Brexit, The Economy and House Prices (Part 2)

Herzlos

CKhalvashi wrote: »

They campaigned to get the EU border tightened and when it does happen the EU are to blame for tightening the border.....

They wanted the border tightened on the way *in* to keep those pesky foreigners out. I'm not sure it occurred to them that borders work in both directions.

kabayiri

phillw wrote: »

...
Which sounds a lot like soft brexit. If you're happy with a ukrainian style agreement, then all the remainers would support that. We wouldn't even need the ten year process to introduce free movement etc as we're already doing it.
...

It's not so much whether I am happy with it, or not. My viewpoint is immaterial, in the scheme of things.

Maybe it's a hope that there is a pragmatic layer underneath the rather dogmatic exterior the EU likes to present.

I think they were rather too rigid when they dealt with Cameron before the Brexit referendum. They could have changed the course of the vote outcome.

kabayiri

phillw wrote: »

...
Some would say that is the ultimate aim. If that can work then it would be truly marvelous, of course the flag waving xenophobes would be unhappy.
...

Aren't you just waving a different flag? Just in this case, a blue one.

After all, we seem comfortable with the Scottish flag and the Union that is the United Kingdom.

Thrugelmir

phillw wrote: »

It is way more beneficial to us than it is to them. The EU can no longer give into our temper tantrums without damaging the EU, which must survive if we're to keep peace and prosperity in Europe that we've enjoyed the last few decades.

I've seen no temper tantrums on the UK side. Just good old fashioned open debate. More than can be said for the EU collectively. Who are making it up as they go along. Eire being the latest example of throwing a spanner into the EU's position. They'll be more to follow.

kabayiri

Thrugelmir wrote: »

I've seen no temper tantrums on the UK side. Just good old fashioned open debate. More than can be said for the EU collectively. Who are making it up as they go along. Eire being the latest example of throwing a spanner into the EU's position. They'll be more to follow.

I think it's how you deal with adversity on your own side, and come out the other end, which is significant. We have pretty much washed our laundry in public.

Eire is a tricky one. Is it possible to sacrifice the interests of one state, for the sake of the collective?

The economic wars between the UK and Eire in the '30s, well they didn't turn out so good.

Thrugelmir

kabayiri wrote: »

We have pretty much washed our laundry in public.

Why not. There's nothing to hide by simply exploring the options. Thereby allowing any party to express a view. Over time a consensus will be formed. No one can say that they weren't kept informed.

TrickyTree83

phillw wrote: »

I haven't asked everyone, but all the people I asked said it was a reason they voted to leave. I'm sure there were plenty of xenophobics, facists, racists etc that didn't need that lie put on the side of the bus though. The leave side thought it was important enough to risk telling the lie though.

Basically the answer is no you can't, which was what I was getting at.

phillw wrote: »

To have a trade deal no, to have a free trade agreement we do.

A FTA requires customs between the internal members of the FTA, no different to a preferential trade deal with zero tariffs, they're synonyms for the same thing. Since within an FTA area you need to be able to check that the products being exported by the member originate from the member, otherwise they become a conduit for products from outside the FTA, this is known as the rules of origin. The customs union dispenses with the internal customs controls but maintains control by rigidly applying the external tariffs and non-tariff customs controls across the entire union.

phillw wrote: »

No quotas, no restrictions, no tariffs. The EU will not give us that deal without free movement, paying our way, adhering to european courts etc. They have to enforce that, or free trade cannot work. Our government would refuse visas for employees of any company to stop them coming here and competing, they would do the same. Without a free trade agreement we have limits to what we can trade with them, the levels and they will make the imports less attractive by slapping an import tariff on us. If we're outside the customs union, but have a free trade agreement. Then everything would be imported to us, then exported to the EU. Which would make the customs union pointless. So they can't do it it, no magical thinking will change this.

It's not about punishment, although the way the UK is behaving certainly deserves it, it's about practicality. When you have a cancer that affects the body, you cut it out. We're the cancer.

Well blow me, if prior to any negotiations being concluded you already know this answer too, i.e. they won't agree to any deal, why on earth are you not in contact with David Davis and his team explaining what the EU will and will not do to them? I would think that would save the EU and the UK a great deal of time and expense to have you speak to them.

I think you fundamentally misunderstand what an FTA is, specifically around the rules of origin. Sorry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-trade_area

I guess I'm not your average leave voting troglodyte/xenophobe/racist/knuckle dragger. I do hate to disappoint.

buglawton

kabayiri wrote: »

The EU have an arrangement with the Ukraine....but this does not include FOM.

This actually suits the EU.

The four pillars are maybe three pillars and a tent pole.

If we had an EU quota of say 150K per annum rather than FOM, it would be similar numbers to now, except it would technically be a quota. To the individual worker they wouldn't care.

And yet lots of Ukrainans work in Poland doing jobs the local city slickers don't want to do, or are filling skills shortages there (probably caused by skilled Poles going abroad to earn more). On a visa arrangement...

BobQ

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Perhaps the short term pain will result in longer term well being though.

This is a valid point I agree. The problem is that nobody knows the future, the level of short term pain or longer term gain.

BobQ

Private_Church wrote: »

Flip side is there are plenty of people like me who will take any Brexit downturn on the chin and accept a reduction in my income/wages/lifestyle with the hope that my children and their children will have a better future.

Yes there are also people who will suffer 50 years of "downturn" to deliver a Brexit. Of course by then they will probably be dead and half the nation will have to live with the consequences.

I have always found the argument that our children will benefit in the long term fatuous as we will never know if the future consequences are because of Brexit or would have happened anyway.

Our economy has needed rebalancing for decades and we have relied on the financial sector far too much and Brexit is the spur to do just that.

I agree that re-balancing is needed but that was necessary with or without Brexit. The real problem in the future is stopping people living off debt and dealing with our low wage, low productivity economy. Brexit may just make that more difficult to solve.

You post about older people being selfish and there is no doubt many are but isn't that human nature?. To want the best for oneself which almost always is to the detriment of someone else and I don't think that is age specific and plenty of posters on here are HPI junkies ,wanting that ever increasing profit margin from buying/selling/renting out property.Is it not selfish to own more than one property ,we can't be in 2 places at once afterall..........:)

I agree we all act in our best interests to some extent but I remember a time when selfishness was not as rife as it is today. I cannot recall a time when a majority of a generation voted to do something which another mostly did not want. on a major issue like this.