The economic consequences of Brexit (Vol 2)

[turbobloke]

pim said:

And adj is right it was the main reason.This is what happens when populism takes over.Reason goes out the window.

Reasoning of your type may have gone out of the window but that doesn't imply a lack of reason.

The best headline so far on this issue came from spiked online:
Why did people vote Leave? Because they want to Leave.

Back in time, not long after the referendum, and with May freshly installed, even The Independent realised it was nothing like a single issue vote.

Indy said:

Yes, the people have spoken. But it’s a fallacy to assume that they spoke with a single voice.

[Deptford Draylons]

Sway said:

///ajd said:

They might even start running the Single Market to suit those inside it over those outside!? Who knew?

So you're happy for every single one of the 450 odd million people in the EU to have inflated food prices in order to appease French farmers claiming subsidies for farming land that comprises an area greater than all of France?

Where is the net benefit? 450 million people spending nearly 10% more for food to protect perhaps 100k inefficient non-farmers! Sounds great that.

You have to remember ///ajd's grand plan was that after Cameron failed to get any meaningful reform, everybody should vote remain and then the EU would negotiate after being delivered the mandate and legitimacy they never had before. Unsurprisingly, not many people bought that idea. Give him chance over the coming years to lecture you on how to do deals.

[don'tbesilly]

pim said:

son gos out the window.

don'tbesilly said:

'Nasty Foreigners' and Farage, it never takes it long for ///ajd to bring it back to his favourite subject and the main reason for the vote to Leave despite it not being the main reason.

And adj is right it was the main reason.This is what happens when populism takes over.Reason goes out the window.

Not according to the Ashcroft polls he isn't

Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the EU was “the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK”.

One third (33%) said the main reason was that leaving “offered the best chance for the UK to regain control over immigration and its own borders.” Just over one in eight (13%) said remaining would mean having no choice “about how the EU expanded its membership or its powers in the years ahead.”

Only just over one in twenty (6%) said their main reason was that “when it comes to trade and the economy, the UK would benefit more from being outside the EU than from being part of it.”

[alfie2244]

///ajd said:

John Major makes some very valid observations.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/19/j...

Warning - he mentions what was written on the bus and points out the same people are saying WTO will be fine.

We use Cushelle in our house.

[Tuna]

///ajd said:

jonnyb said:

///ajd said:

jonnyb said:

So, by leaving the EU we gain more influence with an organisation that everyone ignores, Great!

Its genius isn't it.

I have a different word for it

So do 16 million others, though most are not very vocal about it - at least not in front of shouty kipper types.

I notice you get a lot more confident when you have an echo chamber

You're making spurious (and as has been repeatedly pointed out) misunderstood claims, and then associating them with results that are completely unrelated.

Our control over international standards decided by bodies like the EU and WTO will remain pretty much as it currently stands - minimal at best. That doesn't stop us trading, and companies who are good at handling multiple standards will (as always) have an advantage. The Chinese have been doing it for years.

The few claims that there would be a 'bonfire of the regulatins' are indeed nonsense, but not ones that have been made by anybody with real experience in the relevant industries. Let's be clear that there will be a change in trading conditions, but really, meeting standards is not the make or break part of a business that already has to fork out five figure sums to put things through compliance testing.

Please, can you guys also get it into your heads that in this thread, we're talking about the economic consequences of Brexit. Quite a few of the contributors have real world experience of trading within the EU and globally. Accusing them of being 'kippers' just because they actually have real world business experience that contradicts your views is rather pathetic.

[Norfolkit]

alfie2244 said:

///ajd said:

John Major makes some very valid observations.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/19/j...

Warning - he mentions what was written on the bus and points out the same people are saying WTO will be fine.

We use Cushelle in our house.

He should have just said "bds" and saved himself a lot of words, just another 80's politician crying over his cosy Euroland that no longer exists, needs to be filed in the bin along with anything that includes the word Kinnock.

[Garvin]

Sway said:

Excellent. Revert to rhetoric rather than responding to any examples or points that refute your argument. . . . . . . . .

It's disappointing that there is no rational counter to any question posed just a lot of emotional hot air. Still, it does serve to confirm my suspicion that there really isn't a rational response to the questions posed.

When the leave vote was made I resigned myself to the situation that, financially, the UK might be in for a few difficult years. However, having received no real objective and rational response to some of the questions posed I am coming round to a more optimistic frame of mind.

[anonymous-user]

frisbee said:

Anyone who think we'll tear up a load of EU regs is delusional. We'll keep all the EU ones, adopt future EU ones and make up conflicting UK ones!

And we will be the only numpties in the whole world that are compliant with all of them.

If the UK makes up its own standards that must be complied to, anyone wanting to sell to the UK market will have to meet those standards.

So we wont be the only numpties in the world that are compliant with them all, anyone wishing to sell to us will also be compliant.

What's so difficult about that? Its what we and any trading nation does already. The majority of our exports go to outside the EU currently, the majority of our imports come from outside the EU currently.

[///ajd]

Tuna said:

I notice you get a lot more confident when you have an echo chamber

You're making spurious (and as has been repeatedly pointed out) misunderstood claims, and then associating them with results that are completely unrelated.

Our control over international standards decided by bodies like the EU and WTO will remain pretty much as it currently stands - minimal at best. That doesn't stop us trading, and companies who are good at handling multiple standards will (as always) have an advantage. The Chinese have been doing it for years.

The few claims that there would be a 'bonfire of the regulatins' are indeed nonsense, but not ones that have been made by anybody with real experience in the relevant industries. Let's be clear that there will be a change in trading conditions, but really, meeting standards is not the make or break part of a business that already has to fork out five figure sums to put things through compliance testing.

Please, can you guys also get it into your heads that in this thread, we're talking about the economic consequences of Brexit. Quite a few of the contributors have real world experience of trading within the EU and globally. Accusing them of being 'kippers' just because they actually have real world business experience that contradicts your views is rather pathetic.

OK, lets put aside the kipperage.

Coming back to trade, do brexiteers really think Major is totally wrong and WTO would be OK?

If not, do you really think we will do a deal "single market lite" or whatever we need to call it to make it look hardcore enough to appease the Fox crowd - can be done in 18-24 months?

I suspect we don't really want (or could swallow) a WTO option and will nego an SM lite before we actually leave for as long as it takes. Which couod be years via mutual Art 50 extension.

[FiF]

Tuna said:

I notice you get a lot more confident when you have an echo chamber

You're making spurious (and as has been repeatedly pointed out) misunderstood claims, and then associating them with results that are completely unrelated.

Our control over international standards decided by bodies like the EU and WTO will remain pretty much as it currently stands - minimal at best. That doesn't stop us trading, and companies who are good at handling multiple standards will (as always) have an advantage. The Chinese have been doing it for years.

The few claims that there would be a 'bonfire of the regulatins' are indeed nonsense, but not ones that have been made by anybody with real experience in the relevant industries. Let's be clear that there will be a change in trading conditions, but really, meeting standards is not the make or break part of a business that already has to fork out five figure sums to put things through compliance testing.

Please, can you guys also get it into your heads that in this thread, we're talking about the economic consequences of Brexit. Quite a few of the contributors have real world experience of trading within the EU and globally. Accusing them of being 'kippers' just because they actually have real world business experience that contradicts your views is rather pathetic.

I've edited out the echo chamber, why, because I can and choose to do so.

Have repeatedly said that there will be no bonfire of regulations before and after the referendum.

The one thing I'd modify slightly to the quoted post is that many of our regulations come from supranational bodies, eg WTO and the UN family of regulatory bodies, and we would adopt them just as the EU adopts them then passing them down as if its own. Currently we have very little influence, merely 1/28th of a single voice on whatever international committee is relevant. It's possible that our influence will increase if we can get seats on those bodies. Indeed it may be to the advantage of the EU, as we could very well be in agreement with their views, thus helping their influence.

[anonymous-user]

///ajd said:

OK, lets put aside the kipperage.

Coming back to trade, do brexiteers really think Major is totally wrong and WTO would be OK?

If not, do you really think we will do a deal "single market lite" or whatever we need to call it to make it look hardcore enough to appease the Fox crowd - can be done in 18-24 months?

I suspect we don't really want (or could swallow) a WTO option and will nego an SM lite before we actually leave for as long as it takes. Which couod be years via mutual Art 50 extension.

