If we vote for Brexit what happens

Arklight

spikyone wrote: »

Agree that Arklight has missed the point, and what they are saying is also rather odd. British widget manufacturers will be selling to a great number of countries around the world where they have no say in how the local standard is set. Complying with EU standards when we're outside the EU is no different to our current compliance when selling goods to the US, China, Japan, Australia, or any other non-EU country. We're able to meet their standards perfectly well without any ability to define them ourselves.

To me this has been the most frustrating aspect of Remain supporters' arguments - they frequently seem incapable of imagining that there is a functioning world outside the EU's introspective, protectionist bubble and that in some cases there might even be a better way.

We're not saying we can't adapt, we're saying its a shame that we are going from having a comparatively large say in how Europe is run for our companies, down to having no say at all.

You brexiteers want to resolve everything down to a zero sum game where we are either fine or headed for complete annihilation, and anything inbetween is "remoaning".

Frustrating because from my side of the fence its you lot that are missing the point.

Herzlos

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

One that immediately springs to mind is bottled water producers would no longer have to check that their marketing material complied with the EU regulation that prevents them claiming water helps with dehydration. Clearly it's a job or part of a job for some people to check that they comply with something this daft.

Yeah that seems daft, though it's presumably valid and would still come under the trade descriptions act or similar. Scrapping it would presumably save the bottled water producers maybe half an hour per marketing material design?

Say, 30 or 40 years ago transportation and refrigeration costs were so much higher than they are now. When so many things we purchase are 'Made in China' why is there this argument that it is cost inefficient in the modern age to transport products?

Fuel isn't free. Newtons laws indicate that anything that's moved will need to consume energy to do so. It should always be cheaper to move stuff less distance.

Sure, you can get stuff cheaply from China (I've done it), but it takes so much longer than getting the same stuff nearly as cheaply from, say, Poland. I can order car parts from Germany, now, and have them at a garage of my choosing for Monday morning. If I order the same parts from China, I can get them by May. When you're running a business, that's potentially significant in terms of opportunity cost, throughput, storage and cash flow. The entire Kanban production methodology and just-in-time stock systems rely on fast ordering throughput (or exceptional planning).

davomcdave

setmefree2 wrote: »

There does seem to be some debate about this - there was a case going through the Irish courts but I haven't read anything about it for months so I'm not sure where that's at.

I read an interview with the bloke that drafted A50 and he reckoned it could be reversed. Having said that I've read interviews with EU-specialist constitutional lawyers that reckon it can't. I reckon it's a definite maybe. Probably.

TBH I suspect the problems reversing A50 would be more likely to be political than constitutional.

Imagine a situation that is implausible but not impossible. A scandal breaks that Tory MPs are pushing lucrative Brexit consultancy work to friends that are then kicking back a portion of the fee. 25 MPs are forced to resign their seats pending investigation. Before the by-elections can be held Labour and the SNP call a vote of No Confidence in HMG which passes narrowly. Labour, the SNP and the Lib Dems stand on a platform of rejoining the EU at the earliest opportunity and win a majority between them (I guess we have to imagine that Corbyn has choked on a quorn sausage or something for this to have any credibility at all).

In this situation with the new Government having been elected with a clear majority of seats and a narrow majority of votes PM Benn goes to Brussels and asks to take back A50 notice. What happens next?

I don't know the answer but I don't think there's anyone that can be sure that under these circumstances the EU would refuse to let the UK remain in the EU.

I don't think this is remotely likely to happen but anything is possible and the British Constitution is very clear that no Government can bind the hands of future Governments.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

Arklight wrote: »

We're not saying we can't adapt, we're saying its a shame that we are going from having a comparatively large say in how Europe is run for our companies, down to having no say at all.

You brexiteers want to resolve everything down to a zero sum game where we are either fine or headed for complete annihilation, and anything inbetween is "remoaning".

Frustrating because from my side of the fence its you lot that are missing the point.

"You brexiteers"?
"You lot"?
Ah, there's the root of your problem.
You tar everybody who disagrees with you with the same (broad) brush.

Personally and as I have said many, may times before, I fully accept that not all of Brexit is going to be plain sailing.
That there will undoubtedly be problems.
I doubt there are many, either pro-Brexit or pro-remain, who realistically think otherwise.

The difficulty that others like myself have with a view such as you suggest is the blinkered, unaccepting stance that any possibility other than negative is possible.
Even the language and tone of the quoted post clearly show that to be evident with the use of such words as "shame"; "annihilation" and the derogatory terminology "brexiteer".

Yet strangely not long ago you asked me if I was angry?
Well, your posts show clearly who is angry.
*Hint*
Not me.

davomcdave

The EU is 7% of the population of the world and almost 24% of its GDP.

The population isn't huge but it is rich. Even poor old Portugal, the forgotten member of the PIIGS, has a GDP per capita that is almost double that of super, soaraway China. Even Poland has a GDP per capita (in PPP $) that is greater than China's.

Only Bulgaria and Romania have a lower GDP per capita than China and Romania's isn't lower by very much

kabayiri

Herzlos wrote: »

...
Fuel isn't free. Newtons laws indicate that anything that's moved will need to consume energy to do so. It should always be cheaper to move stuff less distance.
...
.

This isn't true though.

The most efficient machine in the world is the super marine diesel plant. It is astonishingly efficient.

Re: costs I read once that the shipping costs from Beijing to Newcastle by sea were the same as the rail freight costs from Newcastle to Manchester.

Arguably, the humble shipping container has revolutionised the trading world more than any number of EU committees.

...I'm not blaming Newton for this, however

spikyone

davomcdave wrote: »

The EU is 7% of the population of the world and almost 24% of its GDP.

