The economic consequences of Brexit

[Mrr T]

Digga said:

That wasn't what I was saying. I agreed; the Uk had an opt out.

however, for the remainder, it was ever closer union which, as others point out, at a certain scale, does not always work that well. I would argue that where there are strong cultural differences, irrespective of the geographic scale of an entity, the conglomeration can be tricky at best.

Project fear continues. Any one with even basic research on the EU knows the EU is further away from a new treaty than it has ever been.

[bigkeeko]

I have a friend that owns a roller/shutter door company in Switzerland.

He said last month when he was here he was making good use of the drop in the pound and is buying materials from Edinburgh now as opposed to Germany.

[Murph7355]

Mario149 said:

Murph7355 said:

The boundary still encompasses those same historic boundaries though. And when countries join it's ultimately "ceding" that's taking place (definitively so if the project ever reaches it's conclusion).

Yes but those boundaries cease to exist in the way they previously did, they just become administrative cutoffs and lines on a map in a similar way that are county boundaries are.

The external ones don't

Mario149 said:

Murph7355 said:

The way the EU is expanding may well be different. Only time will tell if it's ultimately healthy or not, but the growing problems in the EU do not seem to me to be markedly different to those experienced by earlier attempts at empire.

I'd say they're different, in 40 years the EU and its predecessors have not had an armed insurgency against them or anything even close to it unlike any empire I can think of off the top of my head. For all the EUSSR doom-mongering and "diktats" from Brussels, they're clearly not very good at the un-democratic arch overlords thing if all it takes for us to exit is TM to rock up there one afternoon and give them an A50 letter saying that we're off rather than instigating a multi-year violent guerrilla movement.

Armed insurgency tends to be the final straw when things have gone awry and in imperial terms, 40yrs is not a long time. Especially when you consider that the EU isn't really that far down the path of "ever closer union" (yet).

Unless/until the full union of states happened, the Article 50 clause is needed. However they quite obviously don't want anyone using it and are prepared to bully and cajole to try to prevent its use. It looks to have backfired a little with us.

[jjlynn27]

Digga said:

That wasn't what I was saying. I agreed; the Uk had an opt out.

however, for the remainder, it was ever closer union which, as others point out, at a certain scale, does not always work that well. I would argue that where there are strong cultural differences, irrespective of the geographic scale of an entity, the conglomeration can be tricky at best.

We managed to do just fine with opt-outs we had. So, you agree that 'ever closer union' in regards to UK is bs?

[anonymous-user]

bigkeeko said:

I have a friend that owns a roller/shutter door company in Switzerland.

He said last month when he was here he was making good use of the drop in the pound and is buying materials from Edinburgh now as opposed to Germany.

Good news for your friend and his new supplier in Edinburgh.

If the new supplier in Edinburgh buys any of his supplies outside of the U.K. He will likely put his prices up. If you want to buy a roller shutter in the UK you will pay more unless you keep your money outside the UK.

Swings and roundabouts.

[///ajd]

jjlynn27 said:

We managed to do just fine with opt-outs we had. So, you agree that 'ever closer union' in regards to UK is bs?

Ever closer union for the UK was just as much total BS as the £350m to the NHS claim.

Total nonsense, don't worry though no one who voted brexit believed it or thought it was a reason to leave.

[Mario149]

Murph7355 said:

Mario149 said:

Murph7355 said:

The boundary still encompasses those same historic boundaries though. And when countries join it's ultimately "ceding" that's taking place (definitively so if the project ever reaches it's conclusion).

Yes but those boundaries cease to exist in the way they previously did, they just become administrative cutoffs and lines on a map in a similar way that are county boundaries are.

The external ones don't

Ok, you can have that one But my point still stands.

Murph7355 said:

Mario149 said:

Murph7355 said:

The way the EU is expanding may well be different. Only time will tell if it's ultimately healthy or not, but the growing problems in the EU do not seem to me to be markedly different to those experienced by earlier attempts at empire.

I'd say they're different, in 40 years the EU and its predecessors have not had an armed insurgency against them or anything even close to it unlike any empire I can think of off the top of my head. For all the EUSSR doom-mongering and "diktats" from Brussels, they're clearly not very good at the un-democratic arch overlords thing if all it takes for us to exit is TM to rock up there one afternoon and give them an A50 letter saying that we're off rather than instigating a multi-year violent guerrilla movement.

Armed insurgency tends to be the final straw when things have gone awry and in imperial terms, 40yrs is not a long time. Especially when you consider that the EU isn't really that far down the path of "ever closer union" (yet).

Unless/until the full union of states happened, the Article 50 clause is needed. However they quite obviously don't want anyone using it and are prepared to bully and cajole to try to prevent its use. It looks to have backfired a little with us.

40 years is quite a while, can you find a 40 year period where there was no armed insurrection or even a whisper thereof in the old British Empire? I can't.

And how are they "bullying and cajoling" to prevent A50's use?

[ATG]

Rovinghawk said:

jjlynn27 said:

I'm not sure what you are reading. It does seem that oft repeated line 'ever closer union' is a bs.

If you have an article sating that UK is going to be made part of 'ever closer union' I'll be grateful. Till then, above stands.

Have a some facts about who said what:

http://ec.europa.eu/archives/emu_history/documents...

We signed up all this a bit later. The bit about ever closer union is on page 1.

Yeah, if we were talking about the European Community nearly 60 years ago, then your link would be more relevant. But time has moved on and things have changed.

You could still have argued the toss through the 1980s, but by the time Thatcher started saying "No, no, no" it was pretty obvious that ever closer integration was not going to be forced on anyone and the centralising project's foundations were crumbling. EU expansion to the East was the nail in the coffin of the "ever closer union" brigade. They lost the argument. It became completely clear that the only way any members could integrate further was if the other EU states allowed them to create a two-speed EU.

