Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Brexit Referendum Superthread
Options
Comments
-
A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »This is bizarre, and so is your reliance on the Law of Comparative Advantage.
Do you even know what unsophisticated products are? Milk is as unsophisticated product. Bread. British Beef. Craft Beers. In fact, the relative lack of self-sufficiency in British food, which has been diminishing in recent years, is a serious problem and is an obvious area that should be grown.
Well I imagine that most people would have looked at the term 'unsophisticated goods' and thought of low value added products but I can hear the sound of some goal posts being lifted up and it's your term so why don't you tell me how you define it? An actual definition supported by examples rather than just examples please?
Also, why is a relative lack of self-sufficiency in British food a serious problem? Why and how would you justify removing people from working in industries that add more value to working on farms leaving the UK poorer?
You still haven't looked up the law of comparative advantage have you?
Did you manage to find a crackpot economist who think that your idea about increasing production of 'unsophisticated goods' is a good one?A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »I'm not suggesting that Britain becomes the shipbuilding capital of the world again for Christ's sake. Britain needs to continue its growth trajectory in sophisticated goods and services exports, but the British economy can walk and chew gum at the same time. Whilst growing the production of sophisticated products, there is also capacity to grow capacity of unsophisticated products with low price-elasticity of demand that the UK currently imports, and the food industry is an obvious place to begin.
Why not shipbuilding? There's at least scope for innovation there.
That an economy is capable of doing something doesn't automatically make it a good idea. Why, if you could produce 2 widgets, each at a cost £2, one selling for £5 and the other for £1.50 would you shift people from producing the widget that sells for £5 to the one selling for £1.50?A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »To most people, it's inevitable.
Pick up a newspaper on your way to work in the morning, won't you?
The depreciation of sterling brings great benefits for UK exports, but it also poses a serious problem for the UK given the over-reliance on UK households on price-inelastic imports of unsophisticated products. The UK can grasp two opportunities here: increase its exports, and increase its self-sufficiency where possible in order to mitigate the negative effects of depreciation.
In the long term there's a pretty strong relationship between the strength of an economy and the strength of its currency. If you're saying that the "inevitable sustained depreciation of sterling" is coming then you're pretty much predicting a sustained relative drop in economic output. Now, as I said before, if the UK were to follow your prescription for economic development this would indeed be quite a likely outcome. Fortunately, the UK in general and the Tories in particular are a touch further to the right on this issue so I think that they'll be safe.A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »This thread is hilarious at times.
Well that's one thing at least that we agree on!A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »Nobody is suggesting a Churchillian utopia with thousands of City bankers donning greasy overalls and marching north to the shipyards ffs. But the idea that unsophisticated manufacturing=bad is so daft I hardly know where to begin. I suppose you think France, which is Europe's most self-sufficient country in agriculture, should down tools and retrain its workforce in cell biology and quantum physics.
Take a look at the farming subsidies France enjoys, compare it to the what the UK gets. Take a look at the kind of agriculture France produces. Not all agriculture is created equal. I doubt that even you think that the UK should replace French red wine with English produced wine or perhaps I assume too much? This is what makes me curious about your definition for 'unsophisticated goods' particularly in relation to necessities which as you have told us are relatively price inelastic.A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »"Creating jobs in unsophisticated manufacturing is a terrible idea". That's an absurdly stupid comment in fairness.
The recycling of an earlier comment of mine is appropriate here - "you could not be much more wrong". If I were to use one of yours I would use "That's an absurdly stupid comment in fairness" however the use of the word 'much' adds a little nuance which I think makes it more appropriate.A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »Stable economic planning requires a country to have a diverse basket of manufactured products, including reasonably basic items that are produced for the domestic market, such as food production.
In economic terms, you're completely and utterly wrong. You could be thinking in terms of global warming but I guess you're heading down the protectionist route now or do you mean something else by 'stable economic planning'? I'm open to correction but I'm not aware of even the most ardent Brexiteer suggesting that Britain should withdraw from the world - there was lots of talk about greater trading opportunities not fewer.0 -
Fortunately, the UK in general and the Tories in particular are a touch further to the right on this issue so I think that they'll be safe.
No, I think the Tories are on the Tyrants wavelength:
Brits should take up farm work and fruit picking after Brexit
http://www.itv.com/news/2016-10-02/leadsom-brits-should-be-doing-more-farm-work-and-fruit-picking/0 -
youreadthat wrote: »The UK isn't choosing anything other than leaving the EU. Everything else is up to the EU. The inherent inflexibility of the "4 freedoms" means that you are either in or out.
It is the UK that would reject EU law in its entirety upon leaving. The UK is free to request a specific model for future UK-EU relations when invoking article 50 of the TEU. It is NOT up to the EU to do this since we can't make that decision for them.
Nor, indeed, would it be appropriate for the EU to try to engage in a Dutch Auction to secure the UK's favour. The EU is founded on a common set of treaties and to carry out specific aims in certain areas (see art 3 TEU). If the UK fundamentally disagrees with those then it has little basis for engaging with the EU in any meaningful way.
There is no point in being a member of a golf club if you either hate golf or strenuously object to the rules of golf. And, should a person quit for either reason, it is not up to the golf club to either abandon golf or rip up the rules of golf since the reason the golf club is there is so golf can be played.0 -
I suspect Britain will remain part of the customs union. On that basis, there would be no tariffs levied on British exports to the E.U., and no new tariffs would be imposed on British imports for the purposes of automotive production.
personally , I suspect this will be the outcome, in fact i would go as far as to say that the effects of Brexit may be minimal , a hard brexit would simply be madness for the UK to contemplate and would cause serious issues in Scotland and NI0 -
personally , I suspect this will be the outcome, in fact i would go as far as to say that the effects of Brexit may be minimal , a hard brexit would simply be madness for the UK to contemplate and would cause serious issues in Scotland and NI
It already does:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-37545894Brexit would be 'catastrophic for peace process'
...
Mr Lavery said leaving the EU would affect the peace process and "that delicate constitutional balance which we have reached".
He also argued that Brexit could see the repeal of the Human Rights Act and withdrawal from the European convention on Human Rights, upon which his client, Mr McCord, had relied.
He suggested that, post-Brexit, the creation of a united Ireland would require the consent of all the other 27 EU members states because it would mean readmitting Northern Ireland to the EU.
...
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-37539439
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-37540552UK and Scotland on course for great 'constitutional bust-up'
...
But Scotland's Brexit minister Mike Russell has warned the Scottish Parliament might seek to block it if Scotland's interests were not represented in negotiations.
Under the "Sewel convention" the UK Parliament will not normally legislate for devolved matters without the consent of the devolved legislature affected.
...0 -
Advertisement
-
UK and Scotland on course for great 'constitutional bust-up'
...
But Scotland's Brexit minister Mike Russell has warned the Scottish Parliament might seek to block it if Scotland's interests were not represented in negotiations.
Under the "Sewel convention" the UK Parliament will not normally legislate for devolved matters without the consent of the devolved legislature affected.
of course it has already been decided that article 50 can be triggered by the PM , alone , though the repeal off the Communities Acts could be held up by the Scottish issuesBrexit would be 'catastrophic for peace process'
...
Mr Lavery said leaving the EU would affect the peace process and "that delicate constitutional balance which we have reached".
He also argued that Brexit could see the repeal of the Human Rights Act and withdrawal from the European convention on Human Rights, upon which his client, Mr McCord, had relied.
He suggested that, post-Brexit, the creation of a united Ireland would require the consent of all the other 27 EU members states because it would mean readmitting Northern Ireland to the EU.
I dont think Brexit will affect the peace process one iota, as for the creation of an united ireland, sure lets cross that bridge when we come to it LOL0 -
of course it has already been decided that article 50 can be triggered by the PM , alone , though the repeal off the Communities Acts could be held up by the Scottish issues
I dont think Brexit will affect the peace process one iota, as for the creation of an united ireland, sure lets cross that bridge when we come to it LOL
I don´t see it all that optimistic as you do and I´m going out from the certain possibility that Mrs Sturgeon will use that period when the UK govt has triggered Article 50 to watch the negotiations very close and call for another Scottish Independence Referendum when she sees it to fit the purpose and keep the thing "cooking".
Brexiteers appear to be very optimistic and see no reason to worry about anthing, until the EU tells them what is on offer and I doubt that the cherry picking will be granted to the UK, rather the contrary.0 -
Thomas_... wrote: »I don´t see it all that optimistic as you do and I´m going out from the certain possibility that Mrs Sturgeon will use that period when the UK govt has triggered Article 50 to watch the negotiations very close and call for another Scottish Independence Referendum when she sees it to fit the purpose and keep the thing "cooking".
Brexiteers appear to be very optimistic and see no reason to worry about anthing, until the EU tells them what is on offer and I doubt that the cherry picking will be granted to the UK, rather the contrary.
I am in favour of the UK remaining in the EU, but I think its ultimately in both the EUs interest and the UK interests to maintain close links. I suspect when all the bluster is done ( as in the greece situation ) a pragmatic arrangement will be forthcoming, providing the UK with some limited measure of immigration control and for membership in one form or another of the customs union. I suspect the UK will agree to contribute certain amounts to the EU budget aka Norway and it will cross recognise institutions
Scottish referendum is decades away and SNP know that winning it is very difficult
I do think that Brexisters are overly optimistic, there will be pain for the the UK and the end result will leave many things looking like they never changed ( which is often way ) , the UK will be given limited concessions on immigration , which will allow the UK Gov to present Brexit as a win in return for leaving most things in effect as is .
The effect on Ireland will be limited to non existent and will have no impact whatsoever on the " peace process"0 -
I am in favour of the UK remaining in the EU, but I think its ultimately in both the EUs interest and the UK interests to maintain close links. I suspect when all the bluster is done ( as in the greece situation ) a pragmatic arrangement will be forthcoming, providing the UK with some limited measure of immigration control and for membership in one form or another of the customs union. I suspect the UK will agree to contribute certain amounts to the EU budget aka Norway and it will cross recognise institutions
Scottish referendum is decades away and SNP know that winning it is very difficult
I do think that Brexisters are overly optimistic, there will be pain for the the UK and the end result will leave many things looking like they never changed ( which is often way ) , the UK will be given limited concessions on immigration , which will allow the UK Gov to present Brexit as a win in return for leaving most things in effect as is .
The effect on Ireland will be limited to non existent and will have no impact whatsoever on the " peace process"
Sorry, but apart from a possible arrangement regarding the customs Union and the delusion of the many Brexiters, I don´t believe in much of what you´ve said.
But we can agree on one thing which is that many things are open for negotiations and that they haven´t started yet. Less to six months to go until they start.0 -
providing the UK with some limited measure of immigration control...
The effect on Ireland will be limited to non existent
If the UK has immigration control with the EU, and we have an open border with NI, we have to have immigration control with the EU.
Which 1) isn't happening and 2) would be an effect.
Or we have a hard border with NI, ditto.
Or the UK introduces immigration control between NI and Britain - and I can hear heads exploding north of the border on that one.0 -
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 22734
-
Zubeneschamali wrote: »If the UK has immigration control with the EU, and we have an open border with NI, we have to have immigration control with the EU.
Which 1) isn't happening and 2) would be an effect.
Or we have a hard border with NI, ditto.
Or the UK introduces immigration control between NI and Britain - and I can hear heads exploding north of the border on that one.
neither has to happen, see Switzerland
In my view Ireland will sustain the argument that it has a special case , being the only land border, in my view Ireland will therefore agree to match UK restrictions on immigration and maintain the CTA with the UK. There is plenty of cases where the UK and ireland have had different policies to the EU in that regard.
The UK demands on immigration control will be boiled down to very modest reforms in my opinion, the UK needs access too the single market and that will ultimately drive all decisions0 -
Jep Gambardella wrote: »The problem is that voters in England, who largely drove Brexit, don't really care that much about Scotland or Northern Ireland.
actually the votes came primarily from the disadvantaged areas of england, which happen to be very populous
but I agree, the concerns of the scottish will be ignored as Westminster knows that the SNP has really no hand to play , as the nuclear option of a referendum is way too risky0 -
A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »No, it isn't that simple. Governments are allowed to extend special favours to certain domestic industries of strategic importance, such as by applying counterveiling duties to their competitors. Volkswagen wouldn't be keen on that.
If State Aid rules were as literal as you seem to believe, there would never have been mass bank bailouts. Britain will be entitled to support its car industry if needs be, and the sky won't fall down.
Oh dear. This is a massive misinterpretation of the character and context of the bank bailouts.
First, context: bank bailouts were agreed at a European level as a strategic response to a pan-European financial crisis.
Second, character: the bank bailouts weren't anything like state aid in character. State aid is characterised by the transfer of state resources to private companies - whether positively by subsidy or passively by tax exemption. For the company, nothing changes except getting/keeping the money. The state gets nothing in direct exchange.
The bank bailouts weren't anything like that. The bank bailouts involved transfers of state capital to the banks in exchange for nationalisation. The state provided capital, but took ownership - that's why the state owns 98% of AIB, and all of Anglo's remnants. The state also provided state guarantees to the banks, in exchange for levies.
The important point there is that there was an exchange. Whether one considers it a good deal or a bad one, it was not 'state aid'. When a government provides state aid to a company, it does not take ownership of the company - it is providing the aid without exchange.
So, no, I'm afraid the fact that there were bank bailouts has no bearing on the question of whether the UK will be able to give state aid to UK businesses after Brexit. As someone has said, they cannot do so under WTO rules without attracting compensatory tariffs.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
In my view Ireland will sustain the argument that it has a special case , being the only land border, in my view Ireland will therefore agree to match UK restrictions on immigration
So not only will the UK leave the EU, apply immigration control and still get access to the single market, but Ireland, a full EU member, will limit EU immigration too in order to enable this?
Absolutely unacceptable. Will be vetoed instantly by 20+ EU countries if we are mad enough to propose it.0 -
Zubeneschamali wrote: »So not only will the UK leave the EU, apply immigration control and still get access to the single market, but Ireland, a full EU member, will limit EU immigration too in order to enable this?
Absolutely unacceptable. Will be vetoed instantly by 20+ EU countries if we are mad enough to propose it.
Yup. The Eastern European members aren't going to wear that for an instant. Nor will the multinationals based here.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Join Date:Posts: 22734
-
I am in favour of the UK remaining in the EU, but I think its ultimately in both the EUs interest and the UK interests to maintain close links. I suspect when all the bluster is done ( as in the greece situation ) a pragmatic arrangement will be forthcoming, providing the UK with some limited measure of immigration control and for membership in one form or another of the customs union. I suspect the UK will agree to contribute certain amounts to the EU budget aka Norway and it will cross recognise institutions
Scottish referendum is decades away and SNP know that winning it is very difficult
I do think that Brexisters are overly optimistic, there will be pain for the the UK and the end result will leave many things looking like they never changed ( which is often way ) , the UK will be given limited concessions on immigration , which will allow the UK Gov to present Brexit as a win in return for leaving most things in effect as is .
The effect on Ireland will be limited to non existent and will have no impact whatsoever on the " peace process"
I think you are right in most of what you say, many of the effects will not really be noticeable but there will be long term issues.
On the negotiations - I think that won't work out as well as people think. There are three parts to the deal. The EU and Britain, more importantly the internal EU negotiations and then the EU and associated partners such as Switzerland & Norway.
The UK politicians have recently being stating that they expect a hard exit. Whether they are doing this so that they can pretend that anything else is a bonus; a hard-line negotiation tactic or possibly the hard exit is the only version they see as being compatible with the results of the referendum.
I don't think Britain will suffer much (other than lower growth) but I do think this will have pretty serious effects here in Ireland. Ireland's rural exports to the UK tend to be from the traditional sectors, the poorest and least efficient industries. The benefits of Brexit tend to focus on the urban non traditional areas.0 -
Zubeneschamali wrote: »So not only will the UK leave the EU, apply immigration control and still get access to the single market, but Ireland, a full EU member, will limit EU immigration too in order to enable this?
Absolutely unacceptable. Will be vetoed instantly by 20+ EU countries if we are mad enough to propose it.
in my view , at the end of the day there will be an agreement that will suffice for the UK to proclaim it has a measure of control over immigration whilst retaining access to the customs union. Ireland will get some concessions as a unique situation
its not in either the EUs interests ( and its member states) or in the UKs interests for a total divorce, nor will the EU seek to " punish " the UK. One has to ignore the " bombast" that is around at the moment, Behind the scenes , civil servants are working away out of the political limelight to try and com cup with a pragmatic solution.
remember people said Greece was out of the Euro, the euro would crash, blah blah blah.
the extremists are just that , its makes for good soundbites and fear mongering, but ultimately a practical solution will be found.0 -
The UK politicians have recently being stating that they expect a hard exit. Whether they are doing this so that they can pretend that anything else is a bonus; a hard-line negotiation tactic or possibly the hard exit is the only version they see as being compatible with the results of the referendum.
I don't think Britain will suffer much (other than lower growth) but I do think this will have pretty serious effects here in Ireland. Ireland's rural exports to the UK tend to be from the traditional sectors, the poorest and least efficient industries. The benefits of Brexit tend to focus on the urban non traditional areas.
Jaggo is online now Report Post
The " hard exit" is primarily " bombast" and is a rather futile attempt by the UK to establish a negotiating posture that suggests that the EU will loose more on a hard exit, its a rather transparent stance and one more likely for domestic consumption , I wouldn't be worried by it
The UK will retain access to the single market ( in one form or another ) , that I am sure off, hence Irelands position will remain unchanged as regards trade. The EU stands to gain more by a deal with the UK then a hard exit, which is why certain elements off the UK are trying to use it as a negotiation tatic0 -
Advertisement
-
My term? It's not my term, it's a pretty commonplace expression across the economic literature; sophisticated goods manufacturing refers to high quality, high-tech processes requiring specialist knowledge to produce, such as electronic goods, aerospace engineering, medical equipment, and so on.Well I imagine that most people would have looked at the term 'unsophisticated goods' and thought of low value added products but I can hear the sound of some goal posts being lifted up and it's your term so why don't you tell me how you define it?
We might say, as a rule of thumb (although this is only my suggestion), that sophisticated production usually requires people with a full second-level education and some third level education or sustained specialist training on the production lines. Unsophisticated production lines, such as food and agricultural processing, do not typically require any third-level education nor advanced skills.
So unsophisticated products include things like agri/food production, textiles/fashion, and furniture manufacturing.
I might also ask you to please not suggest that I'm moving goalposts, just because you haven't understood an expression, or are disappointed that there might be a valid point. Agricultural processing and food manufacturing are unsophisticated in their nature, and I am simply suggesting there may be some growth potential here, post-Brexit.
Well, it's first and foremost a possible opportunity. It can be a problem when the households are unnecessarily reliant on relatively inelastic imports that have the effect of reducing their real purchasing power.Also, why is a relative lack of self-sufficiency in British food a serious problem?
But again, I see this primarily as an opportunity. If 30% of the population are unemployed in parts of Wales, Northern England and Scotland, and British households are importing ever-more expensive furniture, food and alcohol products, I just wonder whether there isn't growth potential there.
Those guys on benefits in Liverpool and Sunderland are never going to write C++ programs or build airplanes, we need to get real.
This is getting ridiculous. Where did I say there would be people removed from sophisticated to unsophisticated industries? That is precisely what I said was not to happen. By their nature, most of the new/growth firms I'm referencing would be paying pretty low wages. Nobody is going to leave their job in Nissan to work in the boning hall of an abattoir, or to slop yoghurt into plastic tubs.Why and how would you justify removing people from working in industries that add more value to working on farms leaving the UK poorer?