The population isn't huge but it is rich. Even poor old Portugal, the forgotten member of the PIIGS, has a GDP per capita that is almost double that of super, soaraway China. Even Poland has a GDP per capita (in PPP $) that is greater than China's.

Only Bulgaria and Romania have a lower GDP per capita than China and Romania's isn't lower by very much

Of course, all of that means that the growth potential in the EU is also lower. All of the world's fastest-growing economies - those with the most potential to support our export market in future - are outside Europe. Our exports to non-EU countries have been consistently growing in recent years, despite our inability to trade on our own negotiated terms with those countries, and the potential for inconsequential regions of Belgium to torpedo deals. Just imagine how much greater our share of exports to non-EU countries could be if we were free to make our own trade deals rather than the ones that suit France and Germany. Not to mention being able to enter growth markets whilst they are still growing.

As for China, it may have a lower GDP per capita than most of the EU, but it also has a larger population than Europe all on its own. If you expect it not to overtake half of the EU in GDP per capita within the next decade or two, I expect you'll find yourself mistaken. Ask yourself, for the UK's future economic prosperity, would you rather be trading with Portugal or China?

TrickyTree83

Herzlos wrote: »

Yeah that seems daft, though it's presumably valid and would still come under the trade descriptions act or similar. Scrapping it would presumably save the bottled water producers maybe half an hour per marketing material design?

It's one example granted, there will be many more. Cumulatively they are time savings which translate into efficiency savings which translates into financial savings.

Herzlos wrote: »

Fuel isn't free. Newtons laws indicate that anything that's moved will need to consume energy to do so. It should always be cheaper to move stuff less distance.

Sure, you can get stuff cheaply from China (I've done it), but it takes so much longer than getting the same stuff nearly as cheaply from, say, Poland. I can order car parts from Germany, now, and have them at a garage of my choosing for Monday morning. If I order the same parts from China, I can get them by May. When you're running a business, that's potentially significant in terms of opportunity cost, throughput, storage and cash flow. The entire Kanban production methodology and just-in-time stock systems rely on fast ordering throughput (or exceptional planning).

I work for a firm that specialises in supply chain management.

We monitor our stock levels based on historic demand, forward orders, etc... and manage it that way. We then provide the stock to our clients, to them it appears as 'just-in-time' stock. They don't hold it in their inventory, they don't pay for their own warehousing or supply chain logistics. We do it all, and they pay us for the service.

So if you wanted a part that was from Germany there just needs to be a supply chain management firm in the UK who is holding that part on their behalf ready for you to purchase. Centralised 3rd party warehousing. We're also coming up with some new innovations to how conventional warehousing is seen, along the lines of every location on the planet being a shelf of a warehouse. If someone somewhere has a part, perhaps even if they're a competitor, that part is available for purchase and use. Think of it as Amazon or eBay for supply chain logistics. The key is knowing where the part is and being able to get it from A to B. As a consumer you couldn't care less where it came from, Germany or Rochdale, so long as it's the part you want, when you want it.

The logistics problems are not insurmountable. But what I'm saying is if you want to buy from Germany and pay more to get it quicker - you can. Nothing will stop you. I agree that it will usually be cheaper to move items over shorter distances, but that's the cost of the logistics not the cost of the products themselves.

Cost of product + cost of logistics = total cost of purchase in most cases. So if the total cost of purchase form outside the EU is less than that from within the EU, you just need to manage the stock control in order to gain a competitive edge on firms within the EU.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

davomcdave wrote: »

The EU is 7% of the population of the world and almost 24% of its GDP.

The population isn't huge but it is rich. Even poor old Portugal, the forgotten member of the PIIGS, has a GDP per capita that is almost double that of super, soaraway China. Even Poland has a GDP per capita (in PPP $) that is greater than China's.

Only Bulgaria and Romania have a lower GDP per capita than China and Romania's isn't lower by very much

All that may indeed be quite correct.
What you're not taking into account though is growth.
Because while the EU has been growing by under 2% per annum over the past ten years China has been growing at over three times that rate.

Even though the rate of growth slowed in China last year to 6.7%, it's huge population means that more and more Chinese are rising out of poverty and indeed the middle classes are "exploding".
http://uk.businessinsider.com/chinas-middle-class-is-exploding-2016-8?r=US&IR=T

According to a study by consulting firm McKinsey & Company, 76 percent of China’s urban population will be considered middle class by 2022. That’s defined as urban households that earn US$9,000 – US$34,000 a year. (That might not sound like a lot, but adjusted for prices, it delivers a roughly comparable “middle class” existence to other countries.) In 2000, just 4 percent of the urban population was considered middle class.

Here in the UK we see a resulting rise in Chinese tourism and shopping.
Now no, I am not suggesting that Chinese GDP per capita will equal that of the EU any time soon - but it is only time before this happens.
While we wait, more and more Chinese become more and more wealthy and so able to buy (and indeed expect to buy) more and luxuries.

Which then is the fastest-growing potential marketplace into which goods could be sold?
The EU, or China?

mayonnaise

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

"You brexiteers"?
"You lot"?
Ah, there's the root of your problem.
You tar everybody who disagrees with you with the same (broad) brush.

I think you need to have a word with Conrad.

Conrad wrote: »

You lot let recent forecasts do a lot of heavy lifting in your argument

Conrad wrote: »

Typical Remoaner

Conrad wrote: »

Talking of lies, it is your side that deliberately set out to terrify Europeans already here knowing full well it is not the British way to throw law abiding citizens out.


Your side all morning long in the media today has been spreading myths, lies and fear, it just never stops.