Jump to content
Holidays
Local
Radar
Snow?
Sign in to follow this  
HighPressure

UK & EU Economies post Brexit

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, knocker said:

Pretty much every report pre the vote and pretty much every one since has been riddled with the words could, would, should, might, may etc, etc, but now we see the introduction of new and equally superfluous wording 'it is conceivable'.

The problem as I see it both on here and in the wider world is there are far more Remainers desperate for things to go titz up so they can say 'I told you so", rather that hoping they were wrong and things actually pan out for the better. It's all rather unedifying to be honest and says a great deal about the kind of people who think this way....none of it being particularly good imho.

Edited by coldcomfort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, coldcomfort said:

Pretty much every report pre the vote and pretty much every one since has been riddled with the words could, would, should, might, may etc, etc, but now we see the introduction of new and equally superfluous wording 'it is conceivable'.

The problem as I see it both on here and in the wider world is there are far more Remainers desperate for things to go titz up so they can say 'I told you so", rather that hoping they were wrong and things actually pan out for the better. It's all rather unedifying to be honest and says a great deal about the kind of people who think this way....none of it being particularly good imho.

It's got absolutely nothing to do with remainers, it's really about time this jargon was dropped, wanting things to got pear shaped, a totally fatuous suggestion, but a serious attempt to get to grips with a very important issue that has to be addressed whether people like it or not. It will form a vital part of the negotiating position so any debate on the subject is perfectly legitimate and should actually be welcomed.

Edited by Paul
Lets stear clear of personal snipes please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, kar999 said:

 Bit more about Switzerland for those interested.

Switzerland has access to only parts of the single market. A big omission is the vast majority of services, including finance. This is despite the fact that the Swiss have spent years trying to get a deal covering them. Its banks, therefore, do not enjoy a passport allowing them to offer their services anywhere in the EU. To do so, they have to locate themselves inside the EU. That’s why so many of them have large operations inLondon.

The Swiss government has itself acknowledged the drawback: “The existing barriers to market access place Switzerland at an economic disadvantage… Swiss financial intermediaries can only expand their EU business by way of subsidiaries in the EU, which means that Switzerland loses out in terms of jobs, value creation and tax receipts.”

Kar.

Thanks for the 2 replies..

I agree that today there will be increases equally between the EU and the rest of the world (roughly) based upon the exchange rate. But that was not what we were discussing!  I am glad that we now agree that 10% is the correct current exchange affect!

In my discussions on the exchange rate I was actually talking about the ongoing position after a Brexit agreement has been made.That is what the negotiations will be dealing with. I thought I had made it clear.

You are correct that in the short-term (now) goods from the Far-east and everywhere (including the EC) will be more expensive.

That was not the point I was discussing.  I was clearly talking about the Brexit discussions and what will be happening thereafter.,  else why would we be talking about passporting?

The article above explains why the Swiss want to tie in a long-term agreement with the UK (and Hong Kong).

I still maintain that goods from the EC will become much more expensive than those from the rest of the world after Brexit by a factor of 20% (assuming no agreement is reached with the EC -  due to the difference in the EU tariff). This will have to be factored into the discusions. 

It is this that I am pointing out will have to be taken into account by the EU  (if they want us to stay in and get into discussions on any deal).

I do not need to point out that the EC has one of the highest trade tariffs for anywhere in the world.  It is definitely not a free trade organisation!

MIA

.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is happening to this once great nation...Move aside politics, make way for the advance of 'like envy'!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Gael_Force said:

Visa ????

It is not humans the passporting is required for, it is for EU wide financial transactions

So......

The EC is now trying to control the internet as well now? (The banks all have their own networking systems).      I thought that it was just China that was being insular and inward looking?

The above report copied by Kar, clearly talks about helping the movement of people during the initial stages of set up!

I am afraid that the more I here about what is going on in the EC, the more I think of an idealistic protectionist state...

Where has all the talk of worldwide free trade gone?

MIA

Edited by Midlands Ice Age

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps someone will explain why cutting tariffs on goods from China would be a good thing? Do they want to finish off what will be left of our industry post Brexit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, davehsug said:

Perhaps someone will explain why cutting tariffs on goods from China would be a good thing? Do they want to finish off what will be left of our industry post Brexit?

I totally agree Dave. We will need to replace the EU tariffs with something or be at the mercy of Chinese dumping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, davehsug said:

Perhaps someone will explain why cutting tariffs on goods from China would be a good thing? Do they want to finish off what will be left of our industry post Brexit?

 

5 minutes ago, kar999 said:

I totally agree Dave. We will need to replace the EU tariffs with something or be at the mercy of Chinese dumping.

The question here is whether you'd rather see more jobs or more British industrial production. 

From a technical point of view the disinflationary benefits of abolishing tarrifs almost always create more jobs en net nationally than are lost. Clearly though, that would occur through a shift from jobs in domestic production to jobs in primarily services and construction. 

As a capitalist but also somebody who wants to move towards trade surplus, i must admit that it's not the easiest question to answer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Midlands Ice Age said:

 

In my discussions on the exchange rate I was actually talking about the ongoing position after a Brexit agreement has been made.That is what the negotiations will be dealing with. I thought I had made it clear.

You are correct that in the short-term (now) goods from the Far-east and everywhere (including the EC) will be more expensive.

 

If I knew what exchange rates were going to be in 2-3 years time I wouldn't be sitting here but lying next to a pool in the Cayman Islands sipping cocktails whilst my man servant types this for me.

In the absence of Mystic Meg fortune telling skills the only data any of us have is forward contract rates. These being c. $1.31-$1.33 for 2017-2018 as at this morning. That represents a 9-10% increase.. As mentioned before many companies will be booking contracts at those rates for their purchases which will feed it's way into price increases and inflation.

The same principle applies to EU goods being more expensive which you already have acknowledged..

Our exporters will be happy as their revenues will be higher but as we are a net importer it's far from a balanced equation. With no manufacturing infrastructure or capacity to speak off I cant see the balance restored anytime soon if at all. When we sourced all our bulk manufacturing off shore we burnt most of our bridges.The foundries and Black Country factories where I worked as a lad are now retail parks and houses. Most of our growth in manufacturing of late has been highly profitable niche non-volume types at which we excel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, summer blizzard said:

 

The question here is whether you'd rather see more jobs or more British industrial production

From a technical point of view the disinflationary benefits of abolishing tarrifs almost always create more jobs en net nationally than are lost. Clearly though, that would occur through a shift from jobs in domestic production to jobs in primarily services and construction. 

As a capitalist but also somebody who wants to move towards trade surplus, i must admit that it's not the easiest question to answer. 

SB - See my post above ref. manufacturing capacity. We don't have the infrastructure to bring bulk manufacturing back onshore. Those factory gates closed years ago. Capitalism forced us down the low cost high profit off shore route. It was the only way many UK companies could survive.

Edited by kar999

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, interested & confused said:

You forget about the increasing strain on maternity units

"1 Between 2000 and 2010 births in England increased by over 114,000 – from 572,826 to 687,007. Immigration has been the key factor fuelling this increase: three quarters of the increase in births was to women born outside the UK. Overall, in 2010, over a quarter of all live births in England were to mothers born abroad. The proportion of such births has grown consistently every year in succession since 1990, doubling over the past decade – from approximately 92,000 in 2000 to almost 180,000 in 2010 – this is nearly 500 on average every day"

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/266

 

Good Morning I & C,

I do not disagree with the figures that you have quoted above. Unfortunately for some reason I am unable to open the link that you have posted.

Does Migration Watch differentiate between EU and the rest of the world in their breakdown of where mothers originate from?

From the overall total quoted a fair few mothers will be from Asia/ Africa and the West Indies and other countries from the Commonwealth.

From what I have seen a considerable number of employees in the midwifery service are of Caribean origin. without them and other foreign nationals working within the NHS we would certainly be floundering.

Kind regards

Dave

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Midlands Ice Age said:

So......

The EC is now trying to control the internet as well now? (The banks all have their own networking systems).      I thought that it was just China that was being insular and inward looking?

The above report copied by Kar, clearly talks about helping the movement of people during the initial stages of set up!

I am afraid that the more I here about what is going on in the EC, the more I think of an idealistic protectionist state...

Where has all the talk of worldwide free trade gone?

MIA

MIA, perhaps you should do a little reading regarding EU financial passporting, before going for your usual knee-jerk EU bad reaction. Your replies on the subject so far have gone from thinking it was something to do with "physical" passports, to the internet. It seems to indicate that you don't understand what's being discussed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, coldcomfort said:

Pretty much every report pre the vote and pretty much every one since has been riddled with the words could, would, should, might, may etc, etc, but now we see the introduction of new and equally superfluous wording 'it is conceivable'.

The problem as I see it both on here and in the wider world is there are far more Remainers desperate for things to go titz up so they can say 'I told you so", rather that hoping they were wrong and things actually pan out for the better. It's all rather unedifying to be honest and says a great deal about the kind of people who think this way....none of it being particularly good imho.

That's not what it is, no one wants things to go tit's up. I think both sides know it could go either way, remainers are just more pessimistic while the outers are optimistic. 

My own personal opinion is, I'm surprised without passporting how there will be any financial servicing with the EU, perhaps like Switzerland do with us, we will go through another EU country with passporting rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, davehsug said:

Perhaps someone will explain why cutting tariffs on goods from China would be a good thing? Do they want to finish off what will be left of our industry post Brexit?

I have heard as much said, concentrate on our successful financial industries, and forget about the rest. I can't really see that working very well though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/pra/Pages/authorisations/passporting/default.aspx

Subject to its fulfilment of conditions under the relevant single market directive, a firm authorised in a European Economic Area (EEA) state is entitled to carry on permitted activities in any other EEA state by either exercising the right of establishment (of a branch and/or agents) or providing cross-border services. This is referred to in Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (as amended) (FSMA) as an EEA right and the exercise of this right is known as ‘passporting’.

The activities that are 'passportable' are set out in the relevant EU single market directives. Activities that are not covered by the directives and are not ‘passportable’ will require the firm wishing to carry on such activities to contact the relevant competent authority of that host state in order to determine whether direct authorisation is needed.

Passporting rights only apply within the EEA. So, for example, they do not apply in the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man, as these are not EEA states. Although Switzerland is not an EEA state, Swiss general insurers have the right to set up an establishment in the EEA under the provisions of special bilateral treaties between the European Union and Switzerland. EEA general insurers also have equivalent rights in respect of Switzerland under these treaties. Special arrangements also apply in relation to Gibraltar.

So may be we will set up another special agreement, but I doubt it will be a walk in the park. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, claret047 said:

From the overall total quoted a fair few mothers will be from Asia/ Africa and the West Indies and other countries from the Commonwealth.

There is a more detailed breakdown in this ONS bulletin. The link is set for last year, other years available there too.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/livebirths/bulletins/parentscountryofbirthenglandandwales/2015

2416b293199abcae15cd9d70f30d9c16.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, davehsug said:

MIA, perhaps you should do a little reading regarding EU financial passporting, before going for your usual knee-jerk EU bad reaction. Your replies on the subject so far have gone from thinking it was something to do with "physical" passports, to the internet. It seems to indicate that you don't understand what's being discussed.

Indeed Dave...Sometimes I think there's a similarity between Economics and Quantum Mechanics: those who make the wildest predictions, and keep on reiterating their 'expertise', almost always know bugger-all about it??

PS: my thanks to kar999 for helping keep some my own often wayward ideas in check!:good:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, alexisj9 said:


may be we will set up another special agreement, but I doubt it will be a walk in the park. 

 

I would imagine a special agreement will be very high up on Mrs May's to do list given that anything up to 0.9% of our GDP is at stake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nouska said:

There is a more detailed breakdown in this ONS bulletin. The link is set for last year, other years available there too.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/livebirths/bulletins/parentscountryofbirthenglandandwales/2015

2416b293199abcae15cd9d70f30d9c16.png

Something should really be done about those non-European nations. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, kar999 said:

I would imagine a special agreement will be very high up on Mrs May's to do list given that anything up to 0.9% of our GDP is at stake.

Yep it must be, we can not lose the EU in regards to financial services. The easiest way would be to remain in the EEA like norway, but if that is not posible, (I actually think they will try to do as MIA has been writing, try and stay in the EEA without freedom of movement) they will look for a special arrangement in this sector. I think with this they may succeed, a lot of money goes through our institutions. 

I don't want to even contemplate any if's or but's or maybe's, doesn't mean there is no risk involved on a final outcome though.

Edited by alexisj9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Currently three of the potential candidates, Sarkozy, Juppé and Le Penn, for the French Presidency next spring appear to making noises in relation to getting the Sandgate Treaty abolished.

Although this treaty is separate to the EU I suspect that if it were not for the brexit vote business as usual would have remained, so there is a further possible headache to consider with the possibility of the vote making things worse rather than better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, alexisj9 said:

Yep it must be, we can not lose the EU in regards to financial services. The easiest way would be to remain in the EEA like norway, but if that is not posible, (I actually think they will try to do as MIA has been writing, try and stay in the EEA without freedom of movement) they will look for a special arrangement in this sector. I think with this they may succeed, a lot of money goes through our institutions. 

I don't want to even contemplate any if's or but's or maybe's, doesn't mean there is no risk involved on a final outcome though.

Europe has made it very clear that free access too / membership of the EEA means full freedom of movement. No ifs, no buts. There's never been the slightest hint that an exception might be made for an independent England & Wales.

I've no idea why people are even discussing the possibility of EEA + no free movement. It's like trying to decide which colour of unicorn to get.

People in England & Wales are just not special in any way. It would be an insult to the peoples of Europe that an exception be made for the 'superior' English / Welsh. So, even if, magically, all the heads of state (Council) managed to put together a special deal, the peoples of Europe, via their MEPs, would veto it in the European Parliament. The latter have already made this quite clear. Jeez, they've already said article 50 is under way in their eyes after the English & Welsh stuck two fingers up at them, Nigel's 'You European people are all Richard heads' rant included. UK is just lucky the commission has been pragmatic here.

Edited by scottish skier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, alexisj9 said:

Yep it must be, we can not lose the EU in regards to financial services. The easiest way would be to remain in the EEA like norway, but if that is not posible, (I actually think they will try to do as MIA has been writing, try and stay in the EEA without freedom of movement) they will look for a special arrangement in this sector. I think with this they may succeed, a lot of money goes through our institutions. 

I don't want to even contemplate any if's or but's or maybe's, doesn't mean there is no risk involved on a final outcome though.

If we end up in the EEA, we might just as well have remained as a full EU member - despite the brexiteers waxing happily and with great confidence I do not see any great benefit or way forward in this, since free movement is part of the conditions.

If we are to get a block on such free movement for a while as a member of the EEA, I see no reason why Theresa should not be able to negotiate for this as a full member. Success in this direction would at least settle some of the fears of some of the Bexiteers.

I suspect her negotiating skills are better than David's anyway.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, scottish skier said:

Europe has made it very clear that free access too / membership of the EEA means full freedom of movement. No ifs, no buts. There's never been the slightest hint that an exception might be made for an independent England & Wales.

I've no idea why people are even discussing the possibility of EEA + no free movement. It's like trying to decide which colour of unicorn to get.

I'm with you on this, I'm just trying to guess how May will proceed. If she really does want to follow the no freedom of movement stuff, she'll try at first, and then go for the lesser option. I prefer the way things are now. Well before the EU ref anyway.

Edited by alexisj9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...