The tories gave us nothing you mean... Liverpool would be a wasteland after Thatcher without the EU
Current Affairs EU In or Out
- Thread starter micknick
- Start date
- Status
It's been said many times before Pete, but by virtue of the trade benefits that EU membership provides, the UK earns far more than it costs in membership. Heck, it's already been estimated that the costs to the economy of the last three years have been almost as much as the membership contributions of the last 47 years.
I'm sure you'll rubbish this, before subsequently arguing that trade deals are good, presumably because they boost trade, which boosts GDP and government coffers. It's already been widely accepted, even among leave circles, that whatever agreement we have with the EU in December won't be as good as we have now, so therefore there are costs to that. Your entire argument rests on the as yet pie in the sky trade deals with other countries somehow resulting in enough trade outside of Europe to compensate for the weaker trade with Europe.
House of Lords warns Brexit deal could see Northern Ireland in different time zone to rest of UK
A report from a House of Lords committee warned Northern Ireland may be legally obliged to be one hour ahead for six months every year.
www.thejournal.ie
Barnfred 55
Player Valuation: £80m
Firstly that tweet relates to goods moving specifically from the mainland to Northern Ireland. I was referring to goods moving to and from the EU directly.
However, I agree questions do need to be asked over how that would work in reality, not from our perspective but from the EUs. The risk being that UK companies could be exporting products to the EU without checks, using the island of Ireland as a conduit. And vice versa of course. Johnson may be prepared not to put checks in place, but I'm not sure on the EU, so it could affect the WA regarding the Irish border.
I don't recall any politician saying there will be NO trade barriers in place with the EU if we left the SM&CU. And if any did, they were lying basically.
As regards your second point, is there such a thing as the average person/voter. And for all those that read the Mail/Sun etc, how about all those that read the Mirror/Guardian/Independent.? Or are those papers excluded because they only tell the truth?
The majority of Brexit voters I have come across are older, well educated with lots of life experience. Many of them have either owned or run business's themselves and it wouldn't be beyond the imagination to believe they had a fair understanding of trade and tariffs. I'm not suggesting that this can be applied to all voters across the board, whichever side of the Brexit discussion you are on, but as I mentioned, every one of them would have had a government leaflet posted through their letter box which didn't hold back on the risks.
Barnfred 55
Player Valuation: £80m
Yeah. I wouldn't argue with that. But the view that we would purposely exit the EU on no deal terms so a group of financiers would make big profits speculating on sterling is a massive leap to take, don't you think.
They most probably, in my humbled opinion, wanted a Brexit where we were removed from any alignment to EU regulations and law, which is exactly what they appear to be getting.
Most people on the Remain side see this as a bad thing, and Brexiteers see it as a good thing. The likelihood, again in my humbled opinion, is that there will probably be a bit of both, good and bad. Not that I expect anybody on here to agree with me.
roydo
in memoriam - 1965-2024
Merican money. Just about paid it back.
Trade deals not yet negotiated but why 'pie in the sky'? What information do you have to support that? Several countries have stated that they are keen to develop such arrangements. Still, it doesn't suit the Remoaner's agenda.
Barnfred 55
Player Valuation: £80m
Can I just ask Bruce what your understanding of this statement is?
Not the trade deals, the notion that British companies will suddenly start trading as much with Brazil as they do with Belgium. There are very good reasons why companies tend to trade primarily with regions that are close geographically to them, and this is a widely proven phenomenon. What we're doing is making it harder to trade with those we would ordinarily want to in the hope that we'll start trading more with regions that have never been big for us.
That's why it's pie in the sky.
Why distance matters in trade - LSE BREXIT
Despite the notion of hyper-globalisation, most trade happens with countries in close geographic proximity. A tendency towards regionalisation and the UK’s strong dependence on EU imports seem to have been forgotten in the Brexit debate, argues Patrick Kaczmarczyk (University of Sheffield). A...
blogs.lse.ac.uk
Tea_drinker
Player Valuation: £15m
Get the Romanians back over to build the railway on cheap pay.
How do you mean?
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
OK. Exactly what costs to the economy have been experienced over the last 3 years. We are still in the EU, still trading. So is it preparation costs ? Any change requires a preparation cost, usually one off. Yet our economy has continued to grow, we continue to employ more and more people, so how have we been affected ?
