INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy. Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

In or out?

...on serious topics that don't fit anywhere else at present.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3281 Post by Alan H » April 2nd, 2018, 11:44 am

Latest post of the previous page:

What was it his boss said about bringing the country together? Remain supporters are "cave dwellers", says Jacob Rees-Mogg
Asked at his speech in central London how he would have responded if Leave had lost the campaign, the bookmakers' favourite to succeed Theresa May as Conservative leader said: "I had looked up that there was a Trappist monastery in Leicestershire.

"It was my intention to see if they would accept a visit from me, not on a permanent basis but at least an interim basis because I thought, that line of Attlee to one of his ministers 'a period of silence on your part would be welcome' would be something the winners would have been entitled to expect."
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#3282 Post by animist » April 2nd, 2018, 3:32 pm

Alan H wrote:
we are being led by criminal idiots

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3283 Post by Alan H » April 2nd, 2018, 3:33 pm

animist wrote:
Alan H wrote:
we are being led by criminal idiots
That's certainly one possibility...
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3284 Post by Alan H » April 2nd, 2018, 7:45 pm

Tweet by Peter Stefanovic:
A shocker of an interview as Secretary of State for Transport Chris Grayling squirms & deliberately evades the simple question put to him “is there any official treasury or OBR forecast which says there will be more money to spend on things rather then less after BREXIT?”
Watch Grayling's pathetic performance here.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3285 Post by Alan H » April 3rd, 2018, 4:54 pm

Long, but well-worth watching. It starts at six minutes in.

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3286 Post by Alan H » April 3rd, 2018, 11:24 pm

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? Sun goes ballistic over satellites
A furore over Britain’s possible exclusion from Galileo post Brexit highlights just how much business stands to lose. The Sun reports Britain is threatening to retaliate by crippling the EU’s satellite navigation system by shutting access to ground radars in the Falklands, Ascension Island and Diego Garcia.

The long-running Galileo saga could be a metaphor for the UK’s tortured relationship with Europe. It is half Shakespearean tragedy, half Whitehall farce. It is a test case for the Brexiters’ attempt to have their cake and eat it – an unscientific theory akin to the notion that the sun revolves around the earth, which the original Galileo debunked.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3287 Post by Alan H » April 4th, 2018, 11:53 am

Sean Curran: If you were to get the call and you were asked to take over the UK’s negotiations with the EU, what would you do differently?

Michael Heseltine: I would just pull the negotiators back, apologise for the waste of time, and confront the people with another referendum which I’d hope to win.

SC: Do you think that that’s a politically acceptable solution? You can’t ask people for their view-

MH: Anything is acceptable in politics as long as it’s within the law. Whether you would win is another matter, but I believe that the Brexit decision is without a shadow of doubt the most damaging thing to British self-interest that has happened in my lifetime, I don’t believe there is any upside and I can see nothing but downside. In those circumstances, I have to confront one issue, only one. Is the referendum decision binding in all circumstances for all time? Well, when you put the question like that it’s patently the answer is no. And nobody has been more eloquent on the side of that than Nigel Farage, who said before the result, thinking he was going to lose, we’ll need to have another referendum. Nicola Sturgeon in Scotland, she loses, but what happens? She’s immediately talking about another referendum. And all my life I have been in a position where mandates have been given to a Labour Government, which I have then spent, with the united support of the party to which I belong, in trying to frustrate, upset, or in the end overturn those legislative innovations.

SC: So do you think there will be a second referendum?

MH: I think it’s very likely. I don’t think this Government will last for the full term, I think there will be an election, I think the election will be dominated by the European issue, and I think it’s very difficult to predict what’s going to happen, but I don’t think by any manner of means that that there is a certainty about Brexit.
Watch here.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3288 Post by Alan H » April 4th, 2018, 11:57 am

Whitehall 'chaos' puts the UK's Brexit trade strategy in doubt
"Strategy? What strategy?"

So responds a senior civil servant when asked how plans for the future of UK trade are coming together. They then proceed to smash their coffee's foam with the back of a teaspoon aggressively.

"[The] trade strategy is basically tweeting out flag emojis."

Their frustration is not about being for or against Brexit, they stress. It is about understanding the challenge and importance of the UK getting trade right, so that businesses and jobs are protected. At the moment, that is not happening. Instead, "[there is] a distressing and embarrassing level of chaos across Whitehall on trade".

This could not be a worse time for disunity. In trade terms the UK finds itself a relative minnow caught between two big fish. The first is an increasingly protectionist US casting doubt on the world order of free trade, and the other an EU determined to avoid "cherry-picking" in the final Brexit agreement in an attempt to avoid widening its internal schisms.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3289 Post by Alan H » April 4th, 2018, 12:14 pm

MPs urge free trade area after Brexit - but committee is split
The government should not rule out continued membership of the European Economic Area (EEA) after Brexit, a committee of MPs has said.

The Brexit committee said joining Norway in the European Free Trade Area (Efta) should also be an option.

Brexit Secretary David Davis has previously ruled out both options.

The recommendation caused splits in the committee, with Tory Brexiteers, led by Jacob Rees-Mogg, voting against its inclusion in their report.

The committee's Brexiteers also voted against the report in its entirety, but were defeated by 10 to six.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#3290 Post by animist » April 4th, 2018, 1:00 pm

Nick wrote:
animist wrote:
Nick wrote:He's making a specific claim, which is untrue, and then attacking it. Classic straw man tactics.
what claim? (Actually your definition of a straw man is a bit odd - surely you mean "irrelevant" not "untrue")
Straw man does depend on irrelevance. In this case, he is set up a claim, which was untrue, and then tried to demolish it. Since it was untrue, then any such argument is irrelevant. If you'd prefer to call it something else, then I'm cool with that. :) (The claim was "For the last few weeks, senior Brexiters have had a very specific script")
I cannot believe we are arguing about such trivia. Of course the straw man thing depends on irrelevance, that is just what I said. And anyway, what is incorrect about saying that Brexiters have been concentrating on a particular claim, which Dunt termed "a specific script"? He was just introducting his own take on that claim/script!
Nick wrote:
Nick wrote: So what is a "good" echange rate? There's no such thing, in and of itself. Only in terms of what benefits the UK citizens. And there is a huge difference between general everyday variations and sudden uncertainties caused by shock
I don't know exactly what a good rate is, but a seriously falling exchange rate, which I feel is the future post-Brexit, is NOT good, surely. Exports have increased since the referendum, but are they seriously closing the BOP gap?
Yes, together with import substitution, that is indeed what's happening. And I see no reason why the exchange rate should necessarily continue to fall, just because of Brexit. If that were true, then we would see the Euro continuing to strengthen against all other countries, which clearly isn't the case. And note, the recent strengthening in the Euro is as much the result of their appalling past performance as any current strength.
the rate is not continuing to fall, and I don't think anyone is claiming that it is, so your comments are not relevant. But if Brexit goes wrong, and there are so many reasons why it should, then I imagine that sterling will start to fall again
Nick wrote:
Nick wrote:So why would a cut in tariffs lead to higher unemployment?
it wouldn't, but what I meant was that this idyllic future that you propose will have been obtained via Brexit and loss of the access to the Single Market which we currently enjoy, and THAT is likely to lead to higher unemployment
...except that the supply of labour will not be as bountious as before.
which itself is likely to cause problems and is hardly the good economics which you espouse - instead it is the triumph of politics over economics; can you not see how inconsistent you are here?
Nick wrote:
Nick wrote:What costs of free trade? And how is it comparable with the arbitrary change in asset prices caused by immigration which hit the poor so very very hard. Never mind a couple of percentage points, we are talking tens of percentage points!
but - and I assume that you mean house prices - this is a matter which government could and should tackle by increasing housing supply.
Yes, I did mean house prices. Unfortunately, people rather dislike that suggestion overall. NIMBYism is a real thing.
agree on the last point, but nevertheless it could be done given the will; there are many brownfield sites which could be used (but I don't want to get into an argument about housing policy)
Nick wrote:
Government can deal with housing shortages,
...but haven't...
but it cannot easily increase the number of economically active members of the UK population, and that is a demographic problem affecting not just Britain but much of the rich world.
It's done so in recent years, perhaps at the expense of growth, so there's some scope for improvement. But can we in all honesty continue by depriving the rest of the world? When all it does is to kick the can down the road for a generation?why are we depriving the world?
Migrants send remittance payments back home. Again, you seem to be dubious about allowing people to make the most of their economic opportunities - just so inconsistent with your general outlook
Nick wrote:
Yes, population growth, whether from immigration or not, is obviously going to increase pressure on housing prices, but then, the consensus is that we need immigation because we are an ageing population with too many oldies - like me, and your good self in good time!
We can choose to allow carers in if we want to, but it doesn't resolve the problem in the end, does it?
when does "the end" come? Ever? What is "the end"? As Keynes said, in the long run we are all dead
Nick wrote:
Nick wrote:As Alan has said so often, its not for me to justify, it's for Dunt. He doesn't. But at its simplest, if a reduction in tariffs wouldn't reduce prices by a corresponding amount, why don't the suppliers increase their prices now, since by doing so, they would increase their marginal revenue, even if sales fell by volume. It's all to do with the slope of the curves. So! Evidence please!
I cannot provide proper evidence, but I remember that soon after the referendum, supermarkets were attempting to shield consumers from the fall in the pound by taking the shock themselves. God, Nick, you really believe this stuff about curves, don't you? :D
Yes :D Short term loss leaders by supermarkets, eh? Doesn't last.
we'll see, and I actually thought that a loss leader was a product used to publicise others even though it makes a loss
Nick wrote:
Nick wrote:...which are linked.
in some way no doubt, but it does not follow that a significant adverse effect on employment needs a significant fall in import prices - simply because we live in an economy which is in a sense competitive and in which marginal changes in prices can have substantial effects on decision making. If domestic producers are believed to be unable to compete with foreign ones on a continuing basis, then decisions may well be made which will affect investment in those industries, and hence employment.
Certainly, in the short term but that is how economies grow, by getting people to move to other economic areas where they are needed. Or should we have protected the jobs of telephonists, say? If technology had remained at 1945 levels, BT would have to employ every single school-leaver! Great for employment, but....!
haha - yes moving to areas where they are needed - like other countries!
Nick wrote:
Nick wrote:Certainly exports need to be won, but a sure way of losing exports is to protect your own market, thus stifling competition and innovation, which is what tariffs do.
cloud-cuckoo-land thinking. Look, I read enough of Paul Samuelson all those years ago to be convinced that in cloud-cuckoo-land we would all be better off without tariffs. I happen to think that Ian Dunt's argument, in his book rather than the article, has some merit - this is to the effect that for Britain to unilaterally drop all tariffs is equivalent to a duellist dropping his gun and then challenging his opponent to fire!
ISTM that Dunt is defending tariffs as a suitable policy in the long term, without seeking to make trade freer. Not good.
you need to read him rather than make assumptions. BTW, over the topic of Dunt and the IFS paper on savings from tariff reduction, here a quote from the FT article posted by Alan: "In a separate report on Tuesday, the Institute for Fiscal Studies said leaving the customs union would enable Britain to lower tariffs and prices should fall, but noted that the gains from such action would be small." So it was not a case of Ian Dunt distorting the IFS paper

Nick wrote:
Nick wrote:How can we remove tariffs imposed by the EU without leaving? We've suffered their tariffs for decades, and haven't been able to shift them. Cameron demonstrated they remain fundamentally deaf to reform.
I dunno about the EU and tariffs. I think that they are bothered about them, but tariffs are less important than other impediments to trade, and the EU have gone far in this direction.
Not nearly far enough! Not only have they failed to achieve free trade within the EU in services, but their ever increasing regulations continue to throttle trade, besides their anti-free trade practices (French passports for example).
the relationship between regulation and trade is complex, and anyway, regulation is often justified
Nick wrote:
They have also concluded many deals with other countries, and given some concessions to poorer producers. Not enough, I'm sure. But look, you here seem to move towards a very unpatriotic concern about poorer countries.
So concern for my fellow human is "unpatriotic" is it? You little Englander, you! :wink: Besides which, it should be a benefit for both; it's not a zero sum game.
I was being ironic! Your general stance is patriotic ISTM
Nick wrote:
As I have said on TH many times, Britain will not be thinking about benefiting poor countries when and if we leave the EU.
We'll see, won't we? Would you vote to cut our UN level overseas development budget? (Which precious few of the EU manage).
no I would not, but most Brexiters would do so, I imagine
Nick wrote:
Can you not see the limitations of economics?
Certainly! That's one reason I am pro-Brexit! :D
makes no sense
Nick wrote:
All sorts of interests will come to the fore to protect their interests
...and should be resisted!
government is about balancing legitimate interests, not resisting them
Nick wrote:
It will be chaos, with social and political strife due to the disappointed hopes of those millions who, we are constantly reminded, voted to leave in the largest number ever to vote in a British political contest, and the last people to benefit from this chaos will be the poor producers.
So where is the social and political strife at the moment? In the UK or on the continent?
duh, I am talking about the future not the present. And the continental strife seems to have died down. It was fuelled by the refugee problem of 2015, in which Britain took a very limited role in housing refugees
Nick wrote:
The EU, in contrast, is rich enough to survive an inconvenience like Brexit.
They haven't decided how to replace the UK's contribution yet, have they...?
probably not, but Britain will be paying the EU for a long time for the sake of Brexit, so we are the ones who will feel the pinch
Nick wrote:
Nick wrote:No more than the strange bedfellows on the left. Have you taken a good look at your fellow travellers...? :wink:
just so irrelevant - and anyway, this is not a left-right matter. Look, it really does not matter if rich bankers voted Remain. A vote to stay in the EU was kind of a non-vote because it simply said, no change - a bit like if I decide NOT to spend any money I have on some expensive holiday or a golden gambling craze. The vote to leave, in contrast, has already opened huge cans of worms, whether economic, political, or social. Are you blinded with your pet topic of economic theory?
It amuses me how Remainers on the left play the economics card, right up until it means that they will have to abandon some of their economic principles! Still, it's nice they are now caring about bankers in the City! :D ut in the fina analysis, I voted for Brexit because I beieve the structure of the EU is fundamentally flawed, is incapable of reform, and will end badly, not because the UK will profit in the shoort term. But economic theory is nevertheless important in evaluating what is likely to happen. :)
yep, I know what you think on the EU. You misunderstood what I was saying, but no matter
Nick wrote:
Nick wrote:Of course, but there is substitution between them, isn't there? Dunt seems to think there isn't!
I do not think that is the case, and if you read his book you'll see that he recognises that expensive car brands will still be bought by those who want them and can afford them, despite tariff increases due to Brexit
Then he's a clot! No-one says no cars will be bought, but fewer! Fewer people will want them, both because of worsening affordability, and because other alternatives will be relatively cheaper.
just read his book, you've got him wrong yet again
Nick wrote:
Nick wrote:Imprecise, yes, and individually yes, but collectively, and pari passu, they are knowable. Just look at the growth (and recent stalling) of international trade. Practice backs up the theory.
What theory and practice?
That increases in world trade yields higher growth.
not in dispute, but what might be in dispute is whether Britain in particular will benefit significantly
Nick wrote:
I think you mean "undisputable" rather than "knowable".
No. What I was driving at was that it is in practice unknowble if person A will respond in a particular way (income & substitution effects, for example) but we can make reasonable guesses in aggregate.
I am not sure that this follows, and we are talking quantities, not simply directions
Nick wrote:
Dunt's book makes the point that unilterally doing this free trade thing is like throwing down your gun and demanding that the other side surrender! Surely the experience so far is that it is multilateral concessions on trade (as with nuclear weaponry) that produces results
Except that such an approach has produced no overall trade deals between the EU and the USA, India or China, and many others too.
but it has made deals with many other countries, and Britain will somehow have to renegotiate these deals. Look, just watch the Dougan video!
Nick wrote:
I cannot be bothered to get into another spat about the EU. Really does not matter how gung-ho the Government is about deals outside the EU since it takes two to make a deal.
At least it will now be two, instead of 29! :wink: I think there will be a spate fo new deals where none have existed before. We'll just have to see.... :)
what you say ignores the much greater power that almost 30 countries have compared with one. We are governed by novices in matters of trade negotiations and risk being exploited by much larger countries. Read Dunt on this
Nick wrote:
You continually misunderstand me because of your narrow obsession with economics: when I talk about "sacrifice" I was talking about the fishing industry, which because of its smallness may well be sacrificed in a deal with the EU in order to save other industries - absolutely nothing to with comparative advantage, it is all politics and not economics
What bother me, is when decisions are made for political reasons based on bad economics!! The anti-austerity rhetoric of UnCut, for example
and Brexit for another

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3291 Post by Alan H » April 4th, 2018, 2:20 pm

Ah... the post-Brexit land of milk and honey and chlorinated chicken and hormone-treated beef: Australia to demand Britain accepts hormone‑treated beef
Australia is preparing to demand that Britain accepts hormone-treated beef as the price of a symbolic early Brexit trade deal.

Liam Fox has identified a deal with Australia as an early “win” and informal discussions have been taking place for the past 18 months. But in return, Britain will be told to scrap a European Union ban on the sale of meat from cattle treated with growth hormones.

The practice can increase their weight gain by more than 10 per cent a day, cutting the time it takes to fatten the animals for market. The EU claims that at least one of the hormones used is carcinogenic and their use has been banned since 1981. The Australians have long disputed this scientific analysis. They see the ban as a form of protectionism to shelter European farmers from competition alongside tariffs of 12.8 per cent.

Sources close to the talks say lifting the ban is a key issue for the Australian side. Mr Fox, the international trade secretary, is understood to be sympathetic, arguing that it would reduce meat prices for consumers. Significantly, while the government has ruled out allowing the import of chlorine-washed chicken on animal welfare grounds, it has made no public comment on hormone-treated beef.
If only we had voted for that...
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Zeff
Posts: 142
Joined: August 6th, 2016, 2:13 pm

Re: In or out?

#3292 Post by Zeff » April 4th, 2018, 5:38 pm

It seems to me that the UK has handed 'control of our democracy' to places like India, China and Pakistan, never mind Australia. UKGov is in a much weaker bargaining position than the EU. I notice PM May didn't dare to challenge China's human rights issues on her visit and that seems the future.
We may need to accept immigration from countries like Pakistan and India instead of Eastern Europe in order to get our trade deals. Ironic eh?!

From: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43154308
By contrast, immigration from countries outside the European Union is going up which means the UK population is continuing to grow at a similar level to early 2014.
Some 285,000 non-EU citizens arrived in the UK in the 12-month period to September, and 80,000 departed.
This gives a net increase of 205,000, the highest for six years.

Unquote.

I think the UK will do less well economically if we do leave the EU. In that case immigration will decline, I suppose. I've got my Irish citizenship just in case it gets too bad. At this rate, I can envisage the UK being in the Customs Union, in the Single Market and accepting some ECJ rulings but losing our EU vote. That may not be the worst outcome.

Time will tell. It's not looking good so far.

And PM May keeps saying "the will of the British people", but repetition won't make that true. It was one badly timed, advisory referendum. Yes PM (TV show) had it right: a competent government doesn't hold a referendum unless the result can be correctly anticipated.

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: In or out?

#3293 Post by Nick » April 4th, 2018, 6:30 pm

animist wrote:I cannot believe we are arguing about such trivia.
True, that!
Of course the straw man thing depends on irrelevance, that is just what I said. And anyway, what is incorrect about saying that Brexiters have been concentrating on a particular claim, which Dunt termed "a specific script"?
He's making a claim, for which I can see no evidence. Care to supply some? (Only if you can be bothered, though. And I wouldn't blame you if you can't be bothered :) )
He was just introducting his own take on that claim/script!
What's the point of commenting on something that's not true? :shrug:
the rate is not continuing to fall, and I don't think anyone is claiming that it is, so your comments are not relevant.
....except you: :wink: I quote: (my bold0
I don't know exactly what a good rate is, but a seriously falling exchange rate, which I feel is the future post-Brexit, is NOT good, surely
If that was a mistake, that's OK. :)
But if Brexit goes wrong, and there are so many reasons why it should, then I imagine that sterling will start to fall again
We shall see. My expectation is that once the major uncertainties disappear, sterling will strengthen somewhat. But who knows? IMO, the Euro area is fundamentally flawed (which is one reason sterling has been relatively strong in recent years). Only time will tell. Suppose it did go against the UK, it is important to ask why. You might say it was the stupidity of the UK to leave, whereas I might say it is the unreasonable agression of the EU. How one should react to those two scenarios is open to question.
[a lower supply of immigrant labour] is likely to cause problems and is hardly the good economics which you espouse - instead it is the triumph of politics over economics; can you not see how inconsistent you are here?
No inconsistency, animist. Economics explains what happens and what might happen in different scenarios. What becomes bad economics is when the objectives sought are not met by the economic policies being advocated. But we have different views on what is important, hence our different views on this subject.
Nick wrote:
but - and I assume that you mean house prices - this is a matter which government could and should tackle by increasing housing supply.
Yes, I did mean house prices. Unfortunately, people rather dislike that suggestion overall. NIMBYism is a real thing.
agree on the last point, but nevertheless it could be done given the will; there are many brownfield sites which could be used (but I don't want to get into an argument about housing policy)
What will? it is the NIMBY who is expressing the will! But, OK, let's leave housing policy to one side for now, but I reserve the right to re-introduce it if necessary! :D
but it cannot easily increase the number of economically active members of the UK population, and that is a demographic problem affecting not just Britain but much of the rich world.
It's done so in recent years, perhaps at the expense of growth, so there's some scope for improvement. But can we in all honesty continue by depriving the rest of the world? When all it does is to kick the can down the road for a generation?why are we depriving the world?[/quote] Migrants send remittance payments back home. Again, you seem to be dubious about allowing people to make the most of their economic opportunities - just so inconsistent with your general outlook[/quote]You haven't explained how an ever increasing population solves anything in the long run, nor how one should address the de-population of other parts of the world. Certainly migrants do send money home, for a while. And I don't blame anyone for wanting to better themselves, but that is to ignore other desirable benefits and undesireable costs. Or should we now abandon government expenditure and taxation...? :wink:

It is an interesting question to ask why (and how much) we should protect the weak in our own country, at the expense of the enterprising in another- worthy of a thread of its own- but the EU does that too, with pretty disastrous results.
Nick wrote:
Yes, population growth, whether from immigration or not, is obviously going to increase pressure on housing prices, but then, the consensus is that we need immigation because we are an ageing population with too many oldies - like me, and your good self in good time!
We can choose to allow carers in if we want to, but it doesn't resolve the problem in the end, does it?
when does "the end" come? Ever? What is "the end"? As Keynes said, in the long run we are all dead
"The end" has already arrived in some parts of Europe. And, as things stand, each generation just makes the situation worse.
Nick wrote:
I cannot provide proper evidence, but I remember that soon after the referendum, supermarkets were attempting to shield consumers from the fall in the pound by taking the shock themselves. God, Nick, you really believe this stuff about curves, don't you? :D
Yes :D Short term loss leaders by supermarkets, eh? Doesn't last.
we'll see, and I actually thought that a loss leader was a product used to publicise others even though it makes a loss
Maybe I'm being a little loose with my definitions here, but in aggregate, costs will be passed on to the end user. There comes a point where a lack of profit margin will decrease economic activity.

(more later....) :)

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3294 Post by Alan H » April 5th, 2018, 10:31 pm

Scientists for the EU on Facebook:
“Look,” said UK Govt, “Brexit is easy. It fits together like this.” #SmallProblemOfDetailsEverywhere
screenshot-www.facebook.com-2018.04.05-22-28-09.png
screenshot-www.facebook.com-2018.04.05-22-28-09.png (142.78 KiB) Viewed 2136 times
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3295 Post by Alan H » April 6th, 2018, 2:30 pm

Trifling little details, no doubt; something they'll get the office junior to sort out over lunch: 4 Brexit loose ends government yet to tie
We are in a lull. Parliament has risen for its Easter recess and the negotiations over the UK’s post-Brexit end state are yet to really get under way. It therefore makes sense to look at the loose ends left untied, now that the broad basis of the divorce settlement and the 21-month standstill transition have been agreed. And there are plenty of those loose ends; indeed there is little but loose ends, and few indications from the government on how and when they think they should be tied up.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3296 Post by Alan H » April 7th, 2018, 8:50 pm

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it?
The US has laid out its annual trade “wish list” and it will not make easy reading for David Davis and Liam Fox’s team of negotiators.

The 500-page tome from the US Trade Representative (USTR) published this week firmly espouses the virtues of free trade and less regulation, just as Donald Trump proposed slapping a further $100bn (£71.5bn) of import levies on Chinese goods.

The document lays out what the US sees as restrictions to trade all around the world. It wants to get rid of “onerous” rules on everything from animal welfare to chemicals to the import of crops for biofuel.

The USTR’s biggest concern is the increasing importance to US trade policy of testing, labelling and certification requirements and “sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures”.

What does this mean in plain English? Essentially, it’s health and safety, which, ironically, was one of the many issues that annoyed some people into voting to leave in the EU referendum.

In Britain, the complex area of product standards has been reduced down to the totemic issue of chlorine-washed chickens – a simple way of saying that US farmers treat animals, dead or alive, in ways EU officials, and the British public, don’t like.

The USTR’s report clearly shows that the US is unlikely to budge on issues of animal welfare or food safety, whatever “red lines” the environment secretary, Michael Gove, might claim to have set.

“The United States remains concerned about a number of measures the EU maintains ostensibly for the purposes of food safety and protecting human, animal, or plant life or health,” the USTR said.

These measures “unnecessarily restrict trade without furthering their safety objectives because they are not based on scientific principles, maintained with sufficient scientific evidence, or applied only to the extent necessary”.

The issue is much deeper than the debate around chlorine-washed chicken would suggest. The UK, as part of the EU, does not get its own section in the USTR report, but the 47-page chapter devoted to America’s gripes about the EU, points to where trade negotiations between the two partners in the “special relationship” might head.

Few industries are left untouched. The USTR rails against the burden of EU food labelling as well as restrictions on cosmetics and pesticides.

It bemoans the fact that accreditation bodies for product standards must be public and nonprofit, when private American firms could do the job.

It complains about the widely recognised CE safety mark, so expect that to go.

On chemicals, the EU’s regulations impose “extensive registration, testing and data requirements on all chemicals manufactured or imported into the EU in quantities greater than a metric ton”; something that most British citizens probably support. The USTR says it does too, but argues that some requirements are overly onerous or “simply unnecessary”.

Restrictions on biofuel crops, which a number of studies have shown can potentially be worse for climate change than fossil fuels, are also highlighted as a burden.

Minimum unit pricing of alcohol, set to be introduced in Scotland, could also come under pressure. The USTR criticises a public health bill in Ireland which proposes minimum unit pricing as well as labelling requirements for alcohol.

The USTR says the measures “have the potential to generate additional administrative costs and detrimentally impact the ability of US exporters to reallocate product in the European market”.

The document also confirms that the US will effectively push to allow American-produced Cornish pasties or Cumberland sausages by scrapping EU rules around the geographical origins of certain foods.

It seems likely that these sorts of issues will continue to dominate the debate ahead of more pressing concerns over safety standards, the environment and public health.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3297 Post by Alan H » April 8th, 2018, 11:51 pm

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? Brexit: Nearly 20 banks have committed to Frankfurt since vote to leave EU, German officials say
Nearly 20 banks have committed to launching new European Union hubs in Frankfurt since the Brexit vote, according to German officials.

The economy minister for the state of Hesse, where Frankfurt is situated, said the city was confident it would attract more, with another 60 firms yet to decide on additional EU headquarters.

“We’ve got 18 entities... that have committed,” Tarek Al-Wazir said during his most recent trip to London.​

“There will be other entities who are in the decision process now, so we’re in contact with some of them – of course, we’re not able to say who they are, but at the end if you compare everything that happened since the Brexit referendum and if you compare the real decisions made, I think we are number one on the continent and I’m sure this will continue.”

Hubertus Väth, managing director of city lobby group Frankfurt Main Finance, who was accompanying the minister on his trip, said that while big banks like JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs have already made their location decisions, there are are a swathe of firms yet to launch Brexit contingency plans.

“We did some research in the beginning showing that 100 institutions will have to make up their minds,” he said. “We know as of today that just about 40 have made their decisions public and there are a few who are just about to make their decisions... So there is still 60 up for grabs, however we’re talking significantly smaller entities.”
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#3298 Post by animist » April 9th, 2018, 1:08 pm

Nick wrote:
Of course the straw man thing depends on irrelevance, that is just what I said. And anyway, what is incorrect about saying that Brexiters have been concentrating on a particular claim, which Dunt termed "a specific script"?
He's making a claim, for which I can see no evidence.
I suppose that I can be bothered to pursue this trivia, if only in order to try to understand you. So the claim that you are querying is that there is something that Ian Dunt calls "a specific script" and that this relates to the claim by Brexiters?
Nick wrote:
the rate is not continuing to fall, and I don't think anyone is claiming that it is, so your comments are not relevant.
....except you: :wink: I quote: (my bold0
I don't know exactly what a good rate is, but a seriously falling exchange rate, which I feel is the future post-Brexit, is NOT good, surely
If that was a mistake, that's OK. :)
god, Nick, do you ever properly read what I say? In the first quote I was talking about NOW, ie pre-Brexit, geddit? In the second quote, I was talking about the FUTURE, ie post-Brexit, geddit?
Nick wrote:
But if Brexit goes wrong, and there are so many reasons why it should, then I imagine that sterling will start to fall again
We shall see. My expectation is that once the major uncertainties disappear, sterling will strengthen somewhat. But who knows? IMO, the Euro area is fundamentally flawed (which is one reason sterling has been relatively strong in recent years). Only time will tell. Suppose it did go against the UK, it is important to ask why. You might say it was the stupidity of the UK to leave, whereas I might say it is the unreasonable agression of the EU. How one should react to those two scenarios is open to question
they are not really different scenarios. Even if the EU were "aggressive", whatever that means (and I do not see how the recipient of Brexit, rather than the instigator, can sensibly be viewed as the aggressor), the UK would still be stupid to leave and face this "aggression", because it will lose out
Nick wrote:
[a lower supply of immigrant labour] is likely to cause problems and is hardly the good economics which you espouse - instead it is the triumph of politics over economics; can you not see how inconsistent you are here?
No inconsistency, animist. Economics explains what happens and what might happen in different scenarios. What becomes bad economics is when the objectives sought are not met by the economic policies being advocated. But we have different views on what is important, hence our different views on this subject.
you have not answered my challenge but merely trotted out your usual bland prospectus for economics
Nick wrote:What will? it is the NIMBY who is expressing the will! But, OK, let's leave housing policy to one side for now, but I reserve the right to re-introduce it if necessary! :D
NIMBY expresses no will except the particular desire of residents of a particular area that some inconvenient development does not happen. Government should (to go all Rousseauian) must attempt to express the GENERAL WILL, on the basis of opinion polls and elections results
Nick wrote: You haven't explained how an ever increasing population solves anything in the long run, nor how one should address the de-population of other parts of the world. Certainly migrants do send money home, for a while. And I don't blame anyone for wanting to better themselves, but that is to ignore other desirable benefits and undesireable costs. Or should we now abandon government expenditure and taxation...? :wink:
what is wrong with depopulating particular parts of the world? And why "for a while" do migrants send home remittances? But I do think that there is a genuine argument here, which is that the immigrants, initially youngish and employable (and thus paying taxes to support the aged etc) will eventually become old and/or infirm themselves, so that fresh immigrants will be needed to replenish the working population. So what? Nothing is perfect. Yes, the UK's population may well continue to grow. So what? In most other controversies, this would be a sign of national success, but Brexiters will not have this!
Nick wrote: It is an interesting question to ask why (and how much) we should protect the weak in our own country, at the expense of the enterprising in another- worthy of a thread of its own- but the EU does that too, with pretty disastrous results.
go on then, start a new thread
Nick wrote:"The end" has already arrived in some parts of Europe. And, as things stand, each generation just makes the situation worse.
makes no sense - I do not know what "end" you mean. Can you go for long without mentioning other parts of Europe? Brexit will not help these poorer parts of the EU

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3299 Post by Alan H » April 9th, 2018, 10:17 pm

Why Britain's vision for post-Brexit trade deals is probably an illusion
Many Brexit-backers argue leaving the EU and moving away from European standards will make Britain a powerhouse of global trade.

Australia is keen for a quick trade deal with Britain, according to reports this week.

However, potential partners like Australia and the US are likely to make politically unacceptable demands in trade negotiations with Britain, trade expert Sam Lowe writes for Business Insider.

Britain will soon realise it is more "European" than it thought, Lowe says.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3300 Post by Alan H » April 9th, 2018, 11:42 pm

May's post-Brexit trade plan with EU dealt blow by key ally
Theresa May’s plans for a Brexit deal that delivers frictionless trade with the EU have been dealt a blow by a key European ally who has said there will be more bureaucracy after leaving the bloc.

The Danish prime minister, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, said after talks with his UK counterpart in Copenhagen that there would be an inevitable price to pay for Britain leaving the single market.

Following a bilateral meeting with May, he told reporters at a joint press conference: “We should avoid too many changes in our relations and I am totally in favour of an enhanced trade agreement between the EU and UK.

“I hope if there’s willingness … we will close a deal which will be as close to what we know now as possible. But we have to be realistic and we have to realise that there will be changes. Leaving the single market comes with a price tag and unfortunately the price tag is also a Danish price tag.

“That is the reality of life. There will be more bureaucracy in future, unfortunately.”

The European council president, Donald Tusk, has already told the UK that it . “Friction is an inevitable side-effect of Brexit,” he said in March.
Increased bureaucracy wasn't on the ballot paper, was it?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3301 Post by Alan H » April 10th, 2018, 10:33 am

May Hints at Softer Stance on EU Migration in Brexit Trade Talks
Prime Minister Theresa May said the U.K. would look at the issue of European migration as part of negotiations on a post-Brexit trade deal with the European Union, an indication she may be willing to consider special treatment for the bloc’s citizens.

May reiterated her aim for a comprehensive and ambitious trade deal with the EU after the divorce. “Obviously as part of that we will be looking at the issue of movement, but we will recognize that there will be EU citizens who will still want to work and study in the U.K. and U.K. citizens who will still want to work and study in the EU27,” she said.

The U.K. will be out of the single market, out of the EU’s freedom of movement rules, and setting its own regulations on immigration, she said at a press conference in Copenhagen.

Controlling immigration, and putting an end to free movement from EU countries, was one of the main issues in the Brexit referendum campaign in 2016. But May’s insistence on it is one of the obstacles that will prevent the U.K. from keeping its access to Europe’s single market after the split.

May says she wants a trade deal that’s more ambitious than any of the EU’s previous accords. But so far, the EU has said her aspirations aren’t feasible as they amount to cherry-picking the best bits of membership without accepting the responsibilities.

In the latest sign that May is still to be convinced of the merits of Brexit, the prime minister avoided answering a question on whether she has changed her mind on the split since campaigning for Remain in the referendum.
I thought we voted to end EU immigration?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Post Reply