The economic consequences of Brexit (Vol 2)

[Sway]

Dapper Dan is AJD...

No gloating from me.

Merely confidence that the result will not be anywhere near as bad (and in my opinion actually positive) as made out by some.

The last offer was carefully considered. Mix of macro and intermediate measures, over a period of time. Three wagers means that whilst there may be some to and fro, there'll be a 'winner' of current presented opinion.

Plus not huge money (I'm by no means wealthy, especially at the moment with two fast growing kids and a disabled missus who's hopefully finally been diagnosed correctly and could actually be 'fixed') so no Billy Big bks throwing around massive bets.

[davepoth]

wc98 said:

ajd is adamant he is correct in terms of a negative outcome of brexit, he should be all over any bet offered by a brexiter regarding positive outcomes .unless of course he is being overly dramatic and doesn't really have the conviction in the words he types that he would like us to believe he has.

I'd go a bit of a different way. AJD's failing to take the bet is a lovely example of a typical Remainer mindset - a refusal to gamble.

Let's face it, Brexit is a gamble. The possibilities for screwing things up are massive, but there are big opportunities there for people who can grasp them. So a lot of the Brexiters on PH seem to be of this type, entrepreneurs. I like to consider Brexit as an entrepreneurial enterprise at a national scale.

[paul789]

Sway said:

paul789 said:

Sway said:

///ajd said:

If some Mini production migrates to the EU, it is quite possible it will be genuinely due to brexit.

That will be st result.

You can't make excuses or roll such news in glitter. It'll still be a turd-like outcome.

Want to stop that happening?

I'll tell you what, I'll make a similar wager that I did another poster who refused until I shifted the odds in his favour - £500 that the Mini plant in Oxford remains at full capacity or expands over the next three years, barring major non-Brexit related financial crisis (such as the Euro stting a brick or Trump fking up the dollar).

If they lose staff, or drop production, you name the charity of choice for my deposit. If I win, the RNLI gets £500 of your cash.

Up for it? Or like the other poster, is the chance of your doomaggedon less than fifty/fifty?

I could be up for a wager - say £500 too. One based around GDP, unemployment levels, inflation, interest rates or some other macro measure of the health of the uk economy. Suggest some details...

It's a bet I *want* to lose (remainer, now cheering on the breixiteers), but an interesting exercise. If I win, well at least a charity would benefit - I'd go for the MS society.

I'd struggle to justify a wager on a macro measure - purely for the virtual impossibility of defining which of the multitude of influencing factors has driven the result. Too easy to argue either way is or isn't the result of Brexit and I'm not a fan of wagers that can lead to conflict.

Hence why the two offers I've made are on singular discreet measures.

Appreciate it though, and the sentiment of wishing your current opinion is wrong.

No worries - :-)

[Mrr T]

davepoth said:

Let's face it, Brexit is a gamble. The possibilities for screwing things up are massive, but there are big opportunities there for people who can grasp them. So a lot of the Brexiters on PH seem to be of this type, entrepreneurs. I like to consider Brexit as an entrepreneurial enterprise at a national scale.

I keep hearing this from tanned PH company directors but none of them ever seem to be able to tell us what these fantastic new opportunities are.

[Oakey]

Brexit a failure and tragedy says Junkcer

http://news.sky.com/story/brexit-a-failure-and-a-t...

Sky said:

"We have to calculate scientifically what the British commitments were and then the bill has to be paid."

This would cover the cost of projects which the UK previously agreed to help fund, as well as pensions of EU officials who served during the period of Britain's membership.

Well as long as we get the important stuff covered eh!

[skahigh]

Mrr T said:

I keep hearing this from tanned PH company directors but none of them ever seem to be able to tell us what these fantastic new opportunities are.

You really can't imagine a scenario where free trade agreements open up greater possibilities for importers to reduce their costs? Or exporters to be newly competitive in foreign markets?

[Burwood]

Oakey said:

Brexit a failure and tragedy says Junkcer

http://news.sky.com/story/brexit-a-failure-and-a-t...

Sky said:

"We have to calculate scientifically what the British commitments were and then the bill has to be paid."

This would cover the cost of projects which the UK previously agreed to help fund, as well as pensions of EU officials who served during the period of Britain's membership.

Well as long as we get the important stuff covered eh!

The EU case for a divorce payment is tenuous at best. The facts are that the agreement (EU membership) is silent on a leaving countries obligations. It doesn't stop the EU from expecting more gravy but there is no basis in law. I can think of many analogies. Take council tax. It's a fee to reside in a particular county. Said payment funds projects spanning decades, pays pensions of current and past council staff. Are we levied with further taxes if we leave.

I suspect this £50B or part thereof will be on the table to effectively buy the deal we want. Fine by me.

[Gargamel]

Oakey said:

Brexit a failure and tragedy says Junkcer

http://news.sky.com/story/brexit-a-failure-and-a-t...

Sky said:

"We have to calculate scientifically what the British commitments were and then the bill has to be paid."

This would cover the cost of projects which the UK previously agreed to help fund, as well as pensions of EU officials who served during the period of Britain's membership.

Well as long as we get the important stuff covered eh!

Junkcer again in a massive failure of self awareness. A large part of the reason for Brexit is Junkcer's total refusal to negotiate prior to the referendum. Had he LED the EU to some proper talks and an agreement with Cameron, then arguably the UK might not have voted out.

Oh woe, its a failure and a tragedy - yes Claude - its YOUR failure

[Digga]

skahigh said:

Mrr T said:

I keep hearing this from tanned PH company directors but none of them ever seem to be able to tell us what these fantastic new opportunities are.

You really can't imagine a scenario where free trade agreements open up greater possibilities for importers to reduce their costs? Or exporters to be newly competitive in foreign markets?

If someone is not an entrepreneurial, they will struggle with the concept of risk (even where there is potential reward) and will constantly fail to spot opportunities. It's simple.

[Burwood]

Gargamel said:

Oakey said:

Brexit a failure and tragedy says Junkcer

http://news.sky.com/story/brexit-a-failure-and-a-t...

Sky said:

"We have to calculate scientifically what the British commitments were and then the bill has to be paid."

This would cover the cost of projects which the UK previously agreed to help fund, as well as pensions of EU officials who served during the period of Britain's membership.

Well as long as we get the important stuff covered eh!

Junkcer again in a massive failure of self awareness. A large part of the reason for Brexit is Junkcer's total refusal to negotiate prior to the referendum. Had he LED the EU to some proper talks and an agreement with Cameron, then arguably the UK might not have voted out.

Oh woe, its a failure and a tragedy - yes Claude - its YOUR failure

precisely. he even said as much 'now we have many states doing their own thing, but i am confident no one else will leave'. So the guy published a white paper on 5 options for the future of the EU. These ranged from a united states total control to a much looser arrangement. You know what they want to do but basically admit it will never work because countries want the benefits of trade and security but fundamental red lines are sovereignty, identity and their own courts.

[Pan Pan Pan]

Oakey said:

Brexit a failure and tragedy says Junkcer

http://news.sky.com/story/brexit-a-failure-and-a-t...

Sky said:

"We have to calculate scientifically what the British commitments were and then the bill has to be paid."

This would cover the cost of projects which the UK previously agreed to help fund, as well as pensions of EU officials who served during the period of Britain's membership.

Well as long as we get the important stuff covered eh!

The irony is that the EU was so smug, and arrogant in its view of its position, it sent Camoron away with nothing, when he went to the EU asking for minor changes to the relationship between the UK, and EU before the referendum. Changes that if given, might have encouraged many more in the UK to vote remain.
Now the EU is presented with a situation where its second largest net contributor of funds, and biggest single market (not to mention the UK taking back 80% of the fish stocks in UK territorial waters) has voted to walk away.
Germany`s tax payers are now facing a situation, where they will have to stump up the extra cash needed (on their own) to keep the whole failed mess alive. If they decide to make it painful for the UK to continue trading with them, they will also see its biggest single market walk away as well.
They may well be vindictive and stupid enough to make it painful for the UK to leave, (as a sort of, look what will happen if you do the same, warning to other member states) but pragmatism tells me that this may not be what they do. So in a way Juncker is correct, Brexit may well be a disaster, and a tragedy, but for the EU rather than the UK.
Many (even Germany) EU member states, will also be upset, in knowing that to continue enjoying the benefits of being in NATO, they will now have to start paying their fair share of its costs, which to date, the UK has done, which they have not. Interesting times lay ahead.

Edited by Pan Pan Pan on Friday 24th March 11:34

[anonymous-user]

When Greece leave the EU, will the EU pay Greece the amount of money required to support their proportion of EU pensions. That's the conclusion you must follow if you use the logic that we must pay when we leave.

That could lead to some fun discussions with all the member states that are recipients of funding currently.

[Pan Pan Pan]

Pan Pan Pan said:

Oakey said:

Brexit a failure and tragedy says Junkcer

http://news.sky.com/story/brexit-a-failure-and-a-t...

Sky said:

"We have to calculate scientifically what the British commitments were and then the bill has to be paid."

This would cover the cost of projects which the UK previously agreed to help fund, as well as pensions of EU officials who served during the period of Britain's membership.

Well as long as we get the important stuff covered eh!

The irony is that the EU was so smug, and arrogant in its view of its position, it sent Camoron away with nothing, when he went to the EU asking for minor changes to the relationship between the UK, and EU before the referendum. Changes that if given, might have encouraged many more in the UK to vote remain.
Now the EU is presented with a situation where its second largest net contributor of funds, and biggest single market (not to mention the UK taking back 80% of the fish stocks in UK territorial waters seized with no compensation by the EEC when the UK joined in 1975) has voted to walk away.
Germany`s tax payers are now facing a situation, where they will have to stump up the extra cash needed (on their own) to keep the whole failed mess alive. If they decide to make it painful for the UK to continue trading with them, they will also see its biggest single market walk away as well.
They may well be vindictive and stupid enough to make it painful for the UK to leave, (as a sort of, look what will happen if you do the same, warning to other member states) but pragmatism tells me that this may not be what they do. So in a way Juncker is correct, Brexit may well be a disaster, and a tragedy, but for the EU rather than the UK.
Many (even Germany) EU member states, will also be upset, in knowing that to continue enjoying the benefits of being in NATO, they will now have to start paying their fair share of its costs, which to date, the UK has done, which they have not. Interesting times lay ahead.

Edited by Pan Pan Pan on Friday 24th March 11:34

[Murph7355]

Burwood said:

The EU case for a divorce payment is tenuous at best. The facts are that the agreement (EU membership) is silent on a leaving countries obligations. It doesn't stop the EU from expecting more gravy but there is no basis in law. I can think of many analogies. Take council tax. It's a fee to reside in a particular county. Said payment funds projects spanning decades, pays pensions of current and past council staff. Are we levied with further taxes if we leave.

I suspect this £50B or part thereof will be on the table to effectively buy the deal we want. Fine by me.

There's a strong case for some degree of payment whether it's legally enshrined or not for a variety of reasons.

There will be projects and initiatives that we get material benefit from for starters. So as long as those benefits are clear and we are allowed a continued say commensurate to our funding then fair enough.

There will also be committed expenditure that we agreed to whose benefits may be less tangible. We should front up on this too if we agreed it.

Anything with no material benefit to us that is not yet committed should be off the cards totally. And looking at the way the EU budgets I expect this to be a large proportion of initiatives (I posted a link to an explanation of it previously).

Pensions of any politicians are a mess but I don't expect our mob to argue too hard about them as it would shine too strong a light on their own. I think covering the obligations of the UK MEPs is fine (we can cut those back later... As if ). But the rest should not be down to us. If they chose to have hundreds of lackies from the other states filling the ranks, then they can pay for them.

I'm even open to a bung for market access IF the net benefits can be conclusively proven. However I doubt they could be.

[London424]

Murph7355 said:

Burwood said:

The EU case for a divorce payment is tenuous at best. The facts are that the agreement (EU membership) is silent on a leaving countries obligations. It doesn't stop the EU from expecting more gravy but there is no basis in law. I can think of many analogies. Take council tax. It's a fee to reside in a particular county. Said payment funds projects spanning decades, pays pensions of current and past council staff. Are we levied with further taxes if we leave.

I suspect this £50B or part thereof will be on the table to effectively buy the deal we want. Fine by me.

There's a strong case for some degree of payment whether it's legally enshrined or not for a variety of reasons.

There will be projects and initiatives that we get material benefit from for starters. So as long as those benefits are clear and we are allowed a continued say commensurate to our funding then fair enough.

There will also be committed expenditure that we agreed to whose benefits may be less tangible. We should front up on this too if we agreed it.

Anything with no material benefit to us that is not yet committed should be off the cards totally. And looking at the way the EU budgets I expect this to be a large proportion of initiatives (I posted a link to an explanation of it previously).

Pensions of any politicians are a mess but I don't expect our mob to argue too hard about them as it would shine too strong a light on their own. I think covering the obligations of the UK MEPs is fine (we can cut those back later... As if ). But the rest should not be down to us. If they chose to have hundreds of lackies from the other states filling the ranks, then they can pay for them.

I'm even open to a bung for market access IF the net benefits can be conclusively proven. However I doubt they could be.

The EU like to talk a lot about the liability side of the balance sheet. What do we think the Asset side looks like for the UK?

[Mrr T]

Digga said:

skahigh said:

Mrr T said:

I keep hearing this from tanned PH company directors but none of them ever seem to be able to tell us what these fantastic new opportunities are.

You really can't imagine a scenario where free trade agreements open up greater possibilities for importers to reduce their costs? Or exporters to be newly competitive in foreign markets?

If someone is not an entrepreneurial, they will struggle with the concept of risk (even where there is potential reward) and will constantly fail to spot opportunities. It's simple.

I agree we may get some new trade agreement in 7-8 years, mind you we have to replace the ones we loose by leaving the SM.

Other than that its just words and team leave have no idea.

[Burwood]

Murph7355 said:

Burwood said:

The EU case for a divorce payment is tenuous at best. The facts are that the agreement (EU membership) is silent on a leaving countries obligations. It doesn't stop the EU from expecting more gravy but there is no basis in law. I can think of many analogies. Take council tax. It's a fee to reside in a particular county. Said payment funds projects spanning decades, pays pensions of current and past council staff. Are we levied with further taxes if we leave.

I suspect this £50B or part thereof will be on the table to effectively buy the deal we want. Fine by me.

There's a strong case for some degree of payment whether it's legally enshrined or not for a variety of reasons.

There will be projects and initiatives that we get material benefit from for starters. So as long as those benefits are clear and we are allowed a continued say commensurate to our funding then fair enough.

There will also be committed expenditure that we agreed to whose benefits may be less tangible. We should front up on this too if we agreed it.

Anything with no material benefit to us that is not yet committed should be off the cards totally. And looking at the way the EU budgets I expect this to be a large proportion of initiatives (I posted a link to an explanation of it previously).

Pensions of any politicians are a mess but I don't expect our mob to argue too hard about them as it would shine too strong a light on their own. I think covering the obligations of the UK MEPs is fine (we can cut those back later... As if ). But the rest should not be down to us. If they chose to have hundreds of lackies from the other states filling the ranks, then they can pay for them.

I'm even open to a bung for market access IF the net benefits can be conclusively proven. However I doubt they could be.

I see your point and agree if we get an ongoing tangible benefit. As to other future projects, well, in the real world projects get canned all the time through lack of funding and changes in scope. As far as i'm concerned, sure, bung them so access cash but they can swing for anything else.

[FN2TypeR]

Mrr T said:

Digga said:

skahigh said:

Mrr T said:

I keep hearing this from tanned PH company directors but none of them ever seem to be able to tell us what these fantastic new opportunities are.

You really can't imagine a scenario where free trade agreements open up greater possibilities for importers to reduce their costs? Or exporters to be newly competitive in foreign markets?

If someone is not an entrepreneurial, they will struggle with the concept of risk (even where there is potential reward) and will constantly fail to spot opportunities. It's simple.

I agree we may get some new trade agreement in 7-8 years, mind you we have to replace the ones we loose by leaving the SM.

Other than that its just words and team leave have no idea.

Give 'em a call, no doubt they will be clamouring to sign you up.

[skahigh]

London424 said:

The EU like to talk a lot about the liability side of the balance sheet. What do we think the Asset side looks like for the UK?

This is something that has continually confused me about the media coverage of this issue.

They portray is as an invoice with no tangible benefits but, surely a fair percentage of the 'bill' includes projects that the UK does and would continue to benefit from for the time period covered by the agreed funding?

Why do the media never mention this?

[skahigh]

Mrr T said:

I keep hearing this from tanned PH company directors but none of them ever seem to be able to tell us what these fantastic new opportunities are.

Mrr T said:

I agree we may get some new trade agreement in 7-8 years, mind you we have to replace the ones we loose by leaving the SM.

Other than that its just words and team leave have no idea.

So actually, your original post was just an excuse for a cheap dig at people with a different view from your own as, by your own admission, you can see that there will be new opportunities (irrespective of time frames).