we are a sitting duck when we leave the EU.

If sterling drops ? We will get investment. I believe China has offered 20billion over the next 20 years.

This is only my view.

ARM went last week which delighted Nigel Farage on Facebook and Twitter. That's his view.

[Digga]

Ghibli said:

And we are where we are today because it's the EU's fault ?

France, which recently relegated the UK to 6th place, is boosting its GDP with unsustainable public spending. It has received numerous warnings about budgets from the EU and cannot maintain this false impression of its economy. There will be a hard landing and, judging by the way the toys came out of the pram over labour reforms, and looking set the resurgence of their far right which undermines political strength required for reform, it will have mounting domestic problems.

[anonymous-user]

sidicks said:

el stovey said:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/expatpicturegalle...

1. Isn't this a sign of increased globalisation?
2. Most of the 10-12 examples provided in the Telegraph link are from 8-10 years ago - is this really a sign of 'selling everything'?
3. Are there no examples of foreign businesses being owned by UK companies?
4. This is UK shareholders selling their assets and receiving cash in return - what are they reinvesting this money in?

Sure, I wasn't sure what you meant by your question mark. So I assumed you wanted examples of UK business being sold to foreign investors.

[jjlynn27]

Ghibli said:

To me it looks like we are a sitting duck when we leave the EU.

If sterling drops ? We will get investment. I believe China has offered 20billion over the next 20 years.

This is only my view.

ARM went last week which delighted Nigel Farage on Facebook and Twitter. That's his view.

From what I've seen of that deal, 46% over the market price, doesn't look too shabby. They've also committed to research staying in UK and doubling workforce in next 5 years.

[Slagathore]

Can't remember if this was posted elsewhere on this site or I saw it on Reddit!

Over a 1/4 of German exports to the UK are cars and car parts - http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/visualize/tree_map/h...

http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/gbr/

Quite interesting reading.

[anonymous-user]

Derek Smith said:

jsf said:

Derek Smith said:

jsf said:

Derek Smith said:

jsf said:

The UK will not have the Norwegian arrangement with the EU post Brexit.

The UK will have the UK arrangement with the EU post Brexit.

At this stage of the game no one can say what that will look like.

A wee bit contradictory.

Not in the slightest contradictory Derek.

But you say, which I agree with, no one can say. It is possible that we might be forced into a Norwegian type of arrangement.

I don't know how much clearer I can make it Derek. The UK will have an agreement specific to the UK.

The Norway option is a route to the EU. It does not mean that we will have the same details as Norway, but it is a reasonable classification. If we have full access to the single market without staying in the EU the simplest method would be to join Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein in being a member of the EFTA and signing the EEA Agreement. This is the route that is covered by the title Nowegian option. Many groups use this as the overarching description of that route. The CBI for one uses it and I see no reason not to follow their lead. However, using the term does not mean that the UK will not have its own preferences. We will probably not demand to have sole access to our seas. I would assume the EU has a number of lobbyists pushing for this.

I haven't checked their details, but I would assume that Lichenstein has not gone for Norway's demands for sole access to their seas. But it is still classified as the Norwegian option. I doubt it has the same degree of surplus energy to bargain with. But it is still classified as the Norwegian option. So their agreement is specific to Lichtenstein but still falls under the description of the Norwegian option.

Norway pays around Euro 100m per capita to the EU for membership. However, there are other charges as well and it is difficult to be specific as to the actual total. Our contributions will be up for negotiation for the UK. If we don't pay the same then our terms could still be classified as the Norwegian option.

So there is clearly a Norwegian option that the UK can use as a model for our relationship with the EU. It will certainly differ to that of Norway, for a number of reasons, but it can still be classified as the Norwegian option. There is the Swiss option, which is in some ways similar to the Norwegian option but different enough to have a classification all of its own. Our agreement is unlikely to follow that route according to many commentators but if it did it would not be identical but would still be classifiable as the Swiss option.

Using the various titles is both convenient and accurate. Further, from an EU perspective, it is useful to have an agreement with the UK which is basically the same as those already in existence. To allow us favourable terms would upset those already under agreement with the EU and to have poorer terms would upset the UK negotiators and would be politically difficult to justify.

So the use of the term Norwegian option is valid. Quite clearly so. You suggest the UK will have an agreement specific to the UK. The Norwegian option is specific to Lichtenstein in that it differs form that of Norway, but it is still the Norwegian option for the reason explained in my first paragraph.

If we opt for EEA, EFTA, free movement and full access to the EU, then that is the Norwegian option regardless of detail specific to us.

That is not, of course, to suggest that that will be the route we will negotiate, but it is a distinct possibility and the one favoured pre exit by business groups, including the CBI. However, some other groups are against it. Google "If you want to run the EU, stay in the EU. If you want to be run by the EU, feel free to join us in the EEA", a comment by someone from the Norwegian conservative type party.

So full access to the EU with free movement (EEA, EFTA) = Norwegian option.

I don't know how much clearer I can make it Derek. The UK will have an agreement specific to the UK. That is not the Norway option.

[sidicks]

jsf said:

I don't know how much clearer I can make it Derek. The UK will have an agreement specific to the UK. That is not the Norway option.

Hereafter to be known as 'the UK option' when the next country decides to leave...?!

[sidicks]

el stovey said:

Sure, I wasn't sure what you meant by your question mark. So I assumed you wanted examples of UK business being sold to foreign investors.

Fair enough - When someone talks about the 'UK selling everything' in the context of UK GDP etc, I assumed they were referring to sale of state assets.

Private owned companies changing hands to other private individuals doesn't seem to be very relevant in this context!

[anonymous-user]

Ghibli said:

The Germans will continue and the EU will mould itself when we leave. We need to export and look at what we have to offer. IMO we should have looked at that before opting to leave.

If the EU goes down we can just as easily go with it whether we are in or out of it.

We always have and we always will do what you suggest, your comment on looking at that before opting to leave is bizarre, because we always have been looking at that.

Until the referendum result was known to be to leave the EU, no one on either side was in a position to discuss the future, other than knowing what is written within the treaties that cover such a scenario.

If any major economy goes down, we are affected by it. That's always been the case and always will be. How affected depends on how dependant you are on that economy and also how the agreements between these economies are constructed. That's the nature of being a world trading nation. You could of course take the North Korea option and chose to isolate yourself from that scenario, but it doesn't look too appealing.

[PurpleMoonlight]

sidicks said:

Fair enough - When someone talks about the 'UK selling everything' in the context of UK GDP etc, I assumed they were referring to sale of state assets.

Is this the sort of thing you had in mind?

https://www.sundaypost.com/news/uk-news/government...

[sidicks]

PurpleMoonlight said:

Is this the sort of thing you had in mind?

https://www.sundaypost.com/news/uk-news/government...

That would certainly be more relevant.


However I'd argue that the banks don't belong in public ownership long term and were only there due to circumstances of 8 years ago. That's the vast majority of the headline figure in the article.

[limpsfield]

Ghibli said:

It's the IMF. Nothing to do with me other than posting the link.

If you have a better source for predictions then please post it up, I'm happy to have a look.

The IMF, by their own admission, have a decidedly "flip of a coin" level of accuracy when it comes to predicting the future.

For anyone who can be bothered to read it, it's quite interesting

http://www.ieo-imf.org/ieo/files/completedevaluati...

This is true for most financial institutions of course- at least, in their defense, they hold their hands up to it.