Brexit, the economy and house prices part 5

Fella

Herzlos wrote: »

I'm not sure I can follow or agree that argument at all.

Why would a no deal be a horrible outcome for the EU whilst potentially being a good outcome for the UK?

The EU wants money from the UK. They want to trade with the UK. They don't want the UK as a low-tax threat on their doorstep. They need a deal with the UK to achieve these.

The UK wants to trade with the EU but nobody knows at this stage how well the UK may do outside of a trade agreement with them. It's quite possible we may prosper. Even those who don't think we will can't deny that we might.

mayonnaise

Fella wrote: »

No deal may or may not be a good outcome for the UK. It is emphatically a horrible outcome for the EU.

Yes of course Fella.
They need us more than we need them.
And we should let the British Lion roar.
Good Fella.

Fella

mayonnaise wrote: »

Yes of course Fella.
They need us more than we need them.
And we should let the British Lion roar.
Good Fella.

Yes we should, far better than the craven approach you seem to be advocating.

The EU is a financial basket-case, comprising of countries most of whom loathe each other & led by clowns like Juncker. As you still fail to understand, that's why we voted to leave.

Herzlos

Fella wrote: »

The EU wants money from the UK. They want to trade with the UK. They don't want the UK as a low-tax threat on their doorstep. They need a deal with the UK to achieve these.

The UK wants to trade with the EU but nobody knows at this stage how well the UK may do outside of a trade agreement with them. It's quite possible we may prosper. Even those who don't think we will can't deny that we might.

The tax haven thing is a risk, certainly, but I don't think it's a major one.

We'll get some increased trade outside of the EU, but nothing like enough to make up for it. Estimates have a hard brexit as costing us (IIRC 18.9%) of our economic value. We need trade with the EU more than they need trade with us.

Any deal which is bad for the EU is going to be catastrophic for us.

Fella

Herzlos wrote: »

We'll get some increased trade outside of the EU, but nothing like enough to make up for it. Estimates have a hard brexit as costing us (IIRC 18.9%) of our economic value. We need trade with the EU more than they need trade with us.

Any deal which is bad for the EU is going to be catastrophic for us.

That's simply your opinion, and it's on a subject that contains so many total unknowns that at the very best it's a guess.

The truth is nobody knows how the UK would fare outside of a deal with the EU.

Herzlos

Fella wrote: »

The truth is nobody knows how the UK would fare outside of a deal with the EU.

We can take a pretty educated guess. Something like 45% of our exports end up in the EU. If we lose any of that, which we will under WTO, then we need to replace it from RoW. RoW trade will cost more in general due to the logistics. So we'll need to replace it with slightly more trade to stay where we are.

So for every £1 in trade we lose from the EU, we'd potentially need to gain, say, £1.1 from RoW. We're already free to trade with RoW (and do indeed do so). So if we were able to grow RoW trade that easily we'd already have done so.

Fella

ilovehouses wrote: »

It's a test of credulity to think there's such an asymmetrical outcome where no-deal is emphatically horrible for the EU but potentially good for the UK.

Not at all. The EU would undoubtedly be worse off with no deal.

The UK may also be worse off, however it may be better off.

The EU are losing the UK. If they get nothing in return they will be worse off.

The UK is leaving the UK. Nobody knows yet whether what it gains will outweigh what it loses. Lots of people think it may do.

It's amusing that no Remainer on here is even prepared to concede that "no deal" would represent an utter failure on the part of the EU negotiators. This is such an obvious statement of fact that even ardent Remainers should openly acknowledge it. If it happens, you will see plenty of people (the standard example is German car manufacturers but obviously there are plenty of others) who will turn upon the likes of Juncker & their own elected poliiticians in rage.

gfplux

Fella wrote: »

That's simply your opinion, and it's on a subject that contains so many total unknowns that at the very best it's a guess.

The truth is nobody knows how the UK would fare outside of a deal with the EU.

Which is why it was called a leap in to the dark.

Herzlos

I don't think anyone has every implied a no deal wouldn't be a failure for both sides, or a painful loss to the EU.

What I'm stunned by is the idea that WTO terms would be bad for the EU but good for the UK. I can sort of understand the theory, but where's all this extra trade going to come from? We might be able to buy some stuff in cheaper, but we're still going to have to export something.
If the UK can ignore the EU and make up the trade in other markets, then why the assumption the EU can't do the same? Especially given that the EU is currently in the process of negotiating trade deals with those we want to trade with first.

All but the most fantatical Brexiteer has conceded that WTO will set us back a bit (quite a bit by some accounts). But they normally feel it's worth it for whatever reason. I honestly don't think I've encountered anyone suggesting WTO is actually good for us.

gfplux

Are we are all sure what we mean by "no deal"

The first no deal is a "no deal" over Britain leaving. Which would mean that there would be no negotiations over a trade deal.

If, despite the news this week, there is a deal done, or nearly done on leaving then negotiations will start on a trade deal. These normally take up to seven years (Brexiters tell us that Britain can do it in less) and of course this also could end up as a "no deal".
Britain would also want a transition period which might be an extra set of negotiations which could result in a "no deal".

We need to be clear about which "no deal" we are talking about.

So,
1) No leaving deal
2) No transition period deal
3) no trade deal

To make it even more complicated all of the "no deals" could be "deals" that many people will disagree with.

Would anyone agree with that?