The economic consequences of Brexit (Vol 2)

[turbobloke]

Mrr T said:

I voted remain because I do not believe we have a government capable of Brexit.

To a better approximation, I voted Leave because the EU isn't capable of Bremain.

On the basis of evidence the EU is however capable of presiding over considerable harm to people in member states purely to maintain numbers and save face, though it may or may not prove to be an effective prison for 'remaining' inmates the EU sees as lifers. We shall see.

[Jazzy Jag]

Welshbeef said:

sidicks said:

Jazzy Jag said:

So what happens to all the EU's Assets that the UK has a share in?

When do we get to liquidate out share?

We sell them back to the EU for, say, £60bn.

Well that's the end point so really we should be looking at a significant value to start with as a rebate.

We could offer to sell them to Russia, China or NK and a knock-down price.

[JagLover]

I voted for Brexit but I would be happy for financial contributions to continue either on an ongoing basis, or as a lump sum, as a condition for a decent free trade deal.

What I would not be happy with, and neither would much of the country I expect, is for the UK to pay £50bn or so and then the EU offers us some cr*p, such as free movement of goods (where they have a massive trade surplus with us), no agreement on services and continued free movement of labour . If you study the various pronouncements of EU leaders that is exactly the sort of deal they seem to have in mind. I.E we pay massive "divorce" settlement then get a worse deal to "punish" us for leaving.

This is not about vacuous slogans like "hard" or "soft" brexit it is about simply negotiation and getting the best deal as a nation. If the above is the deal on the table we would be considerably better off just walking away. Paying the actual amount we are legally obliged to do, relying on WTO rules and using the balance of the £50bn to ease the transition adjustment to the economy.

There are some who, consciously or subconsciously, would be delighted if the UK got a terrible deal as they think we should be "punished" for our decision. I hope the rest of the country whichever way they voted will get behind negotiating the best deal possible in the national interest.

It could be of course that we have transitional arrangements in place to the end of 2020 in which case continuing contributions will form part of continued membership of the single market in that time period and form part of the large figures being demanded.

[JagLover]

sidicks said:

Both sides need a deal, both sides have something to bring to the table, and hence common sense will prevail.

Indeed they do, but the EU is not based on common sense, if it were monetary union would not have happened (or at least in the way that it did without greater economic convergence and fiscal transfers).

The EU has always been a political project disguised as an economic one and no doubt this approach will continue with the Brexit negotiations.

In a rational world a free trade area would indeed be eager to reach a good trade deal with one of its key overseas markets and one with which it has a significant trade surplus. In particular when so much of it is struggling economically and so ill prepared to face the kind of economic shock a severe downturn in trading relations would cause. For the EU however trade has always been a gun to hold to countries' heads in order to get them to accept all the other things that come with the EU.

I would be overjoyed if we could negotiate a good trade deal with them, but we should be ready for the economic disruption of switching to WTO rules only, and I voted leave with an expectation we would suffer short term economic disruption (but would almost certainly be better off in the long term)

What people need most of all is a sense of historical perspective. On a number of occasions in the past we have been cut off from trade with most of Europe and we survived, even thrived.

[anonymous-user]

JagLover said:

.,
This is not about vacuous slogans like "hard" or "soft" brexit

Fair enough but...

JagLover said:

I hope the rest of the country whichever way they voted will get behind negotiating the best deal possible in the national interest.

Isn't this a totally vacuous statement?

[Mrr T]

don'tbesilly said:

Mrr T said:

turbobloke said:

avinalarf said:

Both the EU and the U.K. have a very hard job if they are to satisfy the demands of their electorate

The EU top brass don't have an 'electorate' to be concerned about. We have never seen the names Juncker or Tusk or others of their dead weight on any UK ballot paper to elect them for their EU role and neither has anyone else in other member states. They are only concerned about their own pet project, their ego and their platinum plated pension.

I voted remain because I do not believe we have a government capable of Brexit. So far I feel my view is correct.

That was your only reason?

Is it the case that you think we are so deeply bedded and intertwined within the EU that's it not possible to escape, so ANY party would not be capable of taking the UK out of the EU?
If that is the case it would be vote to remain as there is no choice, which would be quite a defeatist attitude.

I'm struggling with your reason, it doesn't make much sense.

You seem to be implying that if another party had been in power at the time of the referendum you might have been swayed to vote Leave, or you think all political parties are incapable.

Strange!

It was not about the party in power it was about a section of the party. Then whole refferendum campaign was a cluster f**k. But I saw clearly team leave had no idea how to leave. We now have the same people in charge and after 11 months all we have is "no deal is better than a bad deal".

Leaving is very complex because for 40 years our legislation and business models have been built on the basis of our EU membership.

The EEA/ EFTA option offers a realistic option to leave the EU and start on a new path with minimal impact to the economy. However, the dream leave team have already rejected the option in the vague hope of having cake and eating it.

[Fastdruid]

Mrr T said:

The EEA/ EFTA option offers a realistic option to leave the EU and start on a new path with minimal impact to the economy. However, the dream leave team have already rejected the option in the vague hope of having cake and eating it.

The EU has rejected that option not "the dream team".

[///ajd]

Fastdruid said:

Mrr T said:

The EEA/ EFTA option offers a realistic option to leave the EU and start on a new path with minimal impact to the economy. However, the dream leave team have already rejected the option in the vague hope of having cake and eating it.

The EU has rejected that option not "the dream team".

That would mean all the work done by the Norths on flexcit, many of Dan Hannans speeches, all those pushing the Step 1 flexcit as the obvious way to safely brexit - who must count for a part of the 52% - all have been either let down or were totally wrong in their analysis?

Is it worth listening to these flexcit fans anymore or should all their opinions be ignored as naive junk?

Just joking always worth listening to the other view of course. Being so blinkered would be daft, wouldn't it?

[turbobloke]

Mrr T said:

don'tbesilly said:

Mrr T said:

turbobloke said:

avinalarf said:

Both the EU and the U.K. have a very hard job if they are to satisfy the demands of their electorate

The EU top brass don't have an 'electorate' to be concerned about. We have never seen the names Juncker or Tusk or others of their dead weight on any UK ballot paper to elect them for their EU role and neither has anyone else in other member states. They are only concerned about their own pet project, their ego and their platinum plated pension.

I voted remain because I do not believe we have a government capable of Brexit. So far I feel my view is correct.

That was your only reason?

Is it the case that you think we are so deeply bedded and intertwined within the EU that's it not possible to escape, so ANY party would not be capable of taking the UK out of the EU?
If that is the case it would be vote to remain as there is no choice, which would be quite a defeatist attitude.

I'm struggling with your reason, it doesn't make much sense.

You seem to be implying that if another party had been in power at the time of the referendum you might have been swayed to vote Leave, or you think all political parties are incapable.

Strange!

It was not about the party in power it was about a section of the party. Then whole refferendum campaign was a cluster f**k. But I saw clearly team leave had no idea how to leave.

What role did you have in government in order to know this? Or the civil service, advising ministers?

If neither then you're making it up, it's just your opinion, and hardly unbiased. The 'how to leave' is easy, invoke A50 and negotiate. Team Leave know that, so they have a very good idea how to leave.

As the negotiations haven't started never mind concluded yet, you have no clue what the detail of 'how' actually means. Your post content, as pointed out by another PHer recently, reflects your perception of the government in office; it's clear enougn - unless you're faking it.

The EU megalomaniacs have less idea what to do with countries that remain, except for attempts to keep the prison gate locked.

[Mrr T]

sidicks said:

Mrr T said:

I voted remain because I do not believe we have a government capable of Brexit.

This suggests that you think that, with appropriate management, Britain would better off outside of the UK?

What sort of government could achieve that?

Mrr T said:

So far I feel my view is correct.

Given the negotiations haven't started yet (insisted on by the EU), quite what do you think should have been achieved by now that has not?

Edited by sidicks on Sunday 30th April 18:41

I am not sure any government is capable of delivering Brexit, then again I do have a very low opinion of most politicians.

The thing the government should have done is manage expectations. So rather than " ndibtabd" it should be "no deal is not an option". Rather than have cake and eat it "this is complex". Rather than propose a great reform bill which they know cannot be done at the moment. Agree a transitional period is accepted. Even better we believe an EEA/EFTA option offers the optimal first step.

[Mrr T]

Fastdruid said:

Mrr T said:

The EEA/ EFTA option offers a realistic option to leave the EU and start on a new path with minimal impact to the economy. However, the dream leave team have already rejected the option in the vague hope of having cake and eating it.

The EU has rejected that option not "the dream team".

The EU did not reject it. It was never offered by the UK. The EU negotiation guidelines are a response to the vague cake and eat it UK government dream team comments on Brexit. If the UK had suggested an EEA/EFTA option I am sure the EU welcomed a simple solution with minimal impact.

[Mrr T]

turbobloke said:

What role did you have in government in order to know this? Or the civil service, advising ministers?

If neither then you're making it up, it's just your opinion, and hardly unbiased. The 'how to leave' is easy, invoke A50 and negotiate. Team Leave know that, so they have a very good idea how to leave.

As the negotiations haven't started never mind concluded yet, you have no clue what the detail of 'how' actually means. Your post content, as pointed out by another PHer recently, reflects your perception of the government in office; it's clear enougn - unless you're faking it.

The EU megalomaniacs have less idea what to do with countries that remain, except for attempts to keep the prison gate locked.

I do not need to have had a role in government to judge it's effectiveness. I simple need to see the rubbish it says and the stupid legislation it passes.

Knowing your position on AGW are now suggesting the government policy is correct?

If you where in charge of UK Brexit negotiations would you not want to fully understand the options and what can and cannot be achieved. DD the Brexit buffoon in chief knows "ndibtabd" but as he showed in his last appearance before the Brexit committee he has no idea what no deal means.

You also keep referring to these EU prisoner. Who are they and where is the prison?

[gothatway]

Mrr T said:

rather than " ndibtabd" it should be "no deal is not an option".

Now we know you must be joking. What a great way to start negotiations : "Please nice Mr EU, we have to have a deal, please be gentle with me".

[Blue Oval84]

Mrr T said:

If you where in charge of UK Brexit negotiations would you not want to fully understand the options and what can and cannot be achieved. DD the Brexit buffoon in chief knows "ndibtabd" but as he showed in his last appearance before the Brexit committee he has no idea what no deal means.

Wasn't it David Davis who, even after he was appointed to his new role didn't understand the basic fundamentals of the EU, when he suggested that the UK would just setup individual trade deals with various EU countries like Germany?

I voted Leave, but the lack of competence in government, and understanding of what "no deal" actually means for non-tariff trade barriers is quite disturbing. I'd naively assumed that Cameron had ensured we had a plan lined up in case the vote didn't go his way.

[FiF]

Mrr T said:

Fastdruid said:

Mrr T said:

The EEA/ EFTA option offers a realistic option to leave the EU and start on a new path with minimal impact to the economy. However, the dream leave team have already rejected the option in the vague hope of having cake and eating it.

The EU has rejected that option not "the dream team".

The EU did not reject it. It was never offered by the UK. The EU negotiation guidelines are a response to the vague cake and eat it UK government dream team comments on Brexit. If the UK had suggested an EEA/EFTA option I am sure the EU welcomed a simple solution with minimal impact.

Precisely, it has not been offered, though statements about out of the dingle market and customs union suggest it won't be an opening position. It's still a valid exit route which meets many of the overall expressed desires of the UK but in a transitional arrangement.

[Mrr T]

gothatway said:

Mrr T said:

rather than " ndibtabd" it should be "no deal is not an option".

Now we know you must be joking. What a great way to start negotiations : "Please nice Mr EU, we have to have a deal, please be gentle with me".

Sorry I think you are joking. Your comment would be valid if the UK government knows it needs a deal but the EU does not. However, in this case the EU knows the UK must have full access to the SM unless it wants to suffer a heavy economic penality. So trying to bluff it out really will not work. Merkle showed this when she made clear the position when the UK becomes a third country.

I have said before the UK negotiation position seems to be a reverse Russian roulette. The UK points a gun at its own head and says give us what we want or we shoot.

[Smollet]

Mrr T said:

gothatway said:

Mrr T said:

rather than " ndibtabd" it should be "no deal is not an option".

Now we know you must be joking. What a great way to start negotiations : "Please nice Mr EU, we have to have a deal, please be gentle with me".

Sorry I think you are joking. Your comment would be valid if the UK government knows it needs a deal but the EU does not. However, in this case the EU knows the UK must have full access to the SM unless it wants to suffer a heavy economic penality. So trying to bluff it out really will not work. Merkle showed this when she made clear the position when the UK becomes a third country.

I have said before the UK negotiation position seems to be a reverse Russian roulette. The UK points a gun at its own head and says give us what we want or we shoot.

If the EU offer us a deal that is worse than the WTO tariffs do you suggest we take it?

[gothatway]

Mrr T said:

the UK must have full access to the SM unless it wants to suffer a heavy economic penality

That's your view, and I concede there may be short-term pain, but my view is that in the long term we will gain huge economic benefit from being independent of the EU. Neither of us knows for sure.

[Mrr T]

Smollet said:

Mrr T said:

gothatway said:

Mrr T said:

rather than " ndibtabd" it should be "no deal is not an option".

Now we know you must be joking. What a great way to start negotiations : "Please nice Mr EU, we have to have a deal, please be gentle with me".

Sorry I think you are joking. Your comment would be valid if the UK government knows it needs a deal but the EU does not. However, in this case the EU knows the UK must have full access to the SM unless it wants to suffer a heavy economic penality. So trying to bluff it out really will not work. Merkle showed this when she made clear the position when the UK becomes a third country.

I have said before the UK negotiation position seems to be a reverse Russian roulette. The UK points a gun at its own head and says give us what we want or we shoot.

If the EU offer us a deal that is worse than the WTO tariffs do you suggest we take it?

Did you do any research before posting that question?

If the UK leaves the EU with no deal the UK will become a "third country" the EU rules on trading with a "third country" are clear. They should even be clear to the Brexit buffoons since they apply now when the UK trades with a "third country". Mind you DD chief buffoon does not seem to know them.

So EU cannot offer a deal worst than the UK becoming a "third country". However, the implications for the UK if became a "third country" would be an economic catastrophy.

[Dr Jekyll]

Mrr T said:

Did you do any research before posting that question?

If the UK leaves the EU with no deal the UK will become a "third country" the EU rules on trading with a "third country" are clear. They should even be clear to the Brexit buffoons since they apply now when the UK trades with a "third country". Mind you DD chief buffoon does not seem to know them.

So EU cannot offer a deal worst than the UK becoming a "third country". However, the implications for the UK if became a "third country" would be an economic catastrophy.

Of course they can. They can make us effectively a third country and demand payment as well, or continue to restrict our freedom to trade with the rest of the world.