I don't think we'll be able to trade with them as a single block without a (special ?) deal. Maybe we would have to negotiate deals with all the EU states individually ? If that's the case, how many parliaments would that be with the right to veto deals - 40 ? In which case, all the standardisation rules and regulations might be different. A bureaucratic night mare, perhaps ?
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Hannan took the view that free access to the single market was possible with a compromise over free movement being the likely outcome. Farage (and most of everyone else) argued that access to the single market isn't currently free to us anyway due to the extortionate fee we have to pay for our membership, and that it was unlikely that we would have to pay high tariff fees, as this would hurt the economy of EU countries as much as us, seeing as we are one of the main importers.
What flexibility do you want, you can expel anyone that costs you money?
EU states can't do separate deals. They sign over that right. However in exchange the collective weight of the EU means they get better terms than they would alone. In signing a deal the parties agree to use one set of standards, which is the EUs as they are the bigger party
Migration is not a burden on this nation.
And the rules make sure that it cannot be a burden, you just have to apply them.
Even a lot remainers would disagree with you there. Housing, schools, hospitals etc are affected by record levels of migration. Even Cameron desperately tried to negotiate with the EU to give us more control. Theresa May vowed to do it as home secretary, because she saw the impact of migration, but she failed. To say that migration is not a problem, is to bury your head in the sand.
The migration that leaving the UK will restrict is the sort that earns the country a fortune. Refugee type migration might even get worse. Why would EU nations want to stop refugees leaving the EU for Britain?
So you have people from the EU that doesn't contribute to the expenses?
They are far more affected by deliberate under investment, which has nothing to do with the EU.
Well someone has to build, maintain and work in them.
They mean free trade I think. People believed we would get a free trade deal with Europe. We wont, at least not in the short term.
Agree, free trade is out the window as free movement is the price, which is the single biggest issue for the UK.
There is no deliberate under investment.
The mistake is to talk about access instead of membership. The single market is a market and anyone can access it but when you are a member you are exempted from tarrifs and your goods don't have to be systematically controlled, all your traders are also licensed and can operate in the market.
But we mustn't forget the possible removal of tariffs with other nations. For example, the cost of importing BMWs may go up, but the cost of Toyotas may come down. French wine may go up, but Australian and American wine may come down.
You think the UK can strike better trade deals with Australia/America/Japan than the collective bargaining power of a market of 500 million people? Good luck with that.
And that's without even getting into the wishful thinking of cheaper imports now that Sterling is tanking.
You choose two markets that doesn't work that way, people don't buy high ends cars based on price otherwise they would be buying Toyotas as we speak.
Nar, you've just never really coped with the baby booms of 1946, the 60's and then the third peaking in 1990, and it's been gradually getting worse year on year since.
But yeah, blame johnny foreigner.
Migration may be a problem to an extent, but a lot of the problems we're facing extend far beyond it. The biggest problem with hospitals and the NHS right now, for example, is the fact that we have an ageing nation and we're struggling to cope. Immigration may not help that, but it probably balances out when you consider a lot of immigrants bolster the NHS by working in it...and a lot of immigrants who move over are younger, healthier people (because someone in their late 70s probably isn't going to be migrating to a new country) and they don't necessarily rely on the NHS all too much.
Housing problems are largely down to the shortage in building: the number being built fell drastically during the Brown years and has only really started picking up properly again in the last couple of years.
The current ruling party of government has been running an active programme of deliberate under investment. They were very open about it. It was literally their lead economic policy. They called it austerity.
I have heard this said quite a lot and it simply isn't true. If price bears no relation to sales then why not double the price? Consumers are targeted within price bands and premiums at various levels are seen a value and worth the extra but lifting prices reduces potential consumers as the numbers able to pay the increased premium is reduced and other premium products begin to look better value.
The price might not be the sole factor but it is high on the list of criteria and if BMW raised its prices by 20% they would lose business.
Beisdes the fact that free trade agreements comparable to the single market of the EU are pretty unrealistic (quite frankly, if it would be possible these deals would have been already struck with the far more lucrative consumer market of the EU), what your example completely ignores is logistics.
You are talking about physical goods here, goods which have to come to the UK in some way. The reason why the single market works as well as it does is because the member states are geographically close to each other. The shipping costs of Australian goods would very likely be higher than the tariffs the UK will pay on European goods. It will thus still be cheaper to import from the continent than from Australia even without tariffs.
The talk of a global UK, which strikes good trade deals on it´s own with non EU countries is misleading as it will never be able to replicate what it had in the single market. To see that all you need is a world map. With the Brexit the UK shut out literally all their neighbours and has to look for partners far away.
Yeah, well, if we talk in extremes than it would certainly have significant consequences. A more realistic scenario would be the question, if a person would turn away from a purchase of a BMW, if it would cost 62.000 € instead of 60.000 €. The person will always find cheaper cars in the respective class, but that is not why people buy BMWs.
What that example also ignores is that not only German cars will become more expensive but also the other European brands aswell. Even British cars will get more expensive as these brands depend on the import of parts from the continent to construct their cars, which will get more expensive aswell.
All in all, pretty much all will lose something in the process of the Brexit. Well done.
Exactly. The price elasticity of mercs and bmw within their target market is not extreme. Obviously their British sales will take a hit, but it won't completely plummet. There will still be plenty of people willing to pay, and can afford, a high brand car even when the economy is in turmoil. Regardless, it isn't as if Bmw, Mercedes or VW will have to be liquidated even if UK sales fell to zero.
On the immigration nonsense, I can't believe that there are people who still think migration creates economics deficits. It's an economic proof that immigration creates a significant generating effect, particularly when the they're skilled workers that fill a void in the job market (also note that employment is necessary within EU legislation). As usual, the government has failed in regulating, monitoring and enforcing standards. Construction companies are already questioning where to find tradesmen when the Polish, Lithuanian and Hungarian workers are deported. Even more significantly, it is predicted that Brexit will require an increase in civil servants. As GB is already heading towards a pensions and healthcare mess, it's going to be 'interesting' to see how these will be supported with a significant reduction in the working age group.
Well done those who want to introduce tariffs which the UK doesn't want to do but you guys think it is worth it to defend the EU.
What tariff level do you want to see placed on the auto sector by the way if 20% is too high?
British cars won't get equally more expensive as domestic costs are reduced in relation. The UK has a pretty good model to base these assumptions on from when we dropped out of the ERM.
Hmm I am not sure with that kind of market segment. Btw BMW is far from the top so maybe that's the source of the confusion.
Nevertheless, there's no point for those companies to raise prices by 20% right now, what they have to create is a steady uptick every year to:
1/ Increase their revenue incrementally for their income statements
2/ Create the feeling that each year missed for their items is going to translate into a higher price next year, i.e. a sense of urgency
The typical examples are Chanel or even better, Hermes.
Each year, the prices just go up.
And just like compound interests, it can be massive over the years.
There are some limits too, for example, look at the luxurious watch segments.
I saw IWC having continuous discounts worldwide for 2 consecutive years now.
It probably tells us that they have reached a ceiling and in order to move to an upper tier, they need to find something new to propose.
I don't know for sure if BMW or Mercedes would have an immediate hit with a +20% tariff in the UK, but chances are that they will be fine.
Why? Because human beings are unfortunately very much focused on the perceived image.
And if the prices of those cars go up but you still bought one, it would mean that you are doing well, and you would show it to others.
Granted, they might be more into Porsche at least rather than BMW or Mercedes at this point, if we're talking German cars.
Or into Italian cars.
I would say Aston Martin is a pretty good choice too in this case
.No, Cameron and May decided to exploit the fear of migration and the perception that migration caused problems to mask their own failures.
Which just shows how crazy the UK has become. Babies and bathwater come to mind
The UK use tarrif with the rest of the world, you are the ones who are leaving the Custom Union and the only one to blame if you don't want to pay tarrif.
"introduce"? No. There have always been tariffs for any country outside the single market.
So what you're saying is @Don't Kill Bill, you don't want to pay into the EU, you just want tariff free access so that you can exploit the shit out of the EU and especially the poorer countries? Nice. Sounds fair.
This is a great example of why the referendum was such a ridiculous idea. The Tories have retrospectively decided that this is the biggest issue for everyone who voted. Because that's the best way they can try and prevent swing votes to UKIP. Now that may well have been the biggest issue for a lot of voters but there will be an awful lot of people out there who voted for completely different reasons. Because they felt that the UK was being asked to financially prop up failing states like Greece or because they think the whole eurozone project is going to collapse and they figured that the more distance they can put between the British economy and the rest of Europe the better. Basically, the reasons for voting Leave were many and varied but Teresa May and her cronies have decided that they have carte blanche to decide what is and isn't a red line issue when it comes to negotiating your way out. And that is a shocking state of affairs for everyone in Britain, whether you voted for Remain or Leave.
And to think people are seriously trying to argue that Brexit isn't just Britain trying to have its cake and eat it.
The UK chose to leave the EU and it had also ruled out other deals (EEA membership, the Swiss model, etc) which would have allowed the UK unrestricted access to the single market. Don't take me wrong its within its right to do so. However they should stop with this EU is 'punishing' the UK BS. No one is punishing anybody here. A change in relationship work both ways and I repeat the EU wasn't the one who initiated all this funfare.
They are well entitled to vote for a deal that will keep them from a safe distance themselves from Europe. There again, if a country distance itself from the EU then it shouldn't expect to enjoy the same benefits of those who are part of Europe. That's something many leavers can't understand and which many European are interpreting as cherry picking.
The single market is Europe. Leaving Europe means losing access to the single market.
It's bang your head against the wall stuff. Gaining tariff free access without actually paying into the EU is like working in the UK & paying zero percent tax whilst using every free state service avaiable.
I mean, we'd all like that, but the UK would go bust in no time. Why should the UK get cheap tariff free parts & labour from for example Poland if it doesn't want to then share some of the winnings back?
Mental, it's as much "having your cake & eating it" as can be but it's impossible to get the majority of people to understand this, they look at EU saying "if you're not in it's tariffs" and think they are mean petty horrible bastards for not letting us.
I'm sure they'd love someone living in the UK, earning 1,000,000 quid a year and fighting to pay 0% tax and 0 national insurance with the argument that "if you don't let me, I won't spend as much money in your shops or on your services".
Last edited:
That's my point. Britain's relationship with the EU is incredibly complex. Breaking it down into a binary Leave/Remain vote then handing the whole project over to a single political party, interested only in securing votes (at a time when their opposition is a fecking shambles) is one of the worst decisions I can think of any nation making, ever.
Absolutely true. However the problem now is that it was the Remain side that were keen to make this a clean cut binary decision with no negotiations after the vote, and certainly no option of a second referendum. They calculated that people would be more likely to vote Leave if they thought it would only involve testing the waters and left open the prospect of changing their mind. They calculated wrong, and it makes it hard for them to suggest an about-turn.