• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Now What?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Captain_Swoop said:
Do you think that will change much whatever happens?
We will still want BMWs, Mercedes, Audi etc.
Italian and French fashions will still be worn.
We will still drink Wine and eat cheese snd bslsamic vinager.
Most of the flowers in florists will still come from Holland.
A lot of imports from the EU are prestige and high end items, those that buy thrm won't switch to domestic items with a perceived lower status, in fact higher price will increase their ststus to a certain extent.
Click to expand...

At least we still have Rolls Royce, the best BMW in the world.
 
The Don said:
Well, apart from intra-EU exports which is kinda the reason for the EU.
Click to expand...

The reason for the EU is to have a suprantional political union (as some have put it a United States of Europe), in which all member economies are fused together and all political structures are fused together.

Unfortunately it does not work very well. It's hugely expensive, takes forever to negotiate free trade agreements with countries that aren't members of it, Canada's agreement is held up again by Belgian and Romanian demands for visa concessions.

That's why I said EEA agreement could be the best option as they've already agreed to the treaty.

Canada wants a free trade agreement with us, Australia does too. We could potentially get a free trade agreement with those countries before the EU does as the EU's Commissioners take so long.
 
Airfix said:
The reason for the EU is to have a suprantional political union (as some have put it a United States of Europe), in which all member economies are fused together and all political structures are fused together.

Unfortunately it does not work very well.
Click to expand...
It doesn't exist. It's an aspiration.

It's hugely expensive, takes forever to negotiate free trade agreements with countries that aren't members of it, Canada's agreement is held up again by Belgian and Romanian demands for visa concessions.
Click to expand...
You describe the current arrangement. In a United States of Europe Belgium and Romania would simply be regions and could make no demands.

That's why I said EEA agreement could be the best option as they've already agreed to the treaty.
Click to expand...
The best option is what we've got, until we can create a United States of Europe, which would be even better.
 
Last edited:
Airfix said:
Canada wants a free trade agreement with us, Australia does too. We could potentially get a free trade agreement with those countries before the EU does as the EU's Commissioners take so long.
Click to expand...

The EU at least employ negotiators.
 
Airfix said:
The reason for the EU is to have a suprantional political union (as some have put it a United States of Europe), in which all member economies are fused together and all political structures are fused together.
Click to expand...
Are you sure that is the reason? I thought the reason was to create a peaceful, united and prosperous Europe. The European Union is just the means through which we try to bring this about.

Unfortunately it does not work very well. It's hugely expensive, takes forever to negotiate free trade agreements with countries that aren't members of it, Canada's agreement is held up again by Belgian and Romanian demands for visa concessions.
Click to expand...
I think it works quite well. Certainly there are areas where the EU could improve. This in most cases would however involve member-states giving up some sovereignty. And that is usually where things fall apart... because member-states are quite reluctant to give that up.

That's why I said EEA agreement could be the best option as they've already agreed to the treaty.
Click to expand...


Canada wants a free trade agreement with us, Australia does too. We could potentially get a free trade agreement with those countries before the EU does as the EU's Commissioners take so long.
Click to expand...
Uhm... It's the individual countries governments and their different interests that make it somewhat difficult to get to a quick FTA.
 
Airfix said:
The reason for the EU is to have a suprantional political union (as some have put it a United States of Europe), in which all member economies are fused together and all political structures are fused together.
Click to expand...

Evidence ?

Of course you avoid the main point. If the vast majority of exports for an EU member are to fellow EU members, it doesn't matter whether the UK is the largest non-EU export destination if that doesn't represent a significant proportion of exports.

I can see the UK being VERY important for Ireland but for most other EU nations it is down the list of trading partners.
 
Airfix said:
Canada wants a free trade agreement with us, Australia does too. We could potentially get a free trade agreement with those countries before the EU does as the EU's Commissioners take so long.
Click to expand...

They say this, and maybe they're serious. Maybe they see this as the best opportunity they will ever have to get the most favourable terms for themselves while the UK is:

  • Inexperienced at conducting trade negotiations
  • Stretched by having to negotiate on a number of fronts at the same time
  • Desperate to have some positive trade news

It's rare for a country to initiate negotiations from a position of weakness - which is possibly why they're making overtures now.
 
While angry remainers continue to believe that the average brexit voter is a bit like Nigel Farage, actual sceptic remainers might like to read the sort of position that the vast majority of leave voters held. Larry Elliott, economics editor of the Guardian, voted brexit and doesn't regret it:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/20/brexit-eu-referendum-economy-project-fear

UKIP represented around 13% of the electorate at the last general election, so assuming they mainly voted leave, around 25% of the brexit vote. The rest of the leave vote - the other 75% - came from the likes of Airfix, Larry and other moderates. Remainers think such people are "rare birds" - completely wrong. By failing to understand the demographic of the leave voter, remain lost the vote before they had even started.
 
There is a link above describing why the "armageddon" described did not happen : because it was not what was predicted, and what was predicted encompass medium to long range, not short range of a few week. What was "predicted" in the very short range of week , happenned : the pound was weakened and cost of borrowing higher for UK. The long term effect of that and the indecision on brexit will happen in *years* not week.
 
Aepervius said:
There is a link above describing why the "armageddon" described did not happen : because it was not what was predicted, and what was predicted encompass medium to long range, not short range of a few week. What was "predicted" in the very short range of week , happenned : the pound was weakened and cost of borrowing higher for UK. The long term effect of that and the indecision on brexit will happen in *years* not week.
Click to expand...

I know - I would have said that it's hardly rocket science but it's difficult to convey such complex concepts as causality to readers of the Express.


At least that is the only explanation I can come up with, given the obvious point that the form of Brexit hasn't been decided on, let alone it actually being implemented. I see no reason to crow about the limited effect of something that hasn't yet happened.
 
Aepervius said:
There is a link above describing why the "armageddon" described did not happen : because it was not what was predicted, and what was predicted encompass medium to long range, not short range of a few week. What was "predicted" in the very short range of week , happenned : the pound was weakened and cost of borrowing higher for UK. The long term effect of that and the indecision on brexit will happen in *years* not week.
Click to expand...
Except that economic systems exhibit exponential error growth from initial conditions and have a predictability horizon of the order of *just a few months* - if that.

So the arm-waving about what happens a few years from now is nothing more than that. Not the claim of an honest broker. Luckily, not many honest brokers in the economics business so we get to have these daft arguments instead.

Furthermore, there were short term economic claims (i.e. testable ones) that have been shown to be outright wrong. Mark Carney, the Bank of England head honcho, claimed voting brexit would cause my mortgage to go up. As a direct result of post Brexit BoE policy, my UK based mortgage is now around £500 a year *cheaper*, and so are many others. Experts, eh? Who'd have them.
 
CoolSceptic said:
While angry remainers continue to believe that the average brexit voter is a bit like Nigel Farage, actual sceptic remainers might like to read the sort of position that the vast majority of leave voters held. Larry Elliott, economics editor of the Guardian, voted brexit and doesn't regret it:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/20/brexit-eu-referendum-economy-project-fear
Click to expand...
I read that piece. Dreadful, isn't it?

UKIP represented around 13% of the electorate at the last general election, so assuming they mainly voted leave, around 25% of the brexit vote. The rest of the leave vote - the other 75% - came from the likes of Airfix, Larry and other moderates. Remainers think such people are "rare birds" - completely wrong. By failing to understand the demographic of the leave voter, remain lost the vote before they had even started.
Click to expand...
You might like to drop the mind-reading act. "Remainers" are as varied in their views as "Leavers", even in the small sample on this forum.

I don't personally buy that most Leave voters in post-industrial South Wales (a majority) followed the same chain of reasoning as Larry Elliot. I think they were mostly raging against the system, and regard the EU as part of said system.
 
jimbob said:
I know - I would have said that it's hardly rocket science but it's difficult to convey such complex concepts as causality to readers of the Express.
Click to expand...
Complex topics such as exponential error growth from initial conditions in systems governed by non-linear dynamics? Actually, it kind of is on a par with rocket science (luckily I have experience of both! Hurrah) but not for your average ISF reader, who apparently can't tell the difference between the Guardian and the Express.
 
CapelDodger said:
I read that piece. Dreadful, isn't it?
Click to expand...
LOL. Anyway long time no chat. Hope you're keeping well old chap.
CapelDodger said:
You might like to drop the mind-reading act. "Remainers" are as varied in their views as "Leavers", even in the small sample on this forum.
Click to expand...
No mind reading required: plenty of good quality polls that back my position up. And I agree remainers and leavers are varied. That doesn't stop the bigoted leaver from being in a distinct minority.

CapelDodger said:
I don't personally buy that most Leave voters in post-industrial South Wales (a majority) followed the same chain of reasoning as Larry Elliot.
Click to expand...
Who is reading minds now? My claims - that UKIP represents a small percentage of the leave vote - is justifiable. That was the extent of my point.
 
So the arm-waving about what happens a few years from now is nothing more than that.
Click to expand...
The crowing of Elliot over what hasn't happened in the first two months is worth less.

After Christmas we can maybe take stock to some purpose.
 
CoolSceptic said:
Who is reading minds now? My claims - that UKIP represents a small percentage of the leave vote - is justifiable. That was the extent of my point.
Click to expand...

Yes UKIP represents a minority (not a small percentage) of the Leave vote. UKIP poll in the 15-20% range and almost 100% of UKIP voters voted to leave which means that 30-40% of Leave voters are UKIP supporters - hardly a small percentage.

UKIP values (xenophobia, intolerance and so on) were influential beyond their immediate support. Anti-immigrant sentiment was a key element of Leave support in large parts of the country.
 
CoolSceptic said:
UKIP represented around 13% of the electorate at the last general election, so assuming they mainly voted leave, around 25% of the brexit vote. The rest of the leave vote - the other 75% - came from the likes of Airfix, Larry and other moderates. Remainers think such people are "rare birds" - completely wrong. By failing to understand the demographic of the leave voter, remain lost the vote before they had even started.
Click to expand...

I think describing Airfix as a moderate is inaccurate. In his/her own way Airfix is just as far removed from the consensus of UK politics as the most right-wing of UKIP supporters.

Remember that Leave voters are on average poorer, less well educated and older than the population in general.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom