The Brexit referendum thread: potential consequences for GB, EU and the Brits in CH

[Aeneas]

	Quote:	amogles
	Nationalism can mean different things to different people and at different moments in time. Starting in Stuart times the UK fostered an "artificial" nationalism to tell the Scots and Irish (and Welsh) that they were all part of one family of nations. Later the same concept was projected onto the entire Commonwealth. The Spaniards did something similar with their concept of "Hispanidad" binding all Spanish-speaking nations of the world into a common concept. Tito tried it with Yugoslavia and succeeded at first but it fell apart later. China has been doing it for a long time and even countries like India are ultimately artificial constructs. None of these countries can be accused of being overly fascist.

That was my point. You're the one who equated fascism with nationalism and asked me if I was doing so.

	Quote:
	I don't think you need to have imperial ambitions to be fascist or even to be overly nationalist to be a fascist.

I think you'll find it's quite difficult to have fascism without nationalism. It's like communism without class struggle.

	Quote:
	Mussolini in his younger years rejected the concept of ethinicity in nationalism and said everybody who agreed with him was welcome to join the fascist movement.

He rejected racialism, at least until about 1938, not ethnicity which is a far more nebulous term. You would be correct in saying everybody who agreed with him was welcome to join the fascist movement, but they did have to become Italianized - as evidenced by fascist policy in both Sud Tyrol and Istria/Dalmatia - so given culture is part of ethnicity, he would not have fully rejected it.

Bare in mind, colonial racism was practised, but that was common at the time and arguably less than one would experience in a British colony.

	Quote:	amogles
	Syriza has more in common with the far right than many are comfortable with. Podemos is only considered left wing because it says so itself. Sinn Fein is a bit more complicated as it has gone through multiple developments and changes in its history. Basque and Catalan nationalism is pretty much left wing on the other hand.

Doesn't really challenge what I said.

[greenmount]

	Quote:	Loz1983
	Where have I said I support them? I just enjoy watching Europe crash and burn.

Says someone who enjoyed all the benefits of a peaceful and open Europe...

Be careful what you wish for.

[fatmanfilms]

Just leaving the EU but remaining a member the EEA would be the obvious solution
http://www.businessinsider.com/inter...le-127-2016-12

[Aeneas]

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	Just leaving the EU but remaining a member the EEA would be the obvious solution http://www.businessinsider.com/inter...le-127-2016-12

I agree, but I get the impression that the politics in the British government have become more complex. The Remainers would likely favour this solution, but the more hard line Brexiteers are seeking a complete break from the EU and common market and have been waxing lyrical on the future benefits of breaking away altogether and creating a completely new market (presumably in the Anglo-sphere and/or Commonwealth).

The debate has gone beyond practical economic considerations and appears to be dominated by ideology now - like our little friend here who'd like to see the EU "crash and burn" even if it takes him with it. I don't think there is enough time to move to the latter model without Britain suffering a bit of an economic disaster, but I suspect the Brexiteers are afraid that if they agreed to membership of the EEA in the interim, they'll lose the momentum and they'll end up pulled back into the EU.

[Blueangel]

	Quote:	Aeneas
	... but the more hard line Brexiteers are seeking a complete break from the EU and common market and have been waxing lyrical on the future benefits of breaking away altogether and creating a completely new market (presumably in the Anglo-sphere and/or Commonwealth).

Having watched interviews with Paul Nuttall and IDS this morning, I'd say they want a clean break. Nuttall was quite inflammatory in his language too and got pulled on it by Susanna Reid. In my book, those two are a couple of losers desperately clawing at 'a win' and damaging the process in their wake. They're not telling outright lies, but their terminology is misleading at best.

[fatmanfilms]

	Quote:	Aeneas
	I agree, but I get the impression that the politics in the British government have become more complex. The Remainers would likely favour this solution, but the more hard line Brexiteers are seeking a complete break from the EU and common market and have been waxing lyrical on the future benefits of breaking away altogether and creating a completely new market (presumably in the Anglo-sphere and/or Commonwealth). The debate has gone beyond practical economic considerations and appears to be dominated by ideology now - like our little friend here who'd like to see the EU "crash and burn" even if it takes him with it. I don't think there is enough time to move to the latter model without Britain suffering a bit of an economic disaster, but I suspect the Brexiteers are afraid that if they agreed to membership of the EEA in the interim, they'll lose the momentum and they'll end up pulled back into the EU.

The vote was to leave the EU.
Britain is already a member of the EEA & it would appears needs separate notice from ART 50. No need to agree to joining something we are already a member of.

Talk of a hard BREXIT is just a bargaining chip, the best deal for Britain is what is needed. Britain is in a strong position, no reason to throw away your advantage

[marton]

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	Just leaving the EU but remaining a member the EEA would be the obvious solution http://www.businessinsider.com/inter...le-127-2016-12

Sure but UK would still have to make EU contributions and then without influence or veto on new EU rules which might not go well for some Brexiteers.

For me EEA would be a great solution.

EU member countries have to apply for EEA membership but they are not automatically accepted, as an example Croatia had to negotiate for with Norway six months before acceptance.

If EEA acceptance is not automatic for EU members then it is hard to argue that leaving EEA is automatic?

[Aeneas]

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	Talk of a hard BREXIT is just a bargaining chip, the best deal for Britain is what is needed. Britain is in a strong position, no reason to throw away your advantage

How is it a bargaining chip? Which do you think is presently more important to the EU at present; maintaining trade with the EU, or sending the message that leaving the EU invites a World of pain?

[fatmanfilms]

	Quote:	Aeneas
	How is it a bargaining chip? Which do you think is presently more important to the EU at present; maintaining trade with the EU, or sending the message that leaving the EU invites a World of pain?

Tarifs will effect the EU more than the UK, with over 10% fall in the £ a 10% tariff of sales is irrelevant & will cost exporters ZERO. Being that you can't increase the price of a commodity item by 25% most of the tariff & currency loss will have to be paid for by the foreign company selling to the UK.

It's really very easy if you understand how the market works.

The lower priced £ has been very profitable for exporters to date, it's a win win situation regardless.

Free movement is fairly useless to 90% of the UK population as they only speak English, being many Europeans speak almost fluent English. I moved to CH before free movement, if you had some special skill you could move.

[baboon]

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	Tarifs will effect the EU more than the UK, with over 10% fall in the £ a 10% tariff of sales is irrelevant & will cost exporters ZERO. Being that you can't increase the price of a commodity item by 25% most of the tariff & currency loss will have to be paid for by the foreign company selling to the UK. It's really very easy if you understand how the market works. The lower priced £ has been very profitable for exporters to date, it's a win win situation regardless. Free movement is fairly useless to 90% of the UK population as they only speak English, being many Europeans speak almost fluent English. I moved to CH before free movement, if you had some special skill you could move.

...except inflation will negate the falling pound within about 18 months. Devaluations away from the fundimentals of an economy have a benefit lifetime of maybe 12 to 18 months. Or do you think the Tories are serious in wanting UK workers to be like the Chinese and include being paid like the Chinese in that desire?

The falling pound of course anyway only impacts UK value added. Given the country has very limited resources a high proportion of the cost of production will be directly impacted by increased cost of raw materials and to a high degree components. These costs will have to be borne by UK producers. And you can increase the price of a commodity item by 25% if weveryone else is doing the same - which will be the case in the UK.

UK economic fundimentals are actually weak. The country can't feed itself and industrial production has been at a comparatively low level since Thatchers days. The balance of payments is very negative and the whole country is kept afloat by the financial services sector (plus the creative sectors to a smaller extent) - which would be badly hit by the loss of the financial passport and will be able to very rapidly decamp to Berlin, Paris, Amsterdam or wherever if necessary. You don't think the EU are aware of this?

Oh and most economic commentators believe the pound was overvalued prior to the Brexit vote and is now at its correct level. Will be interesting where it goes when Brexit happens.

[baboon]

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	Talk of a hard BREXIT is just a bargaining chip, the best deal for Britain is what is needed. Britain is in a strong position, no reason to throw away your advantage

Love this constant talk of "the best deal for Britain". Don't you think the EU might have their own ideas about "the best deal for the EU"?

[Aeneas]

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	Tarifs will effect the EU more than the UK, with over 10% fall in the £ a 10% tariff of sales is irrelevant & will cost exporters ZERO. Being that you can't increase the price of a commodity item by 25% most of the tariff & currency loss will have to be paid for by the foreign company selling to the UK. It's really very easy if you understand how the market works.

Then why do you not appear to have a breeze of a notion of how it does work?

To begin with the notion that tariffs will affect the EU more than the UK betrays a lack of understanding of basic math, let alone trade. To explain, in hopefully a way you'll comprehend, you have two parties in this equation; the UK and the EU (minus the UK). One is a market of 65m and the other is a market of 445m. If trade barriers were erected, that means that only trade between the UK and the EU member states would be affected. Presently this is 45% of all UK exports, versus a fraction of that for EU nations (Ireland would have the most to loose with the UK accounting for 15.4% of Irish exports, which is still a fraction of what the UK faces).

Those are the maths and there's getting around them however much you squeeze your eyes shut and wish really hard, and they're not in the UK's favour. Suggesting that a depressed sterling would compensate, let alone indefinitely, for this is bordering on delusional. It's a simple matter of scale - The UK is small fry next to the EU - simple as that.

This is before you consider that there are other tools in the fiscal toolbox. How are quotas going to be offset by currency fluctuations, for example? Answer; they're not.

Or that many British exports will become more expensive. Yes, because just because something was made in Britain doesn't mean that the materials to make it were.

Which returns us to trade barriers for the EU to one state being erected, versus to trade barriers for the UK to 27 states being erected. And the EU would be more effected? Dream on.

So given that you've presented a calculation based on wishful thinking rather than any actual semblance of reality, how is it a bargaining chip again?

[Blueangel]

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	Britain is in a strong position, no reason to throw away your advantage

Britain isn't in a strong position at all. I wish to god it was.

Just take the financial services sector as an example, then look at the issues with passporting.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-quicktake-q-a

[marton]

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	Tarifs will effect the EU more than the UK, with over 10% fall in the £ a 10% tariff of sales is irrelevant & will cost exporters ZERO. Being that you can't increase the price of a commodity item by 25% most of the tariff & currency loss will have to be paid for by the foreign company selling to the UK. It's really very easy if you understand how the market works. The lower priced £ has been very profitable for exporters to date, it's a win win situation regardless. Free movement is fairly useless to 90% of the UK population as they only speak English, being many Europeans speak almost fluent English. I moved to CH before free movement, if you had some special skill you could move.

"Free movement is fairly useless to 90% of the UK population" Last year the UK sold more services to the EU than we imported.
If the supply of these services require UK people to travel to the customers then FMOP or easy access to visas is essential.

"The lower priced £ has been very profitable for exporters to date" Presumably, since I have not seen any reduction here in the prices of British goods.

[Cata1yst]

	Quote:	Blueangel
	Britain isn't in a strong position at all. I wish to god it was. Just take the financial services sector as an example, then look at the issues with passporting. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-quicktake-q-a

You mean the tax avoiders, market manipulators and QE recipients? I'd say they're in a negative position right now.

[fatmanfilms]

	Quote:	marton
	"Free movement is fairly useless to 90% of the UK population" Last year the UK sold more services to the EU than we imported. If the supply of these services require UK people to travel to the customers then FMOP or easy access to visas is essential. "The lower priced £ has been very profitable for exporters to date" Presumably, since I have not seen any reduction here in the prices of British goods.

Traveling to customers for a meeting does not require FMOP........ Visas were not needed pre 1973, so no reason to think anything will radically change. TBH less business travel today than 10 / 20 /30 years ago.

You did not see British goods get more expensive over the last 3 years either! The exchange rate has virtually no impact on the price in shops due to something called competition. You sell in a market place for the max price the market will bear.

[fatmanfilms]

	Quote:	Aeneas
	Then why do you not appear to have a breeze of a notion of how it does work? To begin with the notion that tariffs will affect the EU more than the UK betrays a lack of understanding of basic math, let alone trade. To explain, in hopefully a way you'll comprehend, you have two parties in this equation; the UK and the EU (minus the UK). One is a market of 65m and the other is a market of 445m. If trade barriers were erected, that means that only trade between the UK and the EU member states would be affected. Presently this is 45% of all UK exports, versus a fraction of that for EU nations (Ireland would have the most to loose with the UK accounting for 15.4% of Irish exports, which is still a fraction of what the UK faces). Those are the maths and there's getting around them however much you squeeze your eyes shut and wish really hard, and they're not in the UK's favour. Suggesting that a depressed sterling would compensate, let alone indefinitely, for this is bordering on delusional. It's a simple matter of scale - The UK is small fry next to the EU - simple as that. This is before you consider that there are other tools in the fiscal toolbox. How are quotas going to be offset by currency fluctuations, for example? Answer; they're not. Or that many British exports will become more expensive. Yes, because just because something was made in Britain doesn't mean that the materials to make it were. Which returns us to trade barriers for the EU to one state being erected, versus to trade barriers for the UK to 27 states being erected. And the EU would be more effected? Dream on. So given that you've presented a calculation based on wishful thinking rather than any actual semblance of reality, how is it a bargaining chip again?

Perhaps you will explain why the FTSE 100 is higher today than before the vote? The markets believe UK profits in £ will be higher in 2 years than today, it's very simple the future is good for business.

[marton]

	Quote:	Cata1yst
	You mean the tax avoiders, market manipulators and QE recipients? I'd say they're in a negative position right now.

I assume these people were the ones meant;
The key findings from this eighth study show that, for the financial services (FS) sector in the UK in the year to 31 March 2015:
• The sector paid an estimated amount of total taxes in the region of £66.5bn, or 11.0% of total UK Government tax receipts (2014: 11.5%). This includes both taxes borne of £26.2bn and taxes collected of £40.3bn.
Source



Of course if you have a source for your "comments" then please do share it, otherwise it seems you would be happy to walk away from over ten percent of UK Govt. income?

[marton]

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	Traveling to customers for a meeting does not require FMOP........ Visas were not needed pre 1973, so no reason to think anything will radically change. TBH less business travel today than 10 / 20 /30 years ago. You did not see British goods get more expensive over the last 3 years either! The exchange rate has virtually no impact on the price in shops due to something called competition. You sell in a market place for the max price the market will bear.

So you believe the UK services industry could achieve over 120 billion euro of annual services by just sending people to a couple of meetings and nobody has to visit the customer sites to perform these services

[marton]

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	Perhaps you will explain why the FTSE 100 is higher today than before the vote? The markets believe UK profits in £ will be higher in 2 years than today, it's very simple the future is good for business.

Sterling innit

	Quote:
	Credit Suisse recently calculated that the constituents of the FTSE 100 collectively make around three-quarters of their money beyond these shores. Those revenues are earned in foreign currencies, which must be converted back into sterling for reporting purposes; the weaker the pound, the bigger the relative boost those companies get from those foreign earnings.

The FTSE 250 is a better guide to the health of UK companies and that is down around 3Bn since the referendum.
Source