Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ketara wrote:
There's a lot of speculation, doommongering, and inaccurate guff going through the press right now. To summarise the key economic sectors on Brexit impact right now:-

The construction industry (as notprop as pointed out) is quietly content regardless. We've been underbuilding for so long that it's unlikely any cut is going to be made to housebuilding, and the government has several large infrastructure projects in the pipeline to keep investment and training high.

The pharmaceutical sector considers itself immune to most macroeconomic shifts, medicines are valuable anywhere in the world (assuming standard patenting laws apply), giving them a steady (indeed, the majority of their) income in foreign currencies from existing drugs. There are some concerns over retaining membership of the EMA, which approves how drugs are approved within the EU, because forced withdrawal from that will hit them in the pocket slightly. It is likely that a deal can be struck over this area without much difficulty however, so they're not too worried.

Like pharmaceuticals, the aerospace industry makes a large proportion of its sales abroad whilst manufacturing internally, rendering a weak pound a positive advantage. They've seen a minor uptick in investment, collect in most of their profits in foreign currencies, manufacture locally, and their research base is mostly domestic and US centred, so losing access to EU institutions/researchers won't affect them. They're slightly worried about losing Horizon 2020 funding, but there are sufficient other factors working in their favour that Brexit is unlikely to impede them much.

The automotive manufacturing industry is a bit more worried. Whilst the weak pound has initially boosted sales, there's genuine fear that lengthy negotiations combined with higher overheads will result in European tariffs killing their sales. They are one of the most likely sectors to need support if things go tits up. There's a reasonable hope that common standards/no tariffs will be maintained with the Continent due to German concerns in this sector, but the uncertainty is causing a lot of worry.

Oil is dead. Nothing will happen there for a while, and there are a lot of companies in Scotland going/gone broke already on that basis.

Tourism is on the up. A weak pound combined with the fact that people from outside the EU already needed a separate set of paperwork to come here means that this sector is likely to continue to grow regardless of Brexit, and the weaker the pound gets, the more foreigners will be attracted to visit.

The financial services sector is very jittery and don't know which way is up. They stand the most to lose from Brexit if things go south, and the speculators trying to make money off of guessing how the market will develop is only exacerbating volatility. Britain will remain a major banking hub regardless of what happens, but uncertainty and finance make extremely uneasy bedfellows.

The creative industries are quite vulnerable to Brexit. The sorts of people they employ are the most easily replaced abroad (be it in Europe or America), and often operate on shoe string profits for the smaller businesses. They're probably going to get hammered regardless of what happens, be it soft or hard Brexit, if they don't get some sort of substantial tax breaks/financial incentive to remain UK based.

The higher education sector, despite most of the (excessive) whinging from it, will likely weather Brexit reasonably well. EU student fees contribution remains minimal to their income, academics tend to go where the work is regardless of visas (we'll still remain a highly attractive place for research with so many top unis), and our appeal in asia has never been higher. A weaker pound also works to their direct advantage here. A few weaker unis are likely to go bust in the next few years, but that will be unrelated to Brexit and more to do with other things going on. EU research funding only compromises about 10% of the total research funding in the UK (and thus 2.4% of total income), so again, despite all the complaints, impact is likely to be minimal.


In short, many of our economic sectors are remarkably resilient to the impact of Brexit. But there are key areas that will likely need to be supported in the event of hard Brexit, and it is good the government is identifying and reassuring them sooner rather than later.

The only thing that worries me about your list is that there is nothing positive about Brexit, only points that it won't be a disaster.

There is the hope for slightly increased tourism, which assumes there isn't an increased barrier to Europeans (which of course there will be, because that is the whole point of Brexit) and also is something we could more easily have got by relaxing our visas for Chinese etc and remaining in the EU, since Europe as a whole is an attractive destination for Chinese, Australians and so on, who, having come from the other side of the world, could pop over from London to Paris and Brussels as potentially a day trip if the UK part of their visa wasn't such a total nightmare (in the cause of reducing immigration.)

I hear a lot about how Brexit will hit us badly, but isn't it also unfavourable for the EU? What about the loss of our contribution? As a net contributor, everyone is going to have to pick up the slack if they want to continue to support weaker economies. Or perhaps Germany can keep digging deeper in their pockets. Are any others going to follow our lead and offer their people a referendum?

 Kilkrazy wrote:


The only thing that worries me about your list is that there is nothing positive about Brexit, only points that it won't be a disaster.

There is nothing economically positive about Brexit in the short term. Anyone who tells you otherwise who isn't a currency gambler is lying to you. Investment is going to suffer. The pound is going to drop, and living costs are going to increase faster than wage growth. If we're really unlucky, we'll be kicked into recession for anything up to five or so years (the underlying strength of the economy would prevent it being anything longer before things rebalanced).

The mid-term is a bit more debatable, and centers largely upon the terms of the Brexit agreement. We're also likely to see a certain degree of bounceback from the short term damage (so for example, if inflation goes up, saving will become worthwhile again, house prices dropping will increase the uptake of mortgages in younger buyers, lower currency value will help to boost the tax receipts and turnover of domestic industry, etc), but even then it's unlikely to annul the full extent of damage done by voting 'out' instead of 'in'.

The mid-to long term is where depending on our skills as a nation, we will sink, float, or fly. Outside of Europe, we're no longer cushioned in the same way, and don't have the same international economic clout, but will have regained the power to properly manipulate the economy. So if we want to slap on a tariff to grow a home industry, we'll have the power to do that. You may well end up in a situation whereby the eurozone disintegrates in a decade, but we're booming. Alternatively, the opposite may happen, or neither. Such is economics!

There is the hope for slightly increased tourism, which assumes there isn't an increased barrier to Europeans (which of course there will be, because that is the whole point of Brexit) and also is something we could more easily have got by relaxing our visas for Chinese etc and remaining in the EU, since Europe as a whole is an attractive destination for Chinese, Australians and so on, who, having come from the other side of the world, could pop over from London to Paris and Brussels as potentially a day trip if the UK part of their visa wasn't such a total nightmare (in the cause of reducing immigration.)

The main cause for increased tourism will be the weaker pound. It's far, far too early in the day to attribute the small growth in that sector to this year's vote, only an idiot (or tabloid) would rush to crow that as being a direct result. We'll know more by the end of next year on that front, but assuming our economy stagnates with the pound around this level (a likely prospect), we should see far more money collected from tourism. It's a reasonably well documented phenomenon that people like to holiday where their money goes further, and we're already a top tourist destination here in London (8th globally, I think?)

I believe measures were brought in to ease tourist visas from China a few years back as part of Osborne's push, which has definitely helped to bring in the Chinese cash. Combined with Chinese property investment and involvement in the education sector, we're reasonably popular over there at the moment; the colonial legacy is actually doing us some good for a change. I suspect the currency weakening will make up for any tourism income lost through people being put off by the lack of European access, but the former is ultimately something most likely to be temporary (the next four or five years); the latter not so much I fear.

 Ketara wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:


The only thing that worries me about your list is that there is nothing positive about Brexit, only points that it won't be a disaster.

There is nothing economically positive about Brexit in the short term. Anyone who tells you otherwise who isn't a currency gambler is lying to you. Investment is going to suffer. The pound is going to drop, and living costs are going to increase faster than wage growth. If we're really unlucky, we'll be kicked into recession for anything up to five or so years (the underlying strength of the economy would prevent it being anything longer before things rebalanced).

The mid-term is a bit more debatable, and centers largely upon the terms of the Brexit agreement. We're also likely to see a certain degree of bounceback from the short term damage (so for example, if inflation goes up, saving will become worthwhile again, house prices dropping will increase the uptake of mortgages in younger buyers, lower currency value will help to boost the tax receipts and turnover of domestic industry, etc), but even then it's unlikely to annul the full extent of damage done by voting 'out' instead of 'in'.

The mid-to long term is where depending on our skills as a nation, we will sink, float, or fly. Outside of Europe, we're no longer cushioned in the same way, and don't have the same international economic clout, but will have regained the power to properly manipulate the economy. So if we want to slap on a tariff to grow a home industry, we'll have the power to do that. You may well end up in a situation whereby the eurozone disintegrates in a decade, but we're booming. Alternatively, the opposite may happen, or neither. Such is economics!

The unfortunate reality is that very few people in this country actually believe that the ideals that you voted for are worth anywhere near the financial pain and uncertainty that we are now facing. You may have been prepared to sacrifice so much, but you definitely don't reflect the majority.
I would expect resistance, and possibly quite a bit of resentment if I were you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I hear a lot about how Brexit will hit us badly, but isn't it also unfavourable for the EU?....

Well it's hardly a win win situation for anyone except Brexit idealogues.

Of course Brexit is unfavourable for the EU. The UK is by various measures in the top two nations (along with Germany) and a natural leader of the various Scandi nations and the eastern European new accession states that have reservations about the direction that France wants to take the EU.

The great tragedy of Europe is that this most advanced and cultured continent spent the 20th century tearing itself and the world apart. But Europe then managed to resolve a lot of its serious political differences and band together in a multi-national project to try to bring peace and prosperity for everyone.

The UK could have been a major player if we had just got on with the job, but we preferred to indulge in petty-minded whining about class II bananas and the like.

 Ketara wrote:

There is nothing economically positive about Brexit in the short term. Anyone who tells you otherwise who isn't a currency gambler is lying to you. Investment is going to suffer. The pound is going to drop, and living costs are going to increase faster than wage growth. If we're really unlucky, we'll be kicked into recession for anything up to five or so years (the underlying strength of the economy would prevent it being anything longer before things rebalanced).

The mid-term is a bit more debatable, and centers largely upon the terms of the Brexit agreement. We're also likely to see a certain degree of bounceback from the short term damage (so for example, if inflation goes up, saving will become worthwhile again, house prices dropping will increase the uptake of mortgages in younger buyers, lower currency value will help to boost the tax receipts and turnover of domestic industry, etc), but even then it's unlikely to annul the full extent of damage done by voting 'out' instead of 'in'.

The mid-to long term is where depending on our skills as a nation, we will sink, float, or fly. Outside of Europe, we're no longer cushioned in the same way, and don't have the same international economic clout, but will have regained the power to properly manipulate the economy. So if we want to slap on a tariff to grow a home industry, we'll have the power to do that. You may well end up in a situation whereby the eurozone disintegrates in a decade, but we're booming. Alternatively, the opposite may happen, or neither. Such is economics!

That's largely my view as well. I just can't fathom how any of that is actually worth whatever we'll get out of it.

I don't know in what sense the UK government has or has not the ability to properly manipulate the economy inside or outside the EU.

The UK has its own currency, which floats on the international markets (and has crashed since the referendum because most investors think leaving the EU is going to cause economic damage.)

The Bank of England sets the base interest rate and also can print money (quantitative easing).

There are some EU restrictions on aspects of industrial policy such as tariffs and state support, but similar rules are also in place under WTO rules, so we won't be totally free to decide our destiny.

General world economic conditions seem to be beyond the ability of anyone to control.

The eurozone crisis and the migrant crisis are only going to get worse and they will be the death of the EU. It was already finished, so it was best to get out while we still could. More countries within the EU are going to realise this and hopefully get out too.

I'm still in favour of European cooperation. Just not in the organisation that is the EU.

Howard A Treesong wrote:I hear a lot about how Brexit will hit us badly, but isn't it also unfavourable for the EU? What about the loss of our contribution? As a net contributor, everyone is going to have to pick up the slack if they want to continue to support weaker economies. Or perhaps Germany can keep digging deeper in their pockets. Are any others going to follow our lead and offer their people a referendum?

Hard to say. Brexit has really hit them for six, they're keeping quiet, but that's because they're petrified of a domino effect in Brussels. The unthinkable has occured. Meanwhile, French and German upcoming elections mean that national leaders are looking more towards home. I would wager that the silence and lack of discussion on Brexit right now is simply cloaking the fact that most of them don't agree on anything, and don't know what to do.

I suspect we're actually seeing an equivalent lack of a plan in the EU, similar to what we had/have over here. Split the focus 28 ways with new national elections, and they're grasping. Everything they say is in reaction to British developments, there's no new views or plans of direction for EU development. No solutions on how to rectify what's causing people to swing away from the EU. Just a lot of hot air and silence.

Which could end up being grand for us, if we pull ourselves together quicker than them. We'll just have to wait and see.

r_squared wrote:
The unfortunate reality is that very few people in this country actually believe that the ideals that you voted for are worth anywhere near the financial pain and uncertainty that we are now facing. You may have been prepared to sacrifice so much, but you definitely don't reflect the majority.

Quite possibly. I would argue 3/4 people I've met who voted Brexit tend to have been swayed by a dripping of insidious inaccuracies against the EU over the years, an obsession with migration issues that have already concluded, or general misunderstandings about how things like the EU work.

On that (inherently tiny sample), if it were to be replicated, that would means somewhere in the region of 13% of the vote, or 8.5% of the country thinks like me, or had other genuine concerns.

That being said, it's impossible to say how many who voted 'stay' were not under equivalent misapprehensions, and of course, a third of the country didn't care enough to vote one way or the other.

Herzlos wrote:
That's largely my view as well. I just can't fathom how any of that is actually worth whatever we'll get out of it.

To me, it was largely a question of long term direction. I dislike the structure of the EU, I dislike how it operates, I dislike where it's going. Removing my country from that was my intent when I cast my vote. Not any sort of financial gain.

Kilkrazy wrote:I don't know in what sense the UK government has or has not the ability to properly manipulate the economy inside or outside the EU.

Belonging to the single market has placed some fairly severe restrictions in terms of things like state support, and resource exploitation. Half of what Corbyn has announced he plans to do is actually illegal under EU laws (no doubt why he was very quiet about leaving).

To me, it was largely a question of long term direction. I dislike the structure of the EU, I dislike how it operates, I dislike where it's going. Removing my country from that was my intent when I cast my vote. Not any sort of financial gain.

My sentiments exactly.

Belonging to the single market has placed some fairly severe restrictions in terms of things like state support, and resource exploitation. Half of what Corbyn has announced he plans to do is actually illegal under EU laws (no doubt why he was very quiet about leaving).

Funny you should say that, because when I pointed this out to my brother the europhile Corbynista he got very angry and flustered and accused me of lying. I wonder if he's checked it out for himself.

 Ketara wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:I hear a lot about how Brexit will hit us badly, but isn't it also unfavourable for the EU? What about the loss of our contribution? As a net contributor, everyone is going to have to pick up the slack if they want to continue to support weaker economies. Or perhaps Germany can keep digging deeper in their pockets. Are any others going to follow our lead and offer their people a referendum?

Hard to say. Brexit has really hit them for six, they're keeping quiet, but that's because they're petrified of a domino effect in Brussels. The unthinkable has occured. Meanwhile, French and German upcoming elections mean that national leaders are looking more towards home. I would wager that the silence and lack of discussion on Brexit right now is simply cloaking the fact that most of them don't agree on anything, and don't know what to do.

I suspect we're actually seeing an equivalent lack of a plan in the EU, similar to what we had/have over here. Split the focus 28 ways with new national elections, and they're grasping. Everything they say is in reaction to British developments, there's no new views or plans of direction for EU development. No solutions on how to rectify what's causing people to swing away from the EU. Just a lot of hot air and silence.

The reason they are being so quiet is twofold.
1st they have already stated all they can realistically while they wait (Patiently/impatiently) for Article 50 to be announced.
2nd, there is massive internal debate between two main camps as to what direction the EU should go in next. There are the Federalists such as Guy Verhofstadt and his alliance then we have the states such as Denmark calling for a more devolved system. A lot of this is at a Policy level though, the media tends to focus more on the exciting stories, Refuge crisis, anti-EU movements e.t.c.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't know in what sense the UK government has or has not the ability to properly manipulate the economy inside or outside the EU.

The UK has its own currency, which floats on the international markets (and has crashed since the referendum because most investors think leaving the EU is going to cause economic damage.)

The Bank of England sets the base interest rate and also can print money (quantitative easing).

There are some EU restrictions on aspects of industrial policy such as tariffs and state support, but similar rules are also in place under WTO rules, so we won't be totally free to decide our destiny.

General world economic conditions seem to be beyond the ability of anyone to control.

The pound was due to come down anyway, especially with the decrease in public spending to reduce the deficit, it was overvalued. The change simply means the UK can concentrate more on being an exporter like it was before joining the EU. I am hoping that without the EU we will see our fishing trade somewhat restored and for farming to be more profitable (but I know a few who feel strangled by EU regulations). I remember when I read Martin lewis article on Brexit he had said it was always going to be gamble that in the long term could really pay of for the UK. It really depends on how good a deal we get from the EU. If we end up with a soft exit (which means bugger all changes), i won't be so confident in it. If they do explore more trade with outside of the EU, I'll have hope.

Mind you, if crocked Hillary gets in, I'm looking forward to open boarders in America, I'd better start saving

Indeed, increased inflation and a lower pound has been an established goal of the BoE for some time. Carney is not so impressed as this seems to have come about without his control but he has what he wanted.

Better get my mortgage done now before he raises interest rates.

Oh dear, prepare for howls of outrage.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-senior-conservative-mps-seize-on-a-forgotten-government-pledge-to-let-parliament-decide-the-a7366316.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/government-agreed-referendums-are-only-advisory_uk_5805e4e3e4b07ebc072b332b?ir=UK+Politics&utm_hp_ref=uk-politics&utm_hp_ref=uk

Also, starting to think that Boris is doing a Trump...

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/boris-johnson-my-pro-remain-column-was-actually-a-powerful-case-for-leave_uk_580605ffe4b096d12146feb9?utm_hp_ref=uk

Apparently it was a parody, or something.

I suspect we're actually seeing an equivalent lack of a plan in the EU, similar to what we had/have over here. Split the focus 28 ways with new national elections, and they're grasping. Everything they say is in reaction to British developments, there's no new views or plans of direction for EU development. No solutions on how to rectify what's causing people to swing away from the EU. Just a lot of hot air and silence.

And in this regard, nothing would have changed had the UK voted to stay in.

The EU's plans for the Ukraine, the migrant crisis, and the flat-lining Eurozone would be going nowhere fast, even if Britain was still involved.

The EU is a good idea in theory, but it was poorly executed.

They should have stuck to a common market, and we wouldn't be in this mess we are today...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't know in what sense the UK government has or has not the ability to properly manipulate the economy inside or outside the EU.

The UK has its own currency, which floats on the international markets (and has crashed since the referendum because most investors think leaving the EU is going to cause economic damage.)

The Bank of England sets the base interest rate and also can print money (quantitative easing).

There are some EU restrictions on aspects of industrial policy such as tariffs and state support, but similar rules are also in place under WTO rules, so we won't be totally free to decide our destiny.

General world economic conditions seem to be beyond the ability of anyone to control.

Even if we had remained in the EU, we'd still be looking at recessions, a housing crisis, a car crash economy, and city spivs in London robbing us blind.

As I've said, the government now has no choice but to take a long hard look at UK Plc, rather than pretend that everything will be all right on the night...

So, in a strange way, BREXIT is a bonus.

 r_squared wrote:
Oh dear, prepare for howls of outrage.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-senior-conservative-mps-seize-on-a-forgotten-government-pledge-to-let-parliament-decide-the-a7366316.html

You can't very well promise the people 'Brexit means Brexit' and that the will of the people will be followed, and then throw it out of parliament. Well you can, but it'll throw a huge number of votes to UKIP a and others when it becomes clear that the referendum offered no real choice. What's the point in even holding it? A very difficult situation, end Brexit and make democratic referenda look a sham. I bet a lot won't go for it, it'll pass parliament. But at least we can hope to pin down Jeremy Corbyn's actual opinion on the matter as we have to go through the whole debate all over again.

How will Brexit affect transport of goods to/from Scotland should they decide to remain in the EU? My understanding is that most of that happens via railroad which transits through England. Does Scotland effectively become an island again (like Ireland), cut off from the mainland EU nations? What about trucks that use the chunnel? Do they have to pass through British customs to and from Scotland? Or do they get a pass/waiver? What about people travelling between Scotland and France via train/road?

 Breotan wrote:
How will Brexit affect transport of goods to/from Scotland should they decide to remain in the EU? My understanding is that most of that happens via railroad which transits through England. Does Scotland effectively become an island again (like Ireland), cut off from the mainland EU nations? What about trucks that use the chunnel? Do they have to pass through British customs to and from Scotland? Or do they get a pass/waiver? What about people travelling between Scotland and France via train/road?

Scotland cannot remain in the EU, it would have to leave the united Kingdom and then rejoin the EU, the biggest concern is with Ireland and how part of it is remaining in the EU. I would read to much into what Nicola Sturgeon says, when they had the original referendum she was essentially pulling Scotland out of the EU. I believe that members of the house lords have even commented on how her answer to everything is to have a second referendum. The answer of the question depends if we get a hard or fake brexit, if we are stilling paying into the EU and have freedom of movement, the whole thing was pointless. Nicola Sturgeon, much like Angela Merkel and Hillary Clinton will say anything at this point to get reelected.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

And in this regard, nothing would have changed had the UK voted to stay in.

The EU's plans for the Ukraine, the migrant crisis, and the flat-lining Eurozone would be going nowhere fast, even if Britain was still involved.

The EU is a good idea in theory, but it was poorly executed.

They should have stuck to a common market, and we wouldn't be in this mess we are today...

I think you can blame the likes of George Soros for the mess that the EU is in. I think the real issues with the ideals of the EU became very apparent after the rejected EU constitution was simply renamed the Lisbon treaty and the will of the public was ignored, its helped fuel the fear (among other things) that has lead to the Brexit. I'm not a fan of global government, I'm certainly not a fan of the idea of a EU army either, we have already have nato. Britain is still involved in the migrant crisis and will be another two years (at least). I'm convinced Brexit will even happen, especially if the Deutsche banks collapses.

They'd probably reopen the ferry routes from Holland to Edinburgh

 itsonlyme wrote:


The change simply means the UK can concentrate more on being an exporter like it was before joining the EU.

This is simply not true. The only time since WW2 that we have been a net exporter were in the years just after we joined the EU (or EEC at the time). Even then it was only for a decade. Otherwise we have always had a trade deficit (or neutral). http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/balance-of-trade. It's a fallacy to think we are magically going to invent a l lot more manufacturing industry in the UK. This is not an EU issue; this is an issue of demand for cheap goods that that are manufactured in Asia under poor environmental and working conditions. There are two ways to rebalance this - you would need to tax/legislate that goods need to be made with equivalent conditions as UK manufacturers have to meet; or you lower UK working/environmental conditions to match that of the asian countries. Which would you prefer?

 itsonlyme wrote:
I am hoping that without the EU we will see our fishing trade somewhat restored and for farming to be more profitable (but I know a few who feel strangled by EU regulations).

And exactly how is will this happen? The legislation is there to ensure long term sustainable standards are met so that the fishing and farming is profitable not just now but in the future. Yes you could scrap fishing quotas and I'm sure there will be (big) companies that will rake in big profits for a short period of time. The small one individual ships wont get that much benefit simply because they don't have the fleet to exploit the circumstances. However after 10-20 years of intensive fishing the ecosystem is likely to collapse, the big companies will move on and the small fishing villages will be devastated as the fishing stocks are depleted. It has happened before, read up on the cod collapse around the grand banks and how even after fishing was banned the cod ecosystem is only just recovering. The same goes for farming, yes you can de-legislate but it is there to protect the industry long term. It's not the EU that restricts farmers profits; it's our desire for cheap food resulting in supermarkets being able to pressurise farmers to take less than ideal payments for their goods that causes this issue. the only thing de-regulating will result in is the supermarkets being able to demand even cheaper payments to the farmers for their goods. That will make even the smaller farms even less viable as the larger ones can better exploit the reduced legislation. If you really want to support farmers then buy your goods from farmer markets or the local farm and not from the supermarket.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 notprop wrote:
Indeed, increased inflation and a lower pound has been an established goal of the BoE for some time. Carney is not so impressed as this seems to have come about without his control but he has what he wanted.

Better get my mortgage done now before he raises interest rates.

I'm not sure you are giving the BoE enough credit. They are worried because the economic drivers are currently our of their control. Yes they want a balanced £ so that imports aren't too expensive and exports are cost effective. They also want a steady inflation to ensure that goods slowly get more expensive and not driving massive wage increases to keep up (and if they don't possibly resulting in a recession); or too low inflation and everyone waits until next week to as it might be cheaper (again possibly driving a recession). It's all a balancing act, but what the BoE wants is to be in control of these drivers. At the moment it isn't; that leaves the country vulnerable to shocks that could drive one of the key drivers into a mathematically chaotic system where small changes can have massive (and unpredictable) implications. The reason the BoE of is worried is they are no longer in control of the main drivers apart from interest rates and if you have a chaotic system then there is no guarantee that altering this will do any good at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


The EU's plans for the Ukraine, the migrant crisis, and the flat-lining Eurozone would be going nowhere fast, even if Britain was still involved.

The migrant crisis was the UK/US/Frances making though. Between these three countries we destabilised a large part of the Middle East resulting in migration of millions of people to escape persecution. You can't really blame the EU for this; as they hadn't planned for a mass migration due to other countries foolishness (although it is a good test for what will be larger migration as climate changes starts to hit home). It also exposes that there is still a lot of fear of the 'stranger' in all the EU countries (some worse than others) and that ironically while some have been espousing the benefits of free movement of their populace they are unwilling to reciprocate quite so readily. However many of these issues can be resolved by people simply getting to know the 'strangers'. Yes there are a few nut-jobs but when there were troubles with the IRA, the solution wasn't to ban all Irish people from entering the country because 99.999% of them are well rounded, pleasant and friendly people, just like the migrants from middle eastern countries are.

So you're just repeating stuf but in a more long winded way.....k

 Breotan wrote:
How will Brexit affect transport of goods to/from Scotland should they decide to remain in the EU? My understanding is that most of that happens via railroad which transits through England. Does Scotland effectively become an island again (like Ireland), cut off from the mainland EU nations? What about trucks that use the chunnel? Do they have to pass through British customs to and from Scotland? Or do they get a pass/waiver? What about people travelling between Scotland and France via train/road?

It depends on the circumstances. Should a hard Wrexit come to pass, Scotland goes independent (which I would be supportive of in this circumstance) and stays/re-joins the EU then it would likely mean borders and checkpoints on major roads and the closing of many smaller roads (effectively Hadrian's Wall would have to be rebuilt). There couldn't really be special compensation for Scottish residents as the EU works on the principle of the same rights for all it's citizens. Effectively that would mean that if Scottish citizens could freely move into England then anyone in the EU could. The same would go for goods. Scotland would become a hub of transport though as goods moved freely into Scotland (maybe then reboxed) and shipped onwards bypassing any customs duties etc. However if it was a soft Wrexit then free movement/trade could be retained and this is less of an issue but is currently unfashionable given the recent highly bigoted Tory conference (which was more akin to putting a sign out saying "Foreigners not Welcome" on the door). It's not just an issue for Scotland though. NI/Ireland and Gibraltar will also have the same problems (and have the potential to become more Calais's if the border controls are relaxed in these areas)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 notprop wrote:
So you're just repeating stuf but in a more long winded way.....k

Not really . It's the subtleties that are important to understand. The BoE are unhappy not because inflation is moving in the right direction (I don't think they wanted the £ this low and so quickly). They are unhappy because they are heading towards a chaotic system and that means that the levers they have available to them become less relevant or useful (and the impacts of using them are much less certain).

 Whirlwind wrote:

 itsonlyme wrote:


The change simply means the UK can concentrate more on being an exporter like it was before joining the EU.

This is simply not true. The only time since WW2 that we have been a net exporter were in the years just after we joined the EU (or EEC at the time). Even then it was only for a decade. Otherwise we have always had a trade deficit (or neutral). http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/balance-of-trade. It's a fallacy to think we are magically going to invent a l lot more manufacturing industry in the UK. This is not an EU issue; this is an issue of demand for cheap goods that that are manufactured in Asia under poor environmental and working conditions. There are two ways to rebalance this - you would need to tax/legislate that goods need to be made with equivalent conditions as UK manufacturers have to meet; or you lower UK working/environmental conditions to match that of the asian countries. Which would you prefer?

The EU and EEC aren't really the same thing, the EU was the globalist dream for big government and all things Orwellian ( I don't really want to get into debate about the EU was always the endgoal). Somehow you seem to thing drastically exaggerating what I've said someone makes my point of focusing on the weaker point as an invalid point. We have several countries within the commonwealth interested in doing free trade deal, China is certainly a problem, we'd still have that problem even within the EU. However people have still been exporting from us, I think a deal between Canada, Australia and New Zealand should be able to at very least of set any lost trade from the EU if we really are forced out of the single market. I wouldn't be against tax/legislate that results in less Asian products being sold, that is very trumpy however.

 itsonlyme wrote:
I am hoping that without the EU we will see our fishing trade somewhat restored and for farming to be more profitable (but I know a few who feel strangled by EU regulations).

And exactly how is will this happen? The legislation is there to ensure long term sustainable standards are met so that the fishing and farming is profitable not just now but in the future. Yes you could scrap fishing quotas and I'm sure there will be (big) companies that will rake in big profits for a short period of time. The small one individual ships wont get that much benefit simply because they don't have the fleet to exploit the circumstances. However after 10-20 years of intensive fishing the ecosystem is likely to collapse, the big companies will move on and the small fishing villages will be devastated as the fishing stocks are depleted. It has happened before, read up on the cod collapse around the grand banks and how even after fishing was banned the cod ecosystem is only just recovering. The same goes for farming, yes you can de-legislate but it is there to protect the industry long term. It's not the EU that restricts farmers profits; it's our desire for cheap food resulting in supermarkets being able to pressurise farmers to take less than ideal payments for their goods that causes this issue. the only thing de-regulating will result in is the supermarkets being able to demand even cheaper payments to the farmers for their goods. That will make even the smaller farms even less viable as the larger ones can better exploit the reduced legislation. If you really want to support farmers then buy your goods from farmer markets or the local farm and not from the supermarket.

I'm afraid your not as clued up on this as you like to think, you'll find the biggest complaint was that while the UK had these quotas, other countries did ignore this (but I know people who've worked in fishing and farming). You really don't need to tell me about the issues with farming, my other halves dad is a farmer while my uncle was a fishermen, I'm fully aware of how to support them From speaking with actual farmers, you'll find legislation tends to serve big business while killing of small businessmen, the EU isn't about the little man. With regards to the fishing industry, part of the issue has been the unfair fishing quotas that seemed to favour the french.

 itsonlyme wrote:


Somehow you seem to thing drastically exaggerating what I've said someone makes my point of focusing on the weaker point as an invalid point.

No it's not, you were pointing out that we should go back to the industrialised nation we were before the 'EU' and I was highlighting that if you consider when we 'joined' the EEC (we never really joined the EU as it has morphed for the better IMHO in time) then the reality is that the trade deficit was effectively zero (mainly likely as we made our own goods for our own market). However those circumstances have now changed and we never really exported that much compared to our imports (except for about a decade) off the back of a lot of oil/coal (which is a finite resource anyway). The point is that leaving the EU is not magically going to improve manufacturing in the country as the time to exploit that has been and gone because we simply can't compete in the same way with asian powerhouses anymore in those areas.

 itsonlyme wrote:
We have several countries within the commonwealth interested in doing free trade deal, China is certainly a problem, we'd still have that problem even within the EU. However people have still been exporting from us, I think a deal between Canada, Australia and New Zealand should be able to at very least of set any lost trade from the EU if we really are forced out of the single market.

Why, what are suddenly going to be making that these Countries want? What barriers are suddenly going to disappear, what goods are we going to manufacture that they want that isn't already provided if there is a demand? The EU was in the final stages of a free trade agreement with Canada anyway (and is likely to be completed before we even start seriously talking about ours) - won't the EU then have those few years to build up it's sales; why should sales suddenly switch to the UK. Finally how are you expecting that a combined population of 65 million (Canada/NZ/Aus) will result in a larger demand from introducing a free trade deal than what is lost from removing a free trade deal with a population of 440 million (EU exc UK)?

 itsonlyme wrote:
I wouldn't be against tax/legislate that results in less Asian products being sold, that is very trumpy however.

It depends on how you implement it. Trump just wants to ban asian products; however you could apply a global system where customs duty is based on Environmental/Social factors. If these are equivalent/better than the UK then the customs duty is zero. The worse you are the higher the custom duties get with them set at an estimated cost UK manufacturers. This way you can encourage better methods of operation globally whilst not disadvantaging you own companies.

 itsonlyme wrote:
... you'll find the biggest complaint was that while the UK had these quotas, other countries did ignore this (but I know people who've worked in fishing and farming)

That's not really the EU's issue though is it. The EU just determine a reasonable (some would argue still too high fishing quotas) to make it sustainable. If countries flout the rules then that is for the enforcement groups of the individual countries to prosecute, otherwise you need an EU wide enforcement body (which I can imagine some would be opposed to). However if they are illegally fishing now, it's not going to stop just because we leave the EU - we will still have to share the waters around the UK with the EU.

 itsonlyme wrote:
From speaking with actual farmers, you'll find legislation tends to serve big business while killing of small businessmen, the EU isn't about the little man.

Legislation always favours big business because they have the resources to manage it, but it is still there to protect. You can't get away from this fact - you can remove the legislation and things may be good for 10-20 years but once you have exploited the land to its maximum then things will get a lot worse very quickly. However the big businesses will still be able to out compete the small ones, as they will still be more efficient and still sell their goods cheaper to the retailers. The only thing reducing legislation will result in is cheaper prices paid to farmers based on what the big businesses can afford to be paid (which will be less than small farmers will still want). The relative difference will still be the same.

 itsonlyme wrote:
With regards to the fishing industry, part of the issue has been the unfair fishing quotas that seemed to favour the french.

A quick calculation seems to indicate the opposite from this http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/sites/fisheries/files/docs/body/poster_tac2015_en.pdf. Assuming I've done my addition correctly France was allocated about 290,000 tonnes whereas the UK got about 600,000 tonnes (helped massively by mackerel). It's the UK government that breaks down the fishing quotas that is the issue, not the EU allocation (even if it's not perfect), but then that's what NF should have been doing.

If you want to protect small businesses you need actual laws similar to the "shotengai" legislation in Japan that reserves high value retail locations near railway stations for small businesses.

Small businesses and diversity are preserved at the cost of higher prices for the consumer at those locations.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If you want to protect small businesses you need actual laws similar to the "shotengai" legislation in Japan that reserves high value retail locations near railway stations for small businesses.

Small businesses and diversity are preserved at the cost of higher prices for the consumer at those locations.

Yes effectively you have to artificially balance the costs for smaller businesses to compete with the efficiencies the bigger companies can accommodate. The 'disadvantage' that consumers have to pay more (and would temporarily drive inflation when it was introduced).

Not likely to happen though with the Tories as they are supported too much by the same big businesses.

Don't you hate it when you're catching up with a thread, think "oh I have a good point to make here" read a couple more pages and completely forget what the point you were going to make was?

 Whirlwind wrote:
The EU was in the final stages of a free trade agreement with Canada anyway (and is likely to be completed before we even start seriously talking about ours)

Actually, and in a perfect example of how the EU simply doesn't work, it seems that after 7 years effort the EU Canada trade deal is about to collapse:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37688942

Of cause I actually expect the EU to do what it always does when it it's told it cannot do something that it wants - it'll just change the rules and force it thorough anyway.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 itsonlyme wrote:


The change simply means the UK can concentrate more on being an exporter like it was before joining the EU.

This is simply not true. The only time since WW2 that we have been a net exporter were in the years just after we joined the EU (or EEC at the time). Even then it was only for a decade. Otherwise we have always had a trade deficit (or neutral). http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/balance-of-trade. It's a fallacy to think we are magically going to invent a l lot more manufacturing industry in the UK. This is not an EU issue; this is an issue of demand for cheap goods that that are manufactured in Asia under poor environmental and working conditions. There are two ways to rebalance this - you would need to tax/legislate that goods need to be made with equivalent conditions as UK manufacturers have to meet; or you lower UK working/environmental conditions to match that of the asian countries. Which would you prefer?

 itsonlyme wrote:
I am hoping that without the EU we will see our fishing trade somewhat restored and for farming to be more profitable (but I know a few who feel strangled by EU regulations).

And exactly how is will this happen? The legislation is there to ensure long term sustainable standards are met so that the fishing and farming is profitable not just now but in the future. Yes you could scrap fishing quotas and I'm sure there will be (big) companies that will rake in big profits for a short period of time. The small one individual ships wont get that much benefit simply because they don't have the fleet to exploit the circumstances. However after 10-20 years of intensive fishing the ecosystem is likely to collapse, the big companies will move on and the small fishing villages will be devastated as the fishing stocks are depleted. It has happened before, read up on the cod collapse around the grand banks and how even after fishing was banned the cod ecosystem is only just recovering. The same goes for farming, yes you can de-legislate but it is there to protect the industry long term. It's not the EU that restricts farmers profits; it's our desire for cheap food resulting in supermarkets being able to pressurise farmers to take less than ideal payments for their goods that causes this issue. the only thing de-regulating will result in is the supermarkets being able to demand even cheaper payments to the farmers for their goods. That will make even the smaller farms even less viable as the larger ones can better exploit the reduced legislation. If you really want to support farmers then buy your goods from farmer markets or the local farm and not from the supermarket.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 notprop wrote:
Indeed, increased inflation and a lower pound has been an established goal of the BoE for some time. Carney is not so impressed as this seems to have come about without his control but he has what he wanted.

Better get my mortgage done now before he raises interest rates.

I'm not sure you are giving the BoE enough credit. They are worried because the economic drivers are currently our of their control. Yes they want a balanced £ so that imports aren't too expensive and exports are cost effective. They also want a steady inflation to ensure that goods slowly get more expensive and not driving massive wage increases to keep up (and if they don't possibly resulting in a recession); or too low inflation and everyone waits until next week to as it might be cheaper (again possibly driving a recession). It's all a balancing act, but what the BoE wants is to be in control of these drivers. At the moment it isn't; that leaves the country vulnerable to shocks that could drive one of the key drivers into a mathematically chaotic system where small changes can have massive (and unpredictable) implications. The reason the BoE of is worried is they are no longer in control of the main drivers apart from interest rates and if you have a chaotic system then there is no guarantee that altering this will do any good at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


The EU's plans for the Ukraine, the migrant crisis, and the flat-lining Eurozone would be going nowhere fast, even if Britain was still involved.

The migrant crisis was the UK/US/Frances making though. Between these three countries we destabilised a large part of the Middle East resulting in migration of millions of people to escape persecution. You can't really blame the EU for this; as they hadn't planned for a mass migration due to other countries foolishness (although it is a good test for what will be larger migration as climate changes starts to hit home). It also exposes that there is still a lot of fear of the 'stranger' in all the EU countries (some worse than others) and that ironically while some have been espousing the benefits of free movement of their populace they are unwilling to reciprocate quite so readily. However many of these issues can be resolved by people simply getting to know the 'strangers'. Yes there are a few nut-jobs but when there were troubles with the IRA, the solution wasn't to ban all Irish people from entering the country because 99.999% of them are well rounded, pleasant and friendly people, just like the migrants from middle eastern countries are.

I am of the opinion that the EU was partly responsible for the Syrian crisis, because their support for regime change in Syria is well documented.

But in all honesty, the EU's stance on Syria is irrelevant, because it matters not one jot if they were or were not responsible for the migrant crisis.

They have a migrant crisis on their hands, and if your house is on fire, you put the flames out first and worry about the blame later. Their feeble and lacklustre response so far pretty much sums up the state of the EU.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Compel wrote:
Don't you hate it when you're catching up with a thread, think "oh I have a good point to make here" read a couple more pages and completely forget what the point you were going to make was?

Story of my dakka career.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If you want to protect small businesses you need actual laws similar to the "shotengai" legislation in Japan that reserves high value retail locations near railway stations for small businesses.

Small businesses and diversity are preserved at the cost of higher prices for the consumer at those locations.

Their was once a political party in the UK that stood up for small business, until they sold out to the city of London.

Their name escapes me... Con something I think they were called.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 itsonlyme wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
How will Brexit affect transport of goods to/from Scotland should they decide to remain in the EU? My understanding is that most of that happens via railroad which transits through England. Does Scotland effectively become an island again (like Ireland), cut off from the mainland EU nations? What about trucks that use the chunnel? Do they have to pass through British customs to and from Scotland? Or do they get a pass/waiver? What about people travelling between Scotland and France via train/road?

Scotland cannot remain in the EU, it would have to leave the united Kingdom and then rejoin the EU, the biggest concern is with Ireland and how part of it is remaining in the EU. I would read to much into what Nicola Sturgeon says, when they had the original referendum she was essentially pulling Scotland out of the EU. I believe that members of the house lords have even commented on how her answer to everything is to have a second referendum. The answer of the question depends if we get a hard or fake brexit, if we are stilling paying into the EU and have freedom of movement, the whole thing was pointless. Nicola Sturgeon, much like Angela Merkel and Hillary Clinton will say anything at this point to get reelected.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

And in this regard, nothing would have changed had the UK voted to stay in.

The EU's plans for the Ukraine, the migrant crisis, and the flat-lining Eurozone would be going nowhere fast, even if Britain was still involved.

The EU is a good idea in theory, but it was poorly executed.

They should have stuck to a common market, and we wouldn't be in this mess we are today...

I think you can blame the likes of George Soros for the mess that the EU is in. I think the real issues with the ideals of the EU became very apparent after the rejected EU constitution was simply renamed the Lisbon treaty and the will of the public was ignored, its helped fuel the fear (among other things) that has lead to the Brexit. I'm not a fan of global government, I'm certainly not a fan of the idea of a EU army either, we have already have nato. Britain is still involved in the migrant crisis and will be another two years (at least). I'm convinced Brexit will even happen, especially if the Deutsche banks collapses.

We know now that Brussels turned a blind eye to Greece cooking the books ahead of their adoption of the Euro, so the flaws were there from the begining, and the EU has to carry the blame for this...

 Whirlwind wrote:
No it's not, you were pointing out that we should go back to the industrialised nation we were before the 'EU' and I was highlighting that if you consider when we 'joined' the EEC (we never really joined the EU as it has morphed for the better IMHO in time) then the reality is that the trade deficit was effectively zero (mainly likely as we made our own goods for our own market). However those circumstances have now changed and we never really exported that much compared to our imports (except for about a decade) off the back of a lot of oil/coal (which is a finite resource anyway). The point is that leaving the EU is not magically going to improve manufacturing in the country as the time to exploit that has been and gone because we simply can't compete in the same way with asian powerhouses anymore in those areas.

I believe the EEC was absorbed into the EU and I'm pretty sure signing the Lisbon treaty (or the renamed rejected EU constitution) was when we strictly joined the EU (hence why we have repeal it). I'm not saying anything will magically happen, but having a weaker pound isn't exactly a weakness, it can certainly allow us to increase the trade we already have if the lower price increases demand (which it may well do), we can focus on tourism because of the lower prices of holidays to the UK. Part of this does depend on other trade deals we make with countries outside the EU (such as those within the commonwealth). Asia will always be a issue while it undercuts everyone, we will just have see. But you can't say that our products being cheaper will not make them more attractive to those overseas.

It depends on how you implement it. Trump just wants to ban asian products; however you could apply a global system where customs duty is based on Environmental/Social factors. If these are equivalent/better than the UK then the customs duty is zero. The worse you are the higher the custom duties get with them set at an estimated cost UK manufacturers. This way you can encourage better methods of operation globally whilst not disadvantaging you own companies.

I certainly agree, i don't think he wants to Ban Asian products (that's your typical CCN nonsense), I believe he wanted to impose fees so American companies could actually compete with them. No one will be able to compete with them while they are allowed to operate with such a weak currency and such terrible working conditions.

That's not really the EU's issue though is it. The EU just determine a reasonable (some would argue still too high fishing quotas) to make it sustainable. If countries flout the rules then that is for the enforcement groups of the individual countries to prosecute, otherwise you need an EU wide enforcement body (which I can imagine some would be opposed to). However if they are illegally fishing now, it's not going to stop just because we leave the EU - we will still have to share the waters around the UK with the EU.

How is it not a EU issue if the quotas are issued by the EU that favor other countries to the point of killing our fishing industry.

Legislation always favours big business because they have the resources to manage it, but it is still there to protect. You can't get away from this fact - you can remove the legislation and things may be good for 10-20 years but once you have exploited the land to its maximum then things will get a lot worse very quickly. However the big businesses will still be able to out compete the small ones, as they will still be more efficient and still sell their goods cheaper to the retailers. The only thing reducing legislation will result in is cheaper prices paid to farmers based on what the big businesses can afford to be paid (which will be less than small farmers will still want). The relative difference will still be the same.

It also put puts money in less pockets, the only person it tends to protect is the interests of big business. I'm puzzled as to why you seem to be defending the slow destruction of our farming industry? I'm sitting here listening to people who have had their livelihood destroyed and farms who have been within families sold and turned into flats, supermarkets (or whatever), yet more of our history destroyed. Yet you seem to think that's ok? No "logically" explanation could defend any such action.

 itsonlyme wrote:
With regards to the fishing industry, part of the issue has been the unfair fishing quotas that seemed to favour the french.

A quick calculation seems to indicate the opposite from this http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/sites/fisheries/files/docs/body/poster_tac2015_en.pdf. Assuming I've done my addition correctly France was allocated about 290,000 tonnes whereas the UK got about 600,000 tonnes (helped massively by mackerel). It's the UK government that breaks down the fishing quotas that is the issue, not the EU allocation (even if it's not perfect), but then that's what NF should have been doing.