Brexit: Now What? Part III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Henri McPhee said:
I don't want a United States of Europe if that's not too academic for this forum.
Click to expand...

First, we are (sadly) no where near such case. Second, globalization and various things are enforcing creation of tightly coupled super-states. Individual countries below certain size (USA or Russia) are not powerful enough to match big countries or mega-corporations.
 
Henri McPhee said:
I don't want a United States of Europe if that's not too academic for this forum.
Click to expand...

Given the utter lack of facts or evidence in your posts I don't think anyone would accuse you of being too academic. We live in an era of global commerce and communications. We face global issues as far as the environment and food security, but you want to tackle 21st century issues with a 19th century political system of individual nation states? That is the essence of what May and the Brexiteers are trying to do, turn the clock back to a past that never really existed in the first place. It's the same basic message Trump offered in the USA, a return to golden past, with more than a dash of racism thrown in.
 
cutting to the nub of it there Garrison.

Especially your first and last sentences.
 
The Don said:
If your host country introduced tricky residency requirements (including - heaven forfend, having to learn the local lingo and something about the country :rolleyes) then your idyllic retirement plans could soon be in tatters.
Click to expand...
Cínte. D'fhéadfadh sé a bheith an-éaglóideach as an meán teanga aonair Sasanach.
 
Information Analyst said:
There was a similar result in a poll in the run-up to the referendum, in which a majority thought Brits should have free movement in Europe, and a majority thought Europeans should not have free movement in the UK. Whole swathes of the population clearly are as thick as pig ****<snip>.
Click to expand...
I believe the snipped words are unnecessary.

Information Analyst said:
Well, that's the line most of the press have been pushing for years. It's like the way the front cover of the Daily Mail today was shrieking that the chimes of Big Ben being switched off during four years for renovations is "health and safety gone mad," as if not subjecting workers in close proximity to 1-12 x 118 decibels every hour is a "bad thing."
Click to expand...
Indeed. Next they'll be saying sending six-year-old children up chimneys is wrong. A useful trade for paupers and orphans. Bring back the brush and brine, and the sulphur candle!!
 
A pro-Brexit economist suggests that there are benefits amounting to £135bn annually which would accrue from the UK unilaterally abandoning all tariffs and removing swathes of legislation.

A hard Brexit is "economically much superior to soft" argues Prof Patrick Minford, lead author of a report from Economists for Free Trade.

He says eliminating tariffs, either within free trade deals or unilaterally, would deliver huge gains.
Click to expand...

The EU would then be under pressure to offer Britain a free trade deal, because otherwise its producers would be competing in a UK market "flooded with less expensive goods from elsewhere", his introduction says.

He argues UK businesses and consumers would benefit from lower priced imported goods and the effects of increased competition, which would force firms to raise their productivity.
Click to expand...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40972776

An Anti-Brexit group suggests that the analysis is flawed.
 
The Don said:
A pro-Brexit economist suggests that there are benefits amounting to £135bn annually which would accrue from the UK unilaterally abandoning all tariffs and removing swathes of legislation.





http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40972776

An Anti-Brexit group suggests that the analysis is flawed.
Click to expand...

The expert is also inconsistent in his views:

"During the referendum campaign last year Prof Minford stoked controversy by suggesting that the effect of leaving the EU would be to "eliminate manufacturing, leaving mainly industries such as design, marketing and hi-tech".
However in a recent article in the Financial Times he suggested manufacturing would become more profitable post-Brexit."
 
The Don said:
A pro-Brexit economist suggests that there are benefits amounting to £135bn annually which would accrue from the UK unilaterally abandoning all tariffs and removing swathes of legislation.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40972776

An Anti-Brexit group suggests that the analysis is flawed.
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, why would anyone sign a trade deal with a country that unilaterarily removed tariffs on everyone? It seems to me you'd be giving up something in exchange for something you already had.

That said, this seems like a part of the strategy of a race to the bottom ... if you call that a strategy at all.

McHrozni
 
worth reading this pro-leave blog

http://eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86574

Not for the first time, and doubtless not the last, I'm having to point out that the conclusions we came to in*Flexcit*were not arbitrary. In particular, the "Norway" (aka Efta/EEA) option became our choice not for its specific merits but after eliminating the less favourable alternatives.

There was a brief period when it became fashionable to list as many variations and sub-variations as possible but, in truth, there were only ever three: the unilateral (WTO), bilateral (Swiss) and the multilateral (Norway) options.*
Click to expand...

I don't really understand why the author was pro leave, given his reasoning.
 
Explorer said:
The expert is also inconsistent in his views:

"During the referendum campaign last year Prof Minford stoked controversy by suggesting that the effect of leaving the EU would be to "eliminate manufacturing, leaving mainly industries such as design, marketing and hi-tech".
However in a recent article in the Financial Times he suggested manufacturing would become more profitable post-Brexit."
Click to expand...

Well economic theory would more strongly support his first statement (i.e. most manufacturing and agriculture would stop) compared to the later based on the idea of comparative advantage. Ironically this would probably mean the Remain voting areas benefiting from Brexit with the Leave voting areas being damaged.

However, unilateral free trade makes the whole analysis more complex so I wouldn't be so sanguine about the prospects for the more high end industrial areas given protectionism in the rest of the world. Therefore generally I would strongly doubt the claimed benefits they've come out with even without checking the underlying assumptions of their model.
 
The Brexit secretary, David Davis, is urging Brussels to revisit the government’s proposal to kick off discussions on Britain’s future relationship with the EU alongside withdrawal talks.

Negotiations are to resume in just over a week’s time in Brussels, amid growing concern in government that at the current pace it may be impossible to open trade talks until the end of the year.

The EU has always insisted that key aspects of Britain’s withdrawal – including the principles of a financial settlement, the future of EU citizens living in the UK and the status of Northern Ireland – be dealt with before talks on a new trade deal can begin.

Davis initially suggested the timetabling of talks would be “the row of the summer”, with Britain pressing to begin discussing the future relationship from the start. When negotiations began formally after the general election, he appeared to have conceded that the EU’s approach was acceptable.

But in an article in the Sunday Times, he reopened the debate, arguing that the talks so far have exposed the fact that it is impossible to settle some of the withdrawal questions without a sense of what the future relationship between Britain and the EU will be.
Click to expand...

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...lding-withdrawal-and-trade-talks-at-same-time

Complete and utter desperation.
 
Arcade22 said:
<snip>

But in an article in the Sunday Times, he reopened the debate, arguing that the talks so far have exposed the fact that it is impossible to settle some of the withdrawal questions without a sense of what the future relationship between Britain and the EU will be.
Click to expand...

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...lding-withdrawal-and-trade-talks-at-same-time

Complete and utter desperation.
Click to expand...


That sounds a lot like the same way they handled pro-Brexit arguments going into the referendum. So, no real change there.

A path to have the clock run out without the U.K. having done any negotiating at all.

Is this by intent? Or is incompetence a sufficient explanation?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom