How is brexit going to affect Ireland?

[Spinflight]

Given that all sides appear to be nicely committed to a frictionless border, even if the EU will face some problems with its existing treaties, what of the other effects?

For instance will Ireland join the rest of the EU in forming an army?

With their fishing rights in our waters entirely revoked and the Spanish fleets agitating for increased quotas in the Irish waters how will this affect the rural parts of Ireland?

Lidl and Aldi are both based in Ireland but will no longer be able to source their goods and especially their agricultural produce without paying huge tariffs..

Apple too is based in Ireland but will face large tariffs to access the UK market.

Worst of all I imagine Amazon is also based in Ireland but surely wouldn't be able to compete on price. Gawd knows how many billions worth of trade this amounts to alone.

Also what of the preferential corporation tax in Ireland that the EU wants to 'harmonise' which would mean doubling it. Under the qualified majority voting how long can the Irish alone hold out?

What, to counterbalance all this, are the positives?

Yes Spin (and how the name suits you) - how dare the Irish government and the EU represent their citizens! You might remember that NI voted to remain in the EU and so far our owm government have given sweet FA consideration as to the implications of reinstating a border in Ireland and the impact of Brexit on the GFA.

Britain First are now registered as a political party in NI and were marching in Belfast today. This is very worrying.

www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/handful-of-supporters-turn-up-for-britain-first-rally-in-belfast-1.3178488?mode=amp

Sorry but who cares. I can't stand what the EU has become. It's a corrupt organisation and if Ireland wants to be a member that's up to them. If that causes problems too bad.

Thanks Vivienne. Much appreciated. You do of course realise that the part of Ireland that will be most affected by Brexit is NI, which is part of the UK? Do you really not give a shit that peace is at stake?

Vivienne if you have a problem with corruption don't Google the Cash for Ash scandal that the DUP who are supporting the Tory government are involved in. It seems home grown corruption is ok for some. You might also want to take note of LivLemler's post and then think about educating yourself in the facts.

In other Brexit/Ireland consequences I think this poor Country Squire contributor has lost the run of himself !
"If Britain wants to it can run Eire into the ground where there are no consolations – its spotty youths will brain drain again to the US and Britain and its economy will crumble. In a decade, after some bumps in the road, Britain and the North of Ireland will flourish. Varadkar will be on the political scrapheap like Sturgeon. The squeals of puppies trapped in car boots will be long gone. Britain’s farms will be booming. The EU will be without Italy and the vacuous Macron experiment will be a distant memory, as will Merkel who won’t dare show herself in public after a fatwa has been put on her by the Muslim Mayor of Cologne.

Maybe then prodigal Eire will seek membership of the UK. Unlikely. Unless they somehow – miraculously – developed loyalty, we’d not actually want them or their hurdy-gurdy."

countrysquire.co.uk/2017/08/10/get-stuffed-eire/

Sorry I was awful. But the whole caboodle is a mess. And it's frustrating to always hear well what about this or that. Personally I think the EU may be finished in a few years. Or some folk think the UK will remain more or less a member in all but name. Only time will tell. I don't know al lot about the Cash for Ash but I'm no fan of the DUP.

The constant brexiteer refrain on the EU being finshed is a bit hopeful.

IN or out of the EU the UK's prosperity relies on the EU being a successful trading bloc.

"IN or out of the EU the UK's prosperity relies on the EU being a successful trading bloc."

Not as our main prosperity 'dodgy eggs in one basket' we have to net annually subsidise for much longer, god willing.

The 'one currency and interest rate fits all' for the 19 different economies on the Eurozone is clearly flawed, especially when interest rates have to 'normalise' back to pre crash levels, and the ECB has to finally STOP flooding the EU with cheap money via emergency QE type liquidity - the UK finally was able to stop 5-years ago, and even that was due to Eurozone wobbles.

And its not just the Brexiteers that have on-going fears of a Eurozone break up, although that fear, on the election of President Macron (or 'Jupiter'' to the press), has significantly dipped - on the fanfare of 'change' the last few French President's promised, but failed abysmally.

As according to new research by Oxford Economics published Friday. Only 19% of businesses cite a eurozone break-up as the key medium-term risk for the global economy, down from 28% in the second quarter survey and the lowest level in more than a year.

Still 19% of businesses not fully investing, hiring, is still high.

"especially when interest rates have to 'normalise' back to pre crash levels, and the ECB has to finally STOP flooding the EU with cheap money via emergency QE type liquidity - the UK finally was able to stop 5-years ago, and even that was due to Eurozone wobbles."

Oh my days such a poor reading of the situation.

The UK current interest rate is 0.25%, the UK had a round of QE last year to the tune of £60bn taking our current level of QE ( in real terms) to about £55bn.

By 2012 the UK had spent £375 bn on QE, whilst the ECB had spent E212bn. The ECB has now spent E1.2 trillion

The UK's level of QE is far larger than that of the EU's when you apply it to the scale of the economies involved.

Do try harder petal.

This:

"Only 19% of businesses cite a eurozone break-up as the key medium-term risk for the global economy."

Is because the risk of it has lowered, not because they think it wouldn't effect them.

BTW Oxford Economics is pro EU.

But its funny how the experts are only quoted when it suits eh?

bathildabagshot1

Re your following selective, and obviously calculated attempt to mis-inform, wrapped up in rather obnoxious self-importance.

”Oh my days such a poor reading of the situation.”

”By 2012 the UK had spent £375 bn on QE, whilst the ECB had spent E212bn. The ECB has now spent E1.2 trillion”

”Do try harder petal.”

Firstly I was incorrect that the BoE had stopped QE around 2012 on some Euro threat or another, as I had not realised after the Referendum with the UK economy not crashing and all, that the BoE had pumped in more liquidity to make sure, via government and Corporate bond buying.

But after that, your intention to mis-inform to hide the extent of the Eurozone’s inability to economically grow without emergency money pump priming by the ECB is staggering – especially when comparing the operations between the UK and EU.

In the UK with our de-regulated banks worse affected by the financial crash than others (which is why back then only the UK in Europe had to part nationalise any major high street banks) the bulk of our Bank of England QE was between 2009-2012 to £375 billion – the £60-£70 billion rest is kinda Brexit related ammo while our Base Rate, as you showed (without the ECBs, I wonder why?) at 0.25% -with recent BoE member voting, closer to our first hike in around a decade.

In the EU, as far as I can see the ECB only began a similar type of QE (asset buying mentioned below) to ours in early 2015, SEVERAL YEARS after the financial crash, it must be over Euro 2 trillion now and still rising by Euro 60 billion a month, the ECB Base Rate is 0% - _and the ECB have an emergency NEGATIVE deposit interest rate policy around - 0.4%, to FORCE EU banks to lend, that we do not have here.-

According to the Financial Times in February 2017 (below), the ECB already had Euro 1.5 trillion of QE under its belt, with its buying of government bonds, Covered Bonds (that affect mortgages) and Corporate Bonds (listed below), were distorting EU interest rates unnaturally lower – and mentioned that the ECB had just lowered the monthly buying from Euro 80 billion a month to Euro 60 billion a month.

ECB QE holding as of Feb 2017 and still rising by Euro 60 bil a month until further notice.

• Government bonds — €1.34tn
• Covered bonds — €228bn
• Corporate bonds — €61bn
• Asset-backed securities — €23bn

So ‘petal’, if you think that an EU with all of the above needed to ONGOINGLY stimulate the Eurozone economies from early 2015, several years after the crash, was in any kind of patient health, without the need of emergency monetary CPR – its YOUR reading of the EU economic situations that’s not just ‘poor’, but so desperately poor in trying to see what you want to see.

It was probably Germany and their historic fears of hyper-inflation that kept the ECB from doing too much QE type money pumping before it all got so unemployment rate desperate a few years back, but they will not want this to go on much longer (never mind reversed the QE, taking all that money back OUT of the system), and will want much higher Eurozone 19 interest rates earlier than most ‘members’ – and that is when the Eurozone monetary splits will start to occur. IMO

Sweet Pea, you are accusing the EU of being unstable when its following the same actions that the UK government has done.

Again the size of the QE has to be measured against the size of the economy, and the UK's QE is substantial, and yes you were wrong about it finishing in 2012 ( at which point the EU hadn't really started btw, the UK began in 2009).

Lets demonstrate using the numbers, I know you might be able to understand that.

UK's current QE (USD) $622 bn. Current UK GDP, $2691trn so QE is about 23% of GDP.

Eurozone current QE ( your figures) $2tn. Current EU GDP 11.885 tn, 16 % of GDP.

So which area is the desperation zone?

Eurozne growth is also higher in 2017 than UK growth.

So dear sore arse, even with the UK's stimulus, and 0.25% interest rate, 2nd lowest corportation tax in the EU, and lots of other stinulus that it offers, its growth is lower than that of the Eurozone, and far below that of some of the EU countries not in the eurozone.

Do please try not to argue economics with someone who knows what they are talking about, sorry sore arse.

FYI the USA has had $12 Trillion in QE and its GDP is $18 tn so 66.6 % of GDP, yet all you brexiters want a trade deal with them.

bathildabagshot1

Interesting, while I acknowledged that I didn’t take account of post Brexit UK QE, as an economics ‘know-it-all’ you neither acknowledge the several errors you made, extent of ECB QE operations, and WHY they were necessary in early 2015 – several years after the financial/economic recession began - hence since 2010, the UK had created more jobs to the start of EU QE, than the sclerotic post-recession Eurozone had achieved, put together.

Another error I made was not include the Financial Times link I referred to, and just ONE line why the ECB began that QE, and a central bank NEGATIVE interest rate policy (to bank deposits) that is unprecedented in any large western economy I can currently see.

Feb 2017; “How the ECB’s purchases have changed European bond markets”

” With about €1.5tn in assets, the central bank hopes to kick-start continent’s economy”

So next you try to the old economics fall back when trying to baffle-with- bullsquirt using the big picture GDP ‘smoke and mirrors’, to blow smoke up my pert non bleached bottom, it appears that you quite infatuated with, judging by how often you mention it,

Now clearly I am not the economics ‘guru’ that you profess to be, but based on the definition of GDP (below), if some major EU member governments are still INCREASING their annual budget deficits (while the UK is actively reducing ours from a projected £167 bil in 2010 to around £47 bil a year now) and the ECB is conducting a large monthly QE operation – together with the ‘money multiplier’ of banks lending rather than paying NEGATIVE interest rates securely placing funds at the ECB – isn’t the Eurozone’s policies effectively buying GDP GROWTH, to paper over the much needed member reforms?

Gross Domestic Product – Basic Definition.

”Private Consumption/Spending + Government Spending + Business capital Spending + Net Exports (Exports – Imports).”

An ECB ‘printing money’ that in theory will have to be repaid/reversed within several years, WITHOUT the necessary Eurozone reforms to encourage greater company investment, especially into recruitment, due to onerous labour laws – is no more than a Eurozone giant ‘Ponzi Scheme’. IMVHO.

Oh please sore arse, don't try and explain basic economics to me.

The UK has had a larger level of QE in proportion to the size of the economy than the EU. The EU started its QE later than the UK, and the UK is following pretty similar economic policies.

The fact that you are using the points about the EU to critique it when it is exactly the same as what the UK has done, and in some cases to a larger extent, shows that you don't understand what you are talking about.

As usual.

Oh good, the EU apologist poster with the self promoted 'economic brain the size of a planet' has finally answered, with no -excuse- answer on why the EU project needed to START in early 2015 such huge monetary expansionist policies, several years after the financial/economic crash - other than growth and jobs were down in the pan-hole, and nothing else was working.

Anyway folks, nothing more to see, please carry on with all things EU-Irish related, there is news out there.

Because you aren't talking sense. You merely pick a point and then try to use it to prove something else.

Why did the UK need to use even larger expansionary policies prior to 2015? Why did it need to use them again in 2016? Why is the UK's QE project signifcantly bigger than that of the ECB?

The ECB should probably have started earlier, and has been criticised for failing to do so. The tremors from the financial crisis are still going on across the world, even in this country we are still following policies to do with it.

Sorry Sore Arse, your criticisms of the Eurozone policy don't stand up? Why? Because the UK has used exactly the same policies and continues to do so.

The UK needed our monetary expansionist policies during the financial & economic crash 2008/9 mainly due to the policies of a clueless, socialist UK government from 1997 - as how many mature Eurozone economies deregulated banks, had to part nationalise banks, increased the size of the State vs the Private Sector supporting it (pre crash), lost nearly 6% of GDP from 2008 to early 2009 - and in cash terms was running an annual government budget deficit they estimated would be £167 billion in 2010?

