The Consequences of Brexit [part 4]

[chalga]

But you know full well that it is confirmation bias. The last Chancellor predicted two emergency budgets straight after the referendum and we're still waiting.

 

The truth is that NOBODY knows the macro outcome. Only a blithering idiot would make predictions and hold them as certain. There are lots of blithering idiots.

 

 

Economics is a sideshow for the easily fooled and distracted. Geopolitics is the main game and Brexit is still the correct decision IMO.

 

Carney wasn't making predictions in Davos,he said what had already happened.

[ENG601PM]

Carney wasn't making predictions in Davos,he said what had already happened.

 

This is an adults only conversation.

[andyofborg]

The truth is that NOBODY knows the macro outcome. Only a blithering idiot would make predictions and hold them as certain. There are lots of blithering idiots.

 

much of the macro outcome depends on what our future relationship with the EU is. which is really all we're talking about here.

 

some of the possible downsides are clear, there don't seem to be many upsides.

 

there is no model of that future relationship that will satisfy enough of the governing party to keep it together. one of the consequences of this is that all the things which hold the country together are crumbling because the government is paralysed. changing the leader is unlikely to help. a second referendum wont help, the result will be around 52-48 one way or the other, it doesn't really matter. i'm not sure a general election would help now either.

 

making our own laws means very little in real terms. not sure how reducing employment rights, product standards and environmental protections really helps those who are struggling now.

 

trade deals really don't help much since they will be two way. they may make it easier to export things but they also make it easier for others to import. the net effect, especially in terms of jobs wont be much and many of the key target countries want easier immigration which wont make some of the brexiters very happy.

 

Economics is a sideshow for the easily fooled and distracted. Geopolitics is the main game and Brexit is still the correct decision IMO.

 

Unless you photosynthesise then economics puts food on your table,

 

Brexit pretty much means we've walked away from geopolitics. No one cares about us and what we think anymore.

[I1L2T3]

That's nonsense. The EU has been pumping QE into the Eurozone for years, a couple of trillion Euros if my memory serves me. Sorry IL, you I can't let you get away with that cod economic theory. Economic predictions are for the birds. Anyone putting any store by the macro predictions is away with the birds.

 

Geopolitics is where the game is really being played while people like you are being distracted by this nonsense.

 

Don’t try and switch it to historical EZ financial interventions.

 

You’re not going to get away with that.

 

I’m addressing the reasons why there was no immediate meltdown after the referendum and how action taken in the U.K. prevented it. Osbornes prediction didn’t come true because of things he couldn’t have known.

 

To add to that, when May became PM she immediately kicked the A50 can down the road.

 

A trio of actions that history will judge pretty well in terms of stabilising the U.K. economy - for a time - after the referendum.

 

It’s not nonsense. It’s what happened. Sorry you don’t like it.

[chalga]

This is an adults only conversation.

 

The very same kind of conversation the Tories are having between themselves about Brexit........see where it's got them?

[ENG601PM]

Brexit pretty much means we've walked away from geopolitics.

Here's to the nub. The key geopolitical question is what the EU is becoming, not whether the near term economic outlook is one thing or the other.

 

The UK and the people living in it, working with it, importing and exporting will be fine, more or less. Business pretty much as usual in the medium term. The UK is a remarkably stable nation that's been through wars both civil and international, religious upheaval, persecution, famine, disease, and I simply can't see how customs tariffs and blue passports are going to send it off the rails. Stoicism rules.

 

But the future of the EU, there's the elephant in the room.

 

On the one hand we have political federalists, including the political federalists who pretend that they aren't. Historic German and French underachievement keeps bubbling up and we're seeing it writ large in the federalisation project. Nervous dogs bite smaller dogs.

 

Then we have the common interest traders. I put myself in the common interest traders category, and so do the overt / covert political federalists as a rule, and probably you I would guess. Good harmonisation is very helpful in my opinion, maybe including legal parity where necessary. I've no problem with the spirit of the EEC.

 

Where I draw the line is unnecessary protectionism, whether that it for the UK, the EU, or anywhere else. So I've looked at both the EU federalisation project and where the EU is now as a protectionist pseudostate, and I can not reconcile with a federated EU in any other capacity than it being bad for the average and not so average people in it. The EU has been failing for years. I can't see how it will change that with the UK on the outside. Imagine for yourself the various possible situations but I believe that the EU will be a USA style federation within 100 of the 1957 EEC treaty.

 

TL;DR I don't believe that EU federalisation is a good thing for Europe and that's why I think Brexit is a short term bitter pill that needs swallowing fast. Brexit may well be seen by history as analogous to declaring war on Hitler's Germany.

[andyofborg]

Here's to the nub. The key geopolitical question is what the EU is becoming, not whether the near term economic outlook is one thing or the other.

 

The UK and the people living in it, working with it, importing and exporting will be fine, more or less. Business pretty much as usual in the medium term. The UK is a remarkably stable nation that's been through wars both civil and international, religious upheaval, persecution, famine, disease, and I simply can't see how customs tariffs and blue passports are going to send it off the rails. Stoicism rules.

 

But the future of the EU, there's the elephant in the room.

 

On the one hand we have political federalists, including the political federalists who pretend that they aren't. Historic German and French underachievement keeps bubbling up and we're seeing it writ large in the federalisation project. Nervous dogs bite smaller dogs.

 

Then we have the common interest traders. I put myself in the common interest traders category, and so do the overt / covert political federalists as a rule, and probably you I would guess. Good harmonisation is very helpful in my opinion, maybe including legal parity where necessary. I've no problem with the spirit of the EEC.

 

Where I draw the line is unnecessary protectionism, whether that it for the UK, the EU, or anywhere else. So I've looked at both the EU federalisation project and where the EU is now as a protectionist pseudostate, and I can not reconcile with a federated EU in any other capacity than it being bad for the average and not so average people in it. The EU has been failing for years. I can't see how it will change that with the UK on the outside. Imagine for yourself the various possible situations but I believe that the EU will be a USA style federation within 100 of the 1957 EEC treaty.

 

TL;DR I don't believe that EU federalisation is a good thing for Europe and that's why I think Brexit is a short term bitter pill that needs swallowing fast. Brexit may well be seen by history as analogous to declaring war on Hitler's Germany.

 

I guess I dont see the federalisation of the eu as being as likely as you do. as far as i can tell from media reporting there doesn't seem to be a clamour for it, other than a few high profile people. maybe some of our eu based contributors can provide a better assessment?

 

increasing integration of the eurozone countries will be necessary but that's not the eu as a whole and it may be some of the weaker economies leave the euro which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. though on the other hand these changes may drive the improvements these countries need. a difficult choice, but not one for us to make.

 

the lesson from the 1930's is that protectionism is generally a bad thing but sometimes necessary in certain areas. even those who advocate removing all uk trade barriers acknowledge the consequences on uk industry but they seem less clear on what all the unemployed workers will do or how the government will get the money to pay their benefits if they dont get a job. that said with care, time and a sensible attitude on both sides then barriers can be lowered or even removed without inflicting major damage.

 

i really dont think equating brexit with the second world war is valid or given the jingoistic rubbish which is coming from some people helpful.

[chalga]

I guess I dont see the federalisation of the eu as being as likely as you do. as far as i can tell from media reporting there doesn't seem to be a clamour for it, other than a few high profile people. maybe some of our eu based contributors can provide a better assessment?

 

increasing integration of the eurozone countries will be necessary but that's not the eu as a whole and it may be some of the weaker economies leave the euro which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. though on the other hand these changes may drive the improvements these countries need. a difficult choice, but not one for us to make.

 

the lesson from the 1930's is that protectionism is generally a bad thing but sometimes necessary in certain areas. even those who advocate removing all uk trade barriers acknowledge the consequences on uk industry but they seem less clear on what all the unemployed workers will do or how the government will get the money to pay their benefits if they dont get a job. that said with care, time and a sensible attitude on both sides then barriers can be lowered or even removed without inflicting major damage.

 

i really dont think equating brexit with the second world war is valid or given the jingoistic rubbish which is coming from some people helpful.

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/29/german-ambassador-peter-ammon-second-world-war-image-of-britain-has-fed-euroscepticism

 

Very good interview with the German ambassador yesterday saying much the same,including the anti EU propaganda pumped out by the right to be swallowed by the gullible.

[andyofborg]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/29/german-ambassador-peter-ammon-second-world-war-image-of-britain-has-fed-euroscepticism

 

Very good interview with the German ambassador yesterday saying much the same,including the anti EU propaganda pumped out by the right to be swallowed by the gullible.

 

Indeed, and we should remember that we weren't standing alone back then we had an empire behind us.

[hauxwell]

He intervened in the markets immediately afterwards which help prevent it. Brexiters criticised him for doing so at the time.

 

 

I'm sure you'd have much more confidence in them if they'd said something you agree with.

 

 

Apologies for my political ignorance, but I don’t understand the role of the IFS. The only thing I am comparing them with is prediction polls when there is elections. They don’t always get it right. So I would definitely not agree with the IFS if they said something I agreed with, I would wait and see if there prediction is correct.

I don’t believe Carney is the man for the job or if his intervention did help after the Brexit vote

I listen to what our politicians are saying about Brexit, the good and the bad, and what will happen when we leave the EU and that is all, but I do try to remain positive.