The economic consequences of Brexit (Vol 2)
Discussion
cookie118 said:
London424 said:
The EU is wanting to put in place something that they have not suggested with any of the other trade discussion they've entered into with other countries.
Trade discussions with Canada, US, etc have had no mention of Free Movement of People attached to it. Yet that seems to be a sticking point with the UK.
There is nothing preventing the EU agreeing to free trade immediately under the conditions that currently exist.
Unless you can point out what they are?
SeeTrade discussions with Canada, US, etc have had no mention of Free Movement of People attached to it. Yet that seems to be a sticking point with the UK.
There is nothing preventing the EU agreeing to free trade immediately under the conditions that currently exist.
Unless you can point out what they are?
sidicks said:
Those 3rd countries don't have existing arrangements in place.
confused_buyer said:
Oh, and just to add EU Directives receive some (worthless as they have to enact them anyway) Parliamentary scrutiny. EU Regulations receive no Parliamentary Scrutiny and become law automatically.
You are missing a point - ET legislation is scrutinised by the EU Parliament, and the member states, as pointed out before, all have democratically elected Governments, which send delegates to meetings. If your objection is to the location of the democratic action, because you wish the action to take place in Westminster and not in Brussels or Strasbourg, that is OK (although it tends to belie the argument that the principled and pro democratic Brexiteer is not in any way concerned about foreign-ness, leaving the foreigner-hating to all the silly hatey Brexiteers that you principled ones regrettably have to share a trench with). The problem that you face is that the post Brexit settlement is offering less democracy and not more. Eddie Strohacker said:
Dr Jekyll said:
If we offer the EU a free trade deal and they refuse then that is their fault. Whose fault is it that the EU erects tariff barriers in the first place?
What? Trade barriers in use globally are a fault? 
Once upon a time it was the stated purpose of the EU (as it then wasn't) to remove trade barriers, that's why we joined. The fact that they have now decided protectionism is a good thing is exactly why we should leave.
confused_buyer said:
Breadvan72 said:
As for holding Government to account, how do you hold to account a Government that rules by decree? EU legislation receives Parliamentary scrutiny. Henry VIII rules (not new, but set to grow in abundance) receive minimal or no Parliamentary scrutiny. How is life under the GRB going to be more democratic than life in an organisation in which several democratically elected Governments have meetings and decide stuff?
Secondly there are few new H VII rules proposed and those which are relate to small areas and have a sunset clause of 2 years. Thirdly most of them will probably be watered down by the MPs which apparently aren't able to scrutinise them.
Because we have a Government will no or a small majority and have had since 2010 the reality is that Parliament has had far more opportunity to hold the Government to account in the last 7 years than it has in the previous 30 (excepting 92-97). Compare the current situation to the massive Blair and Thatcher majorities where the Government could basically do what it wanted and Parliament has vastly more sway.
Breadvan72 said:
One of the hard Brexiteers above argues that the most important thing to do is to leave the Customs Union. This takes as an article of the policy that the UK must seek a situation in which a tariff barrier is erected. World free trade does not exist - different nations and different blocs erect various barriers. The EU has a tariff barrier around it, so saying that if the UK chooses to leave it is somehow the fault of the EU that the UK finds itself outside the barrier is plain daft. That sort of thinking encapsulates the sheer Alice in Wonderland fantastical nonsense of the entire Brexit position.
The negotiations, viewed from any sort of objective standpoint, are a car crash. The UK Government is clueless, leaderless, divided, and has hardly any cards to play, and yet leave voters insist that all is tickety boo. It really is all sooooo British. I have a harp on my passport, so I can laugh at all this, but I am more sad about it than amused.
The Customs Union is not the driver for Free Trade within the EU. They are separate things, although it is fair to say that the process smoothing the Customs Union creates can only be enabled when there is Free Trade...The negotiations, viewed from any sort of objective standpoint, are a car crash. The UK Government is clueless, leaderless, divided, and has hardly any cards to play, and yet leave voters insist that all is tickety boo. It really is all sooooo British. I have a harp on my passport, so I can laugh at all this, but I am more sad about it than amused.
As I've posted repeatedly on here and on other threads, having a tariff border with the EU is not the massive problem it's presented as. Firstly, it only effects finished goods. Components being shipped through global supply chains are eligible for Inwards Processing Relief, and do not have any tariffs.
Considering that the bulk of our exports are to countries not in the EU, at worst we stay exactly the same as today with those nations. If the EU does not wish free trade with the UK post Brexit, then our goods to the EU are likely to cost on average under 10% more than today - which is less than normal fx fluctuations.
The converse is however very valid. The EU requires massive tariffs on goods from the RoW that increase our costs of living significantly. Yes, it'd be a ballache for a VW Golf to be 10% more expensive, however this is less than the ballache today of food that is over 20% more expensive than it should be based upon global market prices. That hits everyone, every single day - and adds up to a far greater cost than the extra couple of grand on the aforementioned Golf (for which there are UK produced competitors that are likelt to benefit).
Every single nation that has unilaterally dropped inward tariff barriers has seen benefits for their economy... I do acknowledge that this is perhaps unlikely to be a proposal from the Government, however I can lobby for it to become the case (which I cannot do today).
The UK has far more levers to pull than you suggest. The Belgian trade minister is worried about the current EU position - over 50% of the exports from Zebrugge are destined for one of the top three consumer nations in the world, us. Further, over 80% of retail lending within Germany is facilitated via London. That will not change, for so many reasons it's boring to type them out.
They also have a very worrying situation developing regarding the national bank reconciliation process within the Eurozone (or rather, the lack of reconciliation). Once the German electorate, who have made their feelings very clear previously, realise that they have extended over a trillion euros of unbacked lending, with no requirement for repayment at any point, nor any form of interest, the excrement will hit the rotating air movement device...
On the negotiations, is there a single example of EU negotiations every proceeding differently? For the last 30 years, every single internal or external negotiation they have entered has required a 'crisis meeting' through the night the day prior to the deadline, with what could have been forecasted as the broadly pragmatic agreement being signed at the eleventh hour...
zygalski said:
I sense a huge amount of deflection from the Brexit boys in the next few months, along the lines of 'Brexit could've been a success if not for... *insert one of a dozen or more reasons*
It is the hoary old "stab in the back" argument, used by rightists since forever. If only we had not been betrayed by trahison des clercs and so on, say the faux-populist rightists. If only everyone else (ie the 62% who did not vote to leave) had got behind this project, all would have been fab! Get your excuses in early.Breadvan72 said:
It is the hoary old "stab in the back" argument, used by rightists since forever. If only we had not been betrayed by trahison des clercs and so on, say the faux-populist rightists. If only everyone else (ie the 62% who did not vote to leave) had got behind this project, all would have been fab! Get your excuses in early.
Alternatively, everything that doesn't go perfectly smoothly post Brexit will be blamed on Brexit, as plenty of people are trying to do already.Not sure why people are so sure a Brexit UK will be free trade minded. Sure, it was an argument of the leave campaign, but I haven't seen any studies showing the UK population is majority pro or anti.
It's highly possible that small, but noisy/ influential lobby groups will succeed to have tariffs. The NFU (Farmers) have already positioned to be anti free trade for some food
It's highly possible that small, but noisy/ influential lobby groups will succeed to have tariffs. The NFU (Farmers) have already positioned to be anti free trade for some food
FT seems to have gone off-message.PurpleMoonlight said:
Notice how May appears to have abandoned the 'no deal it better than a bad deal'. The EU appear to have called bluff on that from day one.
I'm failing to follow the logic here. May appears to be trying to move things forward and considers the approach still within the realms of a reasonable deal. If the EU do not respond positively then "no deal is better than a bad deal" still holds does it not?zygalski said:
I sense a huge amount of deflection from the Brexit boys in the next few months, along the lines of 'Brexit could've been a success if not for... *insert one of a dozen or more reasons*
Pure sloganeering.Nobody will know "in the next few months" if Brexit "could've been a success" because it won't have happened by then - and the ramifications will take years to work through beyond March 2019, at which point it will be impossible to turn the clock back to try a Remain vote and see what the alternative future was like.
Brexit is about leaving the EU so it will inevitably be successful when we've left.
People's views of what happened along the way will be influenced by a lot of things which for at least some Remainers will include ongoing whiny regret that the vote didn't go their way. Never mind.
pgh said:
Sway said:
The Customs Union is not the driver for Free Trade within the EU. They are separate things, although it is fair to say that the process smoothing the Customs Union creates can only be enabled when there is Free Trade...
As I've posted repeatedly on here and on other threads, having a tariff border with the EU is not the massive problem it's presented as. Firstly, it only effects finished goods. Components being shipped through global supply chains are eligible for Inwards Processing Relief, and do not have any tariffs.
Considering that the bulk of our exports are to countries not in the EU, at worst we stay exactly the same as today with those nations. If the EU does not wish free trade with the UK post Brexit, then our goods to the EU are likely to cost on average under 10% more than today - which is less than normal fx fluctuations.
The converse is however very valid. The EU requires massive tariffs on goods from the RoW that increase our costs of living significantly. Yes, it'd be a ballache for a VW Golf to be 10% more expensive, however this is less than the ballache today of food that is over 20% more expensive than it should be based upon global market prices. That hits everyone, every single day - and adds up to a far greater cost than the extra couple of grand on the aforementioned Golf (for which there are UK produced competitors that are likelt to benefit).
Every single nation that has unilaterally dropped inward tariff barriers has seen benefits for their economy... I do acknowledge that this is perhaps unlikely to be a proposal from the Government, however I can lobby for it to become the case (which I cannot do today).
The UK has far more levers to pull than you suggest. The Belgian trade minister is worried about the current EU position - over 50% of the exports from Zebrugge are destined for one of the top three consumer nations in the world, us. Further, over 80% of retail lending within Germany is facilitated via London. That will not change, for so many reasons it's boring to type them out.
They also have a very worrying situation developing regarding the national bank reconciliation process within the Eurozone (or rather, the lack of reconciliation). Once the German electorate, who have made their feelings very clear previously, realise that they have extended over a trillion euros of unbacked lending, with no requirement for repayment at any point, nor any form of interest, the excrement will hit the rotating air movement device...
On the negotiations, is there a single example of EU negotiations every proceeding differently? For the last 30 years, every single internal or external negotiation they have entered has required a 'crisis meeting' through the night the day prior to the deadline, with what could have been forecasted as the broadly pragmatic agreement being signed at the eleventh hour...
Informative, pragmatic and good use of statistics to back up an argument. This sort of post makes it worth reading through all the stirring and mud slinging present here. Thanks Sway!As I've posted repeatedly on here and on other threads, having a tariff border with the EU is not the massive problem it's presented as. Firstly, it only effects finished goods. Components being shipped through global supply chains are eligible for Inwards Processing Relief, and do not have any tariffs.
Considering that the bulk of our exports are to countries not in the EU, at worst we stay exactly the same as today with those nations. If the EU does not wish free trade with the UK post Brexit, then our goods to the EU are likely to cost on average under 10% more than today - which is less than normal fx fluctuations.
The converse is however very valid. The EU requires massive tariffs on goods from the RoW that increase our costs of living significantly. Yes, it'd be a ballache for a VW Golf to be 10% more expensive, however this is less than the ballache today of food that is over 20% more expensive than it should be based upon global market prices. That hits everyone, every single day - and adds up to a far greater cost than the extra couple of grand on the aforementioned Golf (for which there are UK produced competitors that are likelt to benefit).
Every single nation that has unilaterally dropped inward tariff barriers has seen benefits for their economy... I do acknowledge that this is perhaps unlikely to be a proposal from the Government, however I can lobby for it to become the case (which I cannot do today).
The UK has far more levers to pull than you suggest. The Belgian trade minister is worried about the current EU position - over 50% of the exports from Zebrugge are destined for one of the top three consumer nations in the world, us. Further, over 80% of retail lending within Germany is facilitated via London. That will not change, for so many reasons it's boring to type them out.
They also have a very worrying situation developing regarding the national bank reconciliation process within the Eurozone (or rather, the lack of reconciliation). Once the German electorate, who have made their feelings very clear previously, realise that they have extended over a trillion euros of unbacked lending, with no requirement for repayment at any point, nor any form of interest, the excrement will hit the rotating air movement device...
On the negotiations, is there a single example of EU negotiations every proceeding differently? For the last 30 years, every single internal or external negotiation they have entered has required a 'crisis meeting' through the night the day prior to the deadline, with what could have been forecasted as the broadly pragmatic agreement being signed at the eleventh hour...
Edited by pgh on Friday 22 September 11:06
Breadvan72 said:
It is the hoary old "stab in the back" argument, used by rightists since forever. If only we had not been betrayed by trahison des clercs and so on, say the faux-populist rightists. If only everyone else (ie the 62% who did not vote to leave) had got behind this project, all would have been fab! Get your excuses in early.
BV, you've posted here recently in a tone that leaves me to believe that you are an ardent remainer and are consistently aiming barbed comments at leavers. Not like you to be imbalanced in such a way.Do you see no merit in leaving? If so, and set against the rather well aired downsides of the EU, why do you see remaining as such a good thing or, conversely, why leaving will be such a catastrophe?
Breadvan72 said:
zygalski said:
I sense a huge amount of deflection from the Brexit boys in the next few months, along the lines of 'Brexit could've been a success if not for... *insert one of a dozen or more reasons*
It is the hoary old "stab in the back" argument, used by rightists since forever. If only we had not been betrayed by trahison des clercs and so on, say the faux-populist rightists. If only everyone else (ie the 62% who did not vote to leave) had got behind this project, all would have been fab! Get your excuses in early.You and others have made a few posts on recent pages suggesting that Brexit voters have either changed their minds or have regrets/shame.
My own experiences are very different to your assumptions.
I voted exit after much careful consideration. I have not changed my mind. I honestly do not know any genuine Brexit voter who has changed their mind. I DO know a small number of Remain voters who have changed their mind and who would now vote Brexit.
Some of the reasons mentioned by these new converts include their utter disgust at the way the EU is going about the negotiations (100bn demands, arrogant dismissal of UK discussion papers, veiled threats etc) and the constant drip drip drip of thinly disguised bile towards Brexit voters on social media and in the mainstream media, particularly the BBC, Guardian and Independent.
I rarely post on Brexit threads now because, frankly I am tired of the arguments and the snide personal attacks from the usual protagonists.
I am not a racist, I am not thick, I am not a pensioner, I am not xenophobic, I don't "hate" european people, I am not "afraid" of immigrants, I did not believe the 350m NHS bus thing (I actually was not even aware of it) , I was not conned - but I recognise that both sides were not 100% square with the truth. I made my choice for valid reasons that I believe still hold true today.
I am tired of the likes of slasher, strohacker et al who, even when presented with salient information will nevertheless, at the next turn (or next thread) go back to promoting the same old nonsense that they always do. And it's all done with that faux wide eyed innocence that is guaranteed to make my teeth itch. So I ask myself, "why bother with these guys?" It's not as if anything that I (and others) may have to say would in any way change their opinions. They are entrenched in their belief that brexit voters are largely ignorant racists and that Brexit must surely be an utter disaster - they are the people who believe that the certain smile on the face of the NISSAN CEO is all the proof needed to support their assertions....
I am most certainly not ashamed of my vote, nor am I looking to blame anyone else for what comes next in the history of our country.
It's been said that posting on a forum cannot and will not influence the outcome of the negotiations. That might be true, but the constant deliberate misinterpretation and misrepresentation of events is unhelpful to achieving the kind of national consensous that would be ideal if we are to get the best deal and make the best of the future. Division is not helpful. Those that seek to ferment that division (presumably in the hope that they can squeak "I told you so" at some point down the line) are equally unhelpful.
I am genuinely disappointed that Mr Corbyn and his team have decided to put party advantage ahead of positive engagement in this vital process. I wished and still do wish that the best minds of all political shades would engage themselves in working out the best exit deal for and on behalf of the country, regardless of how they had voted in June 2016.
My old mum used to say "if you can't say anything positive, then don't say anything at all". She also used to say that "it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and prove it!"
Both are sayings that some on the Remain side would be well advised to heed.
Debate and engagement are fine. Disagreement is good and healthy. But cynicism, sneering, double speak and efforts to wreck just so that one can say I told you so (even if those efforts are ineffectual in the great scheme of things) should have no part in any sensible Brexit discussion.
Edited by andymadmak on Friday 22 September 11:35
Dr Jekyll said:
pgh said:
Sway said:
The Customs Union is not the driver for Free Trade within the EU. They are separate things, although it is fair to say that the process smoothing the Customs Union creates can only be enabled when there is Free Trade...
As I've posted repeatedly on here and on other threads, having a tariff border with the EU is not the massive problem it's presented as. Firstly, it only effects finished goods. Components being shipped through global supply chains are eligible for Inwards Processing Relief, and do not have any tariffs.
Considering that the bulk of our exports are to countries not in the EU, at worst we stay exactly the same as today with those nations. If the EU does not wish free trade with the UK post Brexit, then our goods to the EU are likely to cost on average under 10% more than today - which is less than normal fx fluctuations.
The converse is however very valid. The EU requires massive tariffs on goods from the RoW that increase our costs of living significantly. Yes, it'd be a ballache for a VW Golf to be 10% more expensive, however this is less than the ballache today of food that is over 20% more expensive than it should be based upon global market prices. That hits everyone, every single day - and adds up to a far greater cost than the extra couple of grand on the aforementioned Golf (for which there are UK produced competitors that are likelt to benefit).
Every single nation that has unilaterally dropped inward tariff barriers has seen benefits for their economy... I do acknowledge that this is perhaps unlikely to be a proposal from the Government, however I can lobby for it to become the case (which I cannot do today).
The UK has far more levers to pull than you suggest. The Belgian trade minister is worried about the current EU position - over 50% of the exports from Zebrugge are destined for one of the top three consumer nations in the world, us. Further, over 80% of retail lending within Germany is facilitated via London. That will not change, for so many reasons it's boring to type them out.
They also have a very worrying situation developing regarding the national bank reconciliation process within the Eurozone (or rather, the lack of reconciliation). Once the German electorate, who have made their feelings very clear previously, realise that they have extended over a trillion euros of unbacked lending, with no requirement for repayment at any point, nor any form of interest, the excrement will hit the rotating air movement device...
On the negotiations, is there a single example of EU negotiations every proceeding differently? For the last 30 years, every single internal or external negotiation they have entered has required a 'crisis meeting' through the night the day prior to the deadline, with what could have been forecasted as the broadly pragmatic agreement being signed at the eleventh hour...
Informative, pragmatic and good use of statistics to back up an argument. This sort of post makes it worth reading through all the stirring and mud slinging present here. Thanks Sway!As I've posted repeatedly on here and on other threads, having a tariff border with the EU is not the massive problem it's presented as. Firstly, it only effects finished goods. Components being shipped through global supply chains are eligible for Inwards Processing Relief, and do not have any tariffs.
Considering that the bulk of our exports are to countries not in the EU, at worst we stay exactly the same as today with those nations. If the EU does not wish free trade with the UK post Brexit, then our goods to the EU are likely to cost on average under 10% more than today - which is less than normal fx fluctuations.
The converse is however very valid. The EU requires massive tariffs on goods from the RoW that increase our costs of living significantly. Yes, it'd be a ballache for a VW Golf to be 10% more expensive, however this is less than the ballache today of food that is over 20% more expensive than it should be based upon global market prices. That hits everyone, every single day - and adds up to a far greater cost than the extra couple of grand on the aforementioned Golf (for which there are UK produced competitors that are likelt to benefit).
Every single nation that has unilaterally dropped inward tariff barriers has seen benefits for their economy... I do acknowledge that this is perhaps unlikely to be a proposal from the Government, however I can lobby for it to become the case (which I cannot do today).
The UK has far more levers to pull than you suggest. The Belgian trade minister is worried about the current EU position - over 50% of the exports from Zebrugge are destined for one of the top three consumer nations in the world, us. Further, over 80% of retail lending within Germany is facilitated via London. That will not change, for so many reasons it's boring to type them out.
They also have a very worrying situation developing regarding the national bank reconciliation process within the Eurozone (or rather, the lack of reconciliation). Once the German electorate, who have made their feelings very clear previously, realise that they have extended over a trillion euros of unbacked lending, with no requirement for repayment at any point, nor any form of interest, the excrement will hit the rotating air movement device...
On the negotiations, is there a single example of EU negotiations every proceeding differently? For the last 30 years, every single internal or external negotiation they have entered has required a 'crisis meeting' through the night the day prior to the deadline, with what could have been forecasted as the broadly pragmatic agreement being signed at the eleventh hour...
Edited by pgh on Friday 22 September 11:06
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff