General / Off-Topic Are we brexiting?

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Even if this is true it's still only about what is being lost through leaving the EU trade element

You also have to consider that we will also be free to setup new trade deals where we couldn't before, and look to new industries to excel in that may not have been so lucrative whilst still in the EU, all of which might work in our favour if effort is put into it
The argument that we will make up for (or made than make up for) the loss of EU trade with increased trade with nonEU nations has some serious weaknesses.

1. They are all much further away. Getting a Honda Civic to California takes a 2000mile plus boat trip plus a trans continental road/rail trip. This is against a train trip to Europe or a ferry ride across the channel. Time and time again studies have shown that (all other tings being equal) trade between parties is always more when they are closer. Just simple things like the time zones and ease of business meetings make a difference.

2. Non tariff barriers are more of an issue than tariffs. For example a chainsaw that meets UK standards (safety, emissions etc) can be sold in Germany, France etc with no extra paperwork. In order to sell in the US it may require a redesign for lower emissions, noise or different safety standards. At the very least it will require certification by a US body. The design and procedure may be different for India, China etc. The issue is that to reduce non tariff barriers requires "giving away sovereignty" which the Brexit campaign was extremely keen not to do. For example if a UK company feels it is unfairly being discriminated against by a French law (say UK beef is not allowed to be sold on "health" grounds) it can go to the ECJ as an impartial "referee". If the banking industry felt that an EU proposal unfairly discriminated against it, it could go to the ECJ and get a ruling. BTW those are not hypothetical cases, they actually happened and the ECJ ruled in the UK's favour. If the UK wanted to reduce regulatory barriers with the US or china, in the first instance it would almost certainly mean that the UK would have to accept the US or China's regulatory regime rather than the other way around, and secondly there would need to be an arbitration body similar to the ECJ, except almost certainly no where near as transparent or impartial. You remember the "secret courts" that the UK would be subject to if it stayed in the EU an inevitably accepted TTIP (which was a load of bull anyway). Those are most likely to be the arbitration bodies the UK would have to submit to in order to reduce non tariff barriers with countries like China or the US.

3. Market suitability, the US is an excellent market for the UK but other nations like china, india and "the commonwealth" are less suited. Simple things like a mismatch between the products we make and the ones they want. On the subject of "the commonwealth" (empire 2.0), much noise has been made about it's size, but the average GDP/person is $3000, in the UK it's around $30,000. If you take away the UK, Canada, Australia and NZ (who are responsible for over 50% of the GDP) it drops to around $1500. Who would you rather be selling too, 500million really rich people or 2billion poor people?
No one knows yet, it's very early days, and whilst everyone is trying to draw negative conclusions before anything has taken shape, all we have is this doom and gloom debate which is flimsy at best

Time will tell, but until steps have been taken we just don't know where it will end

It's done, the decision has been made, there is no point dwelling on what could of, should of, how about we start thinking about what positive steps could be made to strengthen our economy without an EU membership, there are plenty of other prosperous countries in the world that are not part of the EU membership
You are right, nobody knows, but if you see someone heading into the jungle with no map, no food or water, no experience and no plan you don't have to wait until they are found half dead in a week to know it probably won't end well.
 
Even if this is true it's still only about what is being lost through leaving the EU trade element

You also have to consider that we will also be free to setup new trade deals where we couldn't before, and look to new industries to excel in that may not have been so lucrative whilst still in the EU, all of which might work in our favour if effort is put into it

Watch this.

[video=youtube;3kPOdSFKD-Q]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kPOdSFKD-Q[/video]

The UK already has these trade deals, which it got through the EU. These trade deals were obtained as part of the biggest and wealthiest trading bloc on the planet, thus were gained from a position of material strength. Future trade deals will be made from a position of weakness.

No one knows yet, it's very early days, and whilst everyone is trying to draw negative conclusions before anything has taken shape, all we have is this doom and gloom debate which is flimsy at best

This is the problem - it is having negative effects now. Inflation has jumped, the pound has dropped in value, investment has fallen, and big international companies that pay a lot of UK tax are preparing to leave. Not just talking about it, but actively taking up property in Frankfurt and Paris. UK scientific research is facing a funding crisis as the Horizon 2020 project is already freezing out the UK, and there us a black hole of £70 bl in the budget that the UK government will have to either tax or cut to avoid a massive deficit.

