Brexit discussion thread II

BlitzKrieg · 14-07-2017 08:28PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

because financially it is a stupid thing to do, but it might pass because people aren't always interested in finances.

honestly I'd agree. I'd hope that well in advance of any such referendum both the UK and Ireland and probably also the EU would draw up some sort of timetable for the process of unification before putting it to referendum. So the effect of unification would be minimised at least to the extent that it's effect on the economy would be spread out over simply shocking it in the short term.

Sadly between Brexit showing governments being incapable of doing simply that and running into things with no plan or policy. Also the tendency for issues like unification popping up less out of a planned process but more an act of necessity (see: German reunification) and ends up a bit rushed leaving long term effects.

Fratton Fred · 14-07-2017 10:49PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

The billions the UK paid in pales in comparison to the economic benefit Britain reaped from the single market. If they didn't I would say leaving the EU was a good idea.

Does it? Can you honestly tell an unemployed ex miner from sunderland, or a struggling fisherman from Shetland that being in the eu is economically good for them?

Yeah, it allows British business export to Europe easily and better still, it gives them the chance to exploit cheap labour as well. Is that really a major advantage for the average Joe?

Professor Moriarty · 14-07-2017 10:58PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Does it? Can you honestly tell an unemployed ex miner from sunderland, or a struggling fisherman from Shetland that being in the eu is economically good for them?

Yeah, it allows British business export to Europe easily and better still, it gives them the chance to exploit cheap labour as well. Is that really a major advantage for the average Joe?

And how will a hard Brexit improve their lot?

murphaph · 14-07-2017 11:16PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Does it? Can you honestly tell an unemployed ex miner from sunderland, or a struggling fisherman from Shetland that being in the eu is economically good for them?

Yeah, it allows British business export to Europe easily and better still, it gives them the chance to exploit cheap labour as well. Is that really a major advantage for the average Joe?

The ex miner might get a job at Nissan with the UK in the EU but long term there will be no Nissan in Sunderland by the looks of it. They can't even agree on citizens' rights and that should be done and dusted by now really.

Even those on welfare need to understand that the welfare payment comes ultimately from UK trade with the rest of the world and the vast majority of that is with the EU. Just because things are bad for someone doesn't mean they can't get worse when the tax take from London banks starts to diminish.

In this regard I think the average Irish person understands the benefits of EU membership to trade perhaps better than the average British person. That's my gut feeling anyway.

Junkyard Tom · 14-07-2017 11:59PM

Bushmanpm wrote: »

the likes of Siemens, Renault, Mercedes Benz, Schneider, Bosch, Peugeot, Pirelli, VW, Moet and all the other tech, food or motor industries will not like losing out all those exports and the outcome will be, ahem, interesting.

Even in the worst case scenario those exports to the UK won't suddenly disappear, they'll just become more expensive. So if EU exports to the UK become, say, 10% more expensive, they can expect to lose 10% of thier business with the UK. So if Perelli exports 15% of its stuff to the UK it can expect to lose 1.5% of its trade in the short term. The whole 'EU based exporters to Britain will freak out' thing is seriously overplayed.

Capt'n Midnight · 15-07-2017 12:18AM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Does it? Can you honestly tell an unemployed ex miner from sunderland, or a struggling fisherman from Shetland that being in the eu is economically good for them?

you make it sound that like the struggling fisherman isn't struggling because of overfishing of a finite resource, or that most of the quota isn't held by three companies or that nearly half the quota is held by foreign companies.

It's like agriculture. Farm labourers are a lot rarer with today's technology - you only need a small fraction of the number of fishermen you used to - unless you get rid of the big companies but that's against Tory religion.

On just one trip the Atlantic Dawn would put thousands of African fishermen out of work by hoovering up the fish. How may became migrants ?

Oddly enough EU regional funds would probably be of more use to the Shetlands than relying on the London. Without the ECJ or the working time directive they will have the "freedom" to work more hours or zero hours.

Jim2007 · 15-07-2017 12:40AM

murphaph wrote: »

In this regard I think the average Irish person understands the benefits of EU membership to trade perhaps better than the average British person. That's my gut feeling anyway.

That would be my impression as well. In general I find that the Irish and the Swiss tend to be better informed. I think a lot has to do with the fact that both have the concept of tactical (next government) and strategic (constitutional change) voting. And thus it produces a voter with a very different perspective.

Jim2007 · 15-07-2017 12:48AM

Bushmanpm wrote: »

The main problem with the EU is when they tie movement of people and the European judiciary to the economics.

No the main problem is that people fail to understand is that you cannot have a single market with out the free movement of all forms of capital, single jurisdiction etc. The single market in each member state works that way and yet people fail to project that on to a single EU wide market. But at the same time if the Uk were to introduce restrictions on the movement of people within the country they'd all be jumping up and down in protest.

oppenheimer1 · 15-07-2017 01:03AM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Does it? Can you honestly tell an unemployed ex miner from sunderland, or a struggling fisherman from Shetland that being in the eu is economically good for them?

Yeah, it allows British business export to Europe easily and better still, it gives them the chance to exploit cheap labour as well. Is that really a major advantage for the average Joe?

Wasn't it the Tories that closed the mines? And isn't it the EU that is supporting projects in those deprived areas.

I can't say I know a whole lot about the CFP but without the quotas there would be no fish in the sea at all. In any case these things aren't imposed but negotiated. It was up to the UK government to stick up for it's fishermen but it had more important interests. It wanted wind in finance regulation so offered up the fishermen on that particular altar. Farmers can now expect the same as they will be sacrificed in order to maintain access to Europe for the city.

Mal-Adjusted · 15-07-2017 02:45AM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

you make it sound that like the struggling fisherman isn't struggling because of overfishing of a finite resource, or that most of the quota isn't held by three companies or that nearly half the quota is held by foreign companies.

forgive me if i'm wrong, but wasn't one of Ireland's stated aims of the Common Fisheries Policy reform that the bulk of quotas go to local fishing communities rather than the big massive super trawlers?

Nody · 15-07-2017 06:24AM

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Even in the worst case scenario those exports to the UK won't suddenly disappear, they'll just become more expensive. So if EU exports to the UK become, say, 10% more expensive, they can expect to lose 10% of thier business with the UK. So if Perelli exports 15% of its stuff to the UK it can expect to lose 1.5% of its trade in the short term. The whole 'EU based exporters to Britain will freak out' thing is seriously overplayed.

You are making an incorrect assumption; first of all you assume there is a straight parallel in price elastic between 10% price increase and losing 10% of the customers. Chances are that a 10% price increase would lose you way more than 10% of your customers simply because of easier to get alternatives.

Secondly and this is the real kicker the problem will not be the initial 10% price increase, longer lead times etc. but future investments. Where will Pierelli place that new tire production? UK or in a EU country? Where will Toyota place that new car platform, in a UK plant or a EU factory? Where will you spend money to build more capacity? Those type of investments are not going to be readily easy to find but you can be sure that if a country suddenly costs over 10% more (tariffs, added cost of dealing with two legislations, customs etc.) they will be redirected.

Bushmanpm · 15-07-2017 10:27AM

Jim2007 wrote:

No the main problem is that people fail to understand is that you cannot have a single market with out the free movement of all forms of capital, single jurisdiction etc. The single market in each member state works that way and yet people fail to project that on to a single EU wide market. But at the same time if the Uk were to introduce restrictions on the movement of people within the country they'd all be jumping up and down in protest.

If I want to provide you with my goods or services, what has our private trade got to do with some gravy train riding Brussels parasite? Or foreign nationals moving to a country with far more favourable welfare? Or some scumbag crook crying "my human rights" at every given opportunity when caught?
I personally cannot see what that has got to do with two parties wanting to trade with each other, other than unnecessary bureaucracy run by unnecessary bureaucrats lining their own pockets AND collecting a massive pension afterwards. At OUR expense.

Professor Moriarty · 15-07-2017 10:47AM

Bushmanpm wrote: »

If I want to provide you with my goods or services, what has our private trade got to do with some gravy train riding Brussels parasite? Or foreign nationals moving to a country with far more favourable welfare? Or some scumbag crook crying "my human rights" at every given opportunity when caught?
I personally cannot see what that has got to do with two parties wanting to trade with each other, other than unnecessary bureaucracy run by unnecessary bureaucrats lining their own pockets AND collecting a massive pension afterwards. At OUR expense.

If that's how you see it then you should definitely leave the EU. It's obviously not for you.

FrancieBrady · 15-07-2017 10:53AM

Bushmanpm wrote: »

If I want to provide you with my goods or services, what has our private trade got to do with some gravy train riding Brussels parasite? Or foreign nationals moving to a country with far more favourable welfare? Or some scumbag crook crying "my human rights" at every given opportunity when caught?
I personally cannot see what that has got to do with two parties wanting to trade with each other, other than unnecessary bureaucracy run by unnecessary bureaucrats lining their own pockets AND collecting a massive pension afterwards. At OUR expense.

Completely myopic and one-sighted view and not very relevant for all that in fairness.
Myopic and one-sighted in the sense that you just ignore all the good things the EU has done for it's citizens.
Of course it isn't perfect but the alternative of a free for all, do what you want environment just hands the advantage to those with the money and power to do what they want, economically and socially.
Not a society I want anyhow, even if at times the EU might restrict.

Capt'n Midnight · 15-07-2017 10:53AM

Nody wrote: »

You are making an incorrect assumption; first of all you assume there is a straight parallel in price elastic between 10% price increase and losing 10% of the customers. Chances are that a 10% price increase would lose you way more than 10% of your customers simply because of easier to get alternatives.

10% on a Merc or BMW won't reduce demand much if there isn't a locally built alternative with the same snob value. 10% on generic cars in a crowded market , good luck with that.

10% on commodity items like nuts and bolts is game over.

Secondly and this is the real kicker the problem will not be the initial 10% price increase, longer lead times etc. but future investments. Where will Pierelli place that new tire production? UK or in a EU country? Where will Toyota place that new car platform, in a UK plant or a EU factory?

With the new Japanese trade deal Toyota also have the option to build the cars in Japan.

Bushmanpm · 15-07-2017 10:56AM

Professor Moriarty wrote:

If that's how you see it then you should definitely leave the EU. It's obviously not for you.

My mind is open for changing, show me where I'm wrong?

Bushmanpm · 15-07-2017 11:06AM

FrancieBrady wrote:

Completely myopic and one-sighted view and not very relevant for all that in fairness. Myopic and one-sighted in the sense that you just ignore all the good things the EU has done for it's citizens. Of course it isn't perfect but the alternative of a free for all, do what you want environment just hands the advantage to those with the money and power to do what they want, economically and socially. Not a society I want anyhow, even if at times the EU might restrict.

"The EU do good things" is so old and tired I'm surprised people still say it, and I'M myopic? Hahahahahahahaha
Hint: they can only do it with someone else's money. Its like me telling you what to spend your money on with the assumption that I know better than you.
It wouldn't be a free for all as each nation still has its own governments to regulate, just remember the governments funding has to come from somewhere, they themselves cannot make money. National debts and deficit borrowing SERIOUSLY need addressing lest we saddle our grandchildren and even great grandchildren with our current stupidity.

Water John · 15-07-2017 11:15AM

Bush, I see a lot of fury and little sense.
BTW, Govn'ts can create money. It's called QE.

FrancieBrady · 15-07-2017 11:16AM

Bushmanpm wrote: »

"The EU do good things" is so old and tired I'm surprised people still say it, and I'M myopic? Hahahahahahahaha
Hint: they can only do it with someone else's money. Its like me telling you what to spend your money on with the assumption that I know better than you.
It wouldn't be a free for all as each nation still has its own governments to regulate, just remember the governments funding has to come from somewhere, they themselves cannot make money. National debts and deficit borrowing SERIOUSLY need addressing lest we saddle our grandchildren and even great grandchildren with our current stupidity.

Nobody I know claims the EU doesn't have to change and stay on top of the game.

But you completely ignore the fact that generally the citizens of the EU (including those in the UK) are better off economically and socially as a result of the EU.

Ask any worker is his/her lot better off regarding rights since the foundation of the community. It's a no brainer really. Of course they are.

Even the massive economy of the UK collapsed pre EU and it's economy terminally depressed. That is why the imperative to join the EC grew and they overcame their qualms.
Can you seriously contend that they didn't receive a massive boost from joining? Do the disadvantages outweigh what they have gained?
I suppose we are about to see. A lesson for all member states is about to be learned one way or another. And at the moment the 'stay in the EU' side is winning, hands down.

Professor Moriarty · 15-07-2017 11:18AM

Bushmanpm wrote: »

My mind is open for changing, show me where I'm wrong?

I'm assuming you're British? If so, Britain's greatest cost will be economically. And workers' rights will be greatly diminished. What you want will necessitate a hard Brexit. It also won't necessarily address all of your issues.

Regarding crooks "crying "my human rights"", the EU has made it very clear that the ECHR and the ECJ will apply to any EU citizens living in Britain post Brexit.

Regarding foreigners moving to avail of "more favourable welfare", the maximum they are entitled to is three months plus the procedure to get welfare in the first place is extremely stringent. As it happens, Britain has extra rules above and beyond the strict EU rules.

Regarding "gravy train riding Brussels parasites" you will simply have to hire more gravy train riding London parasites.

Bushmanpm · 15-07-2017 11:24AM

Water John wrote:

Bush, I see a lot of fury and little sense. BTW, Govn'ts can create money. It's called QE.

No fury at all, more exacerbation.
QE is not real money, its just printing extra whilst devaluing the original

Water John · 15-07-2017 11:38AM

Govn'ts print money. Yes, how much of it depends on certain other macro factors. It's still real money. If they give you 5K of it, you can spend it.
In fact a good few economists think that's what should have been done and not given it free to the banks.

LeinsterDub · 15-07-2017 11:47AM

https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0715/890456-blair-brexit/

EU leaders would be willing to tighten up the free movement of the bloc's citizens to accommodate Britain and so the option of reversing Brexit must be kept on the table, Tony Blair has said

Not sure where he's getting this from. How do you tighten up free movement. It makes no sense?

Water John · 15-07-2017 11:55AM

Blair may see himself as a alternative Govn't? Hoping for the Blairites to get LB back from Corbyn.

ancapailldorcha · 15-07-2017 11:56AM

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0715/890456-blair-brexit/

Not sure where he's getting this from. How do you tighten up free movement. It makes no sense?

If true, it sets a pretty bad precedent whereby the EU will bend over backwards just to appease the British Eurosceptics.

Wanderer78 · 15-07-2017 12:04PM

Water John wrote:

Bush, I see a lot of fury and little sense. BTW, Govn'ts can create money. It's called QE.

Water John wrote:

Govn'ts print money. Yes, how much of it depends on certain other macro factors. It's still real money. If they give you 5K of it, you can spend it. In fact a good few economists think that's what should have been done and not given it free to the banks.

According to Steve keen, governments create money by creating bonds, and i do believe people's qe probably would have been better for our economies than central bank qe.

FrancieBrady · 15-07-2017 12:06PM

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0715/890456-blair-brexit/

Not sure where he's getting this from. How do you tighten up free movement. It makes no sense?

'EU leaders' is a very vague term, do we know which ones?

Professor Moriarty · 15-07-2017 12:16PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

If true, it sets a pretty bad precedent whereby the EU will bend over backwards just to appease the British Eurosceptics.

Many EU politicians would say they've been doing that for years. Even Cameron was back and forth looking for derogations to try and satisfy the Tory eurosceptics Must be very tempting to just say 'Good Riddance' at this stage. Your point about further derogations is valid. Countries such as Hungary and Austria would be straight in with their own demands.

steddyeddy · 15-07-2017 12:33PM

A very successful political and economic union shouldn't change its policies in order to appease xenophobes.

Nate--IRL-- · 15-07-2017 12:49PM

Consider the source for a moment.....

Nate

Brexit discussion thread II

Comments