The early Labour/Brown move taking sole UK financial regulation away from the BoE and forming a tripartite of the UK Treasury, the BoE and a new organisation Financial Services Authority (FSA) with too large a brief was clearly a big UK mistake as too open to political interference - but don't take my word for it.

”Gordon Brown: I made ‘big mistake’ on banks before financial crisis”

”Gordon Brown has admitted making a ‘big mistake’ in regulating Britain’s banks before the country was plunged into recession by the 2008 financial crisis, as current chancellor George Osborne prepares to hand power back to the Bank of England.”

“Labour's lax regulation of the City contributed to RBS collapse” – watchdog”

”FSA says Labour leadership had encouraged it to take a 'light touch' on banks and must take share of blame for financial crisis”

So in a nutshell, a UK that had OUR labour reforms etc decades ago and then from 1997 flushed with the cash/debt opportunity to build a UK economy for all - but wasted possibly the best decade in a century to do so with a newly structured economy (toward the State) relying too much on debt/credit (with a broken domestic banking system) and a government borrowing to sustain it all - is why the UK needed QE etc help.

Then a UK obviously too reliant on an EU economy with the problems in Greece, Italian recession Part 3 and potential Euro crisis, the UK (according to the BoE) needed a top up.

Which brings up up to post Brexit QE 'insurance' by the BoE.

The European Central Bank 'tail' was probably being wagged by the German Government/Bundesbank 'dog', wanting much needed Eurozone labour and financial reforms rather than a huge monetary stimulus they didn't need as much as the UK in those early days - but did Germany just give up in early 2015, saying fuck it, nothing else will get this Eurozone economic 'lemon' going - and we need to sell to it our washing machines and cars????

The Labour government that ran the deficit of the same size as the tories left in 1997, with 2 years of surplus up until the World Banking Crisis. They certainly didn't cause it.

Prior to 2007 the Tories and the city were arguing for greater freedom and less regulation, more regulation would have been very difficult to implement.

Your economic analysis is utterly all over the place. We needed QE because growth was very low and it was a way to stimulate the economy.

Seriously you don't have a fucking clue what you are talking about. You go from wanting less regulaton, to accusing Labour of not having more legislation.

Schizophrenic much.

Bathildabigshot#1

From someone here who REALLY cares, you seriously need some help to work on both your overly inflated opinion of yourself, and need to put down other posters while aiming your bullsquirt.

Firstly I suspect you are use that GDP ‘smoke and mirrors’ again in comparing the Labour budget deficit financing of an overly fat State from 2000, that generates (unsustainable) GDP, that is used in some ‘fiscal cycle’ to borrow more yada, yada, yada, pretty much like the ECB at the moment.

The fact is in 2001 the UK tax receipts vs expenditure went into SURPLUS (as Labour adopted pre 1997 Tory budgets), they then began borrowing £30-40 billion a year up until the crash, and having established huge new government ‘fixed costs via about a 50% increase in budgets and well north of £120 billion of badly negotiated PFI financing - as the tax receipts from a failing private sector and burst financial bubble fell away = Labour’s 2010 projected £167 bill annual budget deficit.

Secondly, your rather lame blame on the Tories with ” Prior to 2007 the Tories and the city were arguing for greater freedom and less regulation”

So it was Thatcher fault on one thread, and its ‘what the Tories said’ on THIS thread, are to blame for Labour’s record in power?

In their first several years, there had been around 80 tax rises, Labour was spewing out new regulation, a new law a day, the Trolly’s Tax Guide was on its way to DOUBLING in page size – all cited by Manufacturers (with a strong Pound) for why they had lost 1 million jobs from 1997.

So when you BLAME the Tories for seeing that all this EU-esk new regulation was going on and the damage it was doing, and SAYING something, your superior intellect didn’t know that even Blair tried to do something about it, it particularly the Brown ‘Chucky’ creation, the FSA mentioned above;

“Blair's 'frenzied law making' : a new offence for every day spent in office”

”Tony Blair's government has created more than 3,000 new criminal offences during its nine-year tenure, one for almost every day it has been in power.”

“What Blair really thinks about the FSA”

“Tony Blair is gripped by a desire to slash red tape - or so he claimed in a speech last month. That address attracted notice principally for Tony Blair's surprising and controversial statement that the Financial Services Authority is "seen as hugely inhibiting of efficient business" - but his assertions roamed wider than that.”

“No one in any business - be it vast or tiny - needs to be told that the burden of regulation has increased since Labour came to power in 1997. The British Chambers of Commerce estimates that the cost for business of coping with red tape from Whitehall and Brussels will be £39bn this year - four times as much as in 1997.”

May the thread get back to Irish-EU matter now?

Again, a whole load of poorly thought out, disjointed twaddle.

Smoke and mirrors for GDP/Deficit? Right because that suits your agenda, shows your utter misunderstanding of economics. Not that I needed to use that point to probe that.

My point about Thatch was accurate, the shortage of housing is not to do with the Labour government, it was her dergulation of the housing market and selling social housing that caused a major part of it. The report you think backs you up, was commissioned by the Labour party and looked at the housing issue over the two decades, they used data from 2001 back. Who had been in power for oh, 16 years of that time?

The major increase in deficits was caused by the world financial crisis, not Labour. You can keep peddling that myth all you like, but it ain't true.

Funny that you criticise others, when your own glaringly obvious failing are there for all to see, so dear Sore Arse, do keep posting, its funny to think of you frothing at the mouth in whatever hovel you call home.

Bathildabigshot#1

You know, based on your hyped up economic expertise threats/claims, I had much higher hopes from you, but really, all you try do is WITHOUT the aid of any qualified links, is REWRITE history.

Regarding Budget Deficit spending.

In 1990/91 as that recession hit the UK National Debt was around £190 bil, and when the Conservatives who were then bringing our resulting Budget Deficit down left power in 1997 the National Debt was £403 billion – with Tory budgets adopted by Brown, the UK’s tax receipt/expenditure was to balance by 2001 – as it did, going into a budget SURPLUS.

Labour went into annual budget deficit spending again from 2002/3 on the new fat fixed costs State that was to increased government spending by over 50%, and as the National Debt then rose to around £1.073 trillion in 2009/10 – are you REALLY trying to say that all that extra Labour borrowing (from annual budget deficit spending) was due to the UK recession in 2008 and 2009?

In the real world, here we have the truth, the fiscal responsibility of Conservative governments, versus the profligacy of Labour government in numbers – so hardly Conservative ‘austerity’, more getting the UK back closer to what we EARN as a country – and currently our annual government and local authority spending is around £790 bil a year on all our services, with £47 bil of that deficit spending.

the fiscal responsibility of Conservative governments, versus the profligacy of Labour

Do you really believe that's what the data show? That's deranged. As in the US, the data in recent decades tend to show that the idea that right wing governments are better custodians of the national purse is fake.

The UK was paying down its Budget Deficit after the early 1990's recession (when tax receipts fall and the 'automatic stabilisers' kick in) which of course increases the National Debt.

In 2001 the UK had a Budget SURPLUS so coulda, shoulda, started reducing National Debt into the strong global economy/low interest rates of the 2000s - especially as the UK was getting the higher tax receipts 'windfall' from Brown's deregulation of bank balance bubble lending/growth.

Those tax increased receipts mostly on the proceeds of speculation, the 80 new taxes in their first 7-years, and new deficit spending in the the £30-40 billions from 2002, PLUS close to £200 bil of PFI finacing -
roughly in 2008 prices, raised annual government spending from around £400 bil a year to £618 bil - but once the credit bubble burst, many of those tax receipts fell away, while the new government expenditures on a fatter state, were baked in.

Look at that link in my last paragraph above, at the extent of the UK government Budget Deficit rise from 2008, expected to be £167 bil in that one 2010 year, getting close to our entire National Debt in 1990/1.

Quite why you are looking at the U.S. I have no idea, why not compare us to socialist France when we were good Europeans, and they had a similar sized economy to ours.

In France around 2010, after the same recession, their annual government budget deficit was around Euro 60 bil, ours having dramatically increased government spending from 2002 was £167 bil - so if we were not spending beyond our means on unsound tax receipts (that needed the bubble to continue), WHY the difference with France or any other European country, by far?