However, with a combination of strategic tax incentives, or a lower rate of corporation tax altogether, and tariffs on imports, combined with the depreciation of the pound, efficiency ought to increase in unsophisticated industries.
The possibility of invigorating the regional economy with unsophisticated industry should be explored.
I understand what I'm talking about, and your preoccupation with the Law of Comparative Advantage is slightly odd. Comparative advantage primarily relates to opportunity cost. And yes, although Sunderland and Liverpool and Glasgow would do better if most people worked for the likes of IBM and Airbus, that's just not happening. Nobody is being reassigned from Nissan to work in Joe Blogg's yoghurt factory on a vacant industrial estate in South Wales. And Nissan is never going to be run out of business by a two-bit yoghurt company.You still haven't looked up the law of comparative advantage have you?
The UK will, and should continue to, seek to specialise in the export of sophisticated goods and services. I have said that a number of times. But that will only ever be one part of its economic development.
Again, I am suggesting that the U.K. has, or can create, the capacity to grow its agricultural and food production sectors. I am not suggesting it will ever equal France. It will not. I am merely putting France forward as a successful modern economy characterised by sophisticated manufacturing, which happens to be self-sufficient in agriculture.Take a look at the farming subsidies France enjoys, compare it to the what the UK gets. Take a look at the kind of agriculture France produces. Not all agriculture is created equal. I doubt that even you think that the UK should replace French red wine with English produced wine or perhaps I assume too much?
Am I wasting my time replying to you, yeah? Are you just going to exaggerate and inflate everything I write here, to convince yourself that you're right? protectionism? Withdrawing from the world? I'm only surprised you haven't mentioned North Korea.I guess you're heading down the protectionist route now or do you mean something else by 'stable economic planning'? I'm open to correction but I'm not aware of even the most ardent Brexiteer suggesting that Britain should withdraw from the world - there was lots of talk about greater trading opportunities not fewer.
Nobody is suggesting that Britain embraces protectionism or 'withdraws from the world. I'm suggesting it take advantage of Brexit, where possible, to mitigate the inevitable buffeting British households are getting from depreciation of the pound, and the possible imposition of tariffs. It's one pragmatic suggestion for coming to terms with Brexit, not a prescription for protectionism, or becoming North Korea, or whatever other way you'd like to reframe it.0 -
Oh dear. Lets see about that.Oh dear. This is a massive misinterpretation of the character and context of the bank bailouts.
Oh dear. The State Aid rules were agreed, in Treaty form, around 1957. When the Member States agreed to the recapitalisation measures, they did not amend the relevant legal provisions that govern state aid and the internal market. primary law was unaffected.First, context: bank bailouts were agreed at a European level as a strategic response to a pan-European financial crisis.
The only thing that was amended of any note was the Commission's interpretation of state aid law, including (in 2008) that state aid may be considered to be compatible with the internal market where it is intended to "remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State"
See Julia Flavie Collinet, "State Aid in the Banking Sector: A Viable Solution to the ‘Too Big To Fail’ Problem?" (2014) Global Antitrust Review 137, 140.
Oh dear. A bit like this, then.Second, character: the bank bailouts weren't anything like state aid in character. State aid is characterised by the transfer of state resources to private companies - whether positively by subsidy or passively by tax exemption. For the company, nothing changes except getting/keeping the money. The state gets nothing in direct exchange.
http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/failure-by-aib-to-meet-cash-deadline-costs-state-280m-30216366.html"Following careful consideration of the interests of the bank and its shareholders, AIB has determined that the dividend of €280m, due 13 May 2014, will be settled in ordinary shares in lieu of a cash payment," it said. "As a result AIB becomes obliged to issue and allot ordinary shares to the NPRFC in accordance with AIB's Articles of Association."
The NPRFC already holds 99.8pc of the bank's 521 billion ordinary shares, the majority issued at a price of €0.01 per share in July 2011, so the new shares will not materially increase the State's stake in the bank.
AIB expects to return to profit in 2014 after making an operating profit of €445m last year when losses on boom-era assets were excluded.
But last month it emerged AIB was in talks with the Government that could see the €3.5bn portion of the bank's bailout loans effectively written off this year – by being swapped for still more shares.
See further comment here
http://www.coppolacomment.com/2014/04/how-to-fleece-government-irish-style.html
Condescendingly cordially,
A Tyrant Named Miltiades!0 -
A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »...A Tyrant Named Miltiades!
I didn't quote you directly A Tyrant... so not surprising if you've missed this one, but I'm curious as to the development of a response if you would take us through it.0 -
You are aware that the Turkish customs union only covers industrial productions (10-11% of the UK economy), fish and a few other agricultural products.
To get this deal, Turkey giving up allot of powers particularly in making trade deals with other countries and has to accept EU regulations on the products that are for export. None of this would be acceptable to the UK.
It took years to negotiate too.
Anyway from all the statements coming out of London at the moment, it does look like the UK are choosing the hard exit option.
Yeah, it certainly looks like it. I just hope that enough sensible MPs in the Conservative party try and thwart it. The likes of Nicky Morgan, Anna Soubry, and of course, Ken Clarke actually have some clue as to how the real world works and if votes are required in the Commons, I could see them easily voting against the Government. One must remember that almost 2/3rds of Tory MPs wanted Britain to remain in the EU, now excluding Carswell and the DUP, there aren't too many others in Westminster who campaigned or believed in Brexit, so it only takes a few backbench Tory MPs to go and upset the Apple Tart. I mean, what is May going to do against the likes of Soubry or Morgan? They're like the John Deasys of the Conservative party now, rebel MPs with no hope of promotion. They can't be kicked out or made lose the whip, so what threats exactly is May supposed to hold over them? Soubry even has the excuse of doing it because her constituents voted for her knowing full well her pro-EU views and also her constituents were one of the few in the East Midlands who had the common sense to vote to stay in the EU.
May has more than thrown enough red meat for the lunatic wing of the Tory party, they're getting their disastrous Brexit next year and she's made it clear that reducing immigration is a priority. It's now time to listen to the 48% who liked the status quo on Europe (it should also be noted that many people who wanted Brexit didn't necessarily want a hard Brexit, just some control over immigration and money for the NHS, which of course they're never going to get) and the sensible 2/3rds of Tory MPs who wanted to stay, many of whom presumably do want continued access to the single market and to be able to freely trade with a market of 500 million people (it's worth reminding the deluded Brexiteers that nearly half of UK exports go to an EU country, while only 12-16% of EU exports go to the UK - Ireland being one of their biggest customers so we are uniquely badly affected).
Some of the other announcements coming out of the Tory party conference are really terrifying, we saw that idiot Fox saying that EU nationals are bargaining chips, granted I have a vested interest being a UK resident, but that is just appalling. Then we had Rudd saying that we should go back to the old 'no Irish need apply', except this time it would be 'no non-Brit need apply' with the proposal to 'name and shame' bosses who don't employ Brits. Did it ever occur to these deluded fools that some of these jobs are done by foreigners because the natives won't do them? It's like in Ireland during the boom, cleaning, working in McDonalds etc were all beneath the natives and we were quite happy for the Poles and the Lithuanians to do them for us instead. It was wrong of us to turn our noses up at these jobs and it is equally wrong of the Brits to do so now. The best person for any given job should get it, no ifs or buts, there should be no favouritism for gender, race, colour, creed, orientation etc.
They are going so far down the wrong path at the moment I'm actually beginning to think that maybe having Mr Corbyn as Prime Minister might not be such a bad thing after all - for a start he is in favour of a United Ireland so one of the biggest drawbacks of Brexit (the return of the hard border - which I can't see any way out of given what the UK is now looking for) would be gone, and Scotland will surely have to get their Independence Referendum again. I'd certainly vote SNP were I living in Scotland (something I never thought I would say because they are a bunch of left wing anglophobic loonies), principal reason being that they're so rabidly in favour of the EU and all the benefits that provides them with, the advantages of being in the EU would more than cancel out the drawbacks of their mad left wing policies, at least being in the EU would give Scotland the funding to do the things that are priorities for their electorate.0 -
Zubeneschamali wrote: »So not only will the UK leave the EU, apply immigration control and still get access to the single market, but Ireland, a full EU member, will limit EU immigration too in order to enable this?
Absolutely unacceptable. Will be vetoed instantly by 20+ EU countries if we are mad enough to propose it.
in my view , at the end of the day there will be an agreement that will suffice for the UK to proclaim it has a measure of control over immigration whilst retaining access to the customs union.
The EU is already dealing with Switzerland on this and the EU has been absolutely explicit from the start that if the Swiss restrict FoM & impose quotas on EU citizens, they automatically lose Single Market access.
And access to the customs union is not the same as access to the single market. Turkey has the former but broadly speaking the agreement for this covers goods and excludes services (which happen to be a major UK success story).Ireland will get some concessions as a unique situation
Either we are in the EU or we are not,
neither of which is a unique situation. Who is supposed to give us concessions and for what?its not in either the EUs interests ( and its member states) or in the UKs interests for a total divorce,
The UK government would appear to profoundly disagree with you since they seem to be increasingly determined to opt for the hardest of hard Brexits. That's what they are saying and if they paint themselves into that corner, there is no way they can suddenly turn around and deliver a soft Brexit of any kind.remember people said Greece was out of the Euro, the euro would crash, blah blah blah.
At no stage did the Greek government ever have this as a policy or even a desire, so their situation was fundamentally different to the UK situation0 -
captainspeed wrote: »Yeah, it certainly looks like it. I just hope that enough sensible MPs in the Conservative party try and thwart it. The likes of Nicky Morgan, Anna Soubry, and of course, Ken Clarke actually have some clue as to how the real world works and if votes are required in the Commons, I could see them easily voting against the Government. One must remember that almost 2/3rds of Tory MPs wanted Britain to remain in the EU, now excluding Carswell and the DUP, there aren't too many others in Westminster who campaigned or believed in Brexit, so it only takes a few backbench Tory MPs to go and upset the Apple Tart. I mean, what is May going to do against the likes of Soubry or Morgan? They're like the John Deasys of the Conservative party now, rebel MPs with no hope of promotion. They can't be kicked out or made lose the whip, so what threats exactly is May supposed to hold over them? Soubry even has the excuse of doing it because her constituents voted for her knowing full well her pro-EU views and also her constituents were one of the few in the East Midlands who had the common sense to vote to stay in the EU.
May has more than thrown enough red meat for the lunatic wing of the Tory party, they're getting their disastrous Brexit next year and she's made it clear that reducing immigration is a priority. It's now time to listen to the 48% who liked the status quo on Europe (it should also be noted that many people who wanted Brexit didn't necessarily want a hard Brexit, just some control over immigration and money for the NHS, which of course they're never going to get) and the sensible 2/3rds of Tory MPs who wanted to stay, many of whom presumably do want continued access to the single market and to be able to freely trade with a market of 500 million people (it's worth reminding the deluded Brexiteers that nearly half of UK exports go to an EU country, while only 12-16% of EU exports go to the UK - Ireland being one of their biggest customers so we are uniquely badly affected).
Some of the other announcements coming out of the Tory party conference are really terrifying, we saw that idiot Fox saying that EU nationals are bargaining chips, granted I have a vested interest being a UK resident, but that is just appalling. Then we had Rudd saying that we should go back to the old 'no Irish need apply', except this time it would be 'no non-Brit need apply' with the proposal to 'name and shame' bosses who don't employ Brits. Did it ever occur to these deluded fools that some of these jobs are done by foreigners because the natives won't do them? It's like in Ireland during the boom, cleaning, working in McDonalds etc were all beneath the natives and we were quite happy for the Poles and the Lithuanians to do them for us instead. It was wrong of us to turn our noses up at these jobs and it is equally wrong of the Brits to do so now. The best person for any given job should get it, no ifs or buts, there should be no favouritism for gender, race, colour, creed, orientation etc.
They are going so far down the wrong path at the moment I'm actually beginning to think that maybe having Mr Corbyn as Prime Minister might not be such a bad thing after all - for a start he is in favour of a United Ireland so one of the biggest drawbacks of Brexit (the return of the hard border - which I can't see any way out of given what the UK is now looking for) would be gone, and Scotland will surely have to get their Independence Referendum again. I'd certainly vote SNP were I living in Scotland (something I never thought I would say because they are a bunch of left wing anglophobic loonies), principal reason being that they're so rabidly in favour of the EU and all the benefits that provides them with, the advantages of being in the EU would more than cancel out the drawbacks of their mad left wing policies, at least being in the EU would give Scotland the funding to do the things that are priorities for their electorate.
You were doing well until that bit highlighted, so far off the mark0 -
I have made one assumption throughout this discussion which is that you would think that economic growth is a desirable thing. If that's not the case then we're probably not talking the same language here.A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »My term? It's not my term, it's a pretty commonplace expression across the economic literature; sophisticated goods manufacturing refers to high quality, high-tech processes requiring specialist knowledge to produce, such as electronic goods, aerospace engineering, medical equipment, and so on.
It's not a defined economic term in the sense that say a 'giffen good' is or at least nowhere that I've ever seen (I'm not an economist but I imagine that a quick google would have thrown up a definition if it was). The word is therefore used with its generic meaning in mind.A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »We might say, as a rule of thumb (although this is only my suggestion), that sophisticated production usually requires people with a full second-level education and some third level education or sustained specialist training on the production lines. Unsophisticated production lines, such as food and agricultural processing, do not typically require any third-level education nor advanced skills.
So unsophisticated products include things like agri/food production, textiles/fashion, and furniture manufacturing.
I might also ask you to please not suggest that I'm moving goalposts, just because you haven't understood an expression, or are disappointed that there might be a valid point. Agricultural processing and food manufacturing are unsophisticated in their nature, and I am simply suggesting there may be some growth potential here, post-Brexit.
Thanks for the clarification, That's way beyond what I would have understood by unsophisticated goods (little or no value added to a product) but that's fine and you're right it wasn't fair to suggest that you were moving the goalposts when I hadn't actually asked you where the goalposts were in the first place. I certainly wouldn't have placed food manufacturing en bloc into unsophisticated goods. Plenty of PhD's and I would have said plenty of sophistication working in that area. I assumed that you were saying that the UK should focus on producing for example more milk but if you're including luxury ice cream or high quality cheese for example under unsophisticated products then that's a different story and there may well be opportunity to develop in that area especially if the UK can make better trade deals with non-EU countries than the EU has (a totally different discussion of course).A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »But again, I see this primarily as an opportunity. If 30% of the population are unemployed in parts of Wales, Northern England and Scotland, and British households are importing ever-more expensive furniture, food and alcohol products, I just wonder whether there isn't growth potential there.
In an ideal economic world everybody focuses on doing what they're best at doing and trades with everyone else for the other things that they want and need. So, Scottish whiskey is a great product (well I don't drink but I'm told that it is) and that and related areas could realistically be built upon. Starting production of something that they've never made before and is already made elsewhere is typically a fools errand unless there's some inbuilt geographic advantage.A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »Those guys on benefits in Liverpool and Sunderland are never going to write C++ programs or build airplanes, we need to get real.
Now, this made me laugh out loud. My wife's uncle who lives not far from Liverpool was made redundant from a steelworks a few years ago and now works.... building airplanes! Co-incidentally the other side of Liverpool is a bit of a tech hub. Liverpool as an area would be best off building on these areas of expertise than trying to create new ones. It's a myth that everyone on benefits or who are unemployed are incapable - sure someone who is long term unemployed with little education isn't going to get a job programming but they can certainly work in a factory building airplanes and I've seen for myself people do a short FAS course, get a job in tech support and work their way up in a company. What we need to get real about is providing opportunities, creating the right environment and having high expectations for what can be done.A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »This is getting ridiculous. Where did I say there would be people removed from sophisticated to unsophisticated industries? That is precisely what I said was not to happen. By their nature, most of the new/growth firms I'm referencing would be paying pretty low wages. Nobody is going to leave their job in Nissan to work in the boning hall of an abattoir, or to slop yoghurt into plastic tubs.
I could have been clearer. I don't mean actually taking the MD of Salesforce.com out of their office and setting them to work slopping yoghurt into tubs. There would be a proportion of people who would choose to move industries for a variety of reasons but mostly you're looking forward and at the opportunity cost. If you have companies producing unsophisticated products then a proportion of the people who would have gone into an industry producing sophisticated products will end up for a variety of reasons choosing to work in the company producing unsophisticated products.A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »However, with a combination of strategic tax incentives, or a lower rate of corporation tax altogether, and tariffs on imports, combined with the depreciation of the pound, efficiency ought to increase in unsophisticated industries.
The possibility of invigorating the regional economy with unsophisticated industry should be explored.
I understand what I'm talking about, and your preoccupation with the Law of Comparative Advantage is slightly odd. Comparative advantage primarily relates to opportunity cost. And yes, although Sunderland and Liverpool and Glasgow would do better if most people worked for the likes of IBM and Airbus, that's just not happening. Nobody is being reassigned from Nissan to work in Joe Blogg's yoghurt factory on a vacant industrial estate in South Wales. And Nissan is never going to be run out of business by a two-bit yoghurt company.
The UK will, and should continue to, seek to specialise in the export of sophisticated goods and services. I have said that a number of times. But that will only ever be one part of its economic development.
Again, I am suggesting that the U.K. has, or can create, the capacity to grow its agricultural and food production sectors. I am not suggesting it will ever equal France. It will not. I am merely putting France forward as a successful modern economy characterised by sophisticated manufacturing, which happens to be self-sufficient in agriculture.
...
Nobody is suggesting that Britain embraces protectionism or 'withdraws from the world. I'm suggesting it take advantage of Brexit, where possible, to mitigate the inevitable buffeting British households are getting from depreciation of the pound, and the possible imposition of tariffs. It's one pragmatic suggestion for coming to terms with Brexit, not a prescription for protectionism, or becoming North Korea, or whatever other way you'd like to reframe it.
I like the way that you propose imposing tariffs and providing tax breaks yet insist that nobody's talking about protectionism. Spot the problem?
The way forward for the UK economy is through innovation and specialisation that add large amounts of value whether that be in 'sophisticated' or 'unsophisticated industry.0 -
captainspeed wrote: »she's made it clear that reducing immigration is a priority.
...
many of whom presumably do want continued access to the single market
They can't have both.0 -
The way forward for the UK economy is through innovation and specialisation that add large amounts of value whether that be in 'sophisticated' or 'unsophisticated industry.
The problem is that the UK was not prevented by the EU from doing so and arguably, financial services aside, they have not demonstrated much capacity for doing this in an economy supporting manner. I'm not sure that they are good on the raw materials front which means they are heavily reliant on the smart/knowledge economy. But if this was likely, it would already be happening.
Places like Sunderland are in deep trouble with this. If Nissan leaves, it will take several generations to fix with innovation and specialisation. If you look at the view of experts and academia in the UK at the moment, from the Brexit side it is not overly positive. Most people in a position to do the innovation and specialisation work voted in favour of Remain.
The comments coming out of the Tory Party conference aren't going to endear the UK to too many FDI options either. Employers having to provide lists of foreigners? This is no level of comfort for investors or employers.0 -
Advertisement
-
Good and relevant article on the Pandora's Box that a referendum offers - http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/05/world/americas/colombia-brexit-referendum-farc-cameron-santos.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0“It doesn’t have a lot to do with whether this should be decided by the people,” Ms. Cirone said. “It has to do with whether a politician can gain an advantage from putting a question to the people.”“The idea that somehow any decision reached anytime by majority rule is necessarily ‘democratic’ is a perversion of the term,” Kenneth Rogoff, an economics professor at Harvard, wrote after Britain’s vote to leave the European Union.
“This isn’t democracy; it is Russian roulette for republics,” he added.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement