blanch152 wrote: » I think that is wishful thinking to be honest. People rarely put ideology before profit. If it was the case, a neighbouring Catholic business which traded with both the UK and the South would quickly out-perform the Protestant business trading "on zealot-like ideological grounds".
blanch152 wrote: » I think that is wishful thinking to be honest. People rarely put ideology before profit
Econ_ wrote: » I know next to nothing about N-S trade but I wonder if there are many hard nosed Unionists that choose to trade with GB more based more ideology rather than convenience. Given that 44% of NI actually voted for Brexit, it's not hard to conceive that a lot of sub-optimal trade takes place on zealot-like ideological grounds.
Leroy42 wrote: » Wouldn't that put Ireland at risk as well? Without the additional 1.5 million in NI, the economics of dealing in Ireland become less favourable and might that not lead to increased prices for us as well?
EdgeCase wrote: » I've had these discussions. They won't continue with all island distribution - they'll integrate the NI market with Scotland. Some stores may also just shutter their operations in NI if the market is too small to service that way. It depends on how the costs work out. It's a tiny market and these are going to be business, not political decision. This changes a lot of economies of scale for some businesses. Donegal is also at risk of issues in that regard as it potentially becomes much more isolated
Sam Russell wrote: » The figures for NI trade both with GB and Ireland are not easy to determine as they are not reported in a way that is transparent. However, it is apparent that there is less trade S-N that the N-S trade. Why this is is difficult to determine, but it appears to be the case.
Peregrinus wrote: » It may be that the nature of NI's trade with GB is that it will be less affected by border-control-type non-tariff barriers resulting from a sea border than NI's trade with the Republic would be affected by the barriers resulting from a land border. In fact, I think this is probably correct. But, still, NI's trade with GB is much, much bigger than its trade with the Republic. If a land border would impose, say, an average of 10% additional costs on trade with the Republic while a sea border would impose only 3% additional costs on trade with GB, the latter would still be more damaging to Northern Ireland, at least in purely monetary terms, since the GB trade is about four times bigger than the RoI trade. Of course, it's not as simple as that. The RoI trade and the GB trade don't exist in separate self-contained bubbles and, whichever border is imposed, the ripples are going to spread through the NI economy and affect businesses that don't themselves trade across that border. You'd need some very careful modelling to work out which strategy is best to minimise the adverse economic impact of Brexit on NI.
Charles Babbage wrote: » The value of trade is not an accurate guide to the effect of paperwork on transactions. More important is: the nature of the products, their timeliness, the bulk of the order, the number of orders made for the same product, the number of orders from the same company, the price sensitivity of the products, the nature of government regulation of the products, the mode of transport used, the origin of the materials in the product, the variety in the products over time. Consequently, your repetition of the above is a mere distraction.
Nate--IRL-- wrote: » First Up wrote: » You think anyone in the EU will care? Not at all. The point was that the EU will remain as useful "baddie" for the UK establishment. Nate
First Up wrote: » You think anyone in the EU will care?
Nate--IRL-- wrote: » Strazdas wrote: » Yes, I think Brexit will go ahead as there are too many people on board the Brexit train for it not to. It should be interesting though to see what happens to British Euroscepticism in the coming years. They have completely defined themselves by their opposition to membership of the EU and all of a sudden they will be outside the union, with no more scapegoats to blame for their own failings. The EU will still get the blame. Nate
Strazdas wrote: » Yes, I think Brexit will go ahead as there are too many people on board the Brexit train for it not to. It should be interesting though to see what happens to British Euroscepticism in the coming years. They have completely defined themselves by their opposition to membership of the EU and all of a sudden they will be outside the union, with no more scapegoats to blame for their own failings.
Nate--IRL-- wrote: » The EU will still get the blame. Nate
EdgeCase wrote: » I have lived in England and I have had long discussions with perfectly sane, reasonable and sensible English people about Brexit and to be quite honest, I don't think there's any prospect of Brexit being halted. Even if it were, there would be a Brexit 2.0 and the instability would just continue for decades.
EdgeCase wrote: » Let's not kid ourselves, we're dealing with an ex who we divorced a long time ago and who always treated us as a possession, not a partner.
Sand wrote: » I'm not sure that image is even that positive. It's still a transactional relationship, encouraging the UK to see a positive relationship as being one where the UK exploits the rest of Europe. I think a positive message regarding the EU would have focused on the UK's connection to Europe. 'Europe is our home' or similar. I'm not a marketing guru, but defusing the nationalist aspect of Brexit involves accepting people want to return to the stability, which could be represented more by the UK as a European state. Even British nationalists define themselves by feeling superior to the French and the Germans. They couldn't give a damn about the Kenyans or the Nepalese. Even in their nationalistic tendencies, the British define themselves within Europe, not the world. A positive message focusing on the UK as a traditionally European country could have portrayed itself as a the return to the good old days that Brexit voters were misty eyed for. As it is, Brexit has increased the pressures on the UK to become a mere economic zone which is open to business for the entire world. That this rejection of globalism was so alien to Tories and Labour alike demonstrates how great the chasm between the British peoples and their political classes has become.
Capt'n Midnight wrote: » Better the devil you know. The bit that continues to amaze me is that those voters believe that Westminster would treat them better. It's like they've never heard of any of the workers rights that come from the EU, starting with the Working Time Directive.
blanch152 wrote: » This has been done to death on these threads, bit suffice to say that trade with the UK mainland is more important to Northern Ireland than trade with the rest of this island.
LeinsterDub wrote: » Why would a Irish Sea border be worse than a hard border? Do you in terms of economics? And of course if you give the Northern Irish a vote the Scots followed by the Welsh and London will want one too.
Capt'n Midnight wrote: » Just watching Patrick Kielty's program 25,000 troops in NI and the border was still porous. And that's about a third of the current army. The only reason they haven't dumped NI is that Scotland and it's oil and energy might follow suit.
blanch152 wrote: » A Northern Ireland vote on a deal would solve that, but the problem for nationalists is that an Irish Sea border would be worse for Northern Ireland than a hard border on this island.
flutered wrote: » as regards immigration, i have read elsewhere that there are now more more vacencys in the nhs that there are members of the armed forces
