General / Off-Topic UK Only - POLL - How would you now vote if casting your vote again for the referendum?

[Talarin]

That makes sense when you look at the relative numbers yeah. If you look at the absolute numbers you will see that the 1,7% growth of the EU is far far more than the 7% growth of the ermerging markets.

Sorry, I wasn't clear with the point I was making.

You're right - but those figures only apply for the next two years on the IMF forecast. My point is that the relative growth will be very significant in the context of decades. The developing nations will eventually achieve parity (in terms of their potential worth to the UK) with the Eurozone, probably within less time than we've been in the EU already.

Add to that China, the Far East, India and North/Central America will become more accessible (although, as pointed out, no deal yet agreed so this is all potential), all of whom have higher growth rates than the Eurozone (lowest projected growth rate in the developed world barring Japan and Russia, if you're interested - mainly due to poor forecasts for France and Italy).

Nothing is guaranteed and it doesn't address anything around the long term non-economic reasons as to why we shouldn't have voted the way that we did (loss of stature, intangible backlash from Europe, political divergence with our allies - that sort of stuff). But I'm pointing out that if the UK Government and "UK plc" does its job properly then there's no reason to say that we're destined for the toilet of Europe. In fact, there's plenty of reason to be optimistic in the longer term. It's the short term which looks painful.

 

[FuzzySpider]

We're going to give that up for a smaller stall and no say in the running of things, and hope to make it up by selling stuff through our other shops in large but poor shopping centres.

Whilst true, that really isn't the dire issue. The fundamental fact is the UK runs a massive trade deficit thus relies on an inflow of capital and financials to shore up that deficit as we go. That inflow is absolutely dependent upon unfettered access to the single market. Translation - we make money from merely being the EU banker, creaming off the top.

Remember a few years ago when the ECB tried to stop it? We took them to court and won a judgement - our big money-spinner was safe. We continued to enjoy the good life, with London making more money than the whole north, and London was paying nearly a third of the UK tax.

Outside of the EU, what is going to happen to this? We won't be able to go back to the ECJ, the ECB can not only get financial control back but also write new rules preventing us from doing this in the future.

Just think - what we fought like crazy to prevent them from doing 5 years ago, because it was vital to our economy, we just did to ourselves.

Without that extra revenue, how are we going to continue to pay for our public services?

How are we going to correct that massive trade deficit? Tighten our belts to the tune of 200 bn per year?

 

[Becks]

Sorry, I wasn't clear with the point I was making.

You're right - but those figures only apply for the next two years on the IMF forecast. My point is that the relative growth will be very significant in the context of decades. The developing nations will eventually achieve parity (in terms of their potential worth to the UK) with the Eurozone, probably within less time than we've been in the EU already.

Add to that China, the Far East, India and North/Central America will become more accessible (although, as pointed out, no deal yet agreed so this is all potential), all of whom have higher growth rates than the Eurozone (lowest projected growth rate in the developed world barring Japan and Russia, if you're interested - mainly due to poor forecasts for France and Italy).

Nothing is guaranteed and it doesn't address anything around the long term non-economic reasons as to why we shouldn't have voted the way that we did (loss of stature, intangible backlash from Europe, political divergence with our allies - that sort of stuff). But I'm pointing out that if the UK Government and "UK plc" does its job properly then there's no reason to say that we're destined for the toilet of Europe. In fact, there's plenty of reason to be optimistic in the longer term. It's the short term which looks painful.

The UK has the ability to prosper in the long term but, as you said, the short term will hit it pretty hard.

The emerging markets have a big growth potential without doubt, but it will take a long time until they're anywhere near the level of the european nations.

A big problem of many emerging markets is also political unity and regional stability. There are a whole lot of separatist and rebel groups scattered over South and Central America and even more in Africa. Several other problems in those emerging markets are corruption and environmental damage as well as a large uneducated working class leading to severe overpopulation.

They definitely have the potential of becoming suitable markets for the UK, but there's still a long way to go for those countries. They're a risky investion at best at the moment.

I would also agree on the non economic consequences being more severe than the economic consequences, especially because they have effects in the long term and are difficult to fix (like you said, Loss of stature, backlash from europe, UKs relation to its allies and so on).

 

[Talarin]

How are we going to correct that massive trade deficit? Tighten our belts to the tune of 200 bn per year?

Hyperbole again.

UK exports of financial services were worth £22bn in 2014 according to HM Treasury. Our trade deficit with the EU was £77bn in the same period (Office of National Statistics). If you want to look at the real problem, look at foreign investment...

 

[FuzzySpider]

Hyperbole again.

UK exports of financial services were worth £22bn in 2014 according to HM Treasury. Our trade deficit with the EU was £77bn in the same period (Office of National Statistics). If you want to look at the real problem, look at foreign investment...

22 Biliion hmm? First off:

http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/busi...istics/Documents/an-indispensable-idustry.pdf

The financial services sector – which includes banking, insurance, fund management and securities dealing – is one of the UK’s largest industries. It contributed £129bn to the UK economy in 2011, 9.6% of that year’s national output. Professional services closely connected to the financial sector such as accountancy, legal services, management consultancy and maritime services contributed a further 4.9%. That was a combined contribution of over £195bn – more than the £145bn output of the entire UK manufacturing sector.

The contribution of financial services to the UK economy is higher than the US share of 7.6% and Japan’s 4.9% – and much higher than in France and Germany where financial services contribute 4.7% and 4.2% to GDP respectively. This is not because the British use more financial services: it is because the UK is a leading provider of financial services globally. Over many centuries, the UK has acquired significant competitive advantage in providing financial services around the world because of the skills and experience of the people who work in the industry. As a result, the UK is the world’s largest exporter of financial services, generating a trade surplus of £47.2bn in 2011. These exports – by British financial organisations and those from overseas which have chosen to operate in the UK – help offset trade deficits in other sectors such as manufacturing and tourism.

Do you actually think that when we lose the financial services to the Eurozone and elsewhere it is only the export part that we lose? Do you think, really honestly think, that when JP Morgan, Lehmans, and others migrate their main office to Dublin or Frankfurt the level of income the HM Treasury takes from them won't drop significantly? When the financial sector as a whole shrinks what will happen to our economy?

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fg-brexit-financial-sector-20160627-snap-story.html

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-banks-idUKKCN0Z92G6

http://www.wsj.com/articles/financi...y-brexit-says-new-eu-finance-chief-1467813151

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-a-brexit-could-kill-london-as-a-top-financial-hub-2016-06-01

You seem to be compartmentalizing the economy and are labouring under the frankly delusional notion that only exports and imports are effected, and everything else remains the same, even when companies with domestic services move there operations to other countries.

Our trade deficit with the EU was £77bn in the same period (Office of National Statistics). If you want to look at the real problem, look at foreign investment...

Did you actually click the links from earlier? You are completely and utterly failing to understand how international trade works.

Stopping trade with the EU, or even significantly modifying it, will have a knock-on effect with trade from ALL countries. Leaving the Single Market will have an effect on EVERY SINGLE container ship that docks on our ports.

And please, don't accuse me of hyperbole when you're actually suggesting, in a serious manner, that our 100bn trade with Germany alone will somehow be replaced when we switch over to trading with Angola and Zaire. That somehow we're going to sell as many cars to Botswana as we do to France. As I said, you don't actually know the first thing about this and you're simply parroting UKIP propaganda which has been discredited by every serious economist who has ever looked at it.

On both this and global warming you should start listening to experts.

 

[Talarin]

22 Biliion hmm? First off:

http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/busi...istics/Documents/an-indispensable-idustry.pdf



Do you actually think that when we lose the financial services to the Eurozone and elsewhere it is only the export part that we lose? Do you think, really honestly think, that when JP Morgan, Lehmans, and others migrate their main office to Dublin or Frankfurt the level of income the HM Treasury takes from them won't drop significantly? When the financial sector as a whole shrinks what will happen to our economy?

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fg-brexit-financial-sector-20160627-snap-story.html

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-banks-idUKKCN0Z92G6

http://www.wsj.com/articles/financi...y-brexit-says-new-eu-finance-chief-1467813151

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-a-brexit-could-kill-london-as-a-top-financial-hub-2016-06-01

You seem to be compartmentalizing the economy and are labouring under the frankly delusional notion that only exports and imports are effected, and everything else remains the same, even when companies with domestic services move there operations to other countries.

I didn't say that that financial sector (or any other sector) wouldn't take a hit. I said that your suggestion that we'd need to make up a £200bn shortfall in the economy because of the impact on the financial service sector (in this case, that figure corresponds with total collapse) was hyperbolic nonsense. Because it is. No one has projected such an impact. Once again, prove me wrong.

Javert pointed out the financial passport issues. It was a factor I wasn't aware of. I have read up, agreed its a problem and factored it into my thinking. You're still exaggerating - and I'm not even sure if you're aware of it.

And please, don't accuse me of hyperbole when you're actually suggesting, in a serious manner, that our 100bn trade with Germany alone will somehow be replaced when we switch over to trading with Angola and Zaire. That somehow we're going to sell as many cars to Botswana as we do to France. As I said, you don't actually know the first thing about this and you're simply parroting UKIP propaganda which has been discredited by every serious economist who has ever looked at it.

With a delicious irony, I say "hyperbole". Who said we needed to replace trade with Germany and France? Are they not going to trade with us? That's a shock if it's true. You'd better point me to your source for that. And point it out to France and Germany, along with (I presume) the rest of the EU. As I've repeatedly said; the question isn't whether we continue to trade with Europe or not. The question is about the terms of that trade.

On both this and global warming you should start listening to experts.

The interesting thing here is that in both cases, I do.

You're getting your knickers in a twist because I'm going against the grain of what you believe you know. You've accepted with utter certainty that this decision is an utter calamity and I'm saying to you "there is no justification for you reacting like this". In this case, it's less about evidence and more to do with economic models - but even the worst case models are more optimistic than what you're saying.

What I don't listen to is people standing on street corners with sandwich boards, predicting the end of the world. If you want to cling to your claim that the financial services industry is about to be destroyed, start finding actual, credible sources to cite.

 

[beelbeebub]

- but we've undeniably being doing less and less business in the Euro-centre over the last few years, whilst our transactions in the other sites have increased.

not quite true, and a common fallacy amongst leavers. We haven't dropped trade with the EU, we have grown trade with nonEU, which makes the proportion of our trade that's with the EU fall.

Strangely enough this means that despite "being shackled by the EU" the UK has been enjoying export growth to nonEU countries, we didn't have to leave to enjoy that growth.

Our advisers tell us the Euro-centre will grow by 1.7% pa for the next few years (estimate to be downgraded because of our exit from the facility), whilst emerging markets will grow by nearly 5%, with the best hitting nearly 7% (IMF Forecast, Jan 2016). In the time period we're considering (decades) those emerging and developing markets will likely catch-up to the largest shopping centre in the world, but with the added bonus of additional footfall (population).

Places like India will take around 25 years of constant 7% (sort of unlikely) growth to get to where France is now. Even then, because of the additional population, it's GDP per head will be lower (i.e. the population will be poorer and less able to buy our goods). In that time the EU will have negotiated a good trade deal (due to the size of it's market).

Much of the risk in this scenario involves how much business we can continue to drive through our concession store, but it is absolutely in everyone's interests in get to a deal of some sort.

So, from a purely economic sense - in this analogy it's a sensible strategy, barring unquantified short term costs and loss of business from moving ourselves to our new sites.

That's the point, yes the emerging markets are important, and for individual companies selling to them can be extremely lucrative, but overall they are not as juicy a prize as the single market and ​we didn't need to leave the EU to exploit them all we needed was some patience. Then we could have had a top store in the fancy shopping centre, a seat on the management committee and shops in other shopping malls.

 

[FuzzySpider]

Places like India will take around 25 years of constant 7% (sort of unlikely) growth to get to where France is now. Even then, because of the additional population, it's GDP per head will be lower (i.e. the population will be poorer and less able to buy our goods). In that time the EU will have negotiated a good trade deal (due to the size of it's market).

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...o-halt-u-k-sale-process-on-brexit-uncertainty

http://news.sky.com/story/tata-steel-bidders-get-cold-feet-over-brexit-10324723

http://www.wsj.com/articles/brexit-vote-pours-cold-water-on-tata-steels-sale-plans-1467037853

The Indian manufacturing giant Tata has already been hit badly because of brexit, and we haven't even gotten close to activating article 50 yet.

The notion that we are somehow going to be more attractive as a trading nation to emerging markets from outside the single market is absolutely ludicrous. These nations will want access to the biggest markets with the most diverse range of goods and services. They'll obviously give preference to the EU before England for more reasons than I care to go into.

 

[verminstar]

I'm guessing that if the UK does well over the next few years that you guys will come back and say "Told ye so!...Erm...sorta"

Oh and the irish government now facing demands for their own referendum over the huge controversy of the TTIP deal...seems there's really not an awful lotta support down there right now and some have started saying they will vote for any party that offers them their own referendum. I have some dealings with those across the border and there really isn't the huge groundswell of support for the EU that others seem to think there is...but we shall see...in time. All good things come to those who wait ^^

 

[Talarin]

not quite true, and a common fallacy amongst leavers. We haven't dropped trade with the EU, we have grown trade with nonEU, which makes the proportion of our trade that's with the EU fall.

Strangely enough this means that despite "being shackled by the EU" the UK has been enjoying export growth to nonEU countries, we didn't have to leave to enjoy that growth.

Places like India will take around 25 years of constant 7% (sort of unlikely) growth to get to where France is now. Even then, because of the additional population, it's GDP per head will be lower (i.e. the population will be poorer and less able to buy our goods). In that time the EU will have negotiated a good trade deal (due to the size of it's market).

That's the point, yes the emerging markets are important, and for individual companies selling to them can be extremely lucrative, but overall they are not as juicy a prize as the single market and ​we didn't need to leave the EU to exploit them all we needed was some patience. Then we could have had a top store in the fancy shopping centre, a seat on the management committee and shops in other shopping malls.

Yep, valid points all (EU vs. Non-EU trade, I did miss a "proportionately" in my comment) and I have no reason to disagree with you. To be clear, I'm not saying that we'd have been worse off inside the single market. I'm saying that predictions of doom on Brexit are not well founded on things as they stand.

But more succinctly; if my cats see me approaching with a knife and fork they shouldn't have to worry for a bit

 

[FuzzySpider]

I'm guessing that if the UK does well over the next few years that you guys will come back and say "Told ye so!...Erm...sorta"

From yesterday. The idea that we're going to do well is growing less likely by the day.

Oh and the irish government now facing demands for their own referendum over the huge controversy of the TTIP deal...seems there's really not an awful lotta support down there right now and some have started saying they will vote for any party that offers them their own referendum. I have some dealings with those across the border and there really isn't the huge groundswell of support for the EU that others seem to think there is...but we shall see...in time. All good things come to those who wait ^^

TTIP has nothing to do with the EU and the fact is that we're far far better placed to avoid it from within the single market, as certain provisions are laid out in EU law that prevent the sort of things that people arew worried about. The controversy over TTIP is something called "investor protection", and isn't unique to TTIP (look at some NAFTA cases involving Canada for example). Basically, if a government enacts a policy that eats into the profits of a corporation, that corporation may sue the government for loss of revenue. It is an attack on democracy and national sovereignty, but not quite the direct attack that most are making out.

For example, under TTIP rules as they look now, the NHS would not necessarily be under threat. Whilst state run health is far less expensive than private health cover and businesses can certainly make money out of it, a company can't claim that merely because they could make profit from something they should. They'd have to go to the WTO or similar body and demonstrate that they had attempted to invest and been burned by government policy.

However, if a government opened up a section of healthcare to private medicine (for example - prescriptions and drug sales), a corporation COULD sue the UK government under current rules unless the government allowed chemists to start selling drugs at the prices the drug companies demanded, or at least allow flexibility in prices to reflect the market value for various drugs (so no single-payer system for pharma).

There is no way this will fly in modern Germany, France, or Sweden, so TTIP is going to have to either be radically re-written or it will not be ratified by the EU. If Britain leaves the single market however, signing up to TTIP (and sacrificing our sovereignty to corporations) would make us a far more attractive country to set up shop.

NOTE: I am absolutely no expert in TTIP. If anyone else has more information or can see an error I have made please correct me.

 

[verminstar]

Yer saying things will get worse and I agree, they will get worse in the short term. Don't believe I have ever stated otherwise but here's the thing...all I'm hearing about is how much things are looking up, and no doubt there will be all the experts arguing among themselves about how the other side is wrong and things will be very very bad for us.

It's the same mess as before...some saying things will get bad, others saying things will get better bla bla bla bla bla...can ye all agree on the colour of excrement at least or are we gonna get a full statistical lowdown on why it's actually not brown after all?

Thing is, both sides have their own version of "the facts"...so through this haze of confusion, all I ask is what makes one set of facts more genuine than another set of facts?

Nobody knows what the future has in store because this situation has never existed before so as I'm trying to stay glass half full as opposed to half empty, I'll just sit back and wait to see how things pan out ^^

 

[beelbeebub]

First off, TTIP, is still in negotiation, a lot of the alarm came from the early drafts of the agreement before any negotiating had occurred. This was the draft Boris and co wanted to sign up to. This is the version the US put forward and usually get signed as they have the negotiating power.

Much like how a first draft of a movie script is often radically different from the final draft, the final draft of TTIP will probably be very different.

Partly this is because the EU is able to "push back" on the trade deal bits they don't like, because of their size.

Before becoming "LAW" the final draft would be presented to the EU parliament then to each countries parliament. So there was no danger of it being "secret" or "undemocratically imposed".

as an aside Verminstar, therevwas an article recently about the correlation between anti EU views and "authoritarian" and "traditional views". May I ask your views on the death penalty and flogging for sex offenders?

Once the

 

[Adept]

Grow more trees, which is happening automatically anyway as the globe is increasing it's greenery and the sahara is shrinking (compare eg Haiti with Dominican republic). Let's not forget co2 is plant food.

Letting the forests grow back is a good idea, but our bloated 7 billion strong population is still growing. We desperately need to allocate more space on the planet for wild nature but it is not easy to pull off and requires strong protection mechanisms and educating people on the need to do it.

Additionally the excess carbon is from the much slower geological circulation and we have released an incredible amount of it. No matter how much trees we let grow it won't be even close to enough on it's own.

 

[Adept]

Verminstar has blocked me so I can't verify this from him, but I believe he thinks there will be a sort of "reverse crusade" where Europe is flooded with Muslims from the Middle East and Northern Africa, and that it will either mean a huge armed conflict or our societies becoming something unrecognizable.

If I have understood his posts correctly this is why he wanted out. He thinks the British Isles will be better protected against this, and everything else pales in significance.

To me it is a fever dream and not credible, but at least I now think I understand what motivates him.

 

[Talarin]

It's the same mess as before...some saying things will get bad, others saying things will get better bla bla bla bla bla...can ye all agree on the colour of excrement at least or are we gonna get a full statistical lowdown on why it's actually not brown after all?

Thing is, both sides have their own version of "the facts"...so through this haze of confusion, all I ask is what makes one set of facts more genuine than another set of facts?

Nobody knows what the future has in store because this situation has never existed before so as I'm trying to stay glass half full as opposed to half empty, I'll just sit back and wait to see how things pan out ^^

To a degree - you've hit the nail on the head. There are too many variables for either side of this debate to actually be confident in making predictions - and the very act of making predictions affects the outcome. For example, if PwC were to release an economic study tomorrow which predicted a better than expected outlook for the UK after Brexit, that would actually have the effect of improving the outlook for the UK after Brexit (at least in terms of market trading and currency rates).

Trade gravity models (which predict international trade, and have yielded so much of the predictions that we've been debating) are as much as an art than a science and are hindered by no one knowing what the UK and Europe are actually going to do next (so there's nothing to model).

So it is, in my opinion at least, far too early for anyone to actually be jumping up and down and saying that they're right. Expect lots of market fluctuation and a really big shortfall in investment, at least up until Brexit plans are announced and various trade deals confirmed.

I believe that the really big problem facing us at the moment isn't about trade, but the expected shortfall in foreign investment. That's a lot of cash that won't be flowing into the country at least in the short term and that's happening now.

 

[beelbeebub]

To a degree - you've hit the nail on the head. There are too many variables for either side of this debate to actually be confident in making predictions - and the very act of making predictions affects the outcome. For example, if PwC were to release an economic study tomorrow which predicted a better than expected outlook for the UK after Brexit, that would actually have the effect of improving the outlook for the UK after Brexit (at least in terms of market trading and currency rates).

Trade gravity models (which predict international trade, and have yielded so much of the predictions that we've been debating) are as much as an art than a science and are hindered by no one knowing what the UK and Europe are actually going to do next (so there's nothing to model).

So it is, in my opinion at least, far too early for anyone to actually be jumping up and down and saying that they're right. Expect lots of market fluctuation and a really big shortfall in investment, at least up until Brexit plans are announced and various trade deals confirmed.

I believe that the really big problem facing us at the moment isn't about trade, but the expected shortfall in foreign investment. That's a lot of cash that won't be flowing into the country at least in the short term and that's happening now.

you are right that nobody knows quite what to expect when modelling the future.

However, this is a very similar situation to weather forecasting, where a slight change in the initial conditions or the assumptions can have a large effect on the result.

To get around this you use several different models and run them with many different inputs and (in the case of economics) assumptions.

If these many scenarios all point in the same direction you can start to forecast the likely outcomes within a range.

In the case of brexit all the predictions from various organisations pointed to a loss of GDP, with the exception of the "economists for brexit" which was predicated on slashing all import tariffs (bye bye steel and other industries) and slashing regulation (workers rights, environment etc) to make us more competitive with China etc. Interestingly they predicted an 8% fall in the cost of living due to cutting import tariffs. I have no idea if they factored a sterling drop in that calculation but our imported goods just got 10% more expensive so any saving is likely to be near neutralised.

So whilst it is possible that Brexit will improve our economy it's unlikely and it's more likely that it will make our economy worse.

 

[Yaffle]

I believe that the really big problem facing us at the moment isn't about trade, but the expected shortfall in foreign investment. That's a lot of cash that won't be flowing into the country at least in the short term and that's happening now.

That's one of the issues, yes. Our current account will worsen as sterling is weaker and investments have not been made. Of course, our exports should improve but are dwarfed by our imports.

Overall uncertainty is the big problem, that tends to discourage investment, and we'll have uncertainty for a while until we've at least a blueprint/draft deal for the exit.

More concerningly, it would appear the Brexit Minister has no idea how the EU trade block works: https://twitter.com/DavidDavisMP/status/735770127564607489?lang=en-gb

(1/3) Post #Brexit a UK-German deal would include free access for their cars and industrial goods, in exchange for a deal on everything else

 

[amigacooke]

If the first referendum isn't good enough, why would one more make any difference?

 

[Yaffle]

It would be an exercise in futility. If the result was reversed then we'd have calls for a third referendum. If it was as close or closer with the same result we'd have calls for a third referendum.

What does make sense to me is once we have 'the deal' some form of 'do you want this?' vote. But that won't really happen as the EU has said there will be no formal talks prior to Article 50, and we can't start formal talks outside the EU until we are no longer a member (2 years post Article 50).

We are where we are, another referendum won't happen, and would not be helpful if it did (IMO).