Brexit, the economy and house prices part 5

tracey3596

Herzlos wrote: »

Fair enough. Personally I'd give up a lot to avoid WTO. I honestly can't think of many situations where the WTO is the lesser of the 2 evils.

And yet the world outside the EU which trades within WTO guidelines are expanding their economies faster than the EU, which is slowly but surely losing it's share of the global economy.
Even you as a europhile must see that remaining does not make good business sense?

Herzlos

tracey3596 wrote: »

And yet the world outside the EU which trades within WTO guidelines are expanding their economies faster than the EU, which is slowly but surely losing it's share of the global economy.

Small economies grow faster, this has been done to death.

Even you as a europhile must see that remaining does not make good business sense?

I don't particularly like the EU, but leaving makes no business sense. You don't throw away a big market now, to focus on a growing market, when if you stay in the big market you can get both. It doesn't make any sense.

What can we do to leverage growth in India/China/Brazil that we can't do from within the EU? Will any of that benefit us more than being in the EU?
Will we be able to get a deal at least as good as the EU has, whilst not being part of it?

tracey3596

Herzlos wrote: »

Small economies grow faster, this has been done to death.



I don't particularly like the EU, but leaving makes no business sense. You don't throw away a big market now, to focus on a growing market, when if you stay in the big market you can get both. It doesn't make any sense.

What can we do to leverage growth in India/China/Brazil that we can't do from within the EU? Will any of that benefit us more than being in the EU?
Will we be able to get a deal at least as good as the EU has, whilst not being part of it?

We have been through this repeatedly and you still refuse to accept the facts, it seems, but okay.
Again, just for you.

1 We are not going to stop trading with the EU. It's not gonna happen. So we are not "throwing away" anything. If there are going to be additional tariffs that will be entirely due to the EU. In this scenario there will be a little difference but not much; this has been covered at length. If complete WTO is resorted to that will be entirely due to the stance of EU member countries.

2 The UK as an EU member can not initiate trade deals with countries outside the EU. Any such negotiations must be undertaken by an appointed EU body and on behalf of the entire EU. Before such action commences the entire EU membership must agree that such talks are wanted. So yes, being able to negotiate as an individual nation will be easier as well as (judging from EU history) much faster.

3 Will we get such a good deal? Who knows but the likelihood is that in some cases deals will be better and in some cases they may not be as good. Where deals offered are not as good we could walk away - which we cannot do under the EU umbrella.

Herzlos

tracey3596 wrote: »

1 We are not going to stop trading with the EU. It's not gonna happen. So we are not "throwing away" anything. If there are going to be additional tariffs that will be entirely due to the EU. In this scenario there will be a little difference but not much; this has been covered at length. If complete WTO is resorted to that will be entirely due to the stance of EU member countries.

You can blame the EU for all that if you want, but it's still our decision and thus we are throwing all of it away.

2 The UK as an EU member can not initiate trade deals with countries outside the EU. Any such negotiations must be undertaken by an appointed EU body and on behalf of the entire EU. Before such action commences the entire EU membership must agree that such talks are wanted. So yes, being able to negotiate as an individual nation will be easier as well as (judging from EU history) much faster.

Correct, we can't make bespoke deals. Do we need to if the EU is doing it for us? What benefit do we actually get?

3 Will we get such a good deal? Who knows but the likelihood is that in some cases deals will be better and in some cases they may not be as good. Where deals offered are not as good we could walk away - which we cannot do under the EU umbrella.

Can you give anything more solid than "likelihood is some are better"? I mean, something that makes the gamble worthwhile?

What sort of things are we going to try and get from these deals? Will we have enough influence outside the EU to get them?
Will we actually walk away from those deals and stick to WTO? What if the EU has a deal with them and we don't?

Leave has been pretty light on details about how we might potentially benefit. I agree making our own deals may be better in theory, but I'm aware that we'd be negotiating from a weaker position with a weaker team (compared to the EU), and without any idea of what we're actually trying to achieve it just seems, well, crazy.

StevieJ

Herzlos wrote: »

Theoretically you can build EU stuff to EU standards and RoW stuff to some other standards, but realistically most people will just build to a common standard. Otherwise you need to have duplicate production facilities, staff training, stock management, and need extra checks to make sure the right thing is being built for the right market.

Potentially for cars, you could have a domestic market version with less safety/emissions stuff added on (just missing some production steps), which may be more possible with smart factories, but beyond that it's just not likely to make any economic sense.

The only real savings is for stuff that is never going to go to the EU, where they can drop standards a bit. For everything else it most likely means mirroring EU standards without having any say in them.

The standardisation over 27/28 countries was an enormous boon for big business, although the standards were exacting, at least they were the same for all.

ukcarper

Herzlos wrote: »

Theoretically you can build EU stuff to EU standards and RoW stuff to some other standards, but realistically most people will just build to a common standard. Otherwise you need to have duplicate production facilities, staff training, stock management, and need extra checks to make sure the right thing is being built for the right market.

Potentially for cars, you could have a domestic market version with less safety/emissions stuff added on (just missing some production steps), which may be more possible with smart factories, but beyond that it's just not likely to make any economic sense.

The only real savings is for stuff that is never going to go to the EU, where they can drop standards a bit. For everything else it most likely means mirroring EU standards without having any say in them.

True so why all the fuse about EU rules because if we want to sell to everyone we will have to build to highest standards, that’s different to being forced to adopt those standards on things we do not want to sell everywhere.

ukcarper

ilovehouses wrote: »

Can you imagine what would happen if it was discovered a government representative was discussing the options for calling off brexit with the EU? It's a question that can't be asked.

I don’t know I expect papers would make a big thing of it, but to me it makes sense to know exactly where you stand.

Herzlos

ukcarper wrote: »

True so why all the fuse about EU rules because if we want to sell to everyone we will have to build to highest standards, that’s different to being forced to adopt those standards on things we do not want to sell everywhere.

I don't think anyone said they were the same thing. I'm just pointing out that not having to use EU standards for everything doesn't save anything like as much as people seem to think.

westernpromise

Herzlos wrote: »

I don't particularly like the EU, but leaving makes no business sense. You don't throw away a big market now, to focus on a growing market, when if you stay in the big market you can get both. It doesn't make any sense.

I think this illustrates one of the ways in which Remainers genuinely don't understand Leavers. A frequent Remainer assumption is that Leavers object to the way the EU is now and think something else would be better now. I'm not so sure. I think the Leave sentiment was a forward-looking one: the EU is heading towards something Leavers don't want to be in, so we should leave now while it is still possible, in order to be better off than we would be as, oh, a heavily taxed region of a Europe run from Germany.

By analogy, the 2016 Leave vote was as though Formosa had voted in 1944 or thereabouts to secede from China. You might vote to do that not because being outside China was better than being in it, but because being White China would be better than being in Communist China - which is not the same thing at all as wanting to be out of China. You might reasonably envisage that becoming Taiwan would be better for you and your family than being impoverished or murdered under Mao.

If that is so, then much of the Remainer argument we are still hearing is counterproductive if the idea is to change Leaver minds. To suggest that there'll soon be a US of E, or that a big strong EU will get stroppy over Gibraltar, or to scold Leavers for what will happen to trade, won't work and actually reinforce and validate the Leaver concern. A more persuasive approach might be to show, with evidence, that no such further involuntary integration will occur, that we won't be penalised within the EU if we don't sign up to it, that we can keep the pound, that sovereignty will be able to be repatriated, and that we will be charged no more, all within the EU.

As I've observed before, I didn't vote because I was unpersuaded by the Leave arguments but also by the Remain ones. What I wanted to know was "Remain in what?" I still don't know and I suspect Remain either also didn't know, or knew but didn't want to tell me.

Both campaigns were pretty disgraceful.

Arklight

ukcarper wrote: »

That’s just one of the 4 freedoms and a large majority just want to control immigration not stop it. Do you personally know anybody who voted leave I personally know lots of people who voted leave so have a good idea of why they voted leave.

A large majority didn't even vote leave, let alone make any coherent statement about immigration.


Perhaps if they had tried to the people who did vote Leave would have been forced to try and articulate what part of immigration they have a problem with.


Every single xenophobe, small town bigot, and racist voted Leave, we know that (and so do the rest of the world, which may stop people wanting to come here). But out of the remaining 52%, what did they actually expect to happen?