Also, the future and present citizens of the UK have lost the right to live, love, work, retire and learn in Europe. The potential careers, friendships, and marriages lost we will never know.

This isn't some hypothetical, all of the above has already happened.

And what has the UK gained in return? This isn't a rhetorical question. I am serious. Please, show me the benefit of losing the above.
 
Last edited:

Javert

Volunteer Moderator
You also have to consider that we will also be free to setup new trade deals where we couldn't before, and look to new industries to excel in that may not have been so lucrative whilst still in the EU, all of which might work in our favour if effort is put into it

No one knows yet, it's very early days, and whilst everyone is trying to draw negative conclusions before anything has taken shape, all we have is this doom and gloom debate which is flimsy at best

This has been raised a few times before, but nobody has come up with any examples of such special industries that we could suddenly create that would not have been permitted whilst we were in the EU. These magical inventions or massive planet busting industries we are suddenly going to develop, freed from the massive shackles of the EU dragging us down. I'm still waiting to hear what they are. Perhaps they are being kept top secret so the EU can't steal the idea whilst we are still in?

If course it would be great if we had new industries and lots of vibrant companies starting up. However nobody has demonstrated why that couldn't and didn't happen under EU membership other than vague slogans about sovereignty and too many regulations - slogans which tend to fall down when looked into too deeply.

It's also been pointed out many times here that our FX rate has dropped significantly since the referendum and that makes our economy smaller when compared to all other countries in the world, especially since we import more than we export. Leave supporters continue to state that the country is already doing great under Brexit - they were having a big push on it in the last week trying to claim that the news is failing to report all the Brexit good news. The good news being that our economy grew by 1% or so against a 20% drop that took place on June 23rd last year. Just 19% to go then. (and by the way not that's not even correct because the economy would have continued to grow without Brexit.

So what year will our economy overtake and surge ahead of where it would have been without Brexit?
 
This has been raised a few times before, but nobody has come up with any examples of such special industries that we could suddenly create that would not have been permitted whilst we were in the EU.

You could turn the UK into a prison island or into an atomic waste dump.

It's highly profitable.

On the other hand, Frontier and Mr. Braben are rather successfull businesses and a great, innovative personality respectively and all that was possible "under" the EU.

I'm still pretty convinced by Frontier's business model of self publishing, developing their own engine (got Planet Coaster on top of elite - well worth the buy) and the amazing nerdy capabilities of the Raspberry Pi (unlike the "consumer" electronics like iPhone or Galaxies, that thing actually goes back to the good old days of "diy" and is helping creators, not consumers).
Their share price is also on an upwards trend, which imo is a well deserved reward for those years of actual hard work. (any publisher can have a dozen or so development studios, pay them for contracts and just dish out iteration of iteration of the same franchise over and over - that model as such has it's limits).
 
Last edited:

verminstar

Banned
LOL - not still bitter about the defeat are you?

Isn't this just name calling by the remaining remoaners?

No no no...fuzzy didnt vote and claims to have no biased opinions about those who voted to leave...and yet reading through the various threads, one has to wonder at the validity of that claim.

Also, be careful with the names...its only their side who are allowed to do that and ye will get warnings fer retaliating in kind ^
 
No no no...fuzzy didnt vote and claims to have no biased opinions about those who voted to leave...and yet reading through the various threads, one has to wonder at the validity of that claim.

Why would you wonder about the validity of that claim?

I don't vote because I'm not qualified. I am an avid reader of philosophy and history but I've never sat a test to see if I really know my stuff in this regard. I might be a complete idiot. I certainly can't discount that possibility without an independent evaluation can I?

I actually know more about diseases than anything else but I wouldn't trust myself in a hospital. However, if you have a forklift that needs driving, or machinery (whether large or small) that needs repairing then I'm your man. Because I'm qualified, I've sat tests and performed run-throughs of these to demonstrate competancy.

If a guy dropped to the ground in front of you, and you tried your best to save him but couldn't because you don't know enough, I wouldn't hold you responsible for his death. Even if it transpired you did more harm than good when you tried to help. Because you are in a situation you aren't prepared for and haven't been tested against. By the same token would you let an unsupervised student do surgery before he is qualified? You wouldn't let someone drive a car without a test, would you? Or fly an aeroplane?

That's why believe in voting licenses. A test to see if someone is qualified to make such grand decisions. Only people who know what they are doing should be permitted to vote, and I hold myself to that standard as well.

The common man has voted and has, in my opinion, made a ridiculous decision. Brexit is a sick person that has passed out in front of a crowd of unqualified laymen, who were then lied to by the establishment on how best to revive the man when that establishment wanted the man to die. As a result a poor choice was made. That is unsurprising. But the voters aren't to blame for that, it is the Brexiteers who do know better - the Farages, Johnsons, Dacres, Murdochs and the like who have the relevant information yet choose to mislead the public to further their own ambitions.
 
How about a points based multiplier when voting on issues, everyone has a say but some more than others lol

Just the small fact that the state would need to know everything about you to make that judgement call, oh, wait, they already do :)
 
How about a points based multiplier when voting on issues, everyone has a say but some more than others lol

Just the small fact that the state would need to know everything about you to make that judgement call, oh, wait, they already do :)

Naah. A simple set of tests, retaken every 10 years or so.

Questions such as "What is the EU?" probably would have eliminated thousands of voters. The ethical question is whether or not people have a "natural right" to vote. I argue against it on the reasoning that your rights end where someone elses begins. In other words, you have the absolute right to your beliefs, to enjoy football, to read books, to go walking at 4AM etc. But you don't have the right to drive along the road at 120mph, endangering others, or walking around with a firearm in public, which could end a life.

Unqualified voting can ruin lives. Look at the mess the USA is now in, 24 million people face having their health coveraged removed because the ungodly spawn of Medusa and a ripened mango promised to have more healthcare, cheaper, with more coverage, even though he had no idea what he was talking about but enough people believed his drivel to vote for him. Lives will be lost as a result of Trump, and by extension as a result of those votes.
 
Interesting topic this.

IMO the politicians only have themselves to blame for the public turning on them (often referred to as popularism). They are supposed to be representative of the voting public. They are getting this message slowly after misrepresenting the popular view and often representing their own (or parties viewpoint).

When there was an opportunity to get rid of one layer of politicians (The EU) I voted to do it (amongst other reasons) in the hope some accountabilty could be restored.
 
Last edited:
Interesting topic this.

IMO the politicians only have themselves to blame for the public turning on them (often referred to as popularism). They are supposed to be representative of the voting public. They are getting this message slowly after misrepresenting the popular view and often representing their own (or parties viewpoint).

When there was an opportunity to get rid of one layer of politicians (The EU) I voted to do it (amongst other reasons) in the hope some accountabilty could be restored.
presumably, we should get rid of parish and local county councils as well as the devolved assemblies/parliaments?

Just go back to central rule by London on all issues?
 
presumably, we should get rid of parish and local county councils as well as the devolved assemblies/parliaments?

Just go back to central rule by London on all issues?

We will see - just getting rid of one layer might be enough to bring those left, to get on with the job they chose (were voted in) to do.
 
I wonder if the London attacks by an islamic terrorist will delay the triggering of the article 50 or si the policy will follow its natural course. Perhaps a kind of "national mourning" will delay a few days ?

The attack will not affect the decision of Theresa May to invoke the article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty on 29 March, an act which will activate officially the Brexit process, declared a spokesman of 10, Downing Street.
 
An interesting article just come through on LinkedIn, I thought you guys might want a read:

http://www.civitas.org.uk/publications/its-quite-ok-to-walk-away/

Look at the PDF on the page for download, I've only read the summary and will read the rest in a bit...

Here's a snippet from the summary:

Over the 43 years of EU membership, UK exports of goods to 11 long-standing members of the EU have grown just two per cent more, and at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) just 0.02 percentage points higher, than 14 countries trading under WTO rules. EU12 exports to each other have grown just 1 per cent more than the exports of these 14 countries. In other words, the growth of goods exports of the UK to 11 long-standing members of the EU over these 43 years are barely distinguishable from those of 14 countries exporting under WTO rules, and they of course have not incurred any of the costs of EU membership.

I'd be interested in your thoughts on all this, especially those who are not being so positive about the UK post brexit
 
Last edited:
An interesting article just come through on LinkedIn, I thought you guys might want a read:

http://www.civitas.org.uk/publications/its-quite-ok-to-walk-away/

Look at the PDF on the page for download, I've only read the summary and will read the rest in a bit...

Here's a snippet from the summary:



I'd be interested in your thoughts on all this, especially those who are not being so positive about the UK post brexit

hehe... you have come to the right place for people that are not being positive.
 

verminstar

Banned
Why would you wonder about the validity of that claim?

I don't vote because I'm not qualified. I am an avid reader of philosophy and history but I've never sat a test to see if I really know my stuff in this regard. I might be a complete idiot. I certainly can't discount that possibility without an independent evaluation can I?

I actually know more about diseases than anything else but I wouldn't trust myself in a hospital. However, if you have a forklift that needs driving, or machinery (whether large or small) that needs repairing then I'm your man. Because I'm qualified, I've sat tests and performed run-throughs of these to demonstrate competancy.

If a guy dropped to the ground in front of you, and you tried your best to save him but couldn't because you don't know enough, I wouldn't hold you responsible for his death. Even if it transpired you did more harm than good when you tried to help. Because you are in a situation you aren't prepared for and haven't been tested against. By the same token would you let an unsupervised student do surgery before he is qualified? You wouldn't let someone drive a car without a test, would you? Or fly an aeroplane?

That's why believe in voting licenses. A test to see if someone is qualified to make such grand decisions. Only people who know what they are doing should be permitted to vote, and I hold myself to that standard as well.

The common man has voted and has, in my opinion, made a ridiculous decision. Brexit is a sick person that has passed out in front of a crowd of unqualified laymen, who were then lied to by the establishment on how best to revive the man when that establishment wanted the man to die. As a result a poor choice was made. That is unsurprising. But the voters aren't to blame for that, it is the Brexiteers who do know better - the Farages, Johnsons, Dacres, Murdochs and the like who have the relevant information yet choose to mislead the public to further their own ambitions.

And this is why we will always disagree. Our right to vote is exactly that...our right. It is not a qualification one needs to pass like a drivers licence. This is so open to abuse, its unreal that you dont see it. Who makes that decision to qualify people on whether they can vote or not?

Our freedoms came at a cost in all the wars we fought with others who believed we were incapable of deciding our own fate. Im not making a comparison with you personally, but I know yer veiws and disagree with them. Voting is in an entirely different context than getting something fixed by someone who isnt qualified...voting is a right, getting something or someone fixed is a requirement. Thats the difference you fail utterly in seeing. Ye can hold yerself to whatever standard ye want but ye ddnt have the right to hold anyone else to that belief...nobody should ever have that right and thats why we will always disagree ^
 
An interesting article just come through on LinkedIn, I thought you guys might want a read:

http://www.civitas.org.uk/publications/its-quite-ok-to-walk-away/

Look at the PDF on the page for download, I've only read the summary and will read the rest in a bit...

Here's a snippet from the summary:
Over the 43 years of EU membership, UK exports of goods to 11 long-standing members of the EU have grown just two per cent more, and at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) just 0.02 percentage points higher, than 14 countries trading under WTO rules. EU12 exports to each other have grown just 1 per cent more than the exports of these 14 countries. In other words, the growth of goods exports of the UK to 11 long-standing members of the EU over these 43 years are barely distinguishable from those of 14 countries exporting under WTO rules, and they of course have not incurred any of the costs of EU membership.


I'd be interested in your thoughts on all this, especially those who are not being so positive about the UK post brexit
Ok, Mr Burrage was a Leave campaigner. Now I wouldn't discount his arguments just because of that but it should be borne in mind.

So looking at the source data (i think page 11 here) for the quote a couple of points struck me.

First, I can't see the data where he got the quote from directly, the quote doesn't seem to match table 1 or 2 correctly so I'm having to interpolate between the two.

Looking at table 1, it is ranked by growth rate without reference to the absolute amount. This flatters countries that exported very little at the beginning of the period. For example, the Ukraine is top of the table. with a growth rate of 471% from 1993-2013 yet it's total exports to the EU11 are only around $1.2bn a month which means they were around $210million a month in 1993. That's not surprising as in 1993 the Ukraine was only 2 years independent from the USSR. It is not hard to have high growth when you start from a low base.

The UK on the other hand started at around $14bn and moved to $24bn a month. A real increase of $10bn a month, nearly 10x the Ukraine's monthly amount.

If you look at all the top ranks in Table 1 they are all much smaller that the UK, the standouts are China/HK at around half the UK, their growth rate is hardly surprising as the growth of China has been the story of the late 90's and 00's. The other stand out is the US, despite having an economy 10x the UK's only manages to export around the same to the EU11 as the UK.

Think about it, the UK exports more to the EU11 than China or the US both of which are economic power houses, one the only super power, the other a rising superpower.

To try and argue that trade barriers, in particular non tariff barriers, are not massive impediments to trade is daft.

Many US agricultural products can't be sold in the EU, no matter what their price, because they don't meet EU regulatory standards. You can argue if this is protectionist or not but the point is if you are a US farmer your trade with the EU is severely hampered, not by tariffs, but by regulations.

I mentioned the classic example of British beef. What's the betting that, if the UK had not been in the EU, British beef would still be banned in the EU after the BSE crisis?

He also mentions the cost of EU membership. Which is a longstanding Brexit red herring. The cost of EU membership is around $10bn a year (it fluctuates) once rebates (discounts) and EU cash returning are taken into account. That's about 11 days trade with the EU, or 3% of our trade not our government revenue (1.5%) or our GDP (sub 1%) our trade with just 11 of the EU's 27 members (albeit the biggest ones). it's not even worth considering the cost of our EU membership in the debate (other than to say it's not and never has been anywhere near £350million a week! :))

So, to sum up, my thoughts on the quote are that I am not convinced by his analysis that the % growth rates of nonEU -> EU countries being close to the % growth rate of UK to EU exports is a reliable indicator that it is better for the EU to be on WTO rules than inside the EU SM.
 
Last edited:
An interesting article just come through on LinkedIn, I thought you guys might want a read:

http://www.civitas.org.uk/publications/its-quite-ok-to-walk-away/

Look at the PDF on the page for download, I've only read the summary and will read the rest in a bit...

Here's a snippet from the summary:



I'd be interested in your thoughts on all this, especially those who are not being so positive about the UK post brexit


The Question would be which Nations he is Talking about.
Because I see no Actual Numbers but only Percentages.

But China for example which had Gigantic Potential and was hardly Developed. Thus Growing like Crazy.
As well as Countries like Brazil etc which effectively have other Trade Deals in their Regions.
As well as Japan which profitted from similar Deals with US and South Eastern Asia etc etc.
As well as India which also had incredible growth Potential especially after Gaining Independence.
As well as the USA which had massive Boosts from gaining Wealth from nearly all Nations during WW2 by Selling them Weapons (including Germany which received large stocks of Weapons from the USA before the War)
And which up to this Day is incredible Unregulated resulting in an Great Economic Growth but also in Slums where Police aint even setting foot in and People being struggling to stay alife if they are not accepting 12 hour per day Jobs for little Pay to at least stay alife.


These Countries are not really Limited to WTO Trade Rules either as they have Trade Areas as well. (Most of which were Founded either to Stand up against US or EU Trade Areas)
And unlike Britain they had an pretty Big Potential of Development thus going through Similar Growth as the European Nations did in earlier Years.


Giving this a Short Skimming. I would say the Estimate is Fairly Biased towards UK and is Fairly Anti EU.
Which is not that Surprising because the Writer is an Free Trade Follower and thus considers things best when there is no Regulations at all.
Having the Market entirely Regulate themselves with no State Influence.


Hes not entirely Wrong about the Market Aspect.
In Fact if the UK would implement Politics like China, India, Brazil etc.
With 12-14 Hour Workdays. And barely enough Pay to Life in a 2 Room Apartment for most of the Populace.
Britains Economy would likely also Grow massively.

Especially at the EUs Borders. Because even with Border Taxes you can assume the UK would be able to Export Cheaply enough to attract Companies to the UK.

But I am fairly sure everyone Realizes that this would never work with an Democracy. Much less with an Population which is used to Developed Society like that of the UK.
Meaning that while its an nice Theory. The Reality would be that if not for Joining the EU. The UK had Continued the downfall which was the reason for the UK to Join in the First Place.



More feasible is the USA method. Of no Regulations at all.
The Wet Dream of the Big Company Owners like Trump. Being able to Exploit the People and Grow their own Wealth.
Its something that might now actually happen in the UK.
Greatly reducing the Worker Protection and Regulations as well as Cutting down on Social Welfare and Healthcare etc.
Meaning that Workers will be in a Position where they either Work in any dictated conditions or will likely end up on the Street or in Slums.

The UK would however likely enjoy an Economic Growth if this happened.
Alot of Companies would move to the UK as its closer than the USA or India or China is.
And allows them to Exploit Workers on a level where they can Produce very Cheaply.
But I dont think it will be something the UKs People would like to have.


Greetz
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom