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

[Jack's Creation]

It'll hurt the UK far more than the EU. The UK would effectively become a third country, trading under WTO, where we cannot discriminate unfair tariffs to the EU, as we would have to offer the same tariffs to all other WTO countries. Whereas the EU, being a RTA (a regional trade authority) has to discriminate.

http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86158

There's also the issue of compliance of all our exports and imports...

That only applies to countries that we have a WTO only trade arrangement with, a specific bilateral trade deal with an individual exporting country would by-pass the universal tariff problem

[OnionTerror]

That only applies to countries that we have a WTO only trade arrangement with, a specific bilateral trade deal with an individual exporting country would by-pass the universal tariff problem

Indeed...if you have a bilateral trade deal, you are not trading under WTO, as you have a FTA...

[Riedquat]

The real damage would come if there was significant withdrawn of foreign investment in British companies and resulting job loses - than all bets of 'hard' Brexit would come unstuck.

Most Remainers appear to be completely and utterly convinced that that'll happen, but also come across as unhinged enough to believe that it's utterly impossible for a nation like the UK to do anything on its own without EU life support, which rather dents their argument. Which makes it hard to know how much of a risk it really is (bearing in mind that to me some economic cost goes in the "so what?" bin, it needs to be serious damage for it to be a concern).

[Riedquat]

We are walking out of the richest and deepest trade deal in the world, just as the world is becoming much more protectionist. I genuinely can not see the logic in that.

Perhaps a bit more self-reliance is a good thing? "Trade at any cost" seems to make up most of the pro EU argument. If the world is becoming more protectionist then why would that be? Because being open isn't working very well for an awful lot of places. Protectionism might not be the right solution to that problem but it does reveal the existence of the problem. I'm not saying that I want a protectionist UK but the idea doesn't worry me all that much and I'm pretty convinced that we're past the point where increasingly large scale and centralised businesses and organisations are doing more harm than good socially, even if it works economically.

But from the EU point of view I'm still waiting to hear what the EU would gain from not having a decent trade agreement with an independent UK, and getting it in place reasonably quickly. Even if there is an economic impact on the UK it'll still be a pretty wealthy country, right on the EU's doorstep.

Edited September 12, 2016 by Riedquat

[Riedquat]

double post

Edited September 12, 2016 by Riedquat

[long time lurking]

Its not "explicit" proof...but the author has fully referenced his monographs if you wish to check out their validity... If he is so untrusted in this field why are politicians such as John Mills asking him to explain how the EU works..and not liking his findings when he lays out the facts, and why has he been asked to attend a treasury selected committee on Brexit if he is not respected?

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/treasury-committee/news-parliament-2015/future-economic-relationship-with-eu-evidence-16-17/

He sees the woods from the trees, and he provides the most lucid commentary whilst both sides continue to bicker amongst themselves...

Many countries trade with the EU via the WTO, but as I pointed out, as with Madagascar, they don't have access to the single market. The nearest attempt to trade in the single market (outside the EEA/EFTA and the EU) is the Canada deal - CETA...and that provides them limited access...and that deal has taken seven years...and it still isn't ratified...

If you have any other alternative blogs or links, I'd like to see them...

Well that`s my point just about everyone else trades with the EU successfully ,yet it would be a disaster for the UK to trade on the same terms

All i smell is fearmongering,third world countries can manage it yet the UK is fecked and incapable ..... glass half full

It`s widely excepted the EU is heavily influenced by the lobbyists which are not going to be happy if the EU cut`s their noses of to spite their face...French farmers immediately springs to mind with their own special lobbying

And to say the EU will have the right to sell goods to the UK tariff free and impose tariffs on UK exports to the EU is pure fantasy and that`s what Dr Mills is implying in the quotes you provided....it`s simple the country that`s ruining the deficit ultimately holds the cards..the lobbyists will be on our side

As for Blogs just read David Davies`s early articles regarding tariffs especially concerning the German/French farmers auto makers his views are the polar opposite to Mr Mills.

Edited September 12, 2016 by long time lurking

[kzb]

I bet the free marketeers see BS and ISO standards as nothing more than protecting vested interests. Barriers to new entrants to the market etc.

I can see this argument, but on the whole I think they are good thing, slowing the race to the bottom.

[Confusion of VIs]

Yes, you continue to peddle the "it's too much hassle to leave the EU, and because it's too much hassle, let's remain". Clearly that's your most compelling argument as it's the one you constantly push about trade deals and legislation.

Now that I've pointed that out, no doubt you'll deny that point (even though it's the one you're making over and over and over).

Why would I wan to deny it, it's a massive problem/risk that no one seems able to find a workable way through. You can only ignore reality for so long,

[rollover]

How Britain got the EU wrong

Why had so many ordinary Britons voted for a leap into the unknown? The conventional wisdom before the referendum had been that in most referendums voters cling to the status quo as the less risky option. Yet after weeks of warnings, victory came without the Leave side even having to explain what their alternative to membership would look like. To an objective observer, Britain has done extraordinarily well out of Europe since it joined what was then the European Economic Community (now the European Union) in 1973. But that was not what voters believed. This article looks at what the UK gained, economically and politically, from its membership of the EEC/EU. And it offers some thoughts on why the UK’s successes in the EU were so often regarded as failures.

[billybong]

To an objective observer, Britain has done extraordinarily well out of Europe since it joined what was then the European Economic Community (now the European Union) in 1973.

That's a bit like when they regularly say some measure is good for the economy - meaning it's good for themselves/their bit of the economy but indifferent/damaging for everyone else.

[Riedquat]

How Britain got the EU wrong

Why had so many ordinary Britons voted for a leap into the unknown? The conventional wisdom before the referendum had been that in most referendums voters cling to the status quo as the less risky option. Yet after weeks of warnings, victory came without the Leave side even having to explain what their alternative to membership would look like. To an objective observer, Britain has done extraordinarily well out of Europe since it joined what was then the European Economic Community (now the European Union) in 1973. But that was not what voters believed. This article looks at what the UK gained, economically and politically, from its membership of the EEC/EU. And it offers some thoughts on why the UK’s successes in the EU were so often regarded as failures.

From that "that migrants had contributed significantly to the UK’s economic prosperity". Yay, what the UK needs is to be more like China, lots of badly-paid badly-treated people who can churn stuff out cheaply, since that's good for the headline economy, and who cares about what effect it has on most of the people actually living there. Probably the same sort of people who defended slavery over two hundred years ago, and no probably predicted economic disaster when we got rid of it.

That article makes no good case for the EU at all. Going on about how the UK has managed to get various exceptions (indicating that the base was rather badly flawed - we shouldn't have wanted or needed to if it was a decent organisation), banging on the economic drum, somehow crediting the EU for being responsible for the fall of communism, and the usual refusal to acknowledge there could be any flaws with the EU that would put people off it, no, it's all down to (implied to be) unjustified Euroscepticism. As an example of missing the point entirely you couldn't find better.

Edited September 12, 2016 by Riedquat

[london_thirtythree]

Most Remainers appear to be completely and utterly convinced that that'll happen, but also come across as unhinged enough to believe that it's utterly impossible for a nation like the UK to do anything on its own without EU life support, which rather dents their argument. Which makes it hard to know how much of a risk it really is (bearing in mind that to me some economic cost goes in the "so what?" bin, it needs to be serious damage for it to be a concern).

I think it's less likely to be EU life support and more people/companies pulling their wealth out for fear of losing out from Britan no longer being able to trade as profitably as elsewhere - and potentially having a disorderly set of trade agreements that harm the investments (I.e. Japan's warnings)

In this, Britain can limit the damage by building a strong direction of what their new trading exisitance is going to be - and this could then be a plus or minus for investment. (remembering that we also will have home grown investors looking whether to invest locally as well)

Business hates instability and so will likely come down to who is the safer bet.

So a hard Brexit could be rough.

But, then again, if America elect Trump and the Eurozone boils over about Greece, then suddenly we will look bloody stable by comparison and Brexit might suddenly seem a smart move. (as ultimately we still have a very stable government and long tradition of law and free trade to fall back on)

I'm not convinced and think Brexit will be a big error for all sorts of reasons around the more interconnected technological world we now live in - but will be happy to be wrong and see the UK (touchwood with Scotland) do well out of it, as am not completely sold on the endlessly connected economies becoming the dreaded 'too big to fail, until such time they fail big!'.

Time will tell.. The current Tory position(s) on Brexit are clearly a right mess though, so hopefully they will sort that out pronto. (whether that be Hard or Soft)

[crashmonitor]

I think it's less likely to be EU life support and more people/companies pulling their wealth out for fear of losing out from Britan no longer being able to trade as profitably as elsewhere - and potentially having a disorderly set of trade agreements that harm the investments (I.e. Japan's warnings)

In this, Britain can limit the damage by building a strong direction of what their new trading exisitance is going to be - and this could then be a plus or minus for investment. (remembering that we also will have home grown investors looking whether to invest locally as well)

Business hates instability and so will likely come down to who is the safer bet.

So a hard Brexit could be rough.

But, then again, if America elect Trump and the Eurozone boils over about Greece, then suddenly we will look bloody stable by comparison and Brexit might suddenly seem a smart move. (as ultimately we still have a very stable government and long tradition of law and free trade to fall back on)

I'm not convinced and think Brexit will be a big error for all sorts of reasons around the more interconnected technological world we now live in - but will be happy to be wrong and see the UK (touchwood with Scotland) do well out of it, as am not completely sold on the endlessly connected economies becoming the dreaded 'too big to fail, until such time they fail big!'.

Time will tell.. The current Tory position(s) on Brexit are clearly a right mess though, so hopefully they will sort that out pronto. (whether that be Hard or Soft)

Business, politicians and Remainers basically had a one decade horizon. Any downturn in GDP pales into insignificance compared with the problem we will have in fifty years time from having no control on our borders. The present population growth, if unchecked, is going to make the country a miserable place to live 50 years out.

[canbuywontbuy]

Why would I wan to deny it, it's a massive problem/risk that no one seems able to find a workable way through. You can only ignore reality for so long,

I don't know what you think we are risking? The UK economy is the pits at the moment, and has been for the last 7 or 8 years - entirely supported by massive net borrowing.

Edited September 12, 2016 by canbuywontbuy

[Riedquat]

I think it's less likely to be EU life support and more people/companies pulling their wealth out for fear of losing out from Britan no longer being able to trade as profitably as elsewhere - and potentially having a disorderly set of trade agreements that harm the investments (I.e. Japan's warnings)

That would be something of a self-fulfilling prophecy, in which case I'd lay the blame at the feet of the people over-reacting by doing that rather than leaving the EU. It's an argument for never fixing a problem.

But, then again, if America elect Trump and the Eurozone boils over about Greece, then suddenly we will look bloody stable by comparison and Brexit might suddenly seem a smart move. (as ultimately we still have a very stable government and long tradition of law and free trade to fall back on)

I'm not convinced and think Brexit will be a big error for all sorts of reasons around the more interconnected technological world we now live in - but will be happy to be wrong and see the UK (touchwood with Scotland) do well out of it, as am not completely sold on the endlessly connected economies becoming the dreaded 'too big to fail, until such time they fail big!'.

Time will tell.. The current Tory position(s) on Brexit are clearly a right mess though, so hopefully they will sort that out pronto. (whether that be Hard or Soft)

It's not really all that long since the referendum, so things looking a mess now as they're working them out doesn't unduly worry me. The EU tearing itself apart is a real possibility, and the interconnected world is increasingly a damaging plague rather than a benefit. But what it all boils down to is that the UK isn't so weak that it can be a complete disaster to stand on its own. Less well off, quite possibly, but not a complete disaster (unless your idea of a complete disaster is a little more awkwardness in going abroad and a bit less money to spend on tat). Certainly not as much of a disaster in the long run as being tied to various different economies and freedom of movement with much poorer countries. The social damage of the EU outweighs the economic damage of leaving IMO, although admittedly even without the EU we've still got our own vastly irresponsible governments pushing for all the things ruining us.

