Brexit the economy and house prices part 6

Matt_L

Herzlos wrote: »

In the UK. In Europe they are usually prohibited unless allowed. I've no idea what setup is in Eire or whether that'd matter.

Is that so??

Is that all things prohibited unless allowed or just things pertaining to the GFA??

Daniel54

gemininorth wrote: »

I think it’s all going to be like the millennium bug, absolute chaos and in the end nothing happened.

It took years of planning and millions of man hours to ensure there were no adverse Y2K effects.

The consequences of a no deal Brexit on 29th March are foreseeable but can in the most part not be mitigated in the time scale ahead.

It would be a very ugly shock event to the economy and those working within it.

Daniel54

cogito wrote: »

Well, here's a copy of the GFA:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/136652/agreement.pdf

When you've read it, come back and show us where it supports your claims. Remember the maxim that if it isn't written down, it didn't happen.

I agree the GFA does not directly address the issue of a hard border.

However the U.K. is changing its constitution so as not to be a member of the EU,and I think this can be read as an event that involves all agreeing parties.

Bottom line is that the UK Government have accepted and agreed there will be no hard border.

The issue is how to make this agreement legally binding in international law.

Thrugelmir

Daniel54 wrote: »

Bottom line is that the UK Government have accepted and agreed there will be no hard border.

The UK Government isn't going to reopen the bottle of demons that the GFA capped. Peace remains fragile.

Thrugelmir

CKhalvashi wrote: »

On a larger scale, trade is important for keeping people in work, as trade creates jobs. The average person may see no benefit but it is there. A job is better than no job in terms of wealth and health.

Reading this news this evening is a reminder of where the real lies.

Dundee Michelin tyre factory closes with loss of 850 jobs

"Michelin said the Dundee site, which opened in 1971 and specialised in smaller tyres, has suffered because of a shift in the market towards low-cost products from Asia."

Michelin is a French company. Ultimately profit is what matters. Companies aren't interested in notional trade figures or the welfare of local communities.

I bet you'd move your own business if it resulted in a major cost saving or increased profitability.

Daniel54

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Reading this news this evening is a reminder of where the real lies.

Dundee Michelin tyre factory closes with loss of 850 jobs

"Michelin said the Dundee site, which opened in 1971 and specialised in smaller tyres, has suffered because of a shift in the market towards low-cost products from Asia."

Michelin is a French company. Ultimately profit is what matters. Companies aren't interested in notional trade figures or the welfare of local communities.

I bet you'd move your own business if it resulted in a major cost saving or increased profitability.

Well,that’s pretty much the economic issue around Brexit.Those who can establish offshore entries in the EU are already doing so.

The ones who are going to get caught are the SMEs whose costs of trading with Europe will increase and thereby impact profitability,

For them,moving offshore or establishing EU based subsidiaries may not be an economically viable option.

Herzlos

cogito wrote: »

Why should I? I'm not the one making all the claims even though you clearly haven’t read it. Now's your chance.

You've got me. I'm not going to trawl over that 35 page framework document and the various committee notes and annexes mention in strand 2 for a reference that's direct enough. I'll even concede it doesn't mention the border directly. I can even play devils advocate and claim a hard border wouldn't be a problem.

So why does everybody think it does? I know the removal of the border checks was a huge part of the peace process but I'm not intimately familiar with it. Could it really be that simple?

buglawton

Daniel54 wrote: »

Well,that’s pretty much the economic issue around Brexit.Those who can establish offshore entries in the EU are already doing so.

The ones who are going to get caught are the SMEs whose costs of trading with Europe will increase and thereby impact profitability,

For them,moving offshore or establishing EU based subsidiaries may not be an economically viable option.

So we'd better start feeling sorry for those German 'Mittelstand' companies who sell to Britain then.

Thrugelmir

Daniel54 wrote: »

Well,that’s pretty much the economic issue around Brexit.Those who can establish offshore entries in the EU are already doing so.

The ones who are going to get caught are the SMEs whose costs of trading with Europe will increase and thereby impact profitability,

For them,moving offshore or establishing EU based subsidiaries may not be an economically viable option.

I think you are missing the point entirely. Absolutely nothing to do with Brexit. Merely a continuation of a drain that's been underway for over two decades now.

PS. The Chinese started to buy up the British owned rubber plantations in the 1960's. They play the long game.

cogito

Herzlos wrote: »

You've got me. I'm not going to trawl over that 35 page framework document and the various committee notes and annexes mention in strand 2 for a reference that's direct enough. I'll even concede it doesn't mention the border directly. I can even play devils advocate and claim a hard border wouldn't be a problem.

So why does everybody think it does? I know the removal of the border checks was a huge part of the peace process but I'm not intimately familiar with it. Could it really be that simple?

Only last week, Juncker assured Varadkar and Coveney that there wouldn't be a hard border. The UK position is also that there won't be one. So maybe it is that simple and the EU have simply tried to gain leverage by weaponising the border.