GreenDevil

Brexit What Happens Next Thread ---multiple merged threads.

12,533 posts in this topic

8 hours ago, long time lurking said:

But the chart was posted in response to Con Vi`s comparison of our contribution to the EU with the rest of the EU`s GDP which is comparing apples and oranges and very disingenuous 

There was nothing disingenuous about my post. It was putting the Gardiner's contention about the impact on the EU of losing the UKs net contribution in its proper context i.e. its actual impact upon the EU's economy, which is about the square root of bugger all.

It also made the point that for both sides the contributions is a side issue that will be dwarfed by the secondary effects of the UK leaving. In the event of a hard Brexit these secondary effects could easily be more like £100bn a year and will impact on both sides.

However, as the remaining EU's economy is 6 times bigger than the UK we can expect the relative impact on the UK to be at least 6 times bigger than on the EU. I say at least six times because in trade disputes, which is what this effectively is, the impact almost always disproportionally falls on the smaller party.

This and the fact that the EU is primarily a political rather than economic project is why anyone looking at the trade balance and thinking we can use this to force the EU to agree a beneficial bespoke deal for the UK are deluding themselves.             

Edited by Confusion of VIs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 09/01/2017 at 4:23 PM, cashinmattress said:

Brexit will do NOTHING to deter illegal migration which is a staple of our economy here... outside of putting swampy/ccc/sheeple splinter/redquat et al up at the Dover cliffs, set up on a platform facing the sea... armed with halbreds and telescopes.

Eh? I missed that! :lol:

Remoaner_egg_zpsqvna8rbb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 09/01/2017 at 9:45 AM, the gardener said:

The plan is that we are leaving the EU. The people who are most in need of a plan are the remaining members of the EU. How on earth are they going to take the hit of 1/6 of their budget disappearing and square the EU political need to punish the UK with the fact that it's a major export market for it's largest players. How will they keep the smaller EU nations onside when they have to pull them off the teat?

My plan? Get the popcorn in...

 

10 hours ago, long time lurking said:

...

But the chart was posted in response to Con Vi`s comparison of our contribution to the EU with the rest of the EU`s GDP which is comparing apples and oranges and very disingenuous  ...

 

2 hours ago, Confusion of VIs said:

There was nothing disingenuous about my post. It was putting the Gardiner's contention about the impact on the EU of losing the UKs net contribution in its proper context i.e. its actual impact upon the EU's economy, which is about the square root of bugger all.

It also made the point that for both sides the contributions is a side issue that will be dwarfed by the secondary effects of the UK leaving. In the event of a hard Brexit these secondary effects could easily be more like £100bn a year and will impact on both sides.

However, as the remaining EU's economy is 6 times bigger than the UK we can expect the relative impact on the UK to be at least 6 times bigger than on the EU. I say at least six times because in trade disputes, which is what this effectively is, the impact almost always disproportionally falls on the smaller party.

This and the fact that the EU is primarily a political rather than economic project is why anyone looking at the trade balance and thinking we can use this to force the EU to agree a beneficial bespoke deal for the UK are deluding themselves.             

That's your interpretation of the context but you are still comparing apples and oranges.

Sticking to EU budgets and Brexit the following quotes show that there is recognition of the financial costs to the EU.

Quote

Britain's Departure Likely to Cost EU Billions

At a summit in Bratislava this week, the EU wants to set the course for its future without Britain. One important issue is likely to be ignored by European leaders: The fact that Brexit is going to be expensive for Europe, especially for Germany. ...

10 Billion Euros or Worse

Commissioned by the European Commission and the General Secretariat of the European Council, the first calculations on how expensive Brexit might be for the 27 remaining member states have now been completed. According to one paper, net revenues that flow into the EU from Britain each year range from 14 to 21 billion euros. If you subtract the money Britain gets back from Brussels, the EU budget would shrink by up to 10 billion euros per year. ...

But it could be even worse. The rebate to Britain's EU contributions negotiated by Margaret Thatcher has led to more than 110 billion euros in savings for the British over the years. Given that other net payers, including Germany, did not want to be made responsible for the additional costs this created, they were also given a rebate. In addition to Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, Austria and Denmark also currently enjoy a reduction in what they must pay into the budget. After Brexit, this spat could intensify, especially given that France, which is also a net payer, doesn't get any rebate at all. ...

In 2015, the study found, Britain was in second place: The British paid 12.7 billion euros more than they got back from the EU. By comparison, Germany paid 15.6 billion. The paper also determined that the British paid more into the EU per capita than Germany did that year. "After this country's withdrawal from the EU, this net amount will have to be redistributed among the other member states," writes CEP report author Matthias Kullas. "The other major net payers -- especially Germany, France and Italy -- will be facing significant additional costs."

Brexit could also lead to painful shortfalls for the European Investment Bank (EIB), Kullas calculated. If the British were to withdraw their share capital in the development bank, it would result in a shortfall worth billions. The EIB would be forced to make fewer loans -- loans that are vital for infrastructure projects across the Continent.

According to Kullas, the British have thus far borne the greatest burden at the bank. Their share of total capital is 16 percent, but they only benefit from 8.8 percent of the loans. No other country has a larger imbalance.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/brexit-to-cost-european-union-billions-a-1111724.html

Yet another set of contribution figures for 2015 too! 

edit: couldn't paste the chart :rolleyes:

Edited by Sheeple Splinter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sheeple Splinter said:

 

 

That's your interpretation of the context but you are still comparing apples and oranges.

Sticking to EU budgets and Brexit the following quotes show that there is recognition of the financial costs to the EU.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/brexit-to-cost-european-union-billions-a-1111724.html

Yet another set of contribution figures for 2015 too! 

But it still boils down to the EU having to find around 10 Billion Euro out of a GDP of around 15 Trillion Euro.  I.e the square root of bugger all.

Of course there will be lots of noise about where to find it from, that's how the EU works, but in the end it will be found. 

Also don't forget the UK is on the hook for somewhere between £30-60bn as its leaving payment, so the other states have years to find the money. 

I am deliberately ignoring the apples with apples comparison because in the end it doesn't really matter. It's like stressing over an unexpected £100 bill when you earn £150k pa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Confusion of VIs said:

But it still boils down to the EU having to find around 10 Billion Euro out of a GDP of around 15 Trillion Euro.  I.e the square root of bugger all.

Of course there will be lots of noise about where to find it from, that's how the EU works, but in the end it will be found. 

Also don't forget the UK is on the hook for somewhere between £30-60bn as its leaving payment, so the other states have years to find the money. 

I am deliberately ignoring the apples with apples comparison because in the end it doesn't really matter. It's like stressing over an unexpected £100 bill when you earn £150k pa.

By the same token, the financial benefit each individual EU nation gets from being in the EU is also the square root of bugger all. This way of analysing things doesn't provide any meaningful insight.

It's like saying we shouldn't bother trying to save the life of a patient because hey, he's only one person and there are 7 billion others so why bother?

Also the increased contributions have to be funded from the Government coffers of each nation and not from a magic pot containing the entire GDP of the nation.

If it's such small potatoes then why don't they increase the EU budget by 20% (or even 200%) now? After all it's the square root of bugger all and they can afford it.

Edited by the gardener

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now you are comparing apples with oranges. 

The financial benefit of being in the EU's single market will vary from state to state. Most estimates for the UK fall in the range of 4 to 7% which is a significant amount.

I don't agree with the parallel but it would be more like saying you can save this one patient at the cost of letting 10 or 20 others die.  

Yes the money will have to be found from government budgets rather than overall GDP, but again to put it in context it is similar to the UK having to find an extra £1.3bn to fund something in 5 maybe 10 years time.     

The rest of the EU does not want the UK to leave for other reasons which are way more significant than the UK's net contribution, such as the loss of prestige, the single market being significantly smaller and therefore less valuable without the UK, the loss of GDP arising from a reduction in trade with the UK. Estimates of the overall loss to the EU will be around 0.5% GDP or around £70bn a year.

For these reasons, it is still rumoured that EU will offer the UK the choice of a deal on FoM to stay or a clean break (their term for a very hard Brexit)..   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

I don't agree with the parallel but it would be more like saying you can save this one patient at the cost of letting 10 or 20 others die. 

A better analogy would be a business's turnover, and you're trying to compare profit with turnover. It doesn't matter how big the turnover is if there's no profit the business is on its way out. If it loses a customer that provides a good chunk of its profit then it's in trouble.

As far as the stuff the EU does the GDP of its members only matters indirectly, in that the more there is the more chance there is of there being a bit for the EU.

Edited by Riedquat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

A better analogy would be a business's turnover, and you're trying to compare profit with turnover. It doesn't matter how big the turnover is if there's no profit the business is on its way out. If it loses a customer that provides a good chunk of its profit then it's in trouble.

As far as the stuff the EU does the GDP of its members only matters indirectly, in that the more there is the more chance there is of there being a bit for the EU.

That is my understanding also.  GDP is not profit, it is more akin to turnover.

If it were profit (circa £1.5 trillion p.a.), we'd have no problems.  But clearly we do have big problems, as do other large western economies.  Despite GDP being so high, governments are borrowing and printing money hand over fist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, kzb said:

That is my understanding also.  GDP is not profit, it is more akin to turnover.

If it were profit (circa £1.5 trillion p.a.), we'd have no problems.  But clearly we do have big problems, as do other large western economies.  Despite GDP being so high, governments are borrowing and printing money hand over fist.

All true but it does provide a measure of total economic activity that provides a basis for assessing the relative impact of additional costs, and as we don't currently have a better overall indicator it will have to do for now.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

All true but it does provide a measure of total economic activity that provides a basis for assessing the relative impact of additional costs, and as we don't currently have a better overall indicator it will have to do for now.  

Dress it up as much as you like but the organisation that is the EU is going to struggle with the loss of a significant chunk of its income. I agree that GDP is a measure of total economic activity but I don't see where your argument is coming from that that matters more. What affects the share price of a business, its turnover or its profit? High turnover and low profit just means a business operating with small margins (and / or an inefficient one).

Furthermore even though I obviously think that the EU has already gone too far down the federal attitude path it's not gone all the way. The vast majority of that GDP is entirely down to the individual countries, nothing to do with the EU.

And like I said if GDP is the important thing then you should be comparing the UK's GDP with that of the rest of the members. As it is it looks like you're trying to claim that the UK's contribution directly contributes towards France's, Germany's, Italy's, Greece's etc. GDP, but not the other way around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

All true but it does provide a measure of total economic activity that provides a basis for assessing the relative impact of additional costs, and as we don't currently have a better overall indicator it will have to do for now.  

Apples: EU budget and member contributions.

Oranges: EU28 GDP and member countries' GDP

There are several links between the two, the main one being member country's GNI based contributions i.e. if member countries' GNI falls then so do contributions to the EU.

The fact is the EU elite don't share your EU GDP indicator of UK insignificance:

Quote

...

The German Finance Ministry paper also provides another example: a so-called "Lowering of the Ceiling program." Schäuble's ministry believes it possible that the EU would undertake significant fiscal belt-tightening once Britain stopped paying into the EU budget.

...

In order to reduce the shortfall, other member states are likewise looking at ways to reduce EU spending. The main area under review by the fiscal experts is agricultural aid which, at around 55 billion euros each year, is one of the largest line items on the budget. The direct payments received by every European farmer for each hectare of land they own without any stipulations, for example, has come under criticism.

 http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/brexit-to-cost-european-union-billions-a-1111724.html

1 hour ago, Confusion of VIs said:

...

The rest of the EU does not want the UK to leave for other reasons which are way more significant than the UK's net contribution, such as the loss of prestige, the single market being significantly smaller and therefore less valuable without the UK, the loss of GDP arising from a reduction in trade with the UK. Estimates of the overall loss to the EU will be around 0.5% GDP or around £70bn a year.

...

Agreed, plus the 'end of the EU project'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Dress it up as much as you like but the organisation that is the EU is going to struggle with the loss of a significant chunk of its income. I agree that GDP is a measure of total economic activity but I don't see where your argument is coming from that that matters more. What affects the share price of a business, its turnover or its profit? High turnover and low profit just means a business operating with small margins (and / or an inefficient one).

Furthermore even though I obviously think that the EU has already gone too far down the federal attitude path it's not gone all the way. The vast majority of that GDP is entirely down to the individual countries, nothing to do with the EU.

And like I said if GDP is the important thing then you should be comparing the UK's GDP with that of the rest of the members.

As it is it looks like you're trying to claim that the UK's contribution directly contributes towards France's, Germany's, Italy's, Greece's etc. GDP, but not the other way around.

The EU is just a function carried out on behalf of the member states, if they want to they can afford to fund it at whatever level they feel is appropriate.   

I have already said that this discussion about contributions is pretty irrelevant and that the far more important factor is the secondary losses arising from trade losses. This is where the total GDP's become relevant and why the relative impact on the UK (at 13% of the total) will be at least 6 times that on the remainder of the EU.

No, my argument is that contributions are a pretty negligible factor for both sides, or at least they are for the richer states.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Sheeple Splinter said:

Apples: EU budget and member contributions.

Oranges: EU28 GDP and member countries' GDP

There are several links between the two, the main one being member country's GNI based contributions i.e. if member countries' GNI falls then so do contributions to the EU.

The fact is the EU elite don't share your EU GDP indicator of UK insignificance:

 http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/brexit-to-cost-european-union-billions-a-1111724.html

Agreed, plus the 'end of the EU project'.

That's certainly a possibility. However, as you earlier quote demonstrates that Germans and definitely the French, if Fillon wins, will take Brexit as an opportunity for major reform.  

It would be ironic if UK leaving is the catalyst for the EU turning into something we would like to join. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

The EU is just a function carried out on behalf of the member states, if they want to they can afford to fund it at whatever level they feel is appropriate.  

Oh really? We could just decide to not contribute at all if we feel like it? Sorry, that's not true. The EU over-rules its member states and treats them as being there for it rather than it being there for them. That's a big part of what makes it so objectionable.

Quote

I have already said that this discussion about contributions is pretty irrelevant and that the far more important factor is the secondary losses arising from trade losses. This is where the total GDP's become relevant and why the relative impact on the UK (at 13% of the total) will be at least 6 times that on the remainder of the EU.

No, my argument is that contributions are a pretty negligible factor for both sides, or at least they are for the richer states.

In terms of their overall cost to the states they might not be all that great, in terms of their impact on the EU - as opposed to its members, it's big. You cannot lose one of your most significant players and pretend it has negligable effect, and one that will be felt more in some countries than others. How much impact it will have on everyone depends on where trade is, where it will be etc. etc., a simple comparison of GDP is meaningless. And it's not as if it'll be a case of "no dealing with the EU whatsoever".

Remove a key player from a football team and the effect isn't just 1/11th of the ability of that team to win gone.

edit to sort of quoting

Edited by Riedquat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Confusion of VIs said:

That's certainly a possibility. However, as you earlier quote demonstrates that Germans and definitely the French, if Fillon wins, will take Brexit as an opportunity for major reform.  

It would be ironic if UK leaving is the catalyst for the EU turning into something we would like to join. 

Definitely, the positioning of other EU members in the event of Brexit began before the referendum. Fillon & Macron are both talking about reforms; le Pen's policies are well known already. I can't see the EU surviving unless it reforms and, once again, the Flexcit,plan for Europe is compelling i.e. UNECE etc.

Macron today:

Quote

The euro may not exist in ten years’ time if Paris and Berlin fail to bolster the single currency union.

....

“The truth is that we must collectively recognise that the euro is incomplete and cannot last without major reforms,” Macron said in a speech at a university in Berlin.

“It has not provided Europe with full international sovereignty against the dollar on its rules. It has not provided Europe with a natural convergence between the different member states.” ...

http://www.euronews.com/2017/01/11/macron-the-euro-may-not-exist-in-ten-years

Also today, Fillon:

Quote

French conservative presidential candidate François Fillon, who is favourite to win this year’s election, will lay out on Wednesday (11 January) his proposals to cut immigration to a “strict minimum” through the use of quotas, an aide said on Tuesday.

Fillon, who is seen beating far-right leader Marine Le Pen if they meet in a runoff in May in the presidential election, will also urge the European Union to tighten its asylum and immigration policy to counter threats from Islamist militants.

http://www.euractiv.com/section/elections/news/french-presidential-candidate-fillon-to-propose-immigration-quotas/

Edited by Sheeple Splinter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe this discussion brings us back to the fact that the EU budget is relatively small.

EU budget of 145bn euros is only about double the revenue of Tesco group (both 2015 figures).

EU budget is less than 0.9% of total EU GDP (nearly 17,000bn euros).

Also, we seem to be assuming that trade will markedly reduce when we leave.  The loss of 70bn certainly seems to imply a massive reduction. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fillon seems to be promising things he is in no position to promise whilst France remains in the EU.  Where have we heard this before?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Riedquat said:

Oh really? We could just decide to not contribute at all if we feel like it? Sorry, that's not true. The EU over-rules its member states and treats them as being there for it rather than it being there for them. That's a big part of what makes it so objectionable.

In terms of their overall cost to the states they might not be all that great, in terms of their impact on the EU - as opposed to its members, it's big. You cannot lose one of your most significant players and pretend it has negligable effect, and one that will be felt more in some countries than others. How much impact it will have on everyone depends on where trade is, where it will be etc. etc., a simple comparison of GDP is meaningless. And it's not as if it'll be a case of "no dealing with the EU whatsoever".

Remove a key player from a football team and the effect isn't just 1/11th of the ability of that team to win gone.

edit to sort of quoting

+1

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carney says that Brexit risks to the EU are more significant than to the UK.

<<the UK's financial services sector provides 75% of foreign exchange trading for the EU, 75% of all hedging products (which help businesses insure against risk when making investments or buying products) and supports half of all lending.

As he said in November, the UK is Europe's "investment banker".>>

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38582690

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Riedquat said:

Oh really? We could just decide to not contribute at all if we feel like it? Sorry, that's not true. The EU over-rules its member states and treats them as being there for it rather than it being there for them. That's a big part of what makes it so objectionable.

In terms of their overall cost to the states they might not be all that great, in terms of their impact on the EU - as opposed to its members, it's big. You cannot lose one of your most significant players and pretend it has negligable effect, and one that will be felt more in some countries than others. How much impact it will have on everyone depends on where trade is, where it will be etc. etc., a simple comparison of GDP is meaningless. And it's not as if it'll be a case of "no dealing with the EU whatsoever".

Remove a key player from a football team and the effect isn't just 1/11th of the ability of that team to win gone.

edit to sort of quoting

We abide by whatever rules we sign up to, of course we cannot just decide not to pay our contribution just as you could not decide to stop paying your electricity bill, but you can pay whatever you owe and end the contract as we are doing with A50.  I really think you are obsessing about a non existent bogeyman.

No ones denying that the UK leaving will have a negative impact on the EU that they will have yo adjust to  but it won't be massive  , certainly not in comparison with the impact upon the UK. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kzb said:

Carney says that Brexit risks to the EU are more significant than to the UK.

<<the UK's financial services sector provides 75% of foreign exchange trading for the EU, 75% of all hedging products (which help businesses insure against risk when making investments or buying products) and supports half of all lending.

As he said in November, the UK is Europe's "investment banker".>>

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38582690

 

You can view that as a big risk or a huge opportunity to take a big slice of the cities high margin service. 

Fillon's view which is currently panicking the Treasury is rumoured to be that it is a once in a lifetime opportunity for Paris. One that he is be prepared to offer companies huge incentives to make the move.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

You can view that as a big risk or a huge opportunity to take a big slice of the cities high margin service. 

Fillon's view which is currently panicking the Treasury is rumoured to be that it is a once in a lifetime opportunity for Paris. One that he is be prepared to offer companies huge incentives to make the move.  

 

This is from two months ago:

Quote

...

"But there is no reason to give them European financial passport, and the eurozone must recover the clearing of its currency. In the process, we must reach out to the French settled in the UK and those who think they should be located within the European Union."

It is clear from this speech that Fillon would adopt a no-nonsense approach to Brexit if elected president. He called for a "fast" divorce and said EU officials must "pressure" Britain to stick to its word and complete its formal departure by 2019.

The most striking part of his speech, though, focuses on what he believes Britain must lose as an automatic result of Brexit.

He said Britain should have its lucrative European financial passport removed, a decision that would be hugely damaging to the City because London would cease to be Europe's central financial hub. In turn, he added, this would lead to waves of French talent working in the UK abandoning cities like London and returning to France to work. ...

http://uk.businessinsider.com/francois-fillon-french-election-candidate-hard-brexit-eu-le-pen-2016-11

This is from 3+ years ago:

Quote

The City of London’s future as a global financial center is safe…for now

https://qz.com/61247/the-city-of-londons-future-as-a-global-financial-center-is-safe-for-now/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Confusion of VIs said:

You can view that as a big risk or a huge opportunity to take a big slice of the cities high margin service. 

Fillon's view which is currently panicking the Treasury is rumoured to be that it is a once in a lifetime opportunity for Paris. One that he is be prepared to offer companies huge incentives to make the move.  

Quite honestly, they can have them. The city can fook right off to Paris. Billions bailing out the bankers, having the whole of government pander to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GrizzlyDave said:

Quite honestly, they can have them. The city can fook right off to Paris. Billions bailing out the bankers, having the whole of government pander to them.

It's not the banks they are after, it is all of the ancillary high margin financial services that form the bulk of the city and didn't require any bailouts and in total generate most of the cities profits and taxes.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Confusion of VIs said:

It's not the banks they are after, it is all of the ancillary high margin financial services that form the bulk of the city and didn't require any bailouts and in total generate most of the cities profits and taxes.

 

 

 

They would have been after them for decades. They don't have them. They won't have them either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.