I don't fear a WTO regime, it would be better if there is a sensible TA, but WTO is perfectly acceptable if a deal cant be reached.

I don't think it will come to that because the EU simply cant afford to lose the specialist services the UK offers them and they cant afford to force the UK people to change our mind set and buy more from cheaper none EU countries as our first thoughts on a purchase.

If we do end up under WTO, what's the point in keeping our relatively blinkered mind set of buying from Europe, we would be better off to buy from the rest of world. The EU needs to do a good PR job on us. When we leave the EU we can lower our tariff rates under WTO. The EU are going to have to work harder then to sell to us because we wont have the current EU tariff rates that artificially protect EU goods and services.

The world is a very different place to the one it was 45 years ago. Transport costs are cheap from rest of the world, communication speed is beyond the imagination of 70's man. We genuinely are a global world now, for example I can discuss something with a colleague in New Zealand within seconds and it costs me not a single penny to do that.

[Sway]

///ajd said:

OK, lets put aside the kipperage.

Coming back to trade, do brexiteers really think Major is totally wrong and WTO would be OK?

If not, do you really think we will do a deal "single market lite" or whatever we need to call it to make it look hardcore enough to appease the Fox crowd - can be done in 18-24 months?

I suspect we don't really want (or could swallow) a WTO option and will nego an SM lite before we actually leave for as long as it takes. Which couod be years via mutual Art 50 extension.

You can read my views on what I'd like, in order of preference.

Single Market lite, is a FTA. Simple as that. Yes, when starting from the point of mutual recognition of standards, existing free trade, and a desire on both sides to achieve this I believe it's entirely achievable within 2 years. In fact, with the will it could be done inside a month.

That 'looks hardcore'. No FTA includes membership payments. No FTA requires completely open borders for people between the two parties. No FTA requires soveriegn competencies to be transferred to a supranational body, except for very niche agreements on the resolution of trade disputes.

But yes, if necessary, WTO MFN can work. It does for many nations. It'd hurt short term, but not long term as we'd adapt. Just as we adapted to cutting off the Commonwealth and opening up to Europe.

[///ajd]

As this can from the keyboard of a brexiteer, I felt it appropriate to draw parallels by changing only a few key words.

from another thread with some substitution said:

I (sadly) came to realise some time ago that there is simply no reasoning with many brexit supporters. The total commitment to the cause of independence blinds them to the lies and fabrications of their leaders. Jobs, trade, EU membership, loss of fishing, immigration, Schengen, cost of extra civil servants...... You name it, none of it is important and the answers will always be that everyone else will always compromise in favour of Brexit UK.

Press too hard for REAL answers and you will be accused of attacking the UK, as if somehow holding some right wing policians to account equates to dissing an entire nation.
The languages of the brexiteers is frequently hateful and deliberately divisive. Apparently being an "equal partner" in the Union does not mean that one EU member vote counts the same as another Nation - no, apparently it means that UK gets what it wants all the time.

Perhaps the most depressing thing, and in fact one of the reasons why I rarely engage with Brexiteers now, is the widespread belief that EU only wants UK in the Union so that it can exploit UK ..in brexiteer minds UK subsidises the EU. EU wanting to maintain the union cannot possibly be anything to do with years of shared history, family ties, blood spilt together, a world influenced together, deep seated cultural respect, integration and affection... In brexiteer minds UK is the victim

[FiF]

jsf said:

I don't fear a WTO regime, it would be better if there is a sensible TA, but WTO is perfectly acceptable if a deal cant be reached.

I don't think it will come to that because the EU simply cant afford to lose the specialist services the UK offers them and they cant afford to force the UK people to change our mind set and buy more from cheaper none EU countries as our first thoughts on a purchase.

If we do end up under WTO, what's the point in keeping our relatively blinkered mind set of buying from Europe, we would be better off to buy from the rest of world. The EU needs to do a good PR job on us. When we leave the EU we can lower our tariff rates under WTO. The EU are going to have to work harder then to sell to us because we wont have the current EU tariff rates that artificially protect EU goods and services.

The world is a very different place to the one it was 45 years ago. Transport costs are cheap from rest of the world, communication speed is beyond the imagination of 70's man. We genuinely are a global world now, for example I can discuss something with a colleague in New Zealand within seconds and it costs me not a single penny to do that.

Just out of interest who would change their buying choices if the EU behaved like a set of a-holes in thus negotiation.

As a family we try and buy British, not always possible. If the EU really set out on a punishment approach, the buy British would stay, but after that, anywhere but the EU as next choice. Anyone else? Petty, yes, childish, yes. Stuff 'em.

[anonymous-user]

FiF said:

jsf said:

I don't fear a WTO regime, it would be better if there is a sensible TA, but WTO is perfectly acceptable if a deal cant be reached.

I don't think it will come to that because the EU simply cant afford to lose the specialist services the UK offers them and they cant afford to force the UK people to change our mind set and buy more from cheaper none EU countries as our first thoughts on a purchase.

If we do end up under WTO, what's the point in keeping our relatively blinkered mind set of buying from Europe, we would be better off to buy from the rest of world. The EU needs to do a good PR job on us. When we leave the EU we can lower our tariff rates under WTO. The EU are going to have to work harder then to sell to us because we wont have the current EU tariff rates that artificially protect EU goods and services.

The world is a very different place to the one it was 45 years ago. Transport costs are cheap from rest of the world, communication speed is beyond the imagination of 70's man. We genuinely are a global world now, for example I can discuss something with a colleague in New Zealand within seconds and it costs me not a single penny to do that.

Just out of interest who would change their buying choices if the EU behaved like a set of a-holes in thus negotiation.

As a family we try and buy British, not always possible. If the EU really set out on a punishment approach, the buy British would stay, but after that, anywhere but the EU as next choice. Anyone else? Petty, yes, childish, yes. Stuff 'em.

None of my purchase decisions are based on where the goods come from. I buy the best product for the job in the cost bracket I can afford. That's how the market works in a global world.

My buying habits will change if they have to, or I feel we are being punished, otherwise I wont think twice about the source. I think that's the way the vast majority think worldwide, which is why global trade has evolved the way it has.

[Sway]

///ajd said:

As this can from the keyboard of a brexiteer, I felt it appropriate to draw parallels by changing only a few key words.

from another thread with some substitution said:

I (sadly) came to realise some time ago that there is simply no reasoning with many brexit supporters. The total commitment to the cause of independence blinds them to the lies and fabrications of their leaders. Jobs, trade, EU membership, loss of fishing, immigration, Schengen, cost of extra civil servants...... You name it, none of it is important and the answers will always be that everyone else will always compromise in favour of Brexit UK.

Press too hard for REAL answers and you will be accused of attacking the UK, as if somehow holding some right wing policians to account equates to dissing an entire nation.
The languages of the brexiteers is frequently hateful and deliberately divisive. Apparently being an "equal partner" in the Union does not mean that one EU member vote counts the same as another Nation - no, apparently it means that UK gets what it wants all the time.

Perhaps the most depressing thing, and in fact one of the reasons why I rarely engage with Brexiteers now, is the widespread belief that EU only wants UK in the Union so that it can exploit UK ..in brexiteer minds UK subsidises the EU. EU wanting to maintain the union cannot possibly be anything to do with years of shared history, family ties, blood spilt together, a world influenced together, deep seated cultural respect, integration and affection... In brexiteer minds UK is the victim

When you respond to the many examples and explanations of the differences between Scottish independence and UK leaving the EU (including many that are contained in your post), and the many examples that completely refute your case, then perhaps you'd have more success in trying to change people's minds.

There are no parallels, other than your rhetoric.

[///ajd]

Sway said:

When you respond to the many examples and explanations of the differences between Scottish independence and UK leaving the EU (including many that are contained in your post), and the many examples that completely refute your case, then perhaps you'd have more success in trying to change people's minds.

There are no parallels, other than your rhetoric.

I refer you to the opening lines about "no reasoning".

The parallels are obvious if you are prepared to admit it. The victim mindset is perhaps the key one.

[Tuna]

///ajd said:

OK, lets put aside the kipperage.

I wish you would, you've been brought up on that regularly, yet you still persist.

///ajd said:

Coming back to trade, do brexiteers really think Major is totally wrong and WTO would be OK?

Well, yes. His only actual argument is that exports would go up, but that's already been priced in by the fall in the pound. In fact, doing the maths:

Since Brexit, Exports to the EU have become £27 Billion pounds cheaper on the continent

So to say that WTO would increase exports by six billion kind of misses out the fact that currency fluctuations would still mean we're £21 billion a year 'better off'. In effect, under WTO, exports would still be 10% cheaper than before Brexit.

The rest of his article is as disingenuous as all of the pre-Brexit arguments. Just like Blair, this sort of opportunistic return to the political stage is cheap at best - no doubt he'll have a book deal to push soon.

///ajd said:

If not, do you really think we will do a deal "single market lite" or whatever we need to call it to make it look hardcore enough to appease the Fox crowd - can be done in 18-24 months?

I have no idea what a single market lite deal would actually entail. We need a trade agreement - and the point of voting leave was largely to escape political interference by Brussels (which manifested in arguments about payments, immigration, sovereignty and so on, but all came down to the basis of wanting freedom from oversight by the EU). So any deal should respect that and not immediately negotiate away the right to self-determination for the sake of selling cheese. Single market lite sounds to me suspiciously like the usual European die-hards trying to keep political business as usual going on by giving it a fresh coat of paint.

As it is, we need a trade agreement, and we need to commit to it. How long it takes will depend entirely on how strong our commitment is to it. If we sit on our hands wishing everyone would just be nice to us, we're going to be here for decades. If we go in having decided that the only option we want is a pale version of the current arrangement, I can guarantee the EU will quite happily draw out negotiations forever, safe in the knowledge we've brought nothing to the table.

[Tryke3]

Tuna said:

///ajd said:

OK, lets put aside the kipperage.

I wish you would, you've been brought up on that regularly, yet you still persist.

///ajd said:

Coming back to trade, do brexiteers really think Major is totally wrong and WTO would be OK?

Well, yes. His only actual argument is that exports would go up, but that's already been priced in by the fall in the pound. In fact, doing the maths:

Since Brexit, Exports to the EU have become £27 Billion pounds cheaper on the continent

So to say that WTO would increase exports by six billion kind of misses out the fact that currency fluctuations would still mean we're £21 billion a year 'better off'. In effect, under WTO, exports would still be 10% cheaper than before Brexit.

The rest of his article is as disingenuous as all of the pre-Brexit arguments. Just like Blair, this sort of opportunistic return to the political stage is cheap at best - no doubt he'll have a book deal to push soon.

///ajd said:

If not, do you really think we will do a deal "single market lite" or whatever we need to call it to make it look hardcore enough to appease the Fox crowd - can be done in 18-24 months?

I have no idea what a single market lite deal would actually entail. We need a trade agreement - and the point of voting leave was largely to escape political interference by Brussels (which manifested in arguments about payments, immigration, sovereignty and so on, but all came down to the basis of wanting freedom from oversight by the EU). So any deal should respect that and not immediately negotiate away the right to self-determination for the sake of selling cheese. Single market lite sounds to me suspiciously like the usual European die-hards trying to keep political business as usual going on by giving it a fresh coat of paint.

As it is, we need a trade agreement, and we need to commit to it. How long it takes will depend entirely on how strong our commitment is to it. If we sit on our hands wishing everyone would just be nice to us, we're going to be here for decades. If we go in having decided that the only option we want is a pale version of the current arrangement, I can guarantee the EU will quite happily draw out negotiations forever, safe in the knowledge we've brought nothing to the table.

Its ok, cant wait till a business would need to pay the vat in advance while at it, have a team of people employed juat to get the paperwork ready. All our lives we have been missing out in trading with Zimbabwe

Just because you watch downtown abbey it doesnt really mean that what is depicted is true. Most of the rest of the world actually hate our guts, including aus nz india etc etc

Edited by Tryke3 on Sunday 19th March 12:55

[sidicks]

Tryke3 said:

Its ok, cant wait till a business would need to pay the vat in advance while at it, have a team of people employed juat to get the paperwork ready. All our lives we have been missing out in trading with Zimbabwe

Just because you watch downtown abbey it doesnt really mean that what is depicted is true. Most of the rest of the world actually hate our guts, including aus nz india etc etc

What utter nonsense!