UK Politics: Deal, or No Deal. To May and Beyond.

[TrueMetis]

22 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

It’s amazing isn’t it? People still haven’t grasped that when you’re one nation against a union of 27 nations, you don’t have the upper hand. We never did. 

Maybe they're still under the impression that they're an actual Empire. Hint for any UK politicians that may be reading this, if you start some shit Canada and the rest of the Commonwealth isn't going to help you.

[lokisnow]

41 minutes ago, Alarich II said:

Why would the UK think that they have the leverage to get anything better than what's offered? 

I think May is hoping that that there is a global bear market and that horrified global elites will force the other 27 to give the UK everything so that the global consequences of the UKs collapse and isolation doesn’t cause the bear market to become a second GFC.

basically May is expecting the equivalent of a bail out because allowing the UK to be the next Bear Stearns is probably going to make every other country worse off.

[Heartofice]

19 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

I think May is hoping that that there is a global bear market and that horrified global elites will force the other 27 to give the UK everything so that the global consequences of the UKs collapse and isolation doesn’t cause the bear market to become a second GFC.

basically May is expecting the equivalent of a bail out because allowing the UK to be the next Bear Stearns is probably going to make every other country worse off.

I think she just wants clarification and assurances on the Backstop.. but I guess you are close.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

33 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

I think May is hoping that that there is a global bear market and that horrified global elites will force the other 27 to give the UK everything so that the global consequences of the UKs collapse and isolation doesn’t cause the bear market to become a second GFC. 

The pressure will be on the UK however.

Just the pure size should make it clear, who will have to give in.

Hint it's not the isaldn with 65m people that will get its way against 27 nations with a populations of 450m.

Not to mention the economic size. A mid-sized economy will hardly be able to bully the biggest trading block into submission. Considering that giving in to the UK's demands could destabilize the entire block. While the UK going up in flames, would be a fairly insular event.

24 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

I think she just wants clarification and assurances on the Backstop.. but I guess you are close.

Make up your mind, calrification and reassurances are not a problem. Something legally binding is simply not gonna happen.

[lokisnow]

11 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

The pressure will be on the UK however.

Just the pure size should make it clear, who will have to give in.

Hint it's not the isaldn with 65m people that will get its way against 27 nations with a populations of 450m.

Not to mention the economic size. A mid-sized economy will hardly be able to bully the biggest trading block into submission. Considering that giving in to the UK's demands could destabilize the entire block. While the UK going up in flames, would be a fairly insular event.

Make up your mind, calrification and reassurances are not a problem. Something legally binding is simply not gonna happen.

size and blocs don't enter into it. if the global elites are scared the UK going down in flames is going to cause a second GFC because we're in a weak bear market, they will tell their puppets running the bloc governments to do whatever it takes to save their London penthouses and investment accounts.  Remember, the solution to the first GFC was to make all the banks that caused the crisis much bigger (and give all the criminals that caused it amnesty, big bonuses and retention to do more of the same, but bigger), it's likely the solution to the possible second GFC will be to make the UK, much richer, more powerful and more independent with the most advantageous trade agreements of any country in the world.  

Sure it might cause some grumbling and discontent amongst the plebes, but whats a little rioting, molotovs and months of protesting in the capitals of those 25ish minor countries compared to the sacred and holy stock market dividends?

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Just now, lokisnow said:

because we're in a weak bear market, they will tell their puppets running the bloc governments to do whatever it takes to save their London penthouses and investment accounts.  Remember, the solution to the first GFC was to make all the banks that caused the crisis much bigger (and give all the criminals that caused it amnesty, big bonuses and retention to do more of the same, but bigger), it's likely the solution to the possible second GFC will be to make the UK, much richer, more powerful and more independent with the most advantageous trade agreements of any country in the world.  

Unliekly. If that intervention destablized the entire trading bloc, that would be way more costly for them. I mean, that calculus has thus far not worked, as in Boris, Davis and so other clowns claimed, that German car manufacturers would force Germany to the UK a sweetheart deal, because the access to that 65m people market would be too important for them to lose. The reaction has been: integrity of the single market comes first.

Damaging the single market is gonna be way more costly for them.

[lokisnow]

30 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Unliekly. If that intervention destablized the entire trading bloc, that would be way more costly for them. I mean, that calculus has thus far not worked, as in Boris, Davis and so other clowns claimed, that German car manufacturers would force Germany to the UK a sweetheart deal, because the access to that 65m people market would be too important for them to lose. The reaction has been: integrity of the single market comes first.

Damaging the single market is gonna be way more costly for them.

See I think they’ll make the calculation that the UK nuking itself and triggering GFC2 will do more damage to the single market than the damage done to the single market by “bailing out” the UK by making it bigger more independent and more powerful.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Just now, lokisnow said:

See I think they’ll make the calculation that the UK nuking itself and triggering GFC2 will do more damage to the single market than the damage done to the single market by “bailing out” the UK by making it bigger more independent and more powerful.

Won't be happening. If the UK gets its way, what will be next? NExit? SwExit? DExit? Then there'S also that democratic element in the background. You don'T want to give those right wing populist movements something to emulate. So this si simply not happening.

[Zorral]

9 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

See I think they’ll make the calculation that the UK nuking itself and triggering GFC2 will do more damage to the single market than the damage done to the single market by “bailing out” the UK by making it bigger more independent and more powerful.

Well, now this is is a very interesting discussion the two of you are having.  Whether or not the two of you agree, you both, together, make more sense on this subject than much, if not most of what I read in the economy and opinon sections of newspapers, etc. trying to understand it and make any sense out of it -- and yah I've been following or trying to follow this since long before a referendum was floated.

[Zorral]

2 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Won't be happening. If the UK gets its way, what will be next? NExit? SwExit? DExit? Then there'S also that democratic element in the background. You don'T want to give those right wing populist movements something to emulate. So this si simply not happening.

This is also the response to many of the declarations here in the US that 'just cut Texas / the South, etc. loose."

(Of course none of them saying that considers either that no country if it can manage it, will have a country with functioning atomic warheads on its borders, and o so very many other matters.  Just cutting anything loose will entail enormous consequentional, insoluble issues, conflicts and other matters, just starting with military bases, transportation and communications.  People, a lot of them, are really stupid. 

[Werthead]

Quote

 

See I think they’ll make the calculation that the UK nuking itself and triggering GFC2 will do more damage to the single market than the damage done to the single market by “bailing out” the UK by making it bigger more independent and more powerful.

 

It should be noted that no-one, not the "global elites" (a meaningless and pointless soundbite term), is arguing for this. On the contrary, the Americans are arguing in favour of Brexit so they can flood British markets with cheap food and goods to make more money for US firms at the expense of native industries. Russia and China want Brexit to happen to weaken the EU. The EU is unwilling to help the UK out because it would undermine the integrity of the union.

Some banks and financial institutions are warning of a second global financial crisis with or without Brexit, but they are being completely ignored by the media and by governments.

[Which Tyler]

https://www.politico.eu/article/brexit-britain-small-boring-and-stupid-theresa-may-eu-withdrawal-deal/

[Werthead]

Yes, that's the question that comes up a lot when Brexiters say that Britain can do incredibly well outside the EU, producing and making...something. They seem to be extremely unclear on what, given a lot of income comes from financial services and these will be adversely affected by Brexit, the City losing its influence and Britain losing access to the single market.

[The Marquis de Leech]

2 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Yes, that's the question that comes up a lot when Brexiters say that Britain can do incredibly well outside the EU, producing and making...something. They seem to be extremely unclear on what, given a lot of income comes from financial services and these will be adversely affected by Brexit, the City losing its influence and Britain losing access to the single market.

Perhaps a chance to diversify beyond financial services?

(Seriously. Brexit is absolutely tame compared to what happened here when Britain joined the EEC in 1973. The sky is not going to fall). 

[Werthead]

8 minutes ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

Perhaps a chance to diversify beyond financial services?

(Seriously. Brexit is absolutely tame compared to what happened here when Britain joined the EEC in 1973. The sky is not going to fall). 

Absolutely, but to what? Farming will collapse post-Brexit due to tariffs and the British government refusing pointblank to replace EU subsidies over the long term (there may be a short-term continuation), so that's out. Automotive manufacturing is going to be problematic. We have tourism, but that's not enough by itself to maintain our current economic strength. IT services is promising and we're better than most countries in Europe on that score (this is useful as this is my current day job sector).

Based on all the evidence, Britain's best bet is to invest heavily in Prince Harry memes, it may become our major growth export market.

[Maltaran]

15 minutes ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

Perhaps a chance to diversify beyond financial services?

(Seriously. Brexit is absolutely tame compared to what happened here when Britain joined the EEC in 1973. The sky is not going to fall). 

The BBC has actually done an article about that

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46546204

[The Marquis de Leech]

11 minutes ago, Maltaran said:

The BBC has actually done an article about that

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46546204

Good timing!

The nasty thing about 1973 was that it coincided with an international period of economic crisis, whereas Britain doesn't currently have to worry about rampant inflation, global recessions, or oil shocks (and, as the article points out, trade barriers were higher then).

[Chaircat Meow]

As we teeter on the edge of the abyss, as 117 of her own mps lack confidence in the prime minster, as she dares not bring the fruits of all her diplomacy before the Commons and as the government is thrown into chaos Labour is still 4 points behind the conservatives. 

CON 40 (+2) LAB 36 (-1) LD 10 (=) Changes vs 6th-7th Dec

YouGov

 

[Heartofice]

1 hour ago, Werthead said:

Yes, that's the question that comes up a lot when Brexiters say that Britain can do incredibly well outside the EU, producing and making...something. They seem to be extremely unclear on what, given a lot of income comes from financial services and these will be adversely affected by Brexit, the City losing its influence and Britain losing access to the single market.

I think the argument is more that the EU is a closed protectionist economy that is heavily regulated and imposes heavy tariffs on external trade. Those who are pro-Brexit suggest that by leaving such a protectionist state and opening up free trade to the world, reducing tariffs and creating trade deals with other major nations (nations the EU has so far been unable to agree trade deals with due to its complexity) they can offset the loss from leaving the EU and actually do far better outside of it. 

 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

17 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

I think the argument is more that the EU is a closed protectionist economy that is heavily regulated and imposes heavy tariffs on external trade. Those who are pro-Brexit suggest that by leaving such a protectionist state and opening up free trade to the world, reducing tariffs and creating trade deals with other major nations (nations the EU has so far been unable to agree trade deals with due to its complexity) they can offset the loss from leaving the EU and actually do far better outside of it. 

Yes, that case is sometimes made. However that argument is vulnerable to criticism on some levels.

Let's start with the protectionist bit. Certainly true, however Britain benefits from that protectionist policy. Just ask the agri-food producers are thrilled they are about the prospect of competing with cheaper food producers (likesay the US) on a more level playing field. Same goes manufacturers.

It's also heavily regulated, to ensure standards are met. Again, compare EU food standards to US standards. And bon appetit.

As for the fantastic new trade deals. The EU has maanged to reach trade deals with most major economies or is in talks check here. Size matters. The EU can pretty much get their way in those talks, because of their economic power. The UK lacks the same weight; plain and simple. So new trade deals will hardly be as favourable as the ones set by the EU. Britain will be post Brexit hard pressed to replicate existing EU treaties with existing trade partners. Then negotiating trade deals takes time. The first one the UK will strike (after the EU) will probably be with Canada or somebody with an equally open trade policy. 7-9 years for that one is among the more optimistic estimations with regards to the time frame for those talks.

Don't be mistaken, the future relationship talks will be more painful and skewed than the exit talks, which was the easy part of the deal.

1 hour ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

The nasty thing about 1973 was that it coincided with an international period of economic crisis, whereas Britain doesn't currently have to worry about rampant inflation, global recessions, or oil shocks (and, as the article points out, trade barriers were higher then). 

Yes, the problem remains however, that NZ still had economies like Japan in its proximity. While the closest market for the UK is the EU. The US on the other side of the Atlantic are atm also not particularly liberal with regards to their trading policy. America First. And the UK is exporting primarily services, where trade talks are particularly tricky. Wait till that sector starts to scream during the next phase of the EU talks. This isn't going to be pretty.