[Confusion of VIs]

Business, politicians and Remainers basically had a one decade horizon. Any downturn in GDP pales into insignificance compared with the problem we will have in fifty years time from having no control on our borders. The present population growth, if unchecked, is going to make the country a miserable place to live 50 years out.

Why do you think leaving the EU will improve things, non EU immigration is already higher than EU immigration. The free marketers like Fox, Hannan and even Farrage never promised to cut migration. In Fox's vision of a brave new sweatshop economy any migrant prepared to undercut the lazy overpaid UK workers will be more than welcome.

Also by the time we finally achieve Brexit it is likely that just about all of the EE citizens who want to come here will be here already.

[Riedquat]

Why do you think leaving the EU will improve things, non EU immigration is already higher than EU immigration. The free marketers like Fox, Hannan and even Farrage never promised to cut migration. In Fox's vision of a brave new sweatshop economy any migrant prepared to undercut the lazy overpaid UK workers will be more than welcome.

Yes, we've got our own problems at home with our own irresponsible politicians. But the EU is certainly part of the immigration problem even if it's not all of the immigration problem (outside may be more but not by all that much, half and half from the EU and outside is a reasonable rough approximation). Leaving is one obstacle removed.

Edited September 12, 2016 by Riedquat

[billybong]

^

Economics: From laggard to leader

After the Second World War, the UK’s growth lagged that of other major European countries. From 1958 when the EEC was established, until the UK joined in 1973, the GDP of France, Germany and Italy increased by 95 per cent; Britain's GDP rose by only 50 per cent. In the 42 years since joining, the UK's GDP has risen faster than that of the other three major economies in the EU. Britain benefited from freer trade with Europe, and from more competition and more foreign investment in the UK.

My bold highlight.

In GDP per Capita, PPP terms Britain has gone from laggard to laggard taking a wider range of countries into account. World Bank data upto June 2016.

https://www.google.co.uk/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_pcap_cd&idim=country:DEU:USA:GBR&hl=en&dl=en#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=ny_gdp_pcap_pp_cd&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:DEU:USA:DNK:FIN:FRA:IRL:NLD:SWE:CHE:NOR:SMR:IMY:ISL:ITA:GBR&ifdim=region&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false

Compared to the UK Germany is still better, France is similar to the UK but slightly lower and then Italy is the lowest of the 4 (those relative positions are similar in plain GDP terms - from the same site - in GDP terms there's been some relative improvement say from laggard to laggard +)

If you take a group of UK, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, US, Ireland, Netherlands, Iceland, Finland, Germany, France and Italy (the data for every individual country in the eu doesn't seem to be provided) - in GDP per Capita, PPP terms Norway is top and the UK is 3rd from bottom. France is just below the UK and Italy is at the bottom. Germany is roughly in the middle of the group.

Of course there are far poorer nations than the UK but the article isn't comparing the UK with them.

Edited September 13, 2016 by billybong

[Riedquat]

And in any case the starting point for the UK is when we happened to be around the bottom of the usual cycle of ups and downs - it would be entirely reasonable to expect things to have improved without the EU.

[Confusion of VIs]

And in any case the starting point for the UK is when we happened to be around the bottom of the usual cycle of ups and downs - it would be entirely reasonable to expect things to have improved without the EU.

That's just an unprovable assertion.

The fact is prior to joining the EU we had been growing at little more than half the rate of the EEC countries for over 10 years, too long to be explained by an economic cycle, post joining our growth rates have kept up with all the major European countries.

[Riedquat]

That's just an unprovable assertion.

The fact is prior to joining the EU we had been growing at little more than half the rate of the EEC countries for over 10 years, too long to be explained by an economic cycle, post joining our growth rates have kept up with all the major European countries.

And whether there's any cause and effect there is equally unprovable (and I'm not sure I agree about the "too long to be explained by an economic cycle" argument either). For example, where did the post war spending mostly get spent, and when would the effects of that start to show?

Edited September 12, 2016 by Riedquat

[london_thirtythree]

That would be something of a self-fulfilling prophecy, in which case I'd lay the blame at the feet of the people over-reacting by doing that rather than leaving the EU. It's an argument for never fixing a problem.

It's not really all that long since the referendum, so things looking a mess now as they're working them out doesn't unduly worry me. The EU tearing itself apart is a real possibility, and the interconnected world is increasingly a damaging plague rather than a benefit. But what it all boils down to is that the UK isn't so weak that it can be a complete disaster to stand on its own. Less well off, quite possibly, but not a complete disaster (unless your idea of a complete disaster is a little more awkwardness in going abroad and a bit less money to spend on tat). Certainly not as much of a disaster in the long run as being tied to various different economies and freedom of movement with much poorer countries. The social damage of the EU outweighs the economic damage of leaving IMO, although admittedly even without the EU we've still got our own vastly irresponsible governments pushing for all the things ruining us.

Where I get a bit lost with the ideology of Brexit (of which some, like Dan Hannan, do make convincing cases - even if I can't agree with them) is that this reads more like an argument against Globalisation/Capitalism rather than the EU.

My thinking would be that we have different sources of power that define the economic rules of our society - and Nation States, Companies/Capital and Extra-national Clubs such as the EU are three of the most predominant.

When we diminish the power of one, this creates a vacuum that will be filled by the others.

In Brexit's case, we will or may be ripping up the rules for the EU and therefore removing this very stable, very static (and some would argue, very overbearing) power over our economy - so creating instability which may benefit some and hinder some others.

We will then prop up our Nation State's ability to control itself (as you say, redefine how the social side of our country works) or instead create an environment where capital is more welcome and so give more power to big business and big capital.

In a way, do we make ourselves poorer but better socially and so infact richer as a society (i.e. HPC meaning many are poorer, but we are more equal and so maybe better off), or do we simply chase money and capital from somewhere else to keep the status quo in a different form.

The ultimate case in point probably being Apple and Ireland recently - do we give the EU power to enforce fairness and so give big business a bloody nose when they perceive them to be operating unfairly; do we as the UK give them a bloody nose ourselves and insist they pay tax to build our definition of a better society, or do we accept that the benefits of allowing Apple to ignore the rules is a price worth paying for their favor in terms of jobs and investment?

Or another case, Hammond has been saying that new Brexit immigration rules may be waved for Banks - so we swap our control over immigration for the economic benefit that those Banks bring us. Is this right, or another form of loss of sovereignty, just not an EU one.

Who gets the power? Many proponents of Brexit would say the UK, but some of the hard-right of Brexit would rather this be given over to big capital to replace our EU overlords with big business overlords rather than build our own 'big' government to do it.

The argument would be that capital holding sway is the ultimate freedom, as capital is just people in a way, but having seen how Facebook, Amazon, Apple et all have behaved over the last decade am not sure this is not swapping one overlord for another - as capital is not much interested in society unless it has to.

Taking the UK housing market, we can see how capital ruling the roost has meant some negative social consequences in its hunt for yield.

Well.. that's my Monday ramble anyways! Not sure if that helps the discussion, but hope it does in a way,

[South Lorne]

That's just an unprovable assertion.

The fact is prior to joining the EU we had been growing at little more than half the rate of the EEC countries for over 10 years, too long to be explained by an economic cycle, post joining our growth rates have kept up with all the major European countries.

..it is unprovable the ante-EU trend would continue post-EU..in fact by having control over our own currency and interest rates we will have a freedom to succeed where countries caught in the currency net will be restricted...and we will not be controlled by forces 'unseen, unaudited, unaccountable and unelected ...what foolishness of undercover smoke & mirrors created this monster ...and what is their end game ....outlook grim for those who remain....

Edited September 12, 2016 by South Lorne

[crashmonitor]

Where I get a bit lost with the ideology of Brexit (of which some, like Dan Hannan, do make convincing cases - even if I can't agree with them) is that this reads more like an argument against Globalisation/Capitalism rather than the EU.

My thinking would be that we have different sources of power that define the economic rules of our society - and Nation States, Companies/Capital and Extra-national Clubs such as the EU are three of the most predominant.

When we diminish the power of one, this creates a vacuum that will be filled by the others.

In Brexit's case, we will or may be ripping up the rules for the EU and therefore removing this very stable, very static (and some would argue, very overbearing) power over our economy - so creating instability which may benefit some and hinder some others.

We will then prop up our Nation State's ability to control itself (as you say, redefine how the social side of our country works) or instead create an environment where capital is more welcome and so give more power to big business and big capital.

In a way, do we make ourselves poorer but better socially and so infact richer as a society (i.e. HPC meaning many are poorer, but we are more equal and so maybe better off), or do we simply chase money and capital from somewhere else to keep the status quo in a different form.

The ultimate case in point probably being Apple and Ireland recently - do we give the EU power to enforce fairness and so give big business a bloody nose when they perceive them to be operating unfairly; do we as the UK give them a bloody nose ourselves and insist they pay tax to build our definition of a better society, or do we accept that the benefits of allowing Apple to ignore the rules is a price worth paying for their favor in terms of jobs and investment?

Or another case, Hammond has been saying that new Brexit immigration rules may be waved for Banks - so we swap our control over immigration for the economic benefit that those Banks bring us. Is this right, or another form of loss of sovereignty, just not an EU one.

Who gets the power? Many proponents of Brexit would say the UK, but some of the hard-right of Brexit would rather this be given over to big capital to replace our EU overlords with big business overlords rather than build our own 'big' government to do it.

The argument would be that capital holding sway is the ultimate freedom, as capital is just people in a way, but having seen how Facebook, Amazon, Apple et all have behaved over the last decade am not sure this is not swapping one overlord for another - as capital is not much interested in society unless it has to.

Taking the UK housing market, we can see how capital ruling the roost has meant some negative social consequences in its hunt for yield.

Well.. that's my Monday ramble anyways! Not sure if that helps the discussion, but hope it does in a way,

The EU lost its credibility as a stabilising influence when it gave an open invitation to refugees. Basically the refugee problem will be with us for always. By taking on the problem you are merely increasing the demand and the problem going forward. Accept 5 million and you will have 10 million refugees in waiting. accept 10 million and you will have 20 million refugees in waiting. Plus the small fact that you could help tenfold the number by overseas aid than to take the one lucky lottery winner refugee from ten.

[Riedquat]

Where I get a bit lost with the ideology of Brexit (of which some, like Dan Hannan, do make convincing cases - even if I can't agree with them) is that this reads more like an argument against Globalisation/Capitalism rather than the EU.

That's a valid criticism of my position, largely driven by a preference for things to be smaller scale and more localised, which is where the EU comes in to it (although contradicted by them occasionally being one of the few organisations willing to stand up to big business). My fallback is the same one as I use for immigration - the EU is (on average) part of the problem even if it isn't the whole problem.

In a way, do we make ourselves poorer but better socially and so infact richer as a society (i.e. HPC meaning many are poorer, but we are more equal and so maybe better off), or do we simply chase money and capital from somewhere else to keep the status quo in a different form.

My position on that is fairly clear. I firmly believe that we're losing out socially, badly, in the pursuit of wealth. This has been going on for a long, long time, but until relatively recently the gains outweighed the downsides. Now, for all the (supposed) wealth the future looks like an increasingly unappealing place to live in, at least for me. There are of course other things contributing towards that, and it's easy enough to direct a "Well you're all right jack if you're a bit poorer but plenty of other people will be screwed" accusation at me (a problem largely stemming from the organisation of society than actually having enough, and where any attempt to escape the downward spiral is likely to lead to you crashing to the bottom even faster).