What trade will be weaker and why ? Tariffs ? Quality ? Availability ? Well, Quality of Goods and Availability will not change unduly. So is it Tariffs ? We know that its simpler if we have a free trade agreement, but not at any cost ? So if we apply Tariffs what will that do, we know because of our trade deficit with the EU that we will gain from Tariffs, https://www.civitas.org.uk/reports_articles/potential-post-brexit-tariff-costs-for-eu-uk-trade/ , and outside of the EU we can do whatever we like regarding taxation, VAT etc.
Why do you think the EU are desperate to tie us to their Laws, Standards , Taxation etc, it’s because they know we will gain trade at their expense. So now they are desperately trying to tie us down in their regulations, to have a ‘level playing field’, something they have not demanded from any other trade partner. Their demands are coming thick and fast, even in that very small fishing sector, before talks even get underway. Everything they say comes with a threat. If we have a trade deal fine, if we don’t then fine. Common sense says we should have one, but the EU is a protectionist bloc who also want to ‘punish’ the U.K. for having the temerity to leave. If Boris had got in before May we probably would by now have been finalising a free trade agreement, but weak negotiators, treacherous politicians and a useless Parliament combined to allow the EU to walk all over us. That is no longer the case, we have a government with a large majority, Parliament has been purged of those that tried to undermine our position and we are preparing for differing eventualities. We can now negotiate properly.....
Not the trade deals, the notion that British companies will suddenly start trading as much with Brazil as they do with Belgium. There are very good reasons why companies tend to trade primarily with regions that are close geographically to them, and this is a widely proven phenomenon. What we're doing is making it harder to trade with those we would ordinarily want to in the hope that we'll start trading more with regions that have never been big for us.
That's why it's pie in the sky.
Why distance matters in trade - LSE BREXIT
Despite the notion of hyper-globalisation, most trade happens with countries in close geographic proximity. A tendency towards regionalisation and the UK’s strong dependence on EU imports seem to have been forgotten in the Brexit debate, argues Patrick Kaczmarczyk (University of Sheffield). A...
Bruce, 'Pie in the Sky' tends to imply that something isn't going to happen. As I said in my post, several countries are eager to do trade deals with us. Trade is give and take. When we start giving as part of new trade deals, it will mean that the EU does less, they will be competing for our business and applying tariffs won't help them.
There have been obvious costs to the government of their work on Brexit to date, but the analyses that were done were based upon the lower growth experienced by the UK than was projected prior to the referendum. As you say, the economy has grown, but it has grown considerably slower than was previously expected. Now, you're quite right, it's next to impossible to attribute all reductions in growth to Brexit any more than we can attribute any upturns in growth to Brexit, that is indeed true. I merely used the figures to illustrate that smoother trade, and all of the other many benefits of EU membership, have an economic benefit to the UK, and most economists think that benefit far outweighs the membership contributions the country makes each year.
Will you stop saying that 'we' benefit from tariffs. That's a nonsense argument as 'we', as in you, me and everyone else on this forum, most definitely do not gain from tariffs. We don't gain from dearer products. We don't gain from less choice. We do not gain, and using a largely discredited alt-right think tank to back up your thinking does little for a man of your experience.
Regarding trade, 3/4 of economists think leaving the EU will shrink the economy - http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1a86ab36-afbe-11e5-b955-1a1d298b6250.html#axzz426zfZhXN
As do the London School of Economics - http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/brexit02.pdf
They aren't demanding things from other partners for a couple of reasons. Firstly, none of their other trade deals even come close to the relationship we currently enjoy with them. We are a service-based economy, so non-tariff barriers are far more important than tariff-based barriers, and yet it's quite rare for trade deals to cover the kind of things service-based economies thrive upon. We currently export our financial services, professional services and so on across Europe incredibly easily. Will that be possible with India? Will the US let our legal industry practice there? Like heck.
Secondly, as I mentioned to Methuselah, proximity is huge in trade, so while the deals the EU have struck with Japan, Brazil and Canada are lovely, they're never going to amount to more than trade with the UK, so it's understandable that they don't want someone crapping on their doorstep.
I thought I wrote that clearly, yet clearly it was as incomprehensible as your typical post from Joey, as I didn't say a word about whether the UK would strike trade deals at all. You seem to be under the apprehension that once a trade deal is struck between two nations then the money starts rolling in straight away. That companies will instantly have customers. Their supply chains in that part of the world will automatically exist. Their knowledge of the local market will magically materialise. They'll overcome any non-tariff barriers that will undoubtedly still exist.
I mean if we strike a trade deal with the US you know Everton aren't going to start playing in the MLS, right?
- Status