Politics, politics, politics

[milo]

I may be reading the article wrong (it's badly written), but seems to say it will cost £5.8b between now and 2029 to go to WTO. That sounds a bargain.

You are reading it wrong. It is EU investment into the UK that would fall by £5.8b. They predict that the hit on the economy would be far higher, 4.9% of GDP by 2029 which is £105b.

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2200.html

 

[milo]

You are reading it wrong. It is EU investment into the UK that would fall by £5.8b. They predict that the hit on the economy would be far higher, 4.9% of GDP by 2029 which is £105b.

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2200.html

Here are their assumptions on the impact of WTO

 

[Gutter Boy]

You are reading it wrong. It is EU investment into the UK that would fall by £5.8b. They predict that the hit on the economy would be far higher, 4.9% of GDP by 2029 which is £105b.

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2200.html

Is that include or excluding the £15b pa net contribution saving?

 

[milo]

Is that include or excluding the £15b pa net contribution saving?

It is the hit on the economy, so government spending is likely to be excluded. We will not see £15b though, our net contribution in 2016 was £8.6b and the cost of replacing the EU institutions that we are currently a member of and the extra infrastructure and people requirements will cost far more.

 

[monkeybarry]

Just out of interest, would you agree to there being a leave-remain referendum set into UK law, that would have to take place every two years perennially? So every new step towards the superstate/institutional crisis/change in situation could be ratified or rejected by voters. If that principle is important, not just that the pesky voters voted the wrong way.

No, because that assumes a significant status change every two years.
But I am all in favour of constant review of all factors affecting the UK to be expedited and/or exceptional action taken when extraordinary factors (which the referendum and it's knock effects are) create large change.
In fact I expect that of good government.

It has nothing to do with people "voting the wrong way". As I said, I don't think the result would by any means be a foregone conclusion (nor is my position fyi) - but it is a serious enough status to review, especially with the impact to date.

 

[SpurMeUp]

To those who are bullish about Brexit, has there been anything positive come of Brexit either now or on the horizon? If no, when do you think we’ll get some positive impact and what will that look like?


So far, the effect on the economy and any Brexit news is all negative. In real terms people are poorer and the UK has slipped from 5th largest economy to 6th, while the EU is showing strong growth. More good news:

Influential US think thank the Rand Corporation has delivered a gloomy assessment of Britain's economy post-Brexit. Whatever the outcome of trade talks, the impact is likely to be less favourable for the UK, its report argues.

But the report's lead author, Rand vice-president Charles Ries, says Washington itself is more worried about politics than economics.

The outcome of the trade talks are "largely trivial for the US," he tells Today. "The US cares about Brexit's impact on European cohesion, the loss of Britain at the top table, and the impact on political and security cooperation."


"The loss of Britain at the top table." Not only will the uk suffer financially, Brexit will make the UK peripheral like a Scandinavian country. No disrespect to them.

Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

 

[Parklaner81]

It is becoming alot more clear now what the impacts of Brexit against the backdrop of a Tory run Govt are - so it is essential that a vote is put to the electorate before March 2019. Accept the deal Vs Reject the Deal Vs Reverse the decision to leave.
That creates a situation where ideology and impact are both known enough to make a balanced decision. That is not to say the result would in any way be guaranteed (the fear of Brexiters) - many views may have changed with the development of information impact and politics.

Actually, I think the result of any such vote would be very, very easy to predict seeing as the options offered would split the brexit vote, vs. one clear option for remain.

Not hard to see why such a ballot would appeal to remainers.

 

[SpurMeUp]

It is the hit on the economy, so government spending is likely to be excluded. We will not see £15b though, our net contribution in 2016 was £8.6b and the cost of replacing the EU institutions that we are currently a member of and the extra infrastructure and people requirements will cost far more.

Where do you get this estimate from out of interest? Will simply replacing the bureaucracy cost that much!? Before any trade loss impact?


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

 

[milo]

Where do you get this estimate from out of interest? Will simply replacing the bureaucracy cost that much!? Before any trade loss impact?


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

Full Facts, I put the URL behind the text.

I haven't seen any detailed estimates of the cost of setting up replacement bodies for the EU ones we would leave under a hard Brexit or the additional civil servants and boarder infrastructure. If only we had access to some decent UK impact assessments.

 

[monkeybarry]

Actually, I think the result of any such vote would be very, very easy to predict seeing as the options offered would split the brexit vote, vs. one clear option for remain.

Not hard to see why such a ballot would appeal to remainers.

I did think about that, but would also depend on people's view of democracy and what "not leaving" may look like. It is logical to suggest not leaving would create even closer union than before the vote.
I voted remain, but I would not be in favour of even closer union.
It may be that the Euro would become almost certain - that would be unacceptable to most voters.

 

[Parklaner81]

I did think about that, but would also depend on people's view of democracy and what "not leaving" may look like. It is logical to suggest not leaving would create even closer union than before the vote.
I voted remain, but I would not be in favour of even closer union.
It may be that the Euro would become almost certain - that would be unacceptable to most voters.

You make fair and interesting points, but I still believe that what you originally proposed is too close to a straightforward '2nd referendum', and one heavily skewed to remain in it's design at that. Take the 'remain' option away though, and I would agree that a 'deal or no deal' vote would be fair enough.

You do raise a very interesting point though, in that presumably we have passed the point now where the pre-referendum status quo is any longer an option. So what would 'remain' actually look like at this point? And I wonder how the hard-core remainers would feel if the EU took a similar attitude into any such talks to the one they've displayed to date...?

 

[SpurMeUp]

You make fair and interesting points, but I still believe that what you originally proposed is too close to a straightforward '2nd referendum', and one heavily skewed to remain in it's design at that. Take the 'remain' option away though, and I would agree that a 'deal or no deal' vote would be fair enough.

You do raise a very interesting point though, in that presumably we have passed the point now where the pre-referendum status quo is any longer an option. So what would 'remain' actually look like at this point? And I wonder how the hard-core remainers would feel if the EU took a similar attitude into any such talks to the one they've displayed to date...?

That is your presumption, but its not necessarily true. Obviously, we have not exited anything yet. We only know scant details of the exit agreement, but everything is apparently subject to the final agreement being reached. Its become the new mantra, we had Brexit mean Brisket, and now we're onto Nothing is Agreed until Everything is Agreed. Slogans designed to placate the Right wing Tories and Brexiteers. So how far are we past the pre-referendum status quo really? Nothing is agreed and won't be if and until everything is, so nowhere really.

Because of their bias maybe some people have an odd sense of democracy. People are allowed to change their minds in a democracy as the world and conditions around them change, or is that not so? Along with the details of Brexit, Tony Blair or another could socialise the option of canceling Article 50. The Scotish diplomat chap (thank you @milo ) who wrote article 50 thinks it is reversible, and the EU would like the UK to stay in the customs union. Provided we don't try and renegotiate our membership, and take the old membership we have now, I think the EU would acquiesce. If so, what would be the problem with a referendum, with all the facts on the table, where people could vote knowing the true picture in front of them? It would be anti-democratic to deny people an informed vote imo.

 

[SpurMeUp]

Full Facts, I put the URL behind the text.

I haven't seen any detailed estimates of the cost of setting up replacement bodies for the EU ones we would leave under a hard Brexit or the additional civil servants and boarder infrastructure. If only we had access to some decent UK impact assessments.

I don't think the cost of larger Ministries and government would cost 8.6b per year, it would probably cost 1 or 2, with significant setup costs and inefficiency as they get up to speed. But factor in paying for access to the single market and or customs union and there will be little left over imo. Might even be a net loss. If one takes the projected losses to economy of say 5% from lost trade, then clearly the UK would have a big net loss and be significantly poorer than we were. Less money for schools etc.

What Leave supporters seem unable to pinpoint is what exactly we'll get back in return. Money is not everything, so what are we looking for that is positive from Brexit? Less migrants and no European court? I think the ECJ has been a massive red herring. The ECJ rules on Union laws, not national laws. We still have national laws, and make our own national laws. They have to be in sync with the ECJ union laws and the ECJ is the highest test court for any rulings, but I don't think it impacts people. Can anyone here point to how its negatively impacted their lives?

So we're left with migration and free movement, imo, the crucial variable, and one that living in central London, doesn't impact me so much. I think we need a more honest and open debate about this thorny subject. We need to openly look at non-EU migration as well and why we don't control it more. We need to look at who can do the more menial jobs, and at skills training for Brits. Then at whether the existing EU controls of registering EU migrants and sending them home if they don't have work are viable and if they could help matters.

It would be a shame to damage our economy by leaving the EU, only to then bring in immigrants to work anyway and not address things like skills training for our own. As a society we need to look at these issues with some care, and try and understand different British peoples perspectives. Where I live I don't see the negatives of EU immigration. Maybe in more rural areas or where there is less work, there is much more of an issue?

 

[monkeybarry]

You make fair and interesting points, but I still believe that what you originally proposed is too close to a straightforward '2nd referendum', and one heavily skewed to remain in it's design at that. Take the 'remain' option away though, and I would agree that a 'deal or no deal' vote would be fair enough.

You do raise a very interesting point though, in that presumably we have passed the point now where the pre-referendum status quo is any longer an option. So what would 'remain' actually look like at this point? And I wonder how the hard-core remainers would feel if the EU took a similar attitude into any such talks to the one they've displayed to date...?

You could argue that the "remain" position would be very similar to the question "would you like to join the EU".

To which my answer is No.

Of course, in reality, the picture will become clear during negotiations if that narrative rears its head as I'm sure the EU will state their position - which of itself will indicate their strength/weakness. A position of "ok, let's just forget this ever happened" shows how needed tje UK is. A position of "ok, you want to change your mind -well, it's the same terms as a newbie" would show they are happy to carry on without us (or, as some suspect, so entrenched in ideology they can't see past it).

 

[r-u-s-x]

A position of "ok, let's just forget this ever happened" shows how needed tje UK is.

How so this has been their position throughout both the EU and the UK are stronger together. They also state that we cannot access the single market without the other pillars and this is where our disagreement lies.

 

[monkeybarry]

How so this has been their position throughout both the EU and the UK are stronger together. They also state that we cannot access the single market without the other pillars and this is where our disagreement lies.

Yes, but the longer it goes on the stronger the politics become any statements.
They will need to ensure others are not too tempted to try their luck.
It also depends on how weakened we have become by that point strategically - they will certainly hold the cards

 

[r-u-s-x]

Yes, but the longer it goes on the stronger the politics become any statements.
They will need to ensure others are not too tempted to try their luck.
It also depends on how weakened we have become by that point strategically - they will certainly hold the cards

Think if we came back on same terms it shows strength on their part, we realise we can't do better outside and the EU didn't back down.

All hypotheticals any way but I don't agree with your conclusion.

 

[monkeybarry]

Think if we came back on same terms it shows strength on their part, we realise we can't do better outside and the EU didn't back down.

All hypotheticals any way but I don't agree with your conclusion.

Very true - I hadn't taken that angle, I agree it does demonstrate the strength of the EU.

Conversely, I could strengthen the position of the new members (ie Hungary etc) that membership outside of the Eurozone is perfectly legitimate

 

[r-u-s-x]

Very true - I hadn't taken that angle, I agree it does demonstrate the strength of the EU.

Conversely, I could strengthen the position of the new members (ie Hungary etc) that membership outside of the Eurozone is perfectly legitimate

Do the EU really care? If Hungary want in they will have to follow the rules, unless I am missing the EU actively trying to woo them?

 

[DTA]

Very true - I hadn't taken that angle, I agree it does demonstrate the strength of the EU.

Conversely, I could strengthen the position of the new members (ie Hungary etc) that membership outside of the Eurozone is perfectly legitimate

But the UK is major economy. The EU won't want to lose. If Hungary etc start trying to negotiate terms close to what the UK have. They will be told to do one.

The EU will survive without us. But are stronger with us in it. A second referendum with a reverse of the result, would suit them... They would also be aware that if They try to impose anything additional then a second referendum result may not go the way they want... So much so... That they may also be inclined to sweeten the deal for us to stay in.