The Consequences of Brexit (part 2)

[Santo]

I've been away for a few days and not been paying attention to the news. Have they decided what "Brexit" means yet?

 

Free Nissans all round

[tzijlstra]

I have noticed that 'remainers' seem to be changing their tune with regard to the likely outcome of the Brexit negotiations. Now that their doom-laden prophecies concerning the immediate impacts of the referendum result have turned to dust, they no longer seem to arguing that the only viable alternative for the UK is membership of the Single European Market, with all that implies.

 

Now their great white hope is that the UK will be forced into a customs union with the EU. This would mean that the EU would set the UK's tariffs and that no UK trade deals with other countries would be allowed without the express approval of the EU (which would be unlikely to be forthcoming). It would mean that the UK would still be shackled to the EU and would be forced to accept the ruling of the European Court of Justice in relation to trade matters (which cover broad areas of policy).

 

Turkey of course has a (partial) customs union with the EU. But this customs union is viewed by both sides as a stage on the way to full Turkish EU membership, a trajectory which is hardly similar to the UK's current aspirations. Moreover, it is a very one-sided (partial) customs union, because Turkey basically has to accept whatever tariffs the EU decides on and is subject to the rulings of the ECJ in the areas covered by the remit of the agreement.

 

However, what some of the more knowledgeable and fair-minded 'remainers' are beginning to realise is that the EU by no means holds all the best cards in the forthcoming negotiations. For example, 22 out of the 27 member states currently have positive trade balances with the UK (not least Germany, the EU's largest and most powerful member state, which has huge trade surpluses with the UK in both manufacturing and services). Imposing EU high tariffs on the UK would be a classic example of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face and would could well trigger a major, and perhaps fatal, crisis in the eurozone. Thankfully, more sensible and realistic voices in the EU are beginning to be heard.

 

Nice post Nigel, although I have to say I don't really like people speaking on my behalf, which it feels like you are doing

 

I will reiterate my position, which by the way, I have held since well before the referendum:

 

The only way immigration is going down is if the economy crashes, the only way the economy is not going to crash is by keeping immigration up.

 

There really isn't a middle-way to that, although, as I have mentioned a million times, the UK actually implements the rules the EU already permitted it to implement re. immigration. I believe the country will be a lot worse off on a full hard Brexit, which will be purely driven on the anti-immigration agenda, and I will maintain that is the effect that is shaping things at the moment at Westminster.

 

What we are currently seeing is a government that is very slowly making up its mind and, fair dos, actually managing to ride that crescent successfully. They have managed things better than I anticipated.

 

I have got an issue with your opinion of the EU position though, this is something that is difficult to explain to people like you, but I will try again anyway - Article 50 triggers a process whereby the UK has an opportunity to negotiate terms with the EU for 2 years. If after those two years the terms are not agreed the EU has the opportunity to shut the door on negotiations and demand a hard exit. If that happens Britain gets relegated to having to negotiate a new FTA with the EU, on the EU's terms and timeframe, thus suitable for all 27 states.

 

That, genuinely, is not something the UK wants, it will suffer far more from that scenario than the EU will. The incentive for the EU to drop the UK in it after two years is driven by politics, rather than economics, and could put the UK in the fridge for a long time.

[apelike]

 

If the EU gave the UK a better deal than it had as a members the EU would quite obviously be finished, all the members would leave and expect to get the same. Why has no Brexiteer ever answered that basic piece of logic ?

 

Maybe because the majority of Brexiters realised that would never happen and its not very logical to expect it to. I'm also not sure if A50 actually applies to all the members of the EU and as such some may not be able to legally leave. In the Netherlands for instance they cannot leave the EU without passing new laws to do so. The ones wanting to leave will hardly gain enough power to be in a position to change those laws. That is one of the worst things about being a lifetime member of the EU. Its like a lifetime prison sentence with no chance of parole and the wording of the treaties guarantee that you cant escape.

[andyofborg]

.....

I'm also not sure if A50 actually applies to all the members of the EU and as such some may not be able to legally leave.

 

of course, it applies to all member states, a country wishing to invoke article 50 needs to make that decision in line with it's constitution. if that means passing new laws or painting everyone green then that's what needs to be done.

[Litotes]

...In the Netherlands for instance they cannot leave the EU without passing new laws to do so. The ones wanting to leave will hardly gain enough power to be in a position to change those laws. That is one of the worst things about being a lifetime member of the EU. Its like a lifetime prison sentence with no chance of parole and the wording of the treaties guarantee that you cant escape.

 

Same as the UK then... we can't leave without a repeal of the Act that took us into the EU i.e. a new law.

 

And if you asked Cameron if he thought that "The ones wanting to leave will hardly gain enough power to be in a position to change those laws. " - he'd have said not while I am still Prime Minister...

 

So your argument doesn't exactly stand up to scrutiny!

[Justin Smith]

Originally Posted by Justin Smith :

 

If the EU gave the UK a better deal than it had as a members the EU would quite obviously be finished, all the members would leave and expect to get the same. Why has no Brexiteer ever answered that basic piece of logic ?

 

Maybe because the majority of Brexiters realised that would never happen and its not very logical to expect it to. I'm also not sure if A50 actually applies to all the members of the EU and as such some may not be able to legally leave. In the Netherlands for instance they cannot leave the EU without passing new laws to do so. The ones wanting to leave will hardly gain enough power to be in a position to change those laws. That is one of the worst things about being a lifetime member of the EU. Its like a lifetime prison sentence with no chance of parole and the wording of the treaties guarantee that you cant escape.

 

Ahh, still not actually answered the question then ? But you`re not on your own, no other Brexiteer has ever answered it either...... Brexiteers always say they don`t expect that scenario to occur (so won`t answer the question) whenever they`re asked anything that doesn`t fit in with the rather optimistic view* they propound.

 

* That`s the charitable word, exaggeration or even lies may be nearer the truth.

 

So let me give you the opportunity to actually give us a straight answer, not a politicians non-answer so I`ll ask it again, even more simply : Why would the EU give us a better deal than we had before (regardless of whether they may or may not also suffer from the deal) when that would just encourage all the other members to leave and ask for the same thing ? Particularly when we`ve jut upset them by asking to leave their club.......

[apelike]

 

So let me give you the opportunity to actually give us a straight answer, not a politicians non-answer so I`ll ask it again, even more simply : Why would the EU give us a better deal than we had before (regardless of whether they may or may not also suffer from the deal) when that would just encourage all the other members to leave and ask for the same thing ? Particularly when we`ve jut upset them by asking to leave their club.......

 

That answer to your question question is simple, the EU wouldn't give us a better deal than we had before and I doubt any sane brexiter thought they would. So far as I know no one has asked them to either so the question is a bit of a strawman argument.

 

---------- Post added 01-11-2016 at 00:48 ----------

 

Same as the UK then... we can't leave without a repeal of the Act that took us into the EU i.e. a new law.

 

As I have stated before an act of parliament does not necessarily need to get repealed as it is possible just to amend them as have been done in the past. New laws just superspeed old ones without them being repealed. The same will probably happen in this instance as well as a lot of the laws embedded in the act will still need to be kept. It would be catastrophic just to repeal the whole EU communities act "as is" as so many laws are now embedded in it. One of the reasons we have 2 years and maybe more to negotiate.

[Justin Smith]

That answer to your question question is simple, the EU wouldn't give us a better deal than we had before and I doubt any sane brexiter thought they would. So far as I know no one has asked them to either so the question is a bit of a strawman argument.

 

It`s interesting you should say :

 

the EU wouldn't give us a better deal than we had before and I doubt any sane brexiter thought they would

 

What I said is most definitely not a strawman argument as you well know because I never heard the Leave campaign say what you`ve just said during the Referendum campaign, nor, to be frank, since. In fact I can remember getting very annoyed with Dimble (on R4`s Any Questions) when the Brexit lot repeatedly avoided answering a question on this very subject, and he never pushed it. They repeatedly said during the campaign and since, "we buy more from the EU than they do from us so it`ll all be fine, much like it is now". I think we can quite confidently say that the deal will not even be the same, it`ll be worse. But at least we are making progress, the Brexiteers, at least on here, have finally admitted that, as far as trade etc goes, we`ll be in a worse position with the EU than we were before. And that, will cost us money directly to companies like Nissan, if we want to keep them here.

Edited November 1, 2016 by Justin Smith

[NigelFargate]

Nice post Nigel, although I have to say I don't really like people speaking on my behalf, which it feels like you are doing

 

I will reiterate my position, which by the way, I have held since well before the referendum:

 

The only way immigration is going down is if the economy crashes, the only way the economy is not going to crash is by keeping immigration up.

 

There really isn't a middle-way to that, although, as I have mentioned a million times, the UK actually implements the rules the EU already permitted it to implement re. immigration. I believe the country will be a lot worse off on a full hard Brexit, which will be purely driven on the anti-immigration agenda, and I will maintain that is the effect that is shaping things at the moment at Westminster.

 

What we are currently seeing is a government that is very slowly making up its mind and, fair dos, actually managing to ride that crescent successfully. They have managed things better than I anticipated.

 

I have got an issue with your opinion of the EU position though, this is something that is difficult to explain to people like you, but I will try again anyway - Article 50 triggers a process whereby the UK has an opportunity to negotiate terms with the EU for 2 years. If after those two years the terms are not agreed the EU has the opportunity to shut the door on negotiations and demand a hard exit. If that happens Britain gets relegated to having to negotiate a new FTA with the EU, on the EU's terms and timeframe, thus suitable for all 27 states.

 

That, genuinely, is not something the UK wants, it will suffer far more from that scenario than the EU will. The incentive for the EU to drop the UK in it after two years is driven by politics, rather than economics, and could put the UK in the fridge for a long time.

 

Well, on your last point I would have to agree that much of what happens in the EU is driven by politics rather than economics, principally by the pan-European nationalist ideology of 'ever closer union' (it always has been and probably always will be). However, like many ideologies, pan-European nationalism has frequently found itself on a collision course with political and economic realities, not least the national interests of the member states and also (when asked) by the preferences of the peoples of Europe. However much the pan-European nationalist fanatics, such as Verhofstadt or Juncker, would like to severely punish the UK, the member states are hardly likely to opt for a policy which would severely damage their own economies, and which could well lead to another major crisis in the eurozone.

 

With regard to your point about migration, I don't think that uncontrolled mass immigration is a sine qua non for a successful economy (quite apart from its effects on social cohesion. Moreover, the terms 'hard' and soft' Brexit are misnomers in my view. There is nothing 'soft about a Brexit which would still lead to the UK being subject to the rulings of the ECJ; being forced to pay huge amounts into the EU budget and being forced to accept mass migration.

 

---------- Post added 01-11-2016 at 11:54 ----------

 

If the EU gave the UK a better deal than it had as a members the EU would quite obviously be finished, all the members would leave and expect to get the same. Why has no Brexiteer ever answered that basic piece of logic ?

 

Well, the obvious answer is that it is your understanding of logic which is at fault. Logic is only as good as the assumptions on which it is based.

 

Your assumption is that, within other member states, their is a latent propensity to wish to leave the EU. However, all the available evidence, shown by public opinion surveys in individual member countries, proves that this assumption is false. It is certainly true that public dissatisfaction with the EU has been rising in many member states. However, this dissatisfaction is by no means to be equated with a desire for exit, regardless of what right-wing nationalist parties want. The 'example' set by the UK is no real example, because the British case is sui generis, in that the UK has always been an awkward partner for the EU. Doubts about the wisdom of our membership have a very long genealogy, in ways which have no parallel in other member states.

 

An amicable and mutually beneficial deal in the negotiations would not trigger a mass bolting towards the exit door (as the chances that any member state would opt for this are remote). However, a punishment strategy would be likely to do untold damage to the economies of the member states and indeed to the EU project itself. Let us hope that real logic prevails.

Edited November 1, 2016 by NigelFargate

[Justin Smith]

Justin Smith wrote :

 

If the EU gave the UK a better deal than it had as a members the EU would quite obviously be finished, all the members would leave and expect to get the same. Why has no Brexiteer ever answered that basic piece of logic ?

 

Well, the obvious answer is that it is your understanding of logic which is at fault. Logic is only as good as the assumptions on which it is based.

 

Your assumption is that, within other member states, their is a latent propensity to wish to leave the EU. However, all the available evidence, shown by public opinion surveys in individual member countries, proves that this assumption is false. It is certainly true that public dissatisfaction with the EU has been rising in many member states. However, this dissatisfaction is by no means to be equated with a desire for exit, regardless of what right-wing nationalist parties want. The 'example' set by the UK is no real example, because the British case is sui generis, in that the UK has always been an awkward partner for the EU. Doubts about the wisdom of our membership have a very long genealogy, in ways which have no parallel in other member states.

 

An amicable and mutually beneficial deal in the negotiations would not trigger a mass bolting towards the exit door (as the chances that any member state would opt for this are remote). However, a punishment strategy would be likely to do untold damage to the economies of the member states and indeed to the EU project itself. Let us hope that real logic prevails.

 

We appear to have a different definition of logic, and, indeed, the feelings of our (probably ex) EU partners, but no matter, let`s cut to the quick. So, you appear to be saying that you think the UK will get a trade agreement with the EU as good, or nearly as good, as it had when it was a member ? Can we just clarify that`s what you`re saying ?