The Brexiteers who apparently were sincerely worried about ever closer union, I have to ask, where have you been for the last 20 years? Open your eyes.

[Digga]

jjlynn27 said:

Digga said:

That wasn't what I was saying. I agreed; the Uk had an opt out.

however, for the remainder, it was ever closer union which, as others point out, at a certain scale, does not always work that well. I would argue that where there are strong cultural differences, irrespective of the geographic scale of an entity, the conglomeration can be tricky at best.

We managed to do just fine with opt-outs we had. So, you agree that 'ever closer union' in regards to UK is bs?

For the second (and final time) yes! I fkING WELL AGREE WITH YOU!

Although as regards a theoretical future with the UK in the EU, who knows what pressures, changes and coercions might have come?

[bigkeeko]

Ghibli said:

Swings and roundabouts.

As I thought. The sky isn't falling in after all.

[s2art]

ATG said:

You could still have argued the toss through the 1980s, but by the time Thatcher started saying "No, no, no" it was pretty obvious that ever closer integration was not going to be forced on anyone and the centralising project's foundations were crumbling. EU expansion to the East was the nail in the coffin of the "ever closer union" brigade. They lost the argument. It became completely clear that the only way any members could integrate further was if the other EU states allowed them to create a two-speed EU.

Well, creating the Eurozone was the creation of a two speed EU and it didnt need our permission. Rather we had to apply for an opt out. The problem is they didnt think through what was needed/desirable for an outer tier (or multiple tiers). Its all a bit ad-hoc. It makes a lot of sense for the Eurozone countries to integrate further, but even there the Germans dont seem to want to take the next steps in creating a full transfer union.

[jjlynn27]

wwwww

Digga said:

jjlynn27 said:

Digga said:

That wasn't what I was saying. I agreed; the Uk had an opt out.

however, for the remainder, it was ever closer union which, as others point out, at a certain scale, does not always work that well. I would argue that where there are strong cultural differences, irrespective of the geographic scale of an entity, the conglomeration can be tricky at best.

We managed to do just fine with opt-outs we had. So, you agree that 'ever closer union' in regards to UK is bs?

For the second (and final time) yes! I fkING WELL AGREE WITH YOU!

Although as regards a theoretical future with the UK in the EU, who knows what pressures, changes and coercions might have come?

Ok. I'll bow out of this convo before you hurt yourself. Good talk.

[ATG]

s2art said:

ATG said:

You could still have argued the toss through the 1980s, but by the time Thatcher started saying "No, no, no" it was pretty obvious that ever closer integration was not going to be forced on anyone and the centralising project's foundations were crumbling. EU expansion to the East was the nail in the coffin of the "ever closer union" brigade. They lost the argument. It became completely clear that the only way any members could integrate further was if the other EU states allowed them to create a two-speed EU.

Well, creating the Eurozone was the creation of a two speed EU and it didnt need our permission. Rather we had to apply for an opt out. The problem is they didnt think through what was needed/desirable for an outer tier (or multiple tiers). Its all a bit ad-hoc. It makes a lot of sense for the Eurozone countries to integrate further, but even there the Germans dont seem to want to take the next steps in creating a full transfer union.

We could have vetoed the Maastricht Treaty. It would have been the nuclear option, but it was there if we wanted to use it. In that sense, the EU required our permission to go ahead. As it was, an opt-out was included in that treaty for the UK and Denmark.

[AJS-]

I thought it seemed a bit odd that the viability of the Chipping Sodbury branch of Lloyds Bank was dependent on our EU membership...

[anonymous-user]

Some not so great 'confidence' figures released today.

Brexit knocks manufacturers' confidence - report
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36912676

U.K sees biggest fall in consumer confidence in 26 years after brexit vote.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com...

[RYH64E]

cookie118 said:

Some not so great 'confidence' figures released today.

Brexit knocks manufacturers' confidence - report
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36912676

U.K sees biggest fall in consumer confidence in 26 years after brexit vote.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com...

No surprise there, manufacturers will be struggling with significantly increased costs due to the weakness of Sterling, trying to convince customers that prices need to go up (the range in my industry is 7-13% for UK customers), general uncertainty in the marketplace, and pondering how best to follow the PH armchair tycoon's advice about selling to new markets in Guatemala et al.

[Benbay001]

cookie118 said:

Some not so great 'confidence' figures released today.

Brexit knocks manufacturers' confidence - report
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36912676

U.K sees biggest fall in consumer confidence in 26 years after brexit vote.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com...

I thought the Beeb had been reporting that for a couple weeks now? They seem to tag "Brexit knocks manufacturers' confidence" onto the end of every article they post at the least.

ETA
Possible more tellingly "The report said that 25% of companies in the North West had yet to find any business opportunities from Brexit"
So... 75% of companies have found business opportunities from Brexit?

Edited by Benbay001 on Friday 29th July 09:52

[Digga]

jjlynn27 said:

Ok. I'll bow out of this convo before you hurt yourself. Good talk.

Apropos of the discussion, I had my attention drawn to this article. Written almost exactly a year ago, but with some superb insight into the integration strategies of the EU: http://www.voxeu.org/article/monnet-s-chain-reacti...

[London424]

Got to be Brexit related too

https://www.forexcrunch.com/french-gdp-disappoints...

[Digga]

London424 said:

Got to be Brexit related too

https://www.forexcrunch.com/french-gdp-disappoints...

And nothing to do with two months of striking and general fking about and flinging toys out of the pram over sensible, long overdue labour reforms.