The economic consequences of Brexit

[AC43]

Carl_Manchester said:

///ajd said:

SilverSixer said:

AC43 said:

ATG said:

powerstroke said:

RYH64E said:

It's worth remembering that we haven't left yet, we haven't even begun to leave and there's no proposal as to what our post-Brexit relationship with the EU will be. It's a bit early to draw any conclusions about the economic consequences of Brexit, this will play out over the next few years.

I dont really care, there is a big world out there the EU is just another possible trading partner not the be all and end all
We don't need to kiss their arses we really don't , why people go on about the single market as if it was some magic money tree, its not there companys want to sell us trucks vans and cars , heavy and light equipment etc etc,,,
carrot and stick!! we have a carrot ...

Edited by powerstroke on Monday 29th August 22:16

The "big world out there" is not unexplored territory. We're already trading with them. The EU is also a very big slice of the world beyond our borders. We've never been myopically focussed on EU trade while ignoring opportunities in the rest of the world. The "big world out there" narrative is a fairy story.

The single market is a customs union; that means for goods, and quite a lot of services, trading with an EU counterparty is no more difficult that someone in Arbroath trading with someone next door or in Carlisle, Bristol or anywhere else in the UK. It's a genuinely common market. Most trade deals give nothing like that degree of seamless, unbureaucratic access.

Once we leave the EU, the best we can hope for in terms of access to EU markets is that we continue to be members of the EU customs union. Any other arrangement with the EU will make trading with EU companies less efficient. Some seem to think we will be able to negotiate trade deals with countries outside the EU that will offset any damage caused to our EU trade and leave us in a net better position. I haven't seen any evidence put forward to support that view. (And by evidence I mean a suggested, credible negotiating stance, or economic projections.) And in the meantime we have a high degree of uncertainty which is already damaging the economy and will continue to do so for the next few years until the outcome of the exit negotiations takes real shape.

As has been said many times, if you want to leave the EU for purely political reasons, fine. If it means so much to people that the small amount of decision making that currently takes place in Brussels (and it is fking tiny in the grand scheme of things) is repatriated to Westminster (home of the politicians we all love and respect), so be it. If you want to repatriate the tiny amount of public spending decisions from Brussels to Westminster, fine. But don't pretend this won't come with a fairly hefty price tag. Will our economy collapse? No, of course not. Will it grow more slowly and possibly shrink a bit in the short-term? Yes. Is this a great time to be risking some growth? No, it's a bloody awful time to be doing it. The public finances are still in a mess. We need to cut government spending, but we can only do that when private sector growth will offset the reduction in government spending, otherwise the economy will just shrink and the public finances will continue to deteriorate. The very last thing we needed right now is Brexit undermining growth. No wonder the first thing the new govt did was start loosening the fiscal position.

This x 1000.

x 100000. Brilliantly put.

Very well put.

Money, money, money, money. The above explains why the vote was lost - tunnel vision. If an argument other than just financially driven was made the vote to remain would have been won. It's the avoidance of non financial topics which buried the remain campaign.

But, fundamentally it IS a financial issue. Businesses generate the taxes which the politicians spend on hospitals, schools, roads, police, pensions, etc. If you damage business you risk reducing the tax take which in turn reduces the spend.

Public finances were in a right old mess before Brexit and the new govt's first reaction was to abandon all plans to pay off the deficit. The first thing the BoE did was to print a load of money. Which caused the £ to collapse.

Now we're in a position where we've created huge uncertainty with the biggest single trading bloc with which we do business.

But apparently Tanzania, Madagascar and Andorra are desperate to do trade deals with us which should make up for all the gaps.

[walm]

Carl_Manchester said:

Money, money, money, money. The above explains why the vote was lost - tunnel vision. If an argument other than just financially driven was made the vote to remain would have been won. It's the avoidance of non financial topics which buried the remain campaign.

If only the thread were entitled "The touchy-feely and warm-and-fuzzy consequences of Brexit".

[powerstroke]

Carl_Manchester said:

Money, money, money, money. The above explains why the vote was lost - tunnel vision. If an argument other than just financially driven was made the vote to remain would have been won. It's the avoidance of non financial topics which buried the remain campaign.

The vote was won!!! , the remain only had the finacial fear factor and it would have been a bigger leave vote if they had dipped into other areas like sovereignty ,democracy, acountabilty etc

[Dr Jekyll]

Carl_Manchester said:

Money, money, money, money. The above explains why the vote was lost - tunnel vision. If an argument other than just financially driven was made the vote to remain would have been won. It's the avoidance of non financial topics which buried the remain campaign.

Go on then. What exactly are the non financial arguments for staying in a protectionist bureaucratic undemocratic customs union run by an unhinged anglophobe?

[ou sont les biscuits]

walm said:

Carl_Manchester said:

Money, money, money, money. The above explains why the vote was lost - tunnel vision. If an argument other than just financially driven was made the vote to remain would have been won. It's the avoidance of non financial topics which buried the remain campaign.

If only the thread were entitled "The touchy-feely and warm-and-fuzzy consequences of Brexit".

Well, with a bit of luck Teresa will start to bang a few heads together today, and get the three clowns to stop arguing with each other about how many desks and telephones they get in their departments and instead produce some sort of credible plan for what our exit strategy is.

I'm not holding my breath though.

[CaptainSlow]

Dr Jekyll said:

Carl_Manchester said:

Money, money, money, money. The above explains why the vote was lost - tunnel vision. If an argument other than just financially driven was made the vote to remain would have been won. It's the avoidance of non financial topics which buried the remain campaign.

Go on then. What exactly are the non financial arguments for staying in a protectionist bureaucratic undemocratic customs union run by an unhinged anglophobe?

ummm...something about passport queues?

[walm]

ou sont les biscuits said:

Well, with a bit of luck Teresa will start to bang a few heads together today, and get the three clowns to stop arguing with each other about how many desks and telephones they get in their departments and instead produce some sort of credible plan for what our exit strategy is.

I'm not holding my breath though.

Agreed.

[RYH64E]

Carl_Manchester said:

Money, money, money, money. The above explains why the vote was lost - tunnel vision. If an argument other than just financially driven was made the vote to remain would have been won. It's the avoidance of non financial topics which buried the remain campaign.

Many (not all) of those who voted leave had no money, crap (if any) jobs, felt disenfranchised, and didn't think that the financial consequences of brexit affected them. Unfortunately for them, a less prosperous country will be less able to provide for those in need of financial assistance. Money may not appear to be important to those with a less materialistic outlook, but someone has to pay for the NHS, schools, etc.

[bodhi]

CaptainSlow said:

Dr Jekyll said:

Carl_Manchester said:

Money, money, money, money. The above explains why the vote was lost - tunnel vision. If an argument other than just financially driven was made the vote to remain would have been won. It's the avoidance of non financial topics which buried the remain campaign.

Go on then. What exactly are the non financial arguments for staying in a protectionist bureaucratic undemocratic customs union run by an unhinged anglophobe?

ummm...something about passport queues?

Not having to wash my own car?

[AC43]

Dr Jekyll said:

What exactly are the non financial arguments for staying in a protectionist bureaucratic undemocratic customs union run by an unhinged anglophobe?

LOL - a very good question.

I genuinely struggle to answer that except to say that you have to take the baggage to get the financial prize.

And it's (arguably) better to have the unhinged anglophobe in your tent pissing out rather than the other way round.

Err....that's it.

EDIT; I didn't mention freedom of movement because although I see that as a great personal and professional benefit and something that modern London is built on there are obviously a lot of people who see it as massive negative.

Edited by AC43 on Wednesday 31st August 10:13

[AC43]

bodhi said:

CaptainSlow said:

Dr Jekyll said:

Carl_Manchester said:

Money, money, money, money. The above explains why the vote was lost - tunnel vision. If an argument other than just financially driven was made the vote to remain would have been won. It's the avoidance of non financial topics which buried the remain campaign.

Go on then. What exactly are the non financial arguments for staying in a protectionist bureaucratic undemocratic customs union run by an unhinged anglophobe?

ummm...something about passport queues?

Not having to wash my own car?

LOL

[brrapp]

ou sont les biscuits said:

Well, with a bit of luck Teresa will start to bang a few heads together today, and get the three clowns to stop arguing with each other about how many desks and telephones they get in their departments and instead produce some sort of credible plan for what our exit strategy is.

I'm not holding my breath though.

I think everyone is looking at this the wrong way, we don't need an 'exit strategy', exit is simple, we leave the EU as voted for, end of. What is not simple is negotiating a new agreement for the future post our exit but this is what me must concentrate on.
It might seem like semantics, but I believe we need to separate the two in our minds. Yes we need to negotiate the new settlement before we leave, but we need to have it clear in our minds that the question leaving has already been determined and will not be changed. The terms of the new settlement should be the best that we can negotiate for the future of all concerned and should not be twisted by the arguments that went on the past over whether we should have left or not. What Teresa and her cabinet should do is drop all talk of Brexit and concentrate on negotiating a new treaty/deal/partnership with the EU, call it something completely different, Eurobritdeal or something, if you have to.
Drop the history and concentrate on the future.

[AC43]

brrapp said:

we need to negotiate the new settlement before we leave

A core principle of Article 50 is that a state that has decided to leave CANNOT commence negotiations before triggering the clause which is of course non-reversible.

So you have to commit to something with having a clue as to what it is.

[loafer123]

AC43 said:

brrapp said:

we need to negotiate the new settlement before we leave

A core principle of Article 50 is that a state that has decided to leave CANNOT commence negotiations before triggering the clause which is of course non-reversible.

So you have to commit to something with having a clue as to what it is.

Of course, back in the real world, those conversations are already actively taking place with the major players, as well as with other countries with whom we wish to create closer relationships.

[AC43]

loafer123 said:

AC43 said:

brrapp said:

we need to negotiate the new settlement before we leave

A core principle of Article 50 is that a state that has decided to leave CANNOT commence negotiations before triggering the clause which is of course non-reversible.

So you have to commit to something with having a clue as to what it is.

Of course, back in the real world, those conversations are already actively taking place with the major players, as well as with other countries with whom we wish to create closer relationships.

Conversations, yes. Anything that might hold water? No. Massive massive risk for us.

[RYH64E]

brrapp said:

I think everyone is looking at this the wrong way, we don't need an 'exit strategy', exit is simple, we leave the EU as voted for, end of. What is not simple is negotiating a new agreement for the future post our exit but this is what me must concentrate on.
It might seem like semantics, but I believe we need to separate the two in our minds. Yes we need to negotiate the new settlement before we leave, but we need to have it clear in our minds that the question leaving has already been determined and will not be changed. The terms of the new settlement should be the best that we can negotiate for the future of all concerned and should not be twisted by the arguments that went on the past over whether we should have left or not. What Teresa and her cabinet should do is drop all talk of Brexit and concentrate on negotiating a new treaty/deal/partnership with the EU, call it something completely different, Eurobritdeal or something, if you have to.
Drop the history and concentrate on the future.

We could leave the EU but retain single market access and free movement of people, as is the case for Norway, that might not be acceptable to many but it would satisfy the terms of the referendum.

[brrapp]

AC43 said:

brrapp said:

we need to negotiate the new settlement before we leave

A core principle of Article 50 is that a state that has decided to leave CANNOT commence negotiations before triggering the clause which is of course non-reversible.

So you have to commit to something with having a clue as to what it is.

We cannot commence negotiations to leave before triggering the clause. We can negotiate on future treaties any time we want. Do you see what I mean by needing to seperate the two?

[SilverSixer]

Dr Jekyll said:

Carl_Manchester said:

Money, money, money, money. The above explains why the vote was lost - tunnel vision. If an argument other than just financially driven was made the vote to remain would have been won. It's the avoidance of non financial topics which buried the remain campaign.

Go on then. What exactly are the non financial arguments for staying in a protectionist bureaucratic undemocratic customs union run by an unhinged anglophobe?

In order to answer that question, one first has to accept that the EU is 'a protectionist bureaucratic undemocratic customs union run by an unhinged Anglophobe'. There is so much wrong with that description that it is difficult to know where to start. Of course, this received wisdom, such as we have been fed by the Express and Mail for 40 years, rendering it into a received 'truth', Stalin style (i.e. tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth), is one of the main drivers behind the country's enormous cock-up in voting Leave.

[Dr Jekyll]

SilverSixer said:

In order to answer that question, one first has to accept that the EU is 'a protectionist bureaucratic undemocratic customs union run by an unhinged Anglophobe'. There is so much wrong with that description that it is difficult to know where to start. Of course, this received wisdom, such as we have been fed by the Express and Mail for 40 years, rendering it into a received 'truth', Stalin style (i.e. tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth), is one of the main drivers behind the country's enormous cock-up in voting Leave.

What is your specific disagreement? Are you saying the EU isn't a customs union? Isn't protectionist? isn't a bureaucracy? isn't undemocratic? (OK perhaps anti democratic would be a better description).

[SilverSixer]

Dr Jekyll said:

SilverSixer said:

In order to answer that question, one first has to accept that the EU is 'a protectionist bureaucratic undemocratic customs union run by an unhinged Anglophobe'. There is so much wrong with that description that it is difficult to know where to start. Of course, this received wisdom, such as we have been fed by the Express and Mail for 40 years, rendering it into a received 'truth', Stalin style (i.e. tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth), is one of the main drivers behind the country's enormous cock-up in voting Leave.

What is your specific disagreement? Are you saying the EU isn't a customs union? Isn't protectionist? isn't a bureaucracy? isn't undemocratic? (OK perhaps anti democratic would be a better description).

My biggest disagreement is the 'undemocratic' lie. There is much misunderstanding around the nature of decision making in the EU, and many of the 52% have evidently swallowed the misunderstandings. Primarily all the shouting about the 'European Commission' running everything. They propose legislation, the Parliament ratifies it and then we have the many treaties which have to be ratified by all 28 national governments before taking effect - exemplified in the many vetos and opt-outs we have in the UK. But all this has been explained many times, in great detail, and before the Referendum. But you're still asking the question - so you don't want to listen. My saying it all again is evidently not going to get through to anyone. The Commission President does not 'run' the EU, and whether he's an 'Anglophobe' or not is moot. Google 'Professor Michael Dougan' if you don't believe me and watch his speeches. Maybe you did before June 23rd but chose to believe what you wanted to believe. Warning for brexiters: Prof Dougan is an 'expert'.

Aside from that, well, how is the EU any worse than the UK government in terms of its bureaucracy, protectionism and customs union? Danny (from Whithnail and I): Why trust one drug and not the other?