The Trade Implications of Brexit....

BobQ

CLAPTON wrote: »

other than yourself, there is not one person in the entire world that thinks the UK treats the people of the Black African countries the same as those of the White European Countries in terms of

-trade
-immigration rules
-visa requires
-etc

Is it unusual that we trade more with developed nations than under-developed nations?

The UK made FDI in Africa of £42bn in 2014 and imported aound £20bn of goods and services from it. What is your real point other than claiming to speak for the whole planet (evidence?)?

There are more than a million African born people living in the UK.

You seem to want to reduce immigration how does that help Africa ?

Visa requirements are based on perceived risk not the colour of your skin. What will happen after Brexit? Will this change? I doubt it.

Etc is a difficult concept to comment on.

So what have you got against immigration? Or do you just favour excluding everyone on an equal basis.

What is your solution to the ageing demographic in the UK (or for that matter Germany, Netherlands, Italy , Spain......)

CLAPTON

BobQ wrote: »

Is it unusual that we trade more with developed nations than under-developed nations?

the issue is the discrimination in tariffs and non tariff barrier between the way we treat the white christian countries of the EU and black africa (for example).

There are more than a million African born people living in the UK.

You seem to want to reduce immigration how does that help Africa

discrimination is about the DIFFERENT way you treat people and we clearly and obviously discriminate between immigration from the EU and africa.

Visa requirements are based on perceived risk not the colour of your skin. What will happen after Brexit? Will this change? I doubt it.

there are NO visa requirements from the EU

So what have you got against immigration? Or do you just favour excluding everyone on an equal basis.

that would indeed be non-discriminatory

What is your solution to the ageing demographic in the UK (or for that matter Germany, Netherlands, Italy , Spain......)

we don't currently have a shortage of labour, other than that caused by immigration itself : if in the future we neend more people then that will be the time to import as required.

The current level of immigration reduces the standard of living of the people of the UK

If the countries you list really have a shortage of labour how do you explain the high level of unemployment there and there high level of emigration

lisyloo

LHW99 wrote: »

However these workers have families who use the infrastructure and many will become permanent residents and will need looking after in their old age. So the number of elderly will increase and we will need more workers to support them, and they will get old and increase the number of elderly and ......

There are enough humans in this world, and this is the elephant in the room that is even less easy to get agreement over than climate change.

AU contraire, many that come are single, savvy, skilled, young and healthy, so as a group you have less sickness, elderly, children etc. Than the native population.
Obviously over time they will reproduce and therefore there needs to be some planning.

I agree about the elephant, but we can't euthanise or sterilise so it's a difficult issue. Educating women is a solution but not a quick fix.

BobQ

Not so simple......

It is more likely that a post-Brexit Britain will be out of the customs union and not a full member of the single market. Dr Fox would then have his work cut out. His first task would be to negotiate a free-trade agreement (FTA) with the EU. Admittedly, nobody wants tariffs on goods. But the bigger concern is non-tariff barriers such as regulations, especially for services, which make up 80% of the British economy. Outside the customs union Britain would also face customs checks for rules of origin, which could add between 4% and 15% to the costs of exports.

http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21707251-britain-will-not-find-it-easy-strike-comprehensive-trade-deals-quickly-not-so-simple

Conrad

BobQ wrote: »

Not so simple......






http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21707251-britain-will-not-find-it-easy-strike-comprehensive-trade-deals-quickly-not-so-simple

Once again assuming we hold no aces, nothing the EU needs, ignoring our considerable voluntary military enterprise, fishing waters, profitable market and far more.

Every time you guys assume we are in a position of impotence, and so your whole view is clouded.

All will be well

Conrad

lisyloo wrote: »

AU contraire, many that come are single, savvy, skilled, young and healthy, so as a group you have less sickness, elderly, children etc. Than the native population.
Obviously over time they will reproduce and therefore there needs to be some planning.

I agree about the elephant, but we can't euthanise or sterilise so it's a difficult issue. Educating women is a solution but not a quick fix.

So naive it hurts, lol

mwpt

CLAPTON wrote: »

The current level of immigration reduces the standard of living of the people of the UK

I don't think this is as black and white as you want it to be, and so I don't think it is true as a blanket statement.

Even so, you seem to want to protect the people of the UK from immigration but are happy enough for offshoring and trade to replace industries which would also "reduce the standard of living of the people of the UK".

Eric_the_half_a_bee

mwpt wrote: »

but are happy enough for offshoring and trade to replace industries which would also "reduce the standard of living of the people of the UK".

The "offshoring and trade" of the last 1,000 years is the reason that the UK has a standard of living well above the global average in the first place.

CLAPTON

mwpt wrote: »

I don't think this is as black and white as you want it to be, and so I don't think it is true as a blanket statement.

Even so, you seem to want to protect the people of the UK from immigration but are happy enough for offshoring and trade to replace industries which would also "reduce the standard of living of the people of the UK".

I believe that there are economic textbook reasons (Ricardo) and pragmatic reasons for believing that, in general, trade makes both parties better off.
Hence I support trade in general.
There is nothing in either the theory or the practice that I can see that supports your view that whilst trading with a group of white, christian europes is 'good' but trading with others e.g. black african is somehow 'bad' and makes us worse off.
Perhaps you could expand your logic.

Immigration has both economic consequences and socio-political consequences that are quite different from trade. Undoubtedly a flood of cheap labour reduces its price. Clearly a flood of labour makes housing more expensive, causes higher resources demand on public services and higher imports etc.

BobQ

Conrad wrote: »

Once again assuming we hold no aces, nothing the EU needs, ignoring our considerable voluntary military enterprise, fishing waters, profitable market and far more.

Every time you guys assume we are in a position of impotence, and so your whole view is clouded.

All will be well

Playing the man and not the ball helps nobody, the article presets arguments, you dismiss them. You think things are that simple?