OT. The futures Bright, the Futures Brexit!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by macstheman

It's called politics!! Both sides have backtracked - post Brexit Armageddon budgets, immigration etc etc - normal everyday bull****!! That's why we love 'em........not!!:mad:

---

Mind you there is the autumn statement to come and that might be interesting. As you say each side made exaggerated claims and I doubt that at the moment either could say whether Brexit will be positive or negative -I'm inclining towards the latter certainly economically, though it will be a while before the full effects are know.

What i am interested in is what the "deal" will be, IF it is a kind of EU lite as the likes of Norway and Switzerland have then one does wonder how that will satisfy those who voted leave, of course we might have some **** hot negotiators and get all we want without the conditions that are unacceptable to some, can't see it myself but never say never.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ramAnag

Quite clever from Theresa May perhaps AF...give responsibility for the Brexit negotiations to the most vociferous Brexiteers, in a sort of 'you got us into this mess, now you sort it out' kind of way and then let them take the blame. Think this is certainly what happened with Johnson who, imo, was always more committed to his own career and a short cut to being PM than he ever actually was to the 'Leave' campaign. 'Reap what you sow' time maybe.
Hopefully all sides will see sense, the EU will recognise the need for a re-think before other major players follow the UK's example and the UK will recognise that 37% is no sort of a mandate and we're better off with continued membership rather than isolated on the outside. Time will tell but I wouldn't be surprised to see a whole lot more 'backtracking' over the next few months or so. Hope so.;D

---

I'll beg to differ there, although I voted for remain, I'm not in denial about what a majority is and I'm also keen for those in power to act out the mandate they've been given and either do Brexit properly, OR (and I hope someone is working on this) do something so much more radical than Brexit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by swaledale

Mind you there is the autumn statement to come and that might be interesting. As you say each side made exaggerated claims and I doubt that at the moment either could say whether Brexit will be positive or negative -I'm inclining towards the latter certainly economically, though it will be a while before the full effects are know.

What i am interested in is what the "deal" will be, IF it is a kind of EU lite as the likes of Norway and Switzerland have then one does wonder how that will satisfy those who voted leave, of course we might have some **** hot negotiators and get all we want without the conditions that are unacceptable to some, can't see it myself but never say never.

---

My mind might be addled by drinking too much cheap cider and inhaling too much barbecue smoke but to me some of the deals we can do are dead simple. Here's one with Poland, and these are real numbers apart from my percentages

'OK Mr Pole, lets do a deal. You can have free movement of goods and services with UK, but free movement of people is a no-no'

'Sorry Mr Brit but Mrs Merkel says we cannot do that'

'OK Mr Pole, what's the deal?'

'If you do not allow free movement of people, we will impose a tarriff of 20% on your goods and services'

'That's a deal, Mr Pole'

'What?'

'That's a deal. We send you £5.5bn of goods every year. That's mainly high-tech stuff, so lets assume we lose 20% of that business because of the tarriff, so our exports reduce by £1.1bn to £4.4bn. Ouch. BUT, you send us £9.5bn, and because there is less high-tech lets say you lose 30% of that business because of course we will impose a tarriff of our own. So your exports reduce by £2.9bn to £6.6bn. So that looks like a balance of payments win for us, thanks!'

'Hmmm, Mr Brit, you seem to have, as you say, Top Trumped me. Nevertheless, Mrs Merkel says we have to make you pay for removing free movement and, er, we have. Thank you and goodbye'

'Not so fast Mr Pole, I need to point out something you have missed'

'Please Mr Brit, enlighten me'

'You would notice if you came to Britain that may of your hardworking and industrious countrymen and women retain much of the motherland's customs, including many who consume a very high proportion of their food and drink sourced from Poland. Lets assume on average that proportion is 50%. So a 20% tarriff will mean your countrymen and women's cost of living in UK will increase by 10%. Thats down to you'.

'OK Mr Brit, we wont impose inward tarriifs on food and drink, and that means you wont have to'

'Sorry, Mr Pole, no deal, WE decide what to put tarriffs on, we'll stick with no free movement of people and a 20% tarriff thanks'

'Hmmm, I think I'd better go and see Mrs Merkel'

QED

Just for discussion chaps

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andy_Faber

My mind might be addled by drinking too much cheap cider and inhaling too much barbecue smoke but to me some of the deals we can do are dead simple. Here's one with Poland, and these are real numbers apart from my percentages

'OK Mr Pole, lets do a deal. You can have free movement of goods and services with UK, but free movement of people is a no-no'

'Sorry Mr Brit but Mrs Merkel says we cannot do that'

'OK Mr Pole, what's the deal?'

'If you do not allow free movement of people, we will impose a tarriff of 20% on your goods and services'

'That's a deal, Mr Pole'

'What?'

'That's a deal. We send you £5.5bn of goods every year. That's mainly high-tech stuff, so lets assume we lose 20% of that business because of the tarriff, so our exports reduce by £1.1bn to £4.4bn. Ouch. BUT, you send us £9.5bn, and because there is less high-tech lets say you lose 30% of that business because of course we will impose a tarriff of our own. So your exports reduce by £2.9bn to £6.6bn. So that looks like a balance of payments win for us, thanks!'

'Hmmm, Mr Brit, you seem to have, as you say, Top Trumped me. Nevertheless, Mrs Merkel says we have to make you pay for removing free movement and, er, we have. Thank you and goodbye'

'Not so fast Mr Pole, I need to point out something you have missed'

'Please Mr Brit, enlighten me'

'You would notice if you came to Britain that may of your hardworking and industrious countrymen and women retain much of the motherland's customs, including many who consume a very high proportion of their food and drink sourced from Poland. Lets assume on average that proportion is 50%. So a 20% tarriff will mean your countrymen and women's cost of living in UK will increase by 10%. Thats down to you'.

'OK Mr Brit, we wont impose inward tarriifs on food and drink, and that means you wont have to'

'Sorry, Mr Pole, no deal, WE decide what to put tarriffs on, we'll stick with no free movement of people and a 20% tarriff thanks'

'Hmmm, I think I'd better go and see Mrs Merkel'

QED

Just for discussion chaps

---

Sounds very simple, but in reality what Poland gets from the EU would be more valuable than Polish exports to the UK, access to the other 27 countries is valaauble to!and of course the Eu would then impose retaliatory tariffs on our exports, so the whole thing has to be a little bit more sophisticated than that - i know that politicians have been saying stuff like French farmers wont stand for not being able to export their produce to the Uk, but thats an easy sound bite, not so easy in reality - yes the EU exports more to us than we import, but the Uk is not the only market for exports and it isn't in our interests to piss every country off.

There may be some hope in what Anagram has said, that other countries in the EU who have issues will force change, but the Eu has the ability to hurt us economically, a trade war against 27 countries is not going to benefit the UK.

Immigrant labour is an issue which will cause issues, if we stop it altogether then many firms will have no choice but to switch production into the EU, because there simply isn't the labour in the Uk they require, if that happens then there will be no jobs.

It all comes down to the horse trading. Will the various eu countries be prepared to gamble on taking a significant hit on their own interests to force conditions like the free movement of labour? We're not going to stop immigrant labour altogether, that's ridiculous.

Also, people keep talking about a Norway style eu lite deal. You can't compare Norway with us because we import a significant amount of eu goods, compared with Norway. Would the German car industry suffer losing Norwegian sales, would the Spanish and Greek tourist industries miss all the Norwegian tourists, would the Polish workers be able to find as many jobs elsewhere in the eu?

Obviously, we will not be able to have everything we want, that's what negotiations mean. We will probably end up paying some tariff on our exports, the USA average is 3%, but the recent devaluation of the pound will have more than swallowed up that kind of tariff.

It's all about a group of adults, hopefully, acting responsibly and not damaging their own interests just to prove a point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ram59

It's all about a group of adults, hopefully, acting responsibly and not damaging their own interests just to prove a point.

---

And therein lies the problem because they aren't adults they are politicians and bureaucrats

Agree with much of that Ram59 and if you and I can agree on something there's hope for them all. ;D

A trade war with us will damage the eu. Losing the UK market doesn't mean they'll have access to any new markets that they don't already have access to.

Whereas in the event of a trade war, the UK will have unrestricted access to non eu markets, which they don't currently have. Whether this would make up or exceed the loss of the eu trade, no-one knows.

Whereas in the event of a trade war, the UK will have unrestricted access to non eu markets, which they don't currently have. Whether this would make up or exceed the loss of the eu trade, no-one knows.[/QUOTE]

But there we differ again. A 'trade war' with 27 countries? As Swale has alluded to...just can't see how that is going to do anything but damage us.

No one wins in wars - trade or the more lethal kind as the Allies saw, with Germany and Japan dominating their respective economic zones shortly after losing the shoot out of '45. That said if the stalemate of 1914-18 had gone to penalties the Germans would probably have won