The Trade Implications of Brexit....

wotsthat

CLAPTON wrote: »

so lets do some maths that you love so much

the pound-euro has falled from about 1.4 to 1.2 lets say by about 14%

and lets say 10% tariff are imposed on UK cars

so Uk cars and componenets will be about 4% CHEAPER in the EU than a year ago.

Given the huge popularity of protectionism amoungst remainers let's say the UK imposes 10% tariff on EU cars (I of course disapprove but the overall weight of foolish people will win the debate

So german cars will be have 10% tariffs plus 14% currency change so will be 28% DEARER here in the UK.
That of course won't matter to Germany because the EU is much bigger than the UK and the pain to Germany will be shared out : so Greece, Poland, Romania etc will all chip into the pot to help Bavaria out.

So it would seem there will be a huge surge in demand for UK cars
and the good people of sunderland will have a job for a few more years yet.

You need to get over only remainers vs leavers - it's time to move on. You know as well as I that there isn't a remainer/ brexiteer split when it comes to protectionism.

It's easy to see why from your example - if tariffs are introduced on EU imports you expect there to be a huge surge in demand for UK cars and full employment for the good people of Sunderland. Most people would ask where the downside was.

CLAPTON

wotsthat wrote: »

You need to get over only remainers vs leavers - it's time to move on. You know as well as I that there isn't a remainer/ brexiteer split when it comes to protectionism.

It's easy to see why from your example - if tariffs are introduced on EU imports you expect there to be a huge surge in demand for UK cars and full employment for the good people of Sunderland. Most people would ask where the downside was.

for some-one who has only just understand what the 'mutual benefits of trade' means, it is commendable that you now recognise what 'protectionism' means (well I'm not you do but it is looking promising.)

I gave an example to show that a 10% EU tariff would still result in a FALL in prices for UK products being sold in the EU due to the fall in value of the pound.

I think its time for you to invest in an economics book so you can read about the effects of currency changes.
You could reflect on the experiences of Japan from the 70s and more recently the Chinese.

CLAPTON

Herzlos wrote: »

It's going to get more important over time; if you reduce the number of working age adults (either in real terms or proportionately) then you increase the burden on them in order to maintain care for the eldery.

it may be that is 25 year we will have a shortage of workers (or not of course) : if we do then that would be a good time to import some people and not now.

The 2 are related. If you stretch the young too thin, the tax burden will be too high for them to afford family homes. Some will then leave and make it worse for the rest.

Infrastructure for population growth is going to be covered by the money generated from that population growth.

The problems you're talking about aren't caused by population, they are caused by poor planning and financial management by the government.

we already have about 9 million foreign born people here: where is the money for houses, schools, NHS, infrastrure ?

What increase in income tax rates would you support to pay for the requirements of immigration?

And don't give that nonsense about government waste etc

Tokyo has a much denser population than the UK @ 13.6 million in the city area, yet it has vast infrastructure that makes London look like it's still under Roman occupation.

Japan has very low level of immigration so an excellent example of what could have been achieved if we directed our efforts to the support of native born population rather than having to struggle with the burdens of high levels of immigration.

wotsthat

CLAPTON wrote: »

for some-one who has only just understand what the 'mutual benefits of trade' means, it is commendable that you now recognise what 'protectionism' means (well I'm not you do but it is looking promising.)

I gave an example to show that a 10% EU tariff would still result in a FALL in prices for UK products being sold in the EU due to the fall in value of the pound.

I think its time for you to invest in an economics book so you can read about the effects of currency changes.
You could reflect on the experiences of Japan after from the 70s and more recently the Chinese.

Most people don't care about the mutuality of free trade. However, your suggestion they must be imbeciles and need to invest in an economics book won't be a compelling argument for car workers, farmers, fishermen et al. Everyone's for cheap stuff until it comes to the stuff they sell.

You seem to be very lacking in social skills but this isn't uncommon in people like you who possess intellects to very right of the bell curve. Know all the answers but haven't a clue.

mwpt

CLAPTON wrote: »

What increase in income tax rates would you support to pay for the requirements of immigration?

There are two different arguments here that you use.

1. The direct cost of immigration in terms of services to support more people.
2. The indirect cost to humans through more crowded conditions.

I cannot argue with 2 as it is subjective, although personally I prefer to live in areas with more people currently as I enjoy the "vibe". Other people obviously feel differently and I will probably feel differently as I get older so I'll move out somewhere with fewer people.

But as for point 1, it has been repeated many times that the net contribution to our revenue from EU immigrants is positive. So, they pay for themselves. I accept that very high immigration puts short term strain on services but the message you try to convey here doesn't seem to be a short term reactionary thing.

So what's the deal? Do you just not accept the stats on this? Do you think the stats don't tell the entire picture? How do we argue this objectively rather than subjectively?

CLAPTON

mwpt wrote: »

There are two different arguments here that you use.

1. The direct cost of immigration in terms of services to support more people.
2. The indirect cost to humans through more crowded conditions.

I cannot argue with 2 as it is subjective, although personally I prefer to live in areas with more people currently as I enjoy the "vibe". Other people obviously feel differently and I will probably feel differently as I get older so I'll move out somewhere with fewer people.

I do not share your view that not being able to live a family sized house, where people in similar circumstance 20 years ago could do , is a 'subjective' thing.
Similarly having a long commute rather than living in London near one's workplace is NOT a subjective thing.
Again, I don't consider the difficulty of accessing the NHS as a subjective thing.
Again having to move away from where you were born and where your parents/family live isn't a 'subjective ' thing.

But as for point 1, it has been repeated many times that the net contribution to our revenue from EU immigrants is positive. So, they pay for themselves. I accept that very high immigration puts short term strain on services but the message you try to convey here doesn't seem to be a short term reactionary thing.

So what's the deal? Do you just not accept the stats on this? Do you think the stats don't tell the entire picture? How do we argue this objectively rather than subjectively?

There have been many studies of whether or not immigrants pay sufficient tax to meet their share of the costs.
There is no clear consensus and the figures at best show a small positive and worse a small negative.
However NONE of the studies include the neccessary costs of the infractrucure that would be required to maintain standards.
Let me say it again NONE of the studies include the costs of building the necessary infrastrure.

Are you really serious when you say that the housing shortage transport issues, access to NHS etc are 'short term' issues : when do you estimate they will be resolved satisfactorially?
We haven't even caught up with the shortfall caused by historic immigration let alone started to work on the last few years worth.

of course there are the other economic but non-tax issues like wage restrainst, lack of incentives to invest in productivity due to unlimited supply of cheap labour, increase in essential imports.

Immigration, in general provides no benefits that balance the costs and drawbacks even on narrow financial terms.

yessuz

funny thing with the leavers.

They have spent all their life (or at least - whole life as the professional/trade/employee/you name it) in the single market and customs unity. so basically, picked all the fruits and now wants to leave a field, as apparently, it is not that interesting, apparently.

EU reps already spoken. If you want access to single market (and you want one, being a net importer), you have to grant a free movement.

Toyota management in Derby already assess the production transfer to continent. awesome!

Swiss, Norway etc., for example, still comply to 99% of EU directives, contribute to EU budget - BUT do not get anything back. Well, Britain will not get anything back after leaving either.

Funny moments were those:
- S!!!!horpe and other places which are the dependant on the EU financing, voted to leave.
- Farmers, who basically live and survive on EU money, had massive signs "Vote Leave";
- a lot of businesses (namely all farming, NHS!, Factories) dependant on the cheaper labour from EU (as otherwise they wouldn't be that competitive, or would lack the human resources (NHS)), and people working there, still vote leave.
- Business who have a significant chunk of their income from the trades within EU, still vote leave.

If it not a stupidity, then it is just a plain delusion.

Kohoutek

CLAPTON wrote: »

for some-one who has only just understand what the 'mutual benefits of trade' means, it is commendable that you now recognise what 'protectionism' means (well I'm not you do but it is looking promising.)

I gave an example to show that a 10% EU tariff would still result in a FALL in prices for UK products being sold in the EU due to the fall in value of the pound.

I think its time for you to invest in an economics book so you can read about the effects of currency changes.
You could reflect on the experiences of Japan from the 70s and more recently the Chinese.

It's not just about tariffs, as others have pointed out, it's about regulatory equivalence (especially given the importance of services to the UK economy). However presumably maintaining equivalence with EU regulations would be an affront to Brexiteers' wish for greater 'sovereignty'.

Do you have a view on that, other than 'we can just trade with other countries'?

Herzlos

CLAPTON wrote: »

it may be that is 25 year we will have a shortage of workers (or not of course) : if we do then that would be a good time to import some people and not now.

We need them now. They run and pay for our infrastructure.

we already have about 9 million foreign born people here: where is the money for houses, schools, NHS, infrastrure ?

Mostly in the pockets of our political leaders and their country club buddies.
Plus, where do you get 9 million from? Only figure I've found is 7.9 million URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign-born_population_of_the_United_Kingdom"]citation[/URL. I really think you're exaggerating the problem.

What increase in income tax rates would you support to pay for the requirements of immigration?

Since immigration is a net poitive for the coffers, how much of an increase would you pay to avoid immigration?

And don't give that nonsense about government waste etc

Why not? Its a real issue unlike immigation.

Japan has very low level of immigration so an excellent example of what could have been achieved if we directed our efforts to the support of native born population rather than having to struggle with the burdens of high levels of immigration.

Why does it matter if they are native born or not, if your concern is about strain on infrastructure? Or is it really about immigrants?

yessuz

evenasus wrote: »

I don't know about CLAPTON.

Immigrant families like this are costing the UK hundreds of thousands of pounds.

• Unemployed couple with eight children refused five-bed council house
• Arnold Mballe Sube and his wife Jeanne now claim they are 'neglected'
• Claim they need property with at least six double rooms to be comfortable
• They currently live in a three-bedroom, end-of-terrace home in Luton
• Family received annual hand-outs worth £44k since they arrived in the UK
• Put up in hotel for £38k with £21k room service which they refused to pay

But Mr Artur is not from EU. And even being in EU, UK has all the measures to limit and decline request of immigration of the non-eu citizen.
so the article above is irrelevant.

However, I could you show a chart, like this:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/ampp3d/britons-43-more-likely-claim-4669678