Brexit the economy and house prices part 6

Herzlos

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

And another lie

https://brexitcentral.com/audacious-lie-referendum-campaign-remainers-claim-immigration/

Can remainers counter that?

Nah, it's certainly wrong. But can't say I ever heard that claim made at any point. They are a similar order of magnitude, certainly, and almost certainly irrelevant, too.


I'm not going to cover the EU army again, it's been done to death.


Can you provide any claims from after the referendum, based on the current state of things, that says Brexit could provide an economic advantage?

Herzlos

Matt_L wrote: »

So you believe that because of a 4% tariff on lobster those in the EU that can afford to eat fresh lobster will just stop eating it..

I make it a 15% tariff on Lobster?


It's not something I'm familiar with though, so I don't know how long it can sit in containers and still be regarded as fresh. Still being alive certainly helps though, but that sounds expensive.


Interestingly I stumbled upon an article showing how the US/China trade war is crippling US Lobster exports (with a 25% tariff). I doubt China would be any more generous to us. https://qz.com/1354619/lobster-is-the-perfect-example-of-trumps-trade-war-backfiring/




Will EU Lobster consumers stop eating UK lobsters if the tariff goes to 15%? I've no idea. Some might, since the cost will go up by more than 15% (that's just the tariff, without the frictionless trade there will be more admin costs, more storage costs due to longer trips and so on). Will some consumers switch to lobsters from somewhere else? I'm sure some will, if they can undercut us.


Can you think of any benefit to us, in moving UK lobster sales to the EU from a frictionless, 0% tariff, to a customs-stop and 15% tariff?

Matt_L

BenjaG wrote: »

What @Enterprise_1701C call the European Army (above) are a pooling of forces not unlike NATO. The need is growing, as the Trump Presidency rests credibility to NATO's joint defence against Russia, which has invaded parts of Georgia, Ukraine and is killing people on British streets while undermining western democracies.

The UK is weak, and counts only 150,000 active military personal against Russia's 900,000. France has 202,000 active military personal, Germany 178,000, Italy 174,000, Spain 121,000, Poland 100,000 etc.

Worse, the UK has only 227 battle tanks while Russia has a hundred times as many: 22,700! Germany has 2,500 battle tanks, France 527, Italy 480, Spain 552, Poland 1,000 etc.

Russia may doubt the US' commitment to defending Poland, Lithuania or even the UK against Putin's Russia. Pooling European forces is the answer that could stop Russia and which will be fought by Russia's media campaign.

When I see posts like this it makes me laugh, reminds me of this, watch from 1:40:rotfl:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGxAYeeyoIc

andrewf75

scaredofdebt wrote: »

Because no other nation on Earth trades solely on WTO rules, apart from Mauritania.

Also no other nation has ever done anything remotely like Brexit to my knowledge. Countries gradually develop trade links and reduce barriers, not the other way round. Business will of course adapt to any situation eventually, but who knows what that timescale might be.

buglawton

andrewf75 wrote: »

Also no other nation has ever done anything remotely like Brexit to my knowledge. Countries gradually develop trade links and reduce barriers, not the other way round. Business will of course adapt to any situation eventually, but who knows what that timescale might be.

Disagree

On 9 August 1965, Singapore separated from Malaysia to become an independent and sovereign state

http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/history/events/dc1efe7a-8159-40b2-9244-cdb078755013

A_Pandiculation

scaredofdebt wrote: »

Because no other nation on Earth trades solely on WTO rules, apart from Mauritania.

A typical disingenuous remainer response.
We'll ignore the little fact that most trade between countries started out as WTO before these countries made deals shall we?
:wall:
We'll also ignore the little fact that around half our trade is already with countries where there is no EU trade arrangement already in place. The UK's largest single destination for UK exports is the USA. They aren't part of the EU.

As andrewf says, "Countries gradually develop trade links and reduce barriers" well, the UK already has links in place and it can soon remove the barriers the EU has put in place as part of their protectionist stance.
:j

A_Pandiculation

andrewf75 wrote: »

Also no other nation has ever done anything remotely like Brexit to my knowledge. Countries gradually develop trade links and reduce barriers, not the other way round. Business will of course adapt to any situation eventually, but who knows what that timescale might be.

Untrue.
Greenland.

AlanP_2

Whilst I read through this thread about once a week I don't normally contribute as it mainly "stone throwing" as hard core believers on both sides have entrenched views.

I voted Remain, and would do so again if offered the chance. In reality I am unlikely to get that chance though.

Whether the deal on offer is the absolute best that there could ever be is irrelevant. The Government had a mandate from the Referendum to negotiate a withdrawal agreement from the EU.

That is what they have done - now Parliament has to decide on whether to accept the deal or leave with no deal agreed and see where that leads.

Putting my Mystic Meg hat on we will leave either way and in 20-40 years time the "Join the EU" equivalent of UKIP will gain momentum and we will try and get back in again.

Supranational "states" will become the norm in the future as we become even more globally interconnected and entwined. I don't mean the USSR model, but a negotiated agreement based on shared interest and desires.

Why do people think a US of E would be bad? Do they equally think that breaking up the US of A would benefit individual States? Do they think that breaking up the UK would benefit England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? I just don't see any logic in the argument that it must be a "bad thing".

Lungboy

A_Pandiculation wrote: »

Yes there is.
That reason isn't the supposed "crippling" effects of tariffs though, it's that they want to scare the UK into staying in the EU.
Pure & simple.

Or maybe you would care to explain how every other nation on earth not an EU member is not similarly "crippled"?

The quote is apparently from Economists FOR Brexit. I doubt they want to scare anyone into staying.

scaredofdebt

A_Pandiculation wrote: »

A typical disingenuous remainer response.
We'll ignore the little fact that most trade between countries started out as WTO before these countries made deals shall we?
:wall:
We'll also ignore the little fact that around half our trade is already with countries where there is no EU trade arrangement already in place. The UK's largest single destination for UK exports is the USA. They aren't part of the EU.

As andrewf says, "Countries gradually develop trade links and reduce barriers" well, the UK already has links in place and it can soon remove the barriers the EU has put in place as part of their protectionist stance.
:j

Exactly, trade agreements cannot be magicked up overnight.

Actually my response was incorrect, I've done some more research and Mauritania doesn't trade solely on WTO rules.