Brexit, the economy and house prices part 5

Herzlos

tracey3596 wrote: »

Unless the result was 95% to 5% I suspect that you would still be saying "It's not decisive". Unless of course it ever went the way you want, eh?
If over a million voters isn't decisive enough, tell us what would be?

I'll take 55/45. You know, anything with a statistical decision. 52/48 is statistically a draw.

cogito

phillw wrote: »

Please explain why leaving the EU with all the disastrous consequences it has is worth it, when by the time those growth markets will be large enough to make up for the losses, the EU will be getting a better trade deal with them than us due to their relative size.

With just one vote you not only got out of a good trade deal with the EU, you managed to get out of a good deal with every other country for the rest of time. I look forward to a well reasoned explanation

Please explain which countries the EU will have new trade deals with. The USA, India, China, Brazil? In 60 years of its existence, they haven't managed it. Why would they suddenly do so now?

And please explain why the UK leaving the EU rules us out of trade deals with 'every other country for the rest of time'. I look forward to an explanation - preferably a better reasoned one than you've just offered. You might also want to discuss how our trade with the US has been harmed by us trading with them without any kind of deal over the last two centuries.

cogito

BobQ wrote: »

Yes but it did not need a referendum to join the EEC. We joined in 1973 under the Heath government. The Wilson government held the advisory referendum in 1975.

We had a referendum on our membership with the EEC. We never had one about joining the EU.

phillw

cogito wrote: »

Please explain which countries the EU will have new trade deals with. The USA, India, China, Brazil? In 60 years of its existence, they haven't managed it. Why would they suddenly do so now?

Because it hasn't been worth it. kabayiri's argument is that it's actually not worth it for us either, only in the future.

The leaver argument assumes that stupid foreigners are stupid and the EU won't do a deal with the rest of the world even when it is worth it to them.

Not that any leaver has enough insight to understand their own argument, because it's so ingrained and they think of themselves as nice people. To balance out the cognitive dissonance you have to think that it's the foreigners and not yourself at fault.

It's likely we'll screw up any future trade deals with the rest of the world anyway, because all of the deals so far on the table have involved us accepting immigrants and workers from those countries.

Herzlos

cogito wrote: »

And please explain why the UK leaving the EU rules us out of trade deals with 'every other country for the rest of time'.

He said "good" deals. We won't be able to get good deals for the rest of time, because we're smaller than the EU.

Should we get deals faster than the EU (and they have years of a head start here), then when the EU catches up (if they haven't already beaten us) they'll almost certainly get a better deal than us because (a) they have more economic cloud and (b) they have negotiators that know what they are doing.

You can bet that if we feel it's worth creating a trade deal with someone, the EU will too (and has probably already spoken to them about it).

ukcarper

phillw wrote: »

I understand why you feel that way, but you don't accept the reason why you voted to leave and so we're never going to move forward.



I wish they had too. I believe if given a second opportunity they would realise how important it was to vote and the result would be a landslide for remain. Which is why the leavers are so anti holding a second referendum, it scares them to death they won't be able to abuse foreigners (even if they are delusional about why they voted to leave).



Please explain why leaving the EU with all the disastrous consequences it has is worth it, when by the time those growth markets will be large enough to make up for the losses, the EU will be getting a better trade deal with them than us due to their relative size.

With just one vote you not only got out of a good trade deal with the EU, you managed to get out of a good deal with every other country for the rest of time. I look forward to a well reasoned explanation

You are doing it once again if you read my posts you will see I voted remain. What I find disturbing about these threads is the confidence that some poster have that they know exactly what is going to happen when the truth is nobody knows what the effects will be. This is true of both sides.

Eric_the_half_a_bee

Herzlos wrote: »

He said "good" deals. We won't be able to get good deals for the rest of time, because we're smaller than the EU.

Should we get deals faster than the EU (and they have years of a head start here), then when the EU catches up (if they haven't already beaten us) they'll almost certainly get a better deal than us because (a) they have more economic cloud and (b) they have negotiators that know what they are doing.

You can bet that if we feel it's worth creating a trade deal with someone, the EU will too (and has probably already spoken to them about it).

By this logic the EU will do a good trade deal with the UK which, as with all the EU's other trade deals, respects the sovereignty and borders of third countries. So there's nothing to worry about.

Herzlos

Eric_the_half_a_bee wrote: »

By this logic the EU will do a good trade deal with the UK which, as with all the EU's other trade deals, respects the sovereignty and borders of third countries. So there's nothing to worry about.

The EU will do a good trade deal with the UK, by the EU's standards. How will it rate from the UK's side? Who cares - not the EU's problem.

Any deal we get with a 3rd state - be it India, China, Brazil, Mauritius, will be no better (and likely inferior) to a deal the EU would make with the same state.

Eric_the_half_a_bee

Herzlos wrote: »

The EU will do a good trade deal with the UK, by the EU's standards. How will it rate from the UK's side? Who cares - not the EU's problem.

Any deal we get with a 3rd state - be it India, China, Brazil, Mauritius, will be no better (and likely inferior) to a deal the EU would make with the same state.

My point is, the EU's ability to reach comprehensive trade deals is constrained by its need to adhere to "the EU's standards". This includes the requirement to make trade between an EU member state and a third country considerably more difficult than trade between two EU member states. So, the EU sets itself a ceiling on the open-ness of deals with third countries.

A post-Brexit UK will not be subject to any such ceiling. An important difference that your analysis ignores.

cogito

Herzlos wrote: »

He said "good" deals. We won't be able to get good deals for the rest of time, because we're smaller than the EU.

Should we get deals faster than the EU (and they have years of a head start here), then when the EU catches up (if they haven't already beaten us) they'll almost certainly get a better deal than us because (a) they have more economic cloud and (b) they have negotiators that know what they are doing.

You can bet that if we feel it's worth creating a trade deal with someone, the EU will too (and has probably already spoken to them about it).

Chile has got more FTAs than the EU. Is Chile bigger than the EU and do they have more economic clout than the UK.