EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[EM2]

We can now enter into bilateral deals and, perhaps, create our own free trade associations.

With no guarantee that we'll be better off.

Because we do not have unlimited budgets and every spending decision is a compromise and a hard decision.

Indeed they are, but we are still able to do it if we wish.

Our purchasing needs aren't really anything to do with the EU. We buy things because consumers and businesses want those things, not because of some political entity. And businesses in those other areas are hurt by the common tariffs at the edge of our customs union and by internal subsidies. Try being an African farmer in competition with EU farmers receiving CAP payments.

We buy them at the most advantageous price to us, and we get that price because of the size of the bloc that is doing the negotiating.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Mainly because we don't find anything wrong with it.

To be fair, I personally find lots of things wrong with the EU (and I would suspect quite a few on the 'Remain' side do too. But it is of course perfectly possible to find lots of things wrong with an organization, but still think that on balance it's better to work to reform it from the inside).

 

[Barn]

It depends. The problem is: If some foreign company can make trains to our specifications that are cheaper/better quality/etc., but we choose to buy British trains anyway in order to help our own industry, what's to stop other countries retaliating by doing the same to us when they need something that we could have produced more cheaply? That's the fundamental problem with all the variants of 'our country first and our industries first' - it invites other countries to do the same, and if every country does it, then in the end every country loses out - by getting more expensive/less efficiently produced goods and as a result a lower standard of living. Avoiding that situation is of course one of the purposes of the EU's rules about competition, which I suspect is what your post is really about.

(As an off-topic aside, that's also the fundamental problem with Donald Trump's 'America First' idea).

Agreed - your point about standard of living is crucial. By paying for the more expensive / less efficient products, people and businesses have less to spend on other things. This secondary effect often causes greater harm to jobs and earnings than the protection saves.

The problem is that the harm is spread wider and is thus less obvious than the protected industry, which might have union protests and sympathetic media.

 

[meridian2]

It depends. The problem is: If some foreign company can make trains to our specifications that are cheaper/better quality/etc., but we choose to buy British trains anyway in order to help our own industry, what's to stop other countries retaliating by doing the same to us when they need something that we could have produced more cheaply?

I suspect the pendulum has swung the other way, and the presumption is the UK is incapable of making a train/plane/car of good design at a reasonable price. Is there evidence for this, or is it a contemporary meme based on the worst of 70s industrial malpractice, a convenience to avoid sourcing locally? Now the UK is heading out of the UK, would it not be a good opportunity to see what British manufacturing can offer, without being tied to directives favouring overseas suppliers at the expense of domestic ones?

The fact we can mass produce cars successfully at Burnaston and Usworth for the Japanese seems to be a failure of British management (and imagination), not a lack of indigenous engineering skill.

 

[najaB]

Equally, why should we only accept free trade from Europe? Why should freedom of movement be focused on Europeans? Wouldn't the development of poorer countries in Africa be improved beyond recognition if they could supply us with their traded goods or their food? It all seems a bit out of date, even a bit racist.

Bravo, sir. That was just amazing.

Right out of the blue, no warning. Just *Blam* Race card!

I am in awe of your skill.

 

[radamfi]

I suspect the pendulum has swung the other way, and the presumption is the UK is incapable of making a train/plane/car of good design at a reasonable price. Is there evidence for this, or is it a contemporary meme based on the worst of 70s industrial malpractice, a convenience to avoid sourcing locally? Now the UK is heading out of the UK, would it not be a good opportunity to see what British manufacturing can offer, without being tied to directives favouring overseas suppliers at the expense of domestic ones?

The fact we can mass produce cars successfully at Burnaston and Usworth for the Japanese seems to be a failure of British management (and imagination), not a lack of indigenous engineering skill.

Why the fixation on one particular industry? There are other industries that Britain is stronger at and if you were in another country you might argue, "Why can't we do that if Britain is doing it?" Also, Sunderland is more noted for car manufacturing than London. Does that mean the Sunderland economy is preferable? I don't think so.

 

[Howardh]

Equally, why should we only accept free trade from Europe? Why should freedom of movement be focused on Europeans? Wouldn't the development of poorer countries in Africa be improved beyond recognition if they could supply us with their traded goods or their food? It all seems a bit out of date, even a bit racist.
.

Let me get my head around this.
I thought Brexiters (generally) don't want freedom of movement in Europe, presumably to keep immigration figures low, but you want to trade with African countries so you accept freedom of movement there if that was part of the trade deal (even though regarding food, it would help them a lot if they could keep their own in areas of shortages)? So you want FoM with Africa AND the EU?
Please clarify, a lot of Brexit doesn't make sense to me, least of all your statement!!

 

[Barn]

Let me get my head around this.
I thought Brexiters (generally) don't want freedom of movement in Europe, presumably to keep immigration figures low, but you want to trade with African countries so you accept freedom of movement there if that was part of the trade deal (even though regarding food, it would help them a lot if they could keep their own in areas of shortages)? So you want FoM with Africa AND the EU?
Please clarify, a lot of Brexit doesn't make sense to me, least of all your statement!!

OK, I hope this helps:

1. Trade and trade deals don't tend to require unrestricted freedom of movement: it is a curiously European policy that says you can't have one without the other. Because of this we think of 'free trade' and 'unrestricted freedom of movement' as being two sides of the same coin, but this just isn't the case globally at all.

2. Yes, I want to increase our trade with developing countries. Free trade does much more to help with development than aid. It is not clear to me how you jump from me wanting to increase our trade with Africa to wanting freedom of movement.

3. No, I don't want unrestricted freedom of movement with Africa or any other country. I do not think this is part of the Government's plans. I want us to take in a sensible number of people with a sensible range of skills. As a rule, I don't think we should favour or disfavour people based on nationality.

4. Immigration wasn't a major part of my decision to vote leave and that is true of many leave voters too (although it would be wrong of me to suggest it wasn't a part of many other voters' decision).

5. It's a slightly outdated view to suggest that Africa is hungry and needs to keep its own food. There are pockets of famine even today (mostly caused by war and civil conflict rather than natural disasters), but thankfully this is not the case for most of the continent. The best way to prevent famine in the future is to allow farms to develop with investment in modern farming practices and equipment, which is in turn best achieved through allowing free trade with richer consumers.

 

[Howardh]

OK, I hope this helps:

1. Trade and trade deals don't tend to require unrestricted freedom of movement: it is a curiously European policy that says you can't have one without the other. Because of this we think of 'free trade' and 'unrestricted freedom of movement' as being two sides of the same coin, but this just isn't the case globally at all.

2. Yes, I want to increase our trade with developing countries. Free trade does much more to help with development than aid. It is not clear to me how you jump from me wanting to increase our trade with Africa to wanting freedom of movement.

3. No, I don't want unrestricted freedom of movement with Africa or any other country. I do not think this is part of the Government's plans. I want us to take in a sensible number of people with a sensible range of skills. As a rule, I don't think we should favour or disfavour people based on nationality.

4. Immigration wasn't a major part of my decision to vote leave and that is true of many leave voters too (although it would be wrong of me to suggest it wasn't a part of many other voters' decision).

5. It's a slightly outdated view to suggest that Africa is hungry and needs to keep its own food. There are pockets of famine even today (mostly caused by war and civil conflict rather than natural disasters), but thankfully this is not the case for most of the continent. The best way to prevent famine in the future is to allow farms to develop with investment in modern farming practices and equipment, which is in turn best achieved through allowing free trade with richer consumers.

Well, thank you for that, it clears up your post. Clearly I feel the fact that we can freely move between a limited number of countries is a privilege we should cherish, and not discard at the want of "keeping control" as it is a two-way thing - having the right to move away is something we should keep.

It upsets me that we have had the right to move freely for a number of years, yet we are "happy" for that to be removed for those following us. :cry:

 

[Barn]

Bravo, sir. That was just amazing.

Right out of the blue, no warning. Just *Blam* Race card!

I am in awe of your skill.

Thanks for the customary flippancy. Now for your substantive thoughts.

Do you deny that enforcing freedom of movement of Europeans into countries with limited capacity, and enforcing customs duties around the border of Europe, and subsidising European farmers, has the effect of preferring Europeans in our law and commerce to the detriment of others?

 

[najaB]

1. Trade and trade deals don't tend to require unrestricted freedom of movement: it is a curiously European policy that says you can't have one without the other. Because of this we think of 'free trade' and 'unrestricted freedom of movement' as being two sides of the same coin, but this just isn't the case globally at all.

That's true. But the EU is more than just a trading bloc.

 

[Barn]

Well, thank you for that, it clears up your post. Clearly I feel the fact that we can freely move between a limited number of countries is a privilege we should cherish, and not discard at the want of "keeping control" as it is a two-way thing - having the right to move away is something we should keep.

It upsets me that we have had the right to move freely for a number of years, yet we are "happy" for that to be removed for those following us. :cry:

I do understand that. If you had begun to see the EU as a single territory to which you could resettle at any time, Brexit will have been a disappointment and Remain would have been the obvious vote.

For most British people, though, I do get the impression that it's a bit like public libraries: people like the idea of them more than they actually use them.

I think most Brits value the ability to travel to other countries more than they really intend to settle there, some retirees excepted.

If it's any consolation, I think you might be pleasantly surprised on where we end up on movement. I doubt the shutters will really come down in either direction. I'd bet it'll be the Ukippers who are more disappointed with the outcome in that area, rather than the remainers.

 

[Howardh]

I do understand that. If you had begun to see the EU as a single territory to which you could resettle at any time, Brexit will have been a disappointment and Remain would have been the obvious vote.

For most British people, though, I do get the impression that it's a bit like public libraries: people like the idea of them more than they actually use them.

I think most Brits value the ability to travel to other countries more than they really intend to settle there, some retirees excepted.

If it's any consolation, I think you might be pleasantly surprised on where we end up on movement. I doubt the shutters will really come down in either direction. I'd bet it'll be the Ukippers who are more disappointed with the outcome in that area, rather than the remainers.

I've been looking for something from Brexiters to agree/empathise with, and that's probably it!
Hopefully the tourist and would be retiree (and of course those already out there) aren't inconvenienced by Brexit; let's face it, why would any country want to stop one (let along thousands) of us going there spending our cash? It doesn't make sense.
However - the big worry is that we (save for Greenland) are the first to leave, and the EU may well feel if we made a success of it, others would follow - so for that alone they, as a group, will make life very difficult, and may well cut their face to spite their nose regarding visitors.
I think, in the medium term, the "richer" countries (D, NL, B, F, LUX, DK) may well separate, and we (re)join them as a trading block with full FoM, maybe also with CH, FL and the Scandivavian countries.
I think that's how the EU should have progressed in the first place, and have a two-tier system with the south and east being the second tier.
That being said, it's a shame for someone with skills in languages that they can't automatically apply for a job in the EU now, they will be in the queue behind EU citizens.

 

[AlterEgo]

Now the UK is heading out of the UK

Never a truer word said.

 

[Howardh]

Never a truer word said.

*like*

When the UK's completely disintegrated it's gonna be difficult to work out which bits are in and out of the EU. Gibraltar? Part of Spain...in. Northern Ireland? Part of Ireland...in. Scotland? Out of the UK and out of the EU but trying to get in. The Remains Of The United Kingdom? Well, London's half in, half out....

 

[najaB]

Do you deny that enforcing freedom of movement of Europeans into countries with limited capacity, and enforcing customs duties around the border of Europe, and subsidising European farmers, has the effect of preferring Europeans in our law and commerce to the detriment of others?

It has the effect of preferring those who we are geographically adjacent to (and in the case of mainland Europe share common borders with) over those who are more distant. Nothing to do with race.

 

[Barn]

It has the effect of preferring those who we are geographically adjacent to (and in the case of mainland Europe share common borders with) over those who are more distant. Nothing to do with race.

I agree that there isn't a racist intention, but there is a racial effect. What you say about geographic adjacency makes sense if you are a continental European nation. But you need to understand what a shift it was for the UK. That geographic adjacency was never a major part of British diplomatic or commercial thinking prior to 1972. We moved into a significant trade surplus with the Commonwealth immediately on entry into the EEC as tariffs cut us off from purchasing from old contacts. Previously our trade was balanced or in deficit. We closed off our Commonwealth residency rights. We joined in the conspiracy to deliberately protect European farmers at the expense of the developing world, much of which consisted of our Commonwealth cousins. We shifted our focus and the fulcrum of our trade to the European continent and turned our back on our old friends and allies, many of which volunteered and died for us in wars and, yes, many of which had non-white skin. I'm ashamed of it.

 

[meridian2]

Never a truer word said.

I spotted the mistake as soon as I'd pressed send, but wondered who'd be first to point it out and to what end.

 

[AlterEgo]

I spotted the mistake as soon as I'd pressed send, but wondered who'd be first to point it out and to what end.

It's true though. Brexit may well spell the end of the UK. The country has been exposed as a balkanised and estranged mess, which might lead to an independent Scotland and (less likely, but now a possibility on the table) a United Ireland.

Good.

 

[meridian2]

Why the fixation on one particular industry? There are other industries that Britain is stronger at and if you were in another country you might argue, "Why can't we do that if Britain is doing it?" Also, Sunderland is more noted for car manufacturing than London. Does that mean the Sunderland economy is preferable? I don't think so.

I'm not fixated with any single industry, as a believer in a mixed economy I think we should support all viable ones as individuals and collectively. There's a tendency to accept that Britain can no longer make things well, unless the thing is built by 15 people and cost half a million pounds a pop. You're mixing two issues, the complacency surrounding London's entitlement to major cash hungry projects, and the UK's capacity to produce goods British people and others want. As our exit from the EU is immanent, a certain pride in the nation's abilities in manufacturing, art and culture would be appropriate. An appreciation of making things, as well as financial churn which allows some of us to purchase other people's things, would be a good idea.

 

[najaB]

I agree that there isn't a racist intention, but there is a racial effect. What you say about geographic adjacency makes sense if you are a continental European nation. But you need to understand what a shift it was for the UK. That geographic adjacency was never a major part of British diplomatic or commercial thinking prior to 1972. We moved into a significant trade surplus with the Commonwealth immediately on entry into the EEC as tariffs cut us off from purchasing from old contacts. Previously our trade was balanced or in deficit. We closed off our Commonwealth residency rights. We joined in the conspiracy to deliberately protect European farmers at the expense of the developing world, much of which consisted of our Commonwealth cousins. We shifted our focus and the fulcrum of our trade to the European continent and turned our back on our old friends and allies, many of which volunteered and died for us in wars and, yes, many of which had non-white skin. I'm ashamed of it.

I get where you are coming from, but most of those older relationships with the Commonwealth were based on a colonial heritage that was becoