The economic consequences of Brexit (Vol 2)
Discussion
gothatway said:
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.Lose of financial services, the channel becoming a hard border disrupting the supply chain of many large businesses, business relocating in to the rEu, UK food exports halted, the virtual collapse of farming in N Ireland.
The effects on UK tax revenue would mean the sort of cuts which would make the conservative unelecable for a generation.
So what are your economic benefits?
Mrr T said:
gothatway said:
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.Lose of financial services, the channel becoming a hard border disrupting the supply chain of many large businesses, business relocating in to the rEu, UK food exports halted, the virtual collapse of farming in N Ireland.
The effects on UK tax revenue would mean the sort of cuts which would make the conservative unelecable for a generation.
So what are your economic benefits?
Loss of access to the 5th largest economy etc?
How are the finances across the EU?
Mrr T said:
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.
I agree with you that there will be a significant economic penalty if we switch to WTO rules only. But i don't think this is a bluff as this is preferable to a bad deal.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.
Your position seems based on two aspects. Firstly that the EU itself will have no ill effects from losing a significant chunk of the £290bn it exports to the UK (£60bn more by the way than total exports the other way)
https://fullfact.org/europe/uk-eu-trade/
Secondly that a short term hit is so important that it must be avoided at all costs. Whereas it may be a price we need to pay to recover our national sovereignty.
A final point to make is that we are supposed to make some massive sacrifice to secure a trade deal with the EU, but such a deal seems very likely to include goods only. The Russian roulette as you call it is therefore to walk away without a deal on an aspect of trade on which we have a £20bn QUARTERLY trade deficit with the EU.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/10/u...
What would be worse than WTO tariffs?
We should remember that the percentage of UK exports to the EU is significantly greater than the EU's to the UK.
A reduction in exports due to tariffs is therefore likely to impact the UK economy more than the EU economy, with Germany the most to lose.
We should remember that the percentage of UK exports to the EU is significantly greater than the EU's to the UK.
A reduction in exports due to tariffs is therefore likely to impact the UK economy more than the EU economy, with Germany the most to lose.
JagLover said:
Mrr T said:
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.
I agree with you that there will be a significant economic penalty if we switch to WTO rules only. But i don't think this is a bluff as this is preferable to a bad deal.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.
Your position seems based on two aspects. Firstly that the EU itself will have no ill effects from losing a significant chunk of the £290bn it exports to the UK (£60bn more by the way than total exports the other way)
https://fullfact.org/europe/uk-eu-trade/
Secondly that a short term hit is so important that it must be avoided at all costs. Whereas it may be a price we need to pay to recover our national sovereignty.
A final point to make is that we are supposed to make some massive sacrifice to secure a trade deal with the EU, but such a deal seems very likely to include goods only. The Russian roulette as you call it is therefore to walk away without a deal on an aspect of trade on which we have a £20bn QUARTERLY trade deficit with the EU.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/10/u...
As for a short term hit. Our government is running a deficit. The ecomonics of having to trade with the rEU as a third country are not a short term hit they could take the UK 20 years to recover from.
I agree about the trade deficit but look at the figures. Virtually 45% is with German. So failure to negotiate a trade deal will have an effect on German but it's effect on other rEU countries is much less.
Since it seems any trade deal will have to follow other EU trade deals and require unanimous agreement. This reduces our bargaining position.
Mrr T said:
JagLover said:
Mrr T said:
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.
I agree with you that there will be a significant economic penalty if we switch to WTO rules only. But i don't think this is a bluff as this is preferable to a bad deal.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.
Your position seems based on two aspects. Firstly that the EU itself will have no ill effects from losing a significant chunk of the £290bn it exports to the UK (£60bn more by the way than total exports the other way)
https://fullfact.org/europe/uk-eu-trade/
Secondly that a short term hit is so important that it must be avoided at all costs. Whereas it may be a price we need to pay to recover our national sovereignty.
A final point to make is that we are supposed to make some massive sacrifice to secure a trade deal with the EU, but such a deal seems very likely to include goods only. The Russian roulette as you call it is therefore to walk away without a deal on an aspect of trade on which we have a £20bn QUARTERLY trade deficit with the EU.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/10/u...
As for a short term hit. Our government is running a deficit. The ecomonics of having to trade with the rEU as a third country are not a short term hit they could take the UK 20 years to recover from.
I agree about the trade deficit but look at the figures. Virtually 45% is with German. So failure to negotiate a trade deal will have an effect on German but it's effect on other rEU countries is much less.
Since it seems any trade deal will have to follow other EU trade deals and require unanimous agreement. This reduces our bargaining position.
PurpleMoonlight said:
What would be worse than WTO tariffs?
We should remember that the percentage of UK exports to the EU is significantly greater than the EU's to the UK.
A reduction in exports due to tariffs is therefore likely to impact the UK economy more than the EU economy, with Germany the most to lose.
Then why have the government recorded billion of pounds in the annual trade deficit between the UK and EU for almost every single year since the UK has been a member of the EEC/EU.We should remember that the percentage of UK exports to the EU is significantly greater than the EU's to the UK.
A reduction in exports due to tariffs is therefore likely to impact the UK economy more than the EU economy, with Germany the most to lose.
Just look Government UK/EU trade deficit for details, Or do you believe the government have been using the wrong figures for 40 plus years?
JagLover said:
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.
Absolutely deluded 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.
Mrr T said:
Our government is running a deficit. The ecomonics of having to trade with the rEU as a third country are not a short term hit they could take the UK 20 years to recover from.
Could, but probably won't. Already the Project Fear predictions of dire doom have been shown to be simply dire. A repeat is only going to fail, and as badly as the first attempt.As to our government running a deficit, a reducing deficit which was already halved as a percentage of GDP some time ago, it's so-what. How's the EU economy getting on collectively? How far up the hill have the EU's incompetent has-beens kicked the can at this point? Can they focus on keeping the can from rolling back while all hands are on the prison gates keeping the other inmates locked up...we shall see. Fortunately for us we're on the way out.
Do you have some business, personal or family stake in this that's making your viewpoint eternally and excessively pessiimistic?
Pan Pan Pan said:
Then why have the government recorded billion of pounds in the annual trade deficit between the UK and EU for almost every single year since the UK has been a member of the EEC/EU.
Just look Government UK/EU trade deficit for details, Or do you believe the government have been using the wrong figures for 40 plus years?
Percent dear fellow, percent .....Just look Government UK/EU trade deficit for details, Or do you believe the government have been using the wrong figures for 40 plus years?
desolate said:
What's the 'third country ' status all about then?
A third country is a term used frequently by the EU when referring to countries outside the EU. In terms of trade the EU is responsible for setting rules on trading with non EU countries. This covers not just tarriffs but inspection of goods when they enter a EU country.So the rules for UK goods entering the rEU, if the UK has no agreement with the EU, are known. Because they will be the same as any other non (third) EU country.
Deptford Draylons said:
Mrr T said:
JagLover said:
Mrr T said:
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.
I agree with you that there will be a significant economic penalty if we switch to WTO rules only. But i don't think this is a bluff as this is preferable to a bad deal.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.
Your position seems based on two aspects. Firstly that the EU itself will have no ill effects from losing a significant chunk of the £290bn it exports to the UK (£60bn more by the way than total exports the other way)
https://fullfact.org/europe/uk-eu-trade/
Secondly that a short term hit is so important that it must be avoided at all costs. Whereas it may be a price we need to pay to recover our national sovereignty.
A final point to make is that we are supposed to make some massive sacrifice to secure a trade deal with the EU, but such a deal seems very likely to include goods only. The Russian roulette as you call it is therefore to walk away without a deal on an aspect of trade on which we have a £20bn QUARTERLY trade deficit with the EU.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/10/u...
As for a short term hit. Our government is running a deficit. The ecomonics of having to trade with the rEU as a third country are not a short term hit they could take the UK 20 years to recover from.
I agree about the trade deficit but look at the figures. Virtually 45% is with German. So failure to negotiate a trade deal will have an effect on German but it's effect on other rEU countries is much less.
Since it seems any trade deal will have to follow other EU trade deals and require unanimous agreement. This reduces our bargaining position.
Mrr T said:
Deptford Draylons said:
Mrr T said:
JagLover said:
Mrr T said:
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.
I agree with you that there will be a significant economic penalty if we switch to WTO rules only. But i don't think this is a bluff as this is preferable to a bad deal.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.
Your position seems based on two aspects. Firstly that the EU itself will have no ill effects from losing a significant chunk of the £290bn it exports to the UK (£60bn more by the way than total exports the other way)
https://fullfact.org/europe/uk-eu-trade/
Secondly that a short term hit is so important that it must be avoided at all costs. Whereas it may be a price we need to pay to recover our national sovereignty.
A final point to make is that we are supposed to make some massive sacrifice to secure a trade deal with the EU, but such a deal seems very likely to include goods only. The Russian roulette as you call it is therefore to walk away without a deal on an aspect of trade on which we have a £20bn QUARTERLY trade deficit with the EU.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/10/u...
As for a short term hit. Our government is running a deficit. The ecomonics of having to trade with the rEU as a third country are not a short term hit they could take the UK 20 years to recover from.
I agree about the trade deficit but look at the figures. Virtually 45% is with German. So failure to negotiate a trade deal will have an effect on German but it's effect on other rEU countries is much less.
Since it seems any trade deal will have to follow other EU trade deals and require unanimous agreement. This reduces our bargaining position.
Germany being the top payer and most exposed is 'ideal' in the scenario.
turbobloke said:
Mrr T said:
Our government is running a deficit. The ecomonics of having to trade with the rEU as a third country are not a short term hit they could take the UK 20 years to recover from.
Could, but probably won't. Already the Project Fear predictions of dire doom have been shown to be simply dire. A repeat is only going to fail, and as badly as the first attempt.As to our government running a deficit, a reducing deficit which was already halved as a percentage of GDP some time ago, it's so-what. How's the EU economy getting on collectively? How far up the hill have the EU's incompetent has-beens kicked the can at this point? Can they focus on keeping the can from rolling back while all hands are on the prison gates keeping the other inmates locked up...we shall see. Fortunately for us we're on the way out.
Do you have some business, personal or family stake in this that's making your viewpoint eternally and excessively pessiimistic?
As for debt falling as a % of GDP. I assume from you posts on CC you understand numbers. So look at the numbers. The % is falling only because GDP is rising. As an economic conservative that scares me.
Finally am a pessimist or just a realist? When I look at the current UK government I am always reminded of the 5 P's.
Edited by Mrr T on Monday 1st May 13:21
Mrr T said:
turbobloke said:
Mrr T said:
Our government is running a deficit. The ecomonics of having to trade with the rEU as a third country are not a short term hit they could take the UK 20 years to recover from.
Could, but probably won't. Already the Project Fear predictions of dire doom have been shown to be simply dire. A repeat is only going to fail, and as badly as the first attempt.As to our government running a deficit, a reducing deficit which was already halved as a percentage of GDP some time ago, it's so-what. How's the EU economy getting on collectively? How far up the hill have the EU's incompetent has-beens kicked the can at this point? Can they focus on keeping the can from rolling back while all hands are on the prison gates keeping the other inmates locked up...we shall see. Fortunately for us we're on the way out.
Do you have some business, personal or family stake in this that's making your viewpoint eternally and excessively pessiimistic?
As for debt falling as a % of GDP. I assume from you posts on CC you understand numbers. So look at the numbers. The % is falling because GDP is rising. As an economic conservative that scares me.
Finally am a pessimist or just a realist? When I look at the current UK government I am always reminded of the 5 P's.
When it comes to 5 Ps the Conservatives have shown repeatedly that they have far more economic sense than either the LibDems or Labour. Having May and Co negotiating Brexit with a thumping majority in the HoC is fine by me and if it's not fine for you then never mind it's going to happen anyway.
Mrr T said:
Deptford Draylons said:
smaller EU members will be leaned on ( as happened in your mentioned case )
Except in the case of the Canadian FTA the smaller EU nations did not blink Canada had to make consesions on visas.My guess is the bin.
zygalski said:
Was he sober at the time?
The man's a posturing fool. If anyone takes anything he says seriously, they're foolish too.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff