Brexit, The Economy and House Prices (Part 2)

gfplux

Herzlos wrote: »

Estimate. I'll try and bash together some better numbers later. How much do you think the EU has spent on Brexit? The extra summits, reviews, studies, flights, hotel stays, admin, printing? They've presumably had people working on this stuff for over a year now.

Herzlos,
You should also calculate if you wanted the money spent by Britain on Brexit during the last 12 months. The cost of the election should be added in as May would not have been PM if remain had won.

However I believe (as I have said so often) the lost opportunity cost is incalculable. Many clever people in Britain and the EU have spent the last 12 months looking at Brexit and but for Brexit would have been doing other beneficial things.

gfplux

BobQ wrote: »

In what way was his comment untrue?

"Negative to the well being of the UK" means what? You disagree, its does not glorify the nation, its treason?

My view (if I am allowed to express it) is that gpflux is asking valid questions which others chose not to answer or trivialise. Maybe he is coming across as a critic, but as we approach the cliff edge of leaving the Government needs to address them. Maybe they are doing so and all is wonderful behind the closed doors, but the questions are relevant.

Since the public decided to leave, we have seen more EU trade deals that we will not benefit from, continuing uncertainty on the status of EU and UK nationals, an unnecessary and an amazingly inconclusive election and the pound falling raising interest rates. I can understand that an enthusiastic Brexit supporter can look on these as unimportant, but for the rest however you voted it is a worrying situation.

Thank you BobQ,
It has often been my experience that you will find Citizens who do not reside in their native country to be VERY patriotic.

always_sunny

cogito wrote: »

What you seem to be suggesting is that WTO tariffs are higher than EU tariffs. Some are, many aren't so many duties will actually reduce. To use your own argument, you are saying that there is less trade because of EU tariffs.

What many people fail to understand is that the EU is a wholly protectionist organisation. Free trade in EU terms is nothing of the sort. Every deal thay have concluded has schedules of tariffs applicable to a host of products. Free trade can only be free if there are no tariffs.

Incidentally, it is not the importer who pays the duty. The end user does.

Who do you think it's the end user? The EU member state?
It's easy to say the folks in the UK will switch but different story to actually do it.

The EU and pretty much every other bloc is a wholly protectionist organisation.
What do you think the USA is looking to do? What did Trump announced to car manufactures outside the USA? This is the same country wanting to do a FTA with the UK.

What you fail to understand is that the UK is leaving the bloc, but the bloc will continue to exist. The UK is reliant on imports (see trade deficit) and a big chunk of the population isn't overly ready to give up those commodities despite higher costs and lower currency.

Post Brexit with no deal it'll take lots of efforts for everyone to switch to KIAs instead of VWs so the importer will just bear the increased costs.

Conrad

12 months of booming FTSE 250 and FTSE100, not a peep from Remoaners.


Watch how they cite any falls as evidence of Brexit harm.


You just can't reason with this

gfplux

ilovehouses wrote: »

When you try and import a product into the EU it must meet EU product standards - yes some standards might be similar to ISO (there is some co-operation) but don't kid yourself it's a non-issue.

It's an onerous job for a third country supplier to prove their product meets EU standards. It's not just the product standard either - the EU also specify how it's made, the specification of the raw material and where in the factory it's produced. It's not free of charge.

Some think it's a doddle to find food elsewhere (we just reduce tariffs) but it's not the case. What food standards are going to be applied? Fancy relaxing the rules on antibiotics in chicken or hormones in beef - that'll help us get cheap beef from the US. Are we going to expand permitted GM species - that'll reduce the price of corn & soy. Not worried about factory hygiene standards - good news because there's a load of African and Chinese factories that can't wait to supply.

I believe you are correct about EU standards.
However let's be clear. When and if Britain leaves the EU in March 2019 all British products at that time will meet EU standard and it should? be a simple matter! perhaps even covered in the Brexit negotiations? that certification is agreed.
However from post Brexit day 1 there will be meetings in the EU to discuss modifications to standards (this is normal business) but without a representative from Britain at the table.
OK expensive lobbyists from British Company's will be doing their best. But it's not the same as having a representative AT THE TABLE.

gfplux

Sapphire wrote: »

Do you suppose for one minute that had the idea of a 'United States of Europe' been broached, many British people would have voted for that? I for one, felt reassured that no such thing was going to happen, that there would be no EU army, and so on. Yet despite that, I still voted Leave, because of the way we were being dictated to by an undemocratic, distant body composed of foreign powers. It made me feel deeply uneasy.

The very idea of yet another empire, and run by Germany, scares the hell out of me. It's something that will never work in the long run – the countries of Europe are too different in character to agree to it. Economic links, yes, but not political ones involving countries being dictated to without their citizens having any say about their individual destinies, laws, policies, and so on, and without being able to boot out the unelected commissars.

There is something that binds the 27 together that you should not ignore.
All have been invaded/occupied in living memory.
That is a (fortunate) difference that sets Britain apart.
If Britain leaves the EU it might turn out to be to the EU's advantage longer term.
The best result tho is NO Brexit.

mayonnaise

Conrad wrote: »

12 months of booming FTSE 250 and FTSE100, not a peep from Remoaners.


Watch how they cite any falls as evidence of Brexit harm.


You just can't reason with this

Who is this Remoaner citing FTSE falls as Brexit harm? Any chance of a link?

BTW, FTSE 100/250 were booming right before the GFC also.

Herzlos

gfplux wrote: »

Herzlos,
You should also calculate if you wanted the money spent by Britain on Brexit during the last 12 months. The cost of the election should be added in as May would not have been PM if remain had won.

I deliberately left that off, because I was talking about how much money we've cost the EU, and that they'd be perfectly entitled to ask recouped for if we were to cancel A50.

The cost for the UK in Brexit thus far, just from an admin point of view will be far higher. I wasn't even thinking about indirect expenses like the snap election (but I think May would have called that anyway if Labour was looking weak).

gfplux

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

If you're unable to read your own words and discern their meaning what makes you think me explaining it even further than I have already is going to help? Just read them back one at a time and see if you can spot the conditions you place on these new trade deals and how they compare to our current EU deal and then your political stance on Brexit. It should be crystal clear.

You're coming out of your last few exchanges quite badly. Old reports to back up a position totally out of step with current affairs. Unable to see your own bias. I'd suggest a hiatus to collect your thoughts instead of fighting over pure ideological ground and making a hash of it.

I have re read my words.
I still don't see conditions.
The deal is, in no particular order
A new free trade deal with USA
A new free trade deal with India
A new free trade deal with Chine
A new free trade deal with Brazil
A new free trade deal with Australia
A new free trade deal with New Zealand
A new free trade deal with Indonesia

A pretty random but important list. I may have missed some big names, let me know.
No pre conditions except not to destroy existing British industry.
OK you got me I have now ADDED a condition.
Now tell me which products Britain will sell to these and other Country's that will bring prosperity and wealth to Britain.

I have just seen your post 1016.
You could have told me.
Surely that's not a condition, that's like....breathing.

Did I mishear all the words about new free trade deals and miss the unsaid part where we do a deal to import more than we export. I only heard the bit about wonderful new opportunities.

michaels

Woe is me...according to the BBC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40530700

Consumers will lose out due to the increase in food import prices.

And farmers will lose out because of the fall in food import prices.