Brexit: Now What? Part IV

[Francesca R]

Best strategy going forward is moaning and trying to postpone or water down Brexit as much as possible.

Fortunately that describes most of the last two years.

 

[Andy_Ross]

It's nice to know there are non-EU countries that do that well.
Lets see.
The US, China, Russia, Canada and India all have vast amounts of natural resources they can use to trade. The UK?

The South American nations (those not on the verge of bankruptcy) tow the line of the US without any influence on those decisions and have no real way to protect themselves from policies like Trump is influencing now.

Most of Africa is not doing that well, so we can ignore those.
The middle east sits on lots of oil and / or lives off US subsidies.
South east Asia is in a similar situation as the South american countries but follows China's wishes.
The central Asian republics (those that have a real economy at all) follow either Russia or India.
The Central European countries joined the EU to be able to get out of Russia's sphere of influence and now can actually influence the decisions in the EU.
That leaves a few small European nations, who, as has been pointed out repeatedly, still have to follow EU regulations if they want to trade, but have no actual influence on the actual regulations.

Now lets look at the UK. It's economy is nowhere near strong enough to compete with the major powers or the EU, so it will always negotiate from the weaker position.
The vast majority of it's trade and economy is tied to the EU so if it wants that to continue then it will have to abide by those rules.
The Brexit hope of Trump by now should be gone as it is clear that Trump has no intention to favour the UK in any way whatsoever.

But maybe I have missed something, what medium level economy of a relatively smallish country without abundant natural resources and in a strategically unimportant position is capable of dictating terms to economically more powerful blocs?

We have natural resources!

We have an unending supply of spunk, grit and determination.

 

[AnonyMoose]

But maybe I have missed something, what medium level economy of a relatively smallish country without abundant natural resources and in a strategically unimportant position is capable of dictating terms to economically more powerful blocs?

The UK (and Britain/England in general) survived and thrived for 800+ years prior to joining the EU in 1973.

So I think it's pretty safe to say they'll survive long long long after they leave the EU too.

Just because the fearmongering suits in Brussels try to say otherwise, doesn't make it so.

 

[quadraginta]

They should prepare to do whatever freight transport associations in non-EU countries already do. It shouldn't be that difficult. They could perhaps visit a non-EU country, speak to the equivalent FTA there and perhaps even prepare to copy their operating procedures when the time comes.

The groups in the non-EU countries have procedures which are based on the regulatory structures which those non-EU countries have developed over many years. The UK ones are wanting to know what those regulatory structures are going to be when the UK becomes a non-EU country.

Do you have some reason to think that the UK's new regulatory structures are going to be identical to these other non-EU countries you mention so blithely? Do you think those countries' are all the same?

 

[uke2se]

The UK (and Britain/England in general) survived and thrived for 800+ years prior to joining the EU in 1973.

So I think it's pretty safe to say they'll survive long long long after they leave the EU too.

Just because the fearmongering suits in Brussels try to say otherwise, doesn't make it so.

Are you proposing a return to feudalism?

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

The UK (and Britain/England in general) survived and thrived for 800+ years prior to joining the EU in 1973.

So I think it's pretty safe to say they'll survive long long long after they leave the EU too.

Just because the fearmongering suits in Brussels try to say otherwise, doesn't make it so.

But it joined the EU because in a growing internationalizing world it could not hack it alone anymore.
Just because something worked in an economic environment 40+ years ago does not mean it will work now.
In 1973 we all were fine without computers too. Yet does that mean we can switch the internet off now and everything will be fine?

 

[ceptimus]

But it joined the EU because in a growing internationalizing world it could not hack it alone anymore.

No, that's incorrect.

 

[Amazer]

The UK (and Britain/England in general) survived and thrived for 800+ years prior to joining the EU in 1973.

Ok

So I think it's pretty safe to say they'll survive long long long after they leave the EU too.

I'm quite certain the question isn't whether it will survive... the question is will it prosper or impoverise relative to how it could have done when staying in the EU.

Just because the fearmongering suits in Brussels try to say otherwise, doesn't make it so.

Most of the fear mongering seems to be coming from the UK itself.

 

[AnonyMoose]

Are you proposing a return to feudalism?

Did feudalism last all the way up until 1973 ?

 

[AnonyMoose]

But it joined the EU because in a growing internationalizing world it could not hack it alone anymore.

Why do you think that ?

 

[Klimax]

Why do you think that ?

Without Empire Britain is just Yet Another Country with nothing special to offer...

 

[GlennB]

Did feudalism last all the way up until 1973 ?

Feudalism existed during the 800 years you mention. Other things that existed (for periods of time, sometimes very long periods of time) were child labour, no national education system, no NHS, imperialism, limited suffrage, the slave trade ...

So what's your point in mentioning those 800 years? We can't revert to any so-called 'glory days' by leaving the EU, despite the brexiteers appealing to that notion.

 

[uke2se]

Did feudalism last all the way up until 1973 ?

No, but it did work for the majority of the timeframe you posited. I mean, surely if it worked then, it'll work now. That was your point, wasn't it?

 

[wobs]

The UK (and Britain/England in general) survived and thrived for 800+ years prior to joining the EU in 1973.

The UK is not 800 years old.

There is no shortage of evidence to show that we will be worse off when we leave the EU.

 

[ceptimus]

1) You only have opinions and predictions that the UK will be worse off when it leaves the EU. That is NOT evidence. There are also opinions and predictions (including from remain supporting organisations such as the Bank of England) that in the long run, the UK will NOT be worse off. It will be impossible to know for sure as any statistics will only be able to compare the present real situation with a prediction of what the situation would have been were an alternative course of action taken.


2) In any case, the vote to leave the EU was just that. It was NOT contingent on being better off as a result of leaving. People were repeatedly warned by remain supporters, including by official government pamphlet delivered to every household, that leaving would make UK citizens worse off - but they still voted to leave anyway.

 

[The Don]

The UK (and Britain/England in general) survived and thrived for 800+ years prior to joining the EU in 1973.

So I think it's pretty safe to say they'll survive long long long after they leave the EU too.

Just because the fearmongering suits in Brussels try to say otherwise, doesn't make it so.

No doubt some form of the the UK will continue to exist long after we have left the EU. IMO there is some doubt whether it will exist in the same form, Scotland may once again have an independence referendum and IMO the likelihood of success is higher, especially if the SNP are able to get some kind of outline agreement regarding EU membership. The ties that bind Northern Ireland and Gibraltar may also weaken somewhat.

If the bar for Brexit "success" is that the UK continues to exist then IMO it has been set so low as to be meaningless. We were assured by the Leave campaign that the UK would be far better off, our deal with the EU would be better and we'd be able to get far better relationships with the rest of the world. That's the standard I'd like Brexit to be held to.

 

[Craig B]

The UK (and Britain/England in general) survived and thrived for 800+ years prior to joining the EU in 1973.

So I think it's pretty safe to say they'll survive long long long after they leave the EU too.

Just because the fearmongering suits in Brussels try to say otherwise, doesn't make it so.

Britain/England in general survived, I suppose. But what happened to Britain/Wales, Britain/Ireland and Britain/Scotland? They were all consumed.

 

[The Don]

1) You only have opinions and predictions that the UK will be worse off when it leaves the EU. That is NOT evidence. There are also opinions and predictions (including from remain supporting organisations such as the Bank of England) that in the long run, the UK will NOT be worse off. It will be impossible to know for sure as any statistics will only be able to compare the present real situation with a prediction of what the situation would have been were an alternative course of action taken.

It's impossible to give any kind of accurate forecast about whether the UK will be better or worse off following Brexit because there is no clear idea about what Brexit would look like.

I've yet to see any evidence to support the notion that a hard Brexit on WTO terms will be anything but negative for the UK - please feel free to provide it.

The studies I have seen seem to indicate that the closer the Brexit is to the current position then the least worse the negative outcome.

2) In any case, the vote to leave the EU was just that. It was NOT contingent on being better off as a result of leaving. People were repeatedly warned by remain supporters, including by official government pamphlet delivered to every household, that leaving would make UK citizens worse off - but they still voted to leave anyway.

....and the Leave campaign assured us we'd be better off. I suppose those who voted Leave believed the empty promises and rhetoric of the Leave campaign instead of the evidence-based forecasts of the Remain campaign.

 

[uke2se]

1) You only have opinions and predictions that the UK will be worse off when it leaves the EU. That is NOT evidence. There are also opinions and predictions (including from remain supporting organisations such as the Bank of England) that in the long run, the UK will NOT be worse off. It will be impossible to know for sure as any statistics will only be able to compare the present real situation with a prediction of what the situation would have been were an alternative course of action taken.

That's great! Where are all these good news?

As for there being only opinions and predictions that the UK will be worse off when it leaves the EU, that is, of course ********.

2) In any case, the vote to leave the EU was just that. It was NOT contingent on being better off as a result of leaving. People were repeatedly warned by remain supporters, including by official government pamphlet delivered to every household, that leaving would make UK citizens worse off - but they still voted to leave anyway.

And it had absolutely nothing to do with people like you calling it "project fear".

The question is, where you fooled or did you do the fooling? A bit of both?

 

[Andy_Ross]

No, that's incorrect.

Yes it was. Britain was on it's arse.