Brexit consequences

[Spinflight]

Can't find the old one, despite a search. Hence a year on...

I started it to compare the doom and gloom predictions from people who should know better, especially the treasury, to actual observable facts.

Thus far the treasury predicted our borrowing costs would soar by over 130 points. In fact they're down about 100.

No trade deals possible before (I forget the date they said, was far in the future though) compared to actual negotiations beginning with the USA later this month with the president firmly behind them. Canada, New Zealand, Australia, India, South Korea and several others I've forgotten have shown a great desire for a deal quickly.

Ftse 100 and 250 are well up, just shy of 7500.

Best of all from a macro economic perspective is inflation touching 3%. When you are £1800 billion in debt rating that away with inflation is far preferable to actually paying it off.

Growth has dropped a bit, though nowhere near the instant recession that was predicted. Bit early to say though this is likely due to the referendum.

External investment is actually nicely up, with several major companies announcing various large commitments.

Things could be rosier, though it would be a struggle to describe them generally as bad, quite contrary to 'informed' opinions. Even the oecd recently ate their pre referendum words.

"IF we left with NO deal, the latter will happen, at least in the immediate aftermath."

"No it really really wont, and screaming hysterically doesnt make that true."

How wouldn't it? How could business as usual possibly continue in the event we walked away with no deal? You don't have to cover every angle - just maybe one of the specific scenarios I highlighted in my earlier post to Spin. You call me hysterical, but refuse to even give any hint why I am hysterical. Dumb it down for me, if you think its too complex to explain. Something more than "because I say it wont happen". You don't have to answer me, but I suspect the reason you can't defend any aspect of this ridiculous opinion is because it is indefensible.

Histrionics don't counter facts and knowledge cardinal. :)

Let's put it this way. 80% of the UK economy is internal. Of the remaining 20% about 8% is trade with the EU.

This 8% is tariff free with a sixth of the world's economy. The other 12% is subject to EU external tariffs or wto rules with the vast majority of the world's economy, which is the only part that will grow.

After brexit the smaller part (8%) of our trade will incur EU tariffs and the larger part of our trade will see reduced wto tariffs.

Hence win / win for us.

"Histrionics don't counter facts and knowledge cardinal"

Unfortunately, most Brexiteer's acquaintance with "facts" is patchy, to put it kindly. As so ably demonstrated on this very thread...

I prefer this

most Brexiteer's Remainer's acquaintance with "facts" is patchy, to put it kindly.

Actual Brexit consequences: a family member is in the process of moving his niche, hitech manufacturing SME to Ireland.
They have an office in the US and they need one in the EU. He will probably move too.

That is actually happening. Right now.

notangelinajolie:
most Brexiteer's Remainer's acquaintance with "facts" is patchy, to put it kindly.

notangelinajolie, obviously since you place facts within quotes, you mean alternative facts.

Spinflight

A very interesting summary of UK trade.

You mention "After brexit the smaller part (8%) of our trade will incur EU tariffs and the larger part of our trade will see reduced wto tariffs."

A figure that had stuck with me, was that the UK already traded 60% of its total trade under WTO rules, which surprised me as 'project fear' seemed to be cacking itself as the prospects of any tariffed trade bogey man, but I bow to your breakdown.

Which leads to another point, in theory, assuming that the EU dictates who we trade tariff free and who we don't, when free to say trade tariff free with as many countries OUTSIDE of the EU as WE want - would this potentially mean lower prices on the vast majority of imports for consumers - or is that too simplified?

I have heard Conservatives say that post Brexit, we are open for trade at zero tariffs for everyone, can you think of any reason why we couldn't?

would this potentially mean lower prices on the vast majority of imports for consumers - or is that too simplified?

The duty charged on imported goods is an important source of revenue for the government. It would have to be replaced by other forms of taxation, eg higher VAT.

I am much less worried about cars as I am about food and essentials. An awful lot of our food comes from the EU, and much of it cannot be grown economically and efficiently here.

A leaver's opinion on the WTO option:
leavehq.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=128

"One can say, unequivocally, that the UK could not survive as a trading nation by relying on the WTO Option. It would be an unmitigated disaster, and no responsible government should allow it. The option should be rejected."

I know - I didn't mean to come across as snarking at your priorities, because I wasn't (and people need good quality, affordable cars-its not all luxury).

We could become more self sufficient, but in order to make a big difference we would have to either:
a) Devote much more land to farming (including land that has a value to nature)
or
b) Go in for much more intensive, efficient methods.
AND we would also have to choose between:
a) Changing our diets
or
b) Massively increasing the use of artificial heating etc to successfully grow the crops we like to eat.

Not simplified at all Thea.

That is exactly what would happen. Oranges grown in Africa are both tastier and cheaper than those grown in Spain for example.

Excrement EU tariffs currently make importing cheaper and better food from outside the EU uneconomic.

More importantly in my opinion importing say tinned fruit, packaged coffee and other finished products would be much cheaper for the consumer, and much much better for the developing nations, than having to buy stuff that has been potched with by Germans first.

The UK government gets hardly anything from the EU tariffs, we are only allowed to cover our costs and all the rest goes to the EU.

Hence why would we disadvantage the developing nations by charging them money we don't currently see.

Free and fair trade all the way, its the British thing to do.

The EU's protectionist policies help out the French and Germans. I care more about the Africans and the Commonwealth in general.

As to cars, I'm quite happy for BMW and Mercedes buyers to pay through the nose, and for us to pay less tax whilst they do so.

Its worth a tax cut of 2p in the pound from income tax for the German car makers to take the strain instead.

Win / win.

Simples :)

Spinflight

An excellent post

Re "I care more about the Africans and the Commonwealth in general."

I can remember documentaries from the likes of Africa where they were saying ' we don't want subsidies, we just want a level trade playing field'.

That makes a bit more sense now.

We subsidise the EU by allowing them to impose huge tariffs on the developing world dragons.

Out of the EU we charge them for their exports, for which there is a huge trade deficit. This is free money for us.

We also reduce the tariffs which developing nations pay and still make money on the smaller tariffs, instead of the large tariffs going to the EU.

I can't explain it any more simply so suspect you are being deliberately obtuse.

Maybe you care more for German industrialists and pampered French farmers. Which is fine by me, you are entitled to your opinion.

Personally though I'd rather we allowed developing nations the dignity of paying their own way in the world by developing their own industries.

Currently they can only export raw materials to us.

This is entirely the EU's fault. It is their policy, their strategy.

It is also completely contrary to British values.

Yes we'll pay less tax, but better if we just get rid of the tariffs.

Free and fair trade is the British way. Punitive tariffs and derisory aid the EU way.

Maybe you're a charity junkie who secretly thinks that Africans can't develop their own products. Or that their products will be 'inferior '.

I don't.

Unfortunately for Spin, her figures are pure fantasy and simply don't add up.

As are her thinly veiled accusations of racism or whatever it is she's implying...

I can't think of any other reason cardinal would be against free and fair trade.

Feel free to educate me.

Let me guess, you have lots of friends from Africa...

Where have I said I was against it? The usual leaver lies...