Brexit discussion thread II

solodeogloria · 17-11-2017 03:23PM

murphaph wrote: »

The EU is also just 25 miles away to the UK's right and 0 miles away to the left. There's a reason trade between neighbouring countries is always higher than trade between countries separated by thousands of miles and several time zones!

Good afternoon!

We've also been through this before. I partially agree with you and partially disagree with you. Large economies are also important:

Office of National Statistics wrote:

Trade relationships are usually stronger between neighbouring countries, and with countries with large economies. China and the US are large economies and are important UK trading partners even accounting for their distance from us.

However, distance is important. The value of the UK’s trading relationship with Ireland is higher than the value of UK trade with Italy or Spain. Ireland is the UK’s neighbour, even though the total size of its economy is much smaller than Italy’s or Spain’s.

Link here.

This is again why I support a free trade arrangement with the EU and an arrangement that will permit more liberal trade with China and America amongst other countries. Britain will remain on the edge of the European Union after Brexit.

Edit: demfad - that link shows that there is no agreement with China or America for example. That's £100bn+ worth of trade. Perhaps we have different views of what "barely any" means.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

demfad · 17-11-2017 03:28PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

We've also been through this before. I partially agree with you and partially disagree with you. Large economies are also important:

Link here.

This is again why I support a free trade arrangement with the EU and an arrangement that will permit more liberal trade with China and America amongst other countries. Britain will remain on the edge of the European Union after Brexit.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

This external trade with large and small countries is under EU rules and EU FTAs, Multilateral agreements, association agreements, Gatt etc.

You will need to show us projections of UK trade under pure WTO rules to prove your point. Your point is that the UK will do well while not under EU rules. Prove it.

Also there the current Doha Development Agenda decides liberalisation of the WTO.

Can you please show me how the UK would be able to decide thsi unilaterally with other WTO countries?

ancapailldorcha · 17-11-2017 03:36PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

It seemed a reasonable question given what you said about the NHS. Why are you any more worried about American business involvement in the NHS than European and British business involvement in the NHS? Contracts already exist. Do you object to American involvement in public private partnerships generally?

No, it wasn't. You asked why I was afraid of America. You never used the word "business".

I object to American involvement on the NHS as it would be partly undemocratic given that the strain on it led to Vote Leave manipulating voters with that big red bus. Also, the US spends more healthcare per capita than any other nation by quite a margin and it's far from world leading.

Enzokk · 17-11-2017 03:53PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

It seemed a reasonable question given what you said about the NHS. Why are you any more worried about American business involvement in the NHS than European and British business involvement in the NHS? Contracts already exist. Do you object to American involvement in public private partnerships generally?

There are other questions in the posts before that you've not answered. Again, it's reasonable that if I am going to respond to your questions that you should respond to mine.

Edit: On the 44% question. You've misunderstood my point. I was speaking of the markets in terms of population. At present China and the US make up £100bn of trade, and the EU makes up £230bn. My point is that given the size of the markets by population (430mn EU, 1.3bn US & China) there's definitely scope to expand the £100bn. You can find these figures in the ONS statistics for trade which I've already posted before on this thread.

I would think that people in the UK, and the rest of Europe where health care is much more of a public service, would be scared of letting US companies that go for profit above anything else near the NHS. The US spends the most on healthcare than other OECD countries. Now you have to wonder why this is and if allowing companies that compete in such a system would be good for your own health system. I mean they only spend the most money on their healthcare while at the same time having less doctors than the average.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/health-costs-how-the-us-compares-with-other-countries Link in 2012

In the United States:

There are fewer physicians per person than in most other OECD countries. In 2010, for instance, the U.S. had 2.4 practicing physicians per 1,000 people — well below below the OECD average of 3.1.

The number of hospital beds in the U.S. was 2.6 per 1,000 population in 2009, lower than the OECD average of 3.4 beds.

Life expectancy at birth increased by almost nine years between 1960 and 2010, but that’s less than the increase of over 15 years in Japan and over 11 years on average in OECD countries. The average American now lives 78.7 years in 2010, more than one year below the average of 79.8 years.

Do you still think it is a good idea to allow American companies near the NHS?

Also, you have waved away the fact that the UK trades closer to 50% of its trade with the EU instead of the reported figure of 44% if you ignore gold trades. Those only add value numbers to the UK GDP but if the UK only keeps the gold in the country until the sale to another bank/country and only receives a handling fee for the transaction instead of the total value that appears that the trade is worth. Once this is taken into account then trade with the EU is much more important for the UK and I understand why you want to ignore it. You are now changing the argument to potential size of population. Nice little change of argument there.

An Ciarraioch · 17-11-2017 04:11PM

Key stats from Brian Lucey - NI's exports amounted to £9 billion last year, with 36% of those going to the Republic. By contrast, 1.7% of our exports went acrosd the Border:

https://theconversation.com/northern-irelands-economy-has-a-lot-more-to-lose-from-a-hard-brexit-than-the-republics-87388

blanch152 · 17-11-2017 05:08PM

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Key stats from Brian Lucey - NI's exports amounted to £9 billion last year, with 36% of those going to the Republic. By contrast, 1.7% of our exports went acrosd the Border:

https://theconversation.com/northern-irelands-economy-has-a-lot-more-to-lose-from-a-hard-brexit-than-the-republics-87388

I don't think anyone disagrees with the notion that Northern Ireland will suffer more from Brexit than the South.

Professor Moriarty · 17-11-2017 05:12PM

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Key stats from Brian Lucey - NI's exports amounted to £9 billion last year, with 36% of those going to the Republic. By contrast, 1.7% of our exports went acrosd the Border:

https://theconversation.com/northern-irelands-economy-has-a-lot-more-to-lose-from-a-hard-brexit-than-the-republics-87388

Wow! That's some disparity!

Sam Russell · 17-11-2017 05:15PM

blanch152 wrote: »

I don't think anyone disagrees with the notion that Northern Ireland will suffer more from Brexit than the South.

Especially when single farm payments will have to be 'earned' according to Dr Fox.

Farm subsidies will have to be earned rather than just handed out in future, the Environment Secretary Michael Gove has said in a speech.
Farmers will only get payouts if they agree to protect the environment and enhance rural life, he will say.
The move is part of what he calls his vision for a "green Brexit".

How much of the current £10 billion subvention from the UK Gov to NI will still be paid, and how much of the EU subvention will be rolled into it and therefore not paid?

blanch152 · 17-11-2017 05:20PM

Enzokk wrote: »

So we know the UK won't have better terms with their current trade partners and may just in fact have worse terms. So the question is will those "better" trade terms that the UK will be able to negotiate with the countries that the EU do not have a agreement at the moment make up for the "lost" trade by losing the 50 odd deals they currently enjoy.

This is the key flaw in solo's logic. Look at this post

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

You're missing the point again. If the UK exports a lot to the wider world today on WTO terms - liberalising trade and dropping tariffs will give better opportunities to trade more. There's plenty of scope to trade more with big markets like the US or China.

The question isn't how much more scope is there? In two markets of 1.3bn lots! More than a market of 430 odd million as important as that is. That's before we consider rapidly expanding developing markets.

My question to you is why can't you see that the opportunities are huge?

Also - why do you think that just because the UK exports lots outside of the EU today that it can't export more with better terms?

The assumptions that you hold might be the reason why you don't understand. I don't understand why you've got such a low view of the UK's abilities as a country.

The trade department are currently in working groups with 21 countries all interested in trade with Britain.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

He just assumes that the UK can get better terms outside the EU. It just defies logic.

At the moment any EU country has more tariff-free trade arrangements than any other country in the world. The mechanism that somehow by leaving the EU (where they have the best trade terms in the world) that the UK will quickly have better trade terms just doesn't make sense.

Two questions.

(1) If it was so easy, then why don't Norway or Switzerland or Turkey have better trade arrangements now than the EU? Russia anyone?

Answer: They don't so it isn't

(2) If it is so easy, why doesn't everyone leave the EU, go their own way, and hey presto, greater prosperity?

Answer: Because there are huge trade and prosperity benefits in belonging to the EU which the UK is prepared to just throw away.

blanch152 · 17-11-2017 05:21PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

How much of the current £10 billion subvention from the UK Gov to NI will still be paid, and how much of the EU subvention will be rolled into it and therefore not paid?

As long as the DUP are supporting the government, the EU subvention will be paid.

An Ciarraioch · 17-11-2017 05:23PM

Meanwhile, one of the BBC's leading reporters doesn't seem to understand that our parties are broadly united on this issue:

https://mobile.twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/931549422688919559

Sam Russell · 17-11-2017 05:35PM

blanch152 wrote: »

As long as the DUP are supporting the government, the EU subvention will be paid.

So until the next General Election then.

Cannot see the next one being a repeat of this last one.

solodeogloria · 17-11-2017 05:48PM

Good afternoon!

blanch152 wrote: »

This is the key flaw in solo's logic. Look at this post

He just assumes that the UK can get better terms outside the EU. It just defies logic.

At the moment any EU country has more tariff-free trade arrangements than any other country in the world. The mechanism that somehow by leaving the EU (where they have the best trade terms in the world) that the UK will quickly have better trade terms just doesn't make sense.

Two questions.

(1) If it was so easy, then why don't Norway or Switzerland or Turkey have better trade arrangements now than the EU? Russia anyone?

Answer: They don't so it isn't

(2) If it is so easy, why doesn't everyone leave the EU, go their own way, and hey presto, greater prosperity?

Answer: Because there are huge trade and prosperity benefits in belonging to the EU which the UK is prepared to just throw away.

If you had read my post properly - then I think you'd be entitled to show holes in my logic.

If there is no free trade agreement with China and America in the EU, and if the UK can get one that improves on WTO most favourable nation terms then yes, the UK can get more favourable trading arrangements with both countries than the EU because the EU doesn't seem willing to negotiate with either country. TTIP failed because of European sensibilities. The same is true for other countries the EU doesn't have a free trade agreement with.

Switzerland has a better trading arrangement with China than other European countries.

This idea that the UK can't sign free trade agreements that liberalise trade outside of the EU is just wrong. It can and it will. There are plenty of countries with good free trade agreements with other countries. A lot of them are substantially smaller than the UK. Canada and Australia are great examples.

The only thing that defies logic is this strange idea that the UK won't be able to expand trade in the same way that other countries outside of the EU have.

Enzokk wrote: »

I would think that people in the UK, and the rest of Europe where health care is much more of a public service, would be scared of letting US companies that go for profit above anything else near the NHS. The US spends the most on healthcare than other OECD countries. Now you have to wonder why this is and if allowing companies that compete in such a system would be good for your own health system. I mean they only spend the most money on their healthcare while at the same time having less doctors than the average.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/health-costs-how-the-us-compares-with-other-countries Link in 2012

Do you still think it is a good idea to allow American companies near the NHS?

Also, you have waved away the fact that the UK trades closer to 50% of its trade with the EU instead of the reported figure of 44% if you ignore gold trades. Those only add value numbers to the UK GDP but if the UK only keeps the gold in the country until the sale to another bank/country and only receives a handling fee for the transaction instead of the total value that appears that the trade is worth. Once this is taken into account then trade with the EU is much more important for the UK and I understand why you want to ignore it. You are now changing the argument to potential size of population. Nice little change of argument there.

You're comparing apples with oranges. You're comparing being able to bid for contracts that already exist in the NHS to the American health system. They aren't the same.

Contracts should go to the best bidder. If bids come from America, and other countries including the EU, all should be able to go forward and all should be able to be considered on merit for the contract.

I find this American boogeyman stuff to be nonsense. Allowing access to a market isn't the same thing as always being accepted for contracts.

I'm not afraid of America, a very like minded country to the UK in many respects. I welcome a more open trade policy and more opportunity to do business. I see competition as a good thing. Protectionism is generally bad. There's no more reason to be distrustful of America than there is to be distrustful of the European Union.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

listermint · 17-11-2017 05:51PM

Protectionsim is bad.

Irony.

steddyeddy · 17-11-2017 06:33PM

Well as many posters predicted Ireland signals it will block trade talks unless a satisfactory border plan is guaranteed in writing. From the Guardian, Independent and Financial Times. This needs to happen. A hard border (or any border) would be extremely detrimental for the Irish economy. I think a sea border is the way to go. Unionists will be annoyed but in fairness they tend to be annoyed at everything Irish anyway so who cares.

Calina · 17-11-2017 06:49PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

If there is no free trade agreement with China and America in the EU, and if the UK can get one that improves on WTO most favourable nation terms then yes, the UK can get more favourable trading arrangements with both countries than the EU because the EU doesn't seem willing to negotiate with either country. TTIP failed because of European sensibilities. The same is true for other countries the EU doesn't have a free trade agreement with.

Okay, first up, there is one big condition there. IF the UK can get a trade deal that improves on WTO for them, then yes, the UK wins.

It is by no means certain that such a FTA will occur. One of the key reasons for this is the definition of a good free trade agreement will tend to be different for each side of the negotiating table. So the first thing you have to ask - and I am asking you solo because you are the person who is selling this idea - is what constitutes a good trade deal for the UK with either China or the US?

Ultimately, both China and the US - which are big countries - will be strongly negotiating in favour of their exporting industries, and this is why we've already spent ages talking about chlorine washed chicken for example - and they will not be interested in what is in the UK's best interest. The mere existence of any FTA cannot be considered a victory here. You have to set out what constitutes enough of an improvement in trade terms between the UK and China and the UK and the US such that walking out of the EU will be worth it.

Define that trade deal in detail because there is one big problem here: both China and the US have fairly diversified industry sectors and the UK does not have much to sell either of them. A trade deal that results in the UK importing more stuff will not directly result in more manufacturing or service jobs except maybe in retail. And you cannot build an economy on retail alone.

So, I don't want to hear "the EU doesn't have a deal" or "Britain will be free to". I want to hear what a good trade deal involves. What Britain will be selling and how its economy will be growing and I want to know why you think you're going to get it since it is conditional again on the kindness of strangers, ie, the US and China and quite frankly I wouldn't be betting a country's GDP on it.

Your mileage may vary.

Calina · 17-11-2017 06:55PM

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Meanwhile, one of the BBC's leading reporters doesn't seem to understand that our parties are broadly united on this issue:

https://mobile.twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/931549422688919559

I don't think she's alone and I think that's part of political culture. The nature of FPTP in the UK means they rarely return minority governments or have to negotiate coalitions. So they assume that minority governments or coalitions are intrinsically weak. You can see this with respect to comments around Germany at the moment which is negotiating a grand coalition.

What troubles me about Ireland in this respect is we speak English and so does most of our mass media. Normally, you know, it shouldn't be impossible for anyone with a modicum of English language skills to understand that just because Varadkar is head of a minority government, it does not directly imply he is in a very weak position. Arguably, he is more secure in his job than May is for the simple reason that his party isn't actually two extreme parties in and of itself. No one sane could call the Tory party united at the moment or even close to being a dependable party.

We've done the minority government before in this country, and to be honest, they tend to happen because parties make decisions in the interests either of the economic health of the country or the stability of government.

And to be frank, I doubt they'll find Micheal Martin to be any more malleable than Varadkar.

Enzokk · 17-11-2017 07:02PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

You're comparing apples with oranges. You're comparing being able to bid for contracts that already exist in the NHS to the American health system. They aren't the same.

Contracts should go to the best bidder. If bids come from America, and other countries including the EU, all should be able to go forward and all should be able to be considered on merit for the contract.

I find this American boogeyman stuff to be nonsense. Allowing access to a market isn't the same thing as always being accepted for contracts.

I'm not afraid of America, a very like minded country to the UK in many respects. I welcome a more open trade policy and more opportunity to do business. I see competition as a good thing. Protectionism is generally bad. There's no more reason to be distrustful of America than there is to be distrustful of the European Union.

You see no reason to fear the US health system? You really need to see what people are fighting about in the US when it comes to their healthcare system. When you have the prospect of losing your home because you cannot pay medical bills for a disease you have no control over, I think that is a system you need to run away from as fast as possible.

Now granted those companies that will bid for the contracts will only deliver a service, but they will be used to an business environment where the end goal is to make money. For me the service that will be provided will not be patient focused but it will be to make money. Peoples health should not be an opportunity to make money. Then again that's just me.

Calina · 17-11-2017 07:08PM

Brexit is not going to totally be the cross that the NHS dies on. Tory party policy is the issue here and would have been regardless of whether the UK voted in favour of Brexit or not.

flatty · 17-11-2017 07:26PM

Calina wrote: »

Brexit is not going to totally be the cross that the NHS dies on. Tory party policy is the issue here and would have been regardless of whether the UK voted in favour of Brexit or not.

Off topic, but competition isn't the cross the NHS will die on either. Trying to be all things to all men free at the point of delivery is the cross it will die on if it's not careful.

flatty · 17-11-2017 07:27PM

Calina wrote: »

Brexit is not going to totally be the cross that the NHS dies on. Tory party policy is the issue here and would have been regardless of whether the UK voted in favour of Brexit or not.

Off topic, but competition isn't the cross the NHS will die on either. Trying to be all things to all men free at the point of delivery is the cross it will die on if it's not careful.

Calina · 17-11-2017 07:31PM

flatty wrote: »

Off topic, but competition isn't the cross the NHS will die on either. Trying to be all things to all men free at the point of delivery is the cross it will die on if it's not careful.

I think mismanagement and frequent game play change as a political football are the issues which affect the NHS most to be honest. But that is a far wider discussion - the point is Brexit in and of itself will not destroy it and nor will preventing Brexit protect it.

The Rape of Lucretia · 17-11-2017 07:52PM

"EU should not put politics above prosperity" says Davis.

What the fuuuuuck !!!

Does this man even know what his mouth is saying ?

What is Brexit but the greatest case in human history of a country putting politics ahead of prosperity ?

You just couldnt make up such Brexsh it.

blanch152 · 17-11-2017 07:59PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well as many posters predicted Ireland signals it will block trade talks unless a satisfactory border plan is guaranteed in writing. From the Guardian, Independent and Financial Times. This needs to happen. A hard border (or any border) would be extremely detrimental for the Irish economy. I think a sea border is the way to go. Unionists will be annoyed but in fairness they tend to be annoyed at everything Irish anyway so who cares.

Why would Northern Ireland commit economic suicide by agreeing to a sea border?

steddyeddy · 17-11-2017 08:00PM

blanch152 wrote: »

Why would Northern Ireland commit economic suicide by agreeing to a sea border?

Why would they commit economic suicide by voting for Brexit? They didn't, but they had no choice in the matter. Anyway I fail to see how Northern Ireland staying in the single market is economic suicide. They could actually poach England's financial sector by doing so.

FrancieBrady · 17-11-2017 08:02PM

blanch152 wrote: »

Why would Northern Ireland commit economic suicide by agreeing to a sea border?

Northern ireland would still be in the EU. They would be saved from economic suicide.
No brainer.

FrancieBrady · 17-11-2017 08:07PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Why would they commit economic suicide by voting for Brexit? They didn't, but they had no choice in the matter. Anyway I fail to see how Northern Ireland staying in the single market is economic suicide. They could actually poach England's financial sector by doing so.

The U.K. are getting thoroughly boxed into a corner on the Ireland issue. I can see the DUP being made to swallow hard on this.
Arlene will probably blame Dublin and heave a silent sigh of relief that she dodged the blame for Brexit bullet.

blanch152 · 17-11-2017 08:09PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

If you had read my post properly - then I think you'd be entitled to show holes in my logic.

If there is no free trade agreement with China and America in the EU, and if the UK can get one that improves on WTO most favourable nation terms then yes, the UK can get more favourable trading arrangements with both countries than the EU because the EU doesn't seem willing to negotiate with either country. TTIP failed because of European sensibilities. The same is true for other countries the EU doesn't have a free trade agreement with.

Switzerland has a better trading arrangement with China than other European countries.

This idea that the UK can't sign free trade agreements that liberalise trade outside of the EU is just wrong. It can and it will. There are plenty of countries with good free trade agreements with other countries. A lot of them are substantially smaller than the UK. Canada and Australia are great examples.

The only thing that defies logic is this strange idea that the UK won't be able to expand trade in the same way that other countries outside of the EU have.

You know, I thought that the stupidest economic decision of all time was Bertie Ahern and Brian Lenihan guaranteeing the banks in 2008 - it made Ireland's economic collapse inevitable and tied the hands of the next two Governments.

However, the path that May is following (and you are advocating) almost makes that bank guarantee look sensible.

What you are saying is "IF" this and "IF" that, then prosperity. Look at the following sentence where I juxtapose your plan with mine.

You know if my lottery numbers come up [if the UK can get one that improves on WTO most favourable nation terms ]

then, I'll be posting on these threads from the Maldives I]then yes, the UK can get more favourable trading arrangements with both countries[/I.

The idea that I can't win the lottery is wrong I][I][I]This idea that the UK can't sign free trade agreements that liberalise trade outside of the EU is just wrong[/I][/I][/I.

I can and I will. I]It can and it will[/I

There are plenty of lottery winners out there not just in Ireland but in lots of countries [There are plenty of countries with good free trade agreements with other countries.]

See, it is very easy to write a post that says, whoops, with one leap our hero is free and home safe. A lot harder to actually do it.

P.S. Do you play cards? Like in poker for money?

blanch152 · 17-11-2017 08:11PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Northern ireland would still be in the EU. They would be saved from economic suicide.
No brainer.

How many times has it been explained to you that the Northern Ireland economy is dependent on exports to the rest of the UK and a hard Brexit with a sea border is just economic suicide? The figures have been shown to you time and again. Incredible that you are unable to see this.

FrancieBrady · 17-11-2017 08:17PM

blanch152 wrote: »

How many times has it been explained to you that the Northern Ireland economy is dependent on exports to the rest of the UK and a hard Brexit with a sea border is just economic suicide? The figures have been shown to you time and again. Incredible that you are unable to see this.

I haven't seen any data on what a sea border would cost.

Brexit discussion thread II

Comments