Brexit, the economy and house prices part 5

Backbiter

Warnings from the CBI and the head of Airbus UK make for sobering reading:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-10/british-business-wants-to-keep-eu-rules-after-brexit

https://www.ft.com/content/b9ff0c10-3c9f-11e8-bcc8-cebcb81f1f90?segmentid=acee4131-99c2-09d3-a635-873e61754ec6

Some snippets:

The Confederation of British Industry, which compiled the data, argues that the opportunities presented by breaking free from European Union regulations are vastly outweighed by the cost of losing access to Europe' s single market.

While shipping, agriculture and tourism could benefit from an overhaul of rules after Brexit, 18 of 23 industry and service sectors would be better off with regulations that largely remain the same as EU ones.

The task of unpicking 40 years of economic and regulatory integration is complex and colossal, CBI Director-General Carolyn Fairbairn said in a statement. Put simply, for the majority of businesses, diverging from EU rules and regulations will make them less globally competitive, and so should only be done where the evidence is clear that the benefits outweigh the costs.

With less than one year until Britain leaves the EU, the future shape of the UK 's relations with the bloc and its member countries remains extremely unclear. For international businesses making investment decisions that go far beyond Brexit, this situation is damaging and hard to bear.

Hard borders and regulatory divergence risk blocking trade, creating supply chain logjams and causing our business to grind to a halt. These delays will hit our competitiveness and are something that we cannot afford to tolerate. We need the UK to provide clarity on customs and ensure alignment with the EU rules that apply to our sector.




Britain must recognise that future investments are not a given. It is the competitive environment that determines international interest in the UK. Any downgrading of the free movement of goods and people will have an impact on Britain 's competitiveness.



Competitiveness is key. Our factories are highly efficient. We must not lose this competitiveness, either through increased financial or regulatory burden, or through a lack of clarity that will make future investment impossible.

In future, U.K. products, like those of any other non-EU country, will need to be certified as conforming to EU law before they can be sold in the EU.

Our current position with regards to trade with the EU is that we have a say on what regulations we have to conform to. Once we've left and 'taken back control' we will have no say on these regulations but we will still have to comply.

This is bonkers.

wunferall

Backbiter wrote: »

Warnings from the CBI and the head of Airbus UK make for sobering reading:

In future, U.K. products, like those of any other non-EU country, will need to be certified as conforming to EU law before they can be sold in the EU.

Our current position with regards to trade with the EU is that we have a say on what regulations we have to conform to. Once we've left and 'taken back control' we will have no say on these regulations but we will still have to comply.

This is bonkers.

Of course, I mean the products that the UK sells to the rest of the world don't have to conform to their laws do they? And we have so much say in making those regulations around the world. Plus over half of all exports go to the rest of the world where we influence their regulations and don't conform to their laws I suppose? :doh:

cogito

Herzlos wrote: »

Yeah I've no interest in spending another dozen of pages. It's an indisputable fact but it's interesting to watch cogito trying to avoid admitting it.

I didn't avoid admitting anything. I simply asked how much we do send.

Honey_Badger

ilovehouses wrote: »

The UK has almost zero exports of live animals. It's not because UK farmers are nicer than foreign farmers and think EU live transport rules are inhumane. It's because nobody wants to buy their product - there's no demand.

So the live export of nearly half a million sheep is nearly zero is it? Given I could find this in a couple of minutes, I would question the veracity of anything else you post.

http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8031/CBP-8031.pdf

Table 1: UK live animal exports to the EU 2016
Cattle 42,515
Pigs 10,615
Sheep 483,859
Goats 1,198
Equidae 16,931
Source: European Commission, TRACES

wunferall

ilovehouses wrote: »

Everyone thinks they're less influenced by advertising etc than the average person - it's BS.

The reason we aren't all drinking Coke is because their competitors are in the same arms race to influence.

Oh of course, and Asda for example spend a fortune on advertising their sooper-dooper zero-calorie cola across multiple media platforms just like Coke do they? And that would be why Coke sales are in decline, in the UK and globally would it?

Thinking that the huge sums spent on advertising influence more than an extremely small percentage of those exposed to these advertisements is little short of delusional. It's a numbers game pure and simple.

https://digiday.com/marketing/advertising-even-work-anymore/

kabayiri

ilovehouses wrote: »

Everyone thinks they're less influenced by advertising etc than the average person - it's BS.

The reason we aren't all drinking Coke is because their competitors are in the same arms race to influence.

And by the same token some referendum voters would have been influenced by the government pamphlet.

There was enough info out there to make your own choice imo.

The Cambridge A story is only interesting because of the nature of the data sharing.

Backbiter

wunferall wrote: »

Of course, I mean the products that the UK sells to the rest of the world don't have to conform to their laws do they? And we have so much say in making those regulations around the world. Plus over half of all exports go to the rest of the world where we influence their regulations and don't conform to their laws I suppose? :doh:

So there is about to be a huge change in our trading relationship with the EU. This will hit us economically.
As for our trading relationship with the rest of the world, that is also affected by EU trading agreements with other countries, which we will no longer be a part of, and we will have to renegotiate. This will take years, and those years will be economically damaging.
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/infographics/eu-trade-map-2017/

wunferall

Backbiter wrote: »

So there is about to be a huge change in our trading relationship with the EU. This will hit us economically.
As for our trading relationship with the rest of the world, that is also affected by EU trading agreements with other countries, which we will no longer be a part of, and we will have to renegotiate. This will take years, and those years will be economically damaging.

It will only change dramatically if the EU insist upon it, in which case the EU too will suffer. We've been through this many times in this thread and this is even accepted by Eurocrats.

You still missed the point, being that every item traded must comply with the laws and regulations of the countries involved. The rest is nothing more than further doom-mongering. The EU don't buy or sell anything; companies and people do. That isn't going to change despite some infantile foot-stamping from the EU, I can assure you.

wunferall

ilovehouses wrote: »

I found it in less time than that because Wunferall kindly provided a link when pretending to be bothered.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43706978

20,000 sheep to the EU in 2017 according to the NFU. So that's a lie or incorrect reporting.

If it's half a million it puts paid to the idea that UK farmers are nice guys who can be trusted to steward the countryside out of the good of their hearts.

2017 is not 2016, is it? It's good to have my name brought up again though thank you; your apparent devotion is most flattering.

wunferall

ilovehouses wrote: »

It also misses the bigger picture. Yes, animal welfare can always be improved but, IMO, EU animal welfare rules are among the most stringent in the world (and, to some extent, those standards are imposed on producers exporting to the EU too). Also basic geography means animals tend to have shorter journeys in the EU. Millions of live animals are shipped from Australian farms to be slaughtered in the middle-east - can you imagine?

More carp.

EU animal welfare ain't good, from inhumane transport & slaughter to force-feeding of geese.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/01/revealed-exported-eu-animals-subject-to-abuse-illegal-conditions
http://www.animalwelfareintergroup.eu/2016/05/12/debate-on-the-animal-welfare-concerns-of-foie-gras-production/


Guess who are the ones that have consistently been pushing to improve EU animal welfare? That's right, the UK.
https://www.ciwf.org.uk/news/2017/03/animal-welfare-in-the-european-union