Brexit, The Economy and House Prices (Part 2)

gfplux

kabayiri wrote: »

The EUrocrats have probably long since realized that they actually need the UK to leave the EU construct.

The voices of those keen on further integration within the EU will only grow stronger now.

It's not a case of whether UK would remain in the UK; it's what kind of EU we would remain in.

We could have easily become a fringe player in the direction of the EU anyway.

Look how casually Dave Cameron was sent away with a flea in his ear, for what may turn out to be fairly modest reforms.

Britain being a reluctant member for over forty years PLUS a "better deal" (the rebates negotiated by Thatcher) then Cameron coming again for MORE......do you see where I am going.
I think you are right. The EU Wants Britain out March 2019.
Where the EU goes politically without Britain you can only watch from afar.
I don't imagine that the trade links between Britain will grow over time but that will be in the hands of British exporters.

gfplux

Here is an article from the Wort that discussed the process by which the European Medicins Agency EMA and the European Banking Agency EBA will relocate.

There is some "opinion" within the piece but the facts quoted are accurate as we speak.

https://www.wort.lu/en/business/this-week-eurovision-style-fight-for-uk-based-eu-agencies-begins-594a085fa5e74263e13c290c

A couple of quotes (trying not to be accused of taking them out of context)

1) The EMA, which has been based in London since 1995, employs nearly 900 people and accounted for nearly 30,000 nights of hotel stays by visitors in 2015, according to EU figures.
For its part the EBA, set up in 2011, employs 190 people and accounts for 9,000 hotel nights a year.
But while the competition for the agencies is tough, the EU is doing all it can to ensure it maintains a unified front in public as it heads into Brexit negotiations.
"There's a lot of posturing at the moment, but in the end it's about the unity of the 27" remaining EU nations, a senior EU official said.

2) (AFP) With a points-based voting system and fierce national pride at stake, it resembles nothing so much as the Eurovision Song Contest.
But the European Union will this week kick off a less glamorous but more lucrative battle -- for the right to host two London-based EU agencies after Britain leaves the bloc.
At a summit in Brussels this week, the leaders of the remaining 27 EU countries will endorse the process for choosing where the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and European Banking Authority (EBA) will move to.
A final vote by secret ballot is expected in October.

gfplux

Here is a link to issues over EU free movement and the accusation that Britain did NOT implement the rules.

Yes this horse has long bolted but does further illustrate the shaky ground upon which Brexit won the referendum.

http://www.europeanscom.eu/the-eu-immigration-was-always-under-control-the-european-directive-200438-was-never-implemented-in-the-uk/

Article 7

Right of residence for more than three months1. All Union citizens shall have the right of residence on the territory of another Member State fora period of longer than three months if they:(a) are workers or self-employed persons in the host Member State; or(b) have sufficient resources for themselves and their family members not to become a burden onthe social assistance system of the host Member State during their period of residence andhave comprehensive sickness insurance cover in the host Member State; or(c) – are enrolled at a private or public establishment, accredited or financed by the hostMember State on the basis of its legislation or administrative practice, for the principalpurpose of following a course of study, including vocational training; and– have comprehensive sickness insurance cover in the host Member State and assure therelevant national authority, by means of a declaration or by such equivalent means asthey may choose, that they have sufficient resources for themselves and their familymembers not to become a burden on the social assistance system of the host MemberState during their period of residence.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

ilovehouses wrote: »

The necessary apparatus is there as a result of EU membership. We're leaving the EU.

Are you really expecting the UK to maintain the current apparatus of EU trade whilst simultaneously leaving the single market?

Anything less than single market membership will be restrictive on EU/ UK trade. It's more practicality than belligerence.



If we decide restricting trade with our largest trading partner is the way forward they'll just have to suck it up like the people of Sunderland will.

Are you seriously expecting that the myriad regulations/apparatus currently adhered-to will suddenly just disappear?
Yes we are indeed leaving the EU - but in large part those things currently in use to aid free trade will no more suddenly cease to exist than the countries using them will, and to suggest otherwise is frankly ridiculous.

So given that we already trade with the EU and have the necessary requirements already in place, perhaps you would explain why trade cannot therefore continue?
It should be noted that many countries trade freely with the EU without being even part-members so long as EU standards are complied with. Merkel is suggesting expanding that, is she not?
So I would love to see one good reason why the UK then cannot (largely) continue to do so.
After all, did we not trade with what are now EU countries before we became members?

So no, our leaving the single market need not necessarily lead to increased restrictions for UK/EU trade; that is what Brexit negotiations will (we hope) decide.
If increased restrictions do indeed occur it will most certainly be the result of no more than EU belligerence or "punishment" if you will.

Oh and there is more than Sunderland in the UK trading with the EU, just as there is more of the EU trading with us than Italy.
For example, nothing would prevent the UK from importing north African fruit & veg as opposed to Spanish - will you ask Spaniards how they would like to see their economy lose such a major market too?

Herzlos

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

So given that we already trade with the EU and have the necessary requirements already in place, perhaps you would explain why trade cannot therefore continue?

Because all of the current requirements and frameworks already in place work on top of the single market and customs union that we're leaving. Or do you think that we'll get to leave the single market and customs union but still act as if we're in them as far as it suits us? Why would the EU let us do that?

Leaving the customs union, for instance, potentially means that all goods have to go through the ROW customs route, including the paperwork, charges and checks. That's a massive disruption even if nothing else changes.

Maybe we'll be able to get an equivalent, but if we're doing that why are we bothering to leave the single market / customs union in the first place?

System

Herzlos wrote: »

why are we bothering to leave the single market / customs union in the first place?

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/eu-referendum-muslims_uk_576e558ce4b08d2c563937ff

Conrad

ilovehouses wrote: »

So we can continue to export to the EU as long as we meet their standards which we no longer are involved in crafting?

Like the Japanese and Americans manage perfectly well, or like Jaguar do when selling into the US or China.


Germany sells huge amounts of kit to the 85% of the world not in the EU with no say on their rules.

Conrad

ilovehouses wrote: »

Spain isn't going to lose the UK business for supply for fruit and veg. It really isn't as binary as you keep saying.

What will the hundreds of thousands of Spaniards engaged in producing fruit n veg for the UK market make of far away Brussels elites seeking to impose barriers and tariffs on their sales which could compel UK firms to switch to produce from elsewhere such as Israel, S Africa and Morocco?


Same with the Danish meat industry or Dutch market gardening and cut flower sectors.


Remember we could introduce incentives as an independent state to support home production replacing some exports.

Any hampering of trade affects not only the UK but several core EU exporter nations. I've never known the EU wish to harm it's own trade. As long as we approach the negotiation in this spirit, a good free trade deal will be done. If the Remoaners have their way though and endlessly frame us as weak petitioners being 'handed down' scraps from a wise Brussels elite, then of course the EU may see an opportunity to exploit this fictious weakness and Remoaners will argue that Brexit was never going to work, so lets just forget it.

Herzlos

We've gone round in circles about those points for a year now. No-one is arguing trade can't continue, just that the extra hurdles we're insisting on will have an impact on it.

kabayiri

Herzlos wrote: »

Because all of the current requirements and frameworks already in place work on top of the single market and customs union that we're leaving. Or do you think that we'll get to leave the single market and customs union but still act as if we're in them as far as it suits us? Why would the EU let us do that?
...

Because the EU want money. Otherwise they will have to ask existing members to cough up even more, and some are in pretty poor financial health.

Because some EU members still want access to UK jobs.

Because some companies in the EU make rather a lot of money selling stuff into the UK. Korean car makers, for example, would quite happily offer replacements to German cars.

Some will call it fudge. Some will call it transitional arrangement. Some will call it pragmatism. It's just deal making.