Jump to content

Featured Replies

Setting aside the use of 'slight risk' for a second - how do you propose we exercise our economic freedom when writing trade deals with larger economies like the US and China? How do you think we should go about protecting our interests?

 

It might sound trite, but why not the same way we did before we joined in the first place?

 

  • Replies 1.3k
  • Views 61.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It might sound trite, but why not the same way we did before we joined in the first place?

Things are rather different now. First, I refer you to my post above (which I assume you hadn't read before your post). When we joined the Common Market we became one of the three major economies in the bloc. Italy was still something of a basket case, Spain was still a fascist dictatorship and, therefore ineligible for EU membership, and Eastern Europe was under the Soviet yoke. Being the only major power outside a group of six states is very different from being the only major power outside a bloc of 27.

Things are rather different now. First, I refer you to my post above (which I assume you hadn't read before your post). When we joined the Common Market we became one of the three major economies in the bloc. Italy was still something of a basket case, Spain was still a fascist dictatorship and, therefore ineligible for EU membership, and Eastern Europe was under the Soviet yoke. Being the only major power outside a group of six states is very different from being the only major power outside a bloc of 27.

 

Call me an optimist, but I prefer to look for opportunities, rather than difficulties.

Call me an optimist, but I prefer to look for opportunities, rather than difficulties.

The difference between an optimist and a pessimist is that the pessimist knows the facts.

The difference between an optimist and a pessimist is that the pessimist knows the facts.

 

But in this case, the facts cannot be determined until after we leave, and probably not for several years after.

But in this case, the facts cannot be determined until after we leave, and probably not for several years after.

You mean facts like "We'll have to deal with multi-country blocs, not individual counties"?

Call me an optimist, but I prefer to look for opportunities, rather than difficulties.

 

I prefer "blinkered" because an "optimist" when faced with facts who chooses to disregard facts is in 'fact' acting totally on faith. Might as well believe the earth is flat and say we'll find out in 10 years time - and then keep putting the time back, or making excuses as they tend to do while making ludicrous claims they call "fact". Lying is quite the "thing" in these Trumpist, propaganda-driven days. The anti-propagandists have to constantly remain sane and provide facts to justify their views, The liars just lie and call everyone else who disagrees a liar or snowflake or "enemy of the people".

 

The Daily mail has had to write an apology over a "terrorist" front page about an Iraqi citizen held by british troops today. It won't be on the front page. Liars liars pants on fires. fact.

I didn't *expect* this group's europhiles to believe it, partly because no-one is immune from confirmation bias. :mellow:

It’s not confirmation bias to examine the arguments he makes and find that they fail basic academic rigour and are nothing but ideological BS with no basis in reality or fact.

 

The only one playing with confirmation bias is you.

A "no deal" outcome from the Brexit negotiations would lead to a £500 billion loss for the European Union, according to a new analysis.

 

A study by Patrick Minford, a professor of economics at Cardiff University, states that while a failure to reach a deal would lead to "short term nuisance" for both sides, Brussels would face a "substantial economic loss", compared to a net gain for the UK.

 

Prof Minford, who chairs the Eurosceptic Economists for Free Trade group, concludes: "It could not be more open and shut who least wants a breakdown".

 

The analysis comes after David Davis, the Brexit Secretary, complained in a letter to the Prime Minister that Brussels was damaging British interests by talking up the threat to companies if the UK leaves the European Union without a deal.

 

Prof Minford said: "For the UK a breakdown would be a short term nuisance but a substantial economic gain; for the EU it is both a short term nuisance and a substantial economic loss."

 

According to the analysis, the largest cost to the EU would be from paying the UK some £433 billion in tariff revenue. It would also lose around £28 billion which the UK would otherwise pay into the budget period to 2020, and a reported £10 billion contribution to longer term liabilities, as part of a financial settlement, Prof Minford concluded.

 

"Because its customs union with the UK would stop immediately, it would lose two years’ worth of the terms of trade gain its producers make on its balance of trade surplus with the UK- estimated at around £18 billion a year: so two years’ worth of that would be another £36 billion one-off loss," he added.

 

By contrast, a breakdown in talks would lead to a "one-off gain" of £38 billion on savings in relation to the EU budget, in addition a £180 billion windfall as a result of bringing forward the "long-term gain" of "free trade, own-regulation and own-border-control" in the absence of the otherwise expected two-year implementation period for a deal.

 

The UK would also gain the total of £433 billion tariff revenue which Prof Minford calculated would be paid by the EU to the Treasury, he said.

 

He concluded: "So plus £641 billion for the UK versus minus £507 billion for the EU: it could not be more open and shut who least wants a breakdown. For the UK a breakdown would be a short term nuisance but a substantial economic gain; for the EU it is both a short term nuisance and a substantial economic loss."

This fails basic logical reasoning on so many levels and that’s before you consider economic facts and geopolitical realities.

 

Couple of things that need explained. First of all is where the £180bn comes from. What’s it made up of and what does it actually entail.

 

The bulk of the number though is the £433bn tariff that EU business will pay on trade to the UK. I don’t question this amount, the value of trade is staggering. What I question is the lack of tariff payment going in reverse. To reach the figures in question it assumes that we will impose tariffs on EU goods and services inbound to the UK but the EU will waive tariffs on UK goods and services inbound to the EU. I struggle to understand how anyone could have read this and published it without confirmation bias coming into play. Because that assumption is not only defying basic economic and logic principles but goes against literally every single message coming out of Europe. There is no reason the EU would waive tariffs on our imports. We don’t make anything they can’t make themselves. There’s not a single car manufacturer based in the UK that couldn’t produce on the continent instead. The major producers are all EU owned anyway (including Nissan in that as they are 43% owned by Renault who are 19% owned by the French Government and you can damn well bet they’ll put the pressure on to repatriate production to France)

 

Like there’s nothing that’s vital to the EU economy that they would unilaterally waive tariffs. So for this model to be accurate it needs to model the impact on tariffs payable to the EU. It also should model the impact on complying with the new tariffs and customs borders. Currently no customs declaration needs to be made on cross channel movements but they will when we leave. Actual real business pay £25-£40 per declaration currently. Thats a huge cost to both economies.

 

There is no calculation of the loss of ERDF for the UK or the benefit of redistribution of that within the EU. No talk of loss of Horizon 2020 cash that will stay within the EU (the UK gets about a 1.5 return on that cash. It’s remarkable value for money and very heavily monitored. In all my time in research grant administration, EU grants were the most heavily scrutinised and audited by the funder. Lots of hoops for us to jump through but huge funding levels for highly important research on a pan-EU Level that returned fabulous value for money to the EC. One of the EUs crowning achievements)

 

Basically it is my professional view as a qualified accountant working for a big 4 firm that this model is overly simplistic, provides no evidence to support its figures or assumptions, makes unrealistic assumptions that underpin the entire model and that as a result the output is fundamentally flawed.

 

IMO no one wins from the mess. Both sides lose economically but given the strength of the bloc they are *based on economic facts and economic reality* most likely to recover quicker and stronger. The internal market operates in such a way that trade with the UK can simply be replaced by intra EU trading.

 

Interesting point I've just seen going around. Question, Vidcapper: how would you, Brexiteers and the hard right newspapers have reacted if Remain had won with 52% of the vote, tipped over the line by Scotland and Northern Ireland only, and then used this 'mandate' to demand a superstate, Hard Remain stance, an EU army and Euro currency integration, and signing up to all agreements, that costs £40 billion to achieve? Would they have been as keen to tell people to 'shut up', debate's over, 'werrl of therr perrplerrr' etc?
Interesting point I've just seen going around. Question, Vidcapper: how would you, Brexiteers and the hard right newspapers have reacted if Remain had won with 52% of the vote, tipped over the line by Scotland and Northern Ireland only, and then used this 'mandate' to demand a superstate, Hard Remain stance, an EU army and Euro currency integration, and signing up to all agreements, that costs £40 billion to achieve? Would they have been as keen to tell people to 'shut up', debate's over, 'werrl of therr perrplerrr' etc?

 

I would have accepted the result, but it wouldn't have stopped me resisting the worst aspects of integration.

 

I would have accepted the result, but it wouldn't have stopped me resisting the worst aspects of integration.

 

would you though have accepted the result? you have already suggested that the fight against the EU would have continued (as farage immediately said when he thought he had narrowly lost - it was LITERALLY the first thing he said)....

 

So you are saying that had UKIP kept on going and campaigning for another referndum in 5 or 10 years that you would have turned round and said, "No we had our vote and lost, fair do, thats the end of the matter I bow to the will of the people in the same way I didn't for the 1975 referendum which I still insist was the wrong result and am annoyed about because all those old gits took us in and I wasnt old enough to vote?"

 

Forgive me if I remain unconvinced.....

would you though have accepted the result? you have already suggested that the fight against the EU would have continued (as farage immediately said when he thought he had narrowly lost - it was LITERALLY the first thing he said)....

 

So you are saying that had UKIP kept on going and campaigning for another referndum in 5 or 10 years that you would have turned round and said, "No we had our vote and lost, fair do, thats the end of the matter I bow to the will of the people in the same way I didn't for the 1975 referendum which I still insist was the wrong result and am annoyed about because all those old gits took us in and I wasnt old enough to vote?"

 

Forgive me if I remain unconvinced.....

 

I would have accepted the result as the Will of the People - but IMO that's a separate matter from believing it would be wrong not to seek to reverse it at a later date.

 

My believing our continuing membership of the EU would be a mistake, is independent of how everyone else decided.

I would have accepted the result as the Will of the People - but IMO that's a separate matter from believing it would be wrong not to seek to reverse it at a later date.

 

My believing our continuing membership of the EU would be a mistake, is independent of how everyone else decided.

 

And the will of he other 50% of the nations and people??

 

I seriously doubt you or the newspapers would sit quietly by for a Hard Remain with only 52%. Wouldn"t happen.

*waiting for vidcapper to respond to the non-partisan analysis of his Brexit report that backed up his confirmation bias*

 

*dies waiting*

And the will of he other 50% of the nations and people??

 

I seriously doubt you or the newspapers would sit quietly by for a Hard Remain with only 52%. Wouldn"t happen.

 

Hard 'Remain'? :huh:

Read my post again. Hard Remain = integration into an eU superstate with the Euro and a European army. That is hard remain. Would you support that on a 52 48 split like we have to accept Hard Brexit with the same split?
Read my post again. Hard Remain = integration into an eU superstate with the Euro and a European army. That is hard remain. Would you support that on a 52 48 split like we have to accept Hard Brexit with the same split?

 

Sorry, didn't spot that - but as you've no doubt guessed, I would not support that.

 

In any case though, that is irrelevant, as neither a hard Remain or a hard Brexit was specifically proposed in the referendum campaign.

So you agree that a hard Brexit/ hard remain stance is illogical and completely unwarranted by the referendum?
So you agree that a hard Brexit/ hard remain stance is illogical and completely unwarranted by the referendum?

 

That doesn't mean it should be totally ruled out though - that *would* be illogical, as it would allow the EU to offer us the poorest deal they possibly could, safe in the knowledge that we'd either *have* to accept it, or remain in.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

Recently Browsing 0

  • No registered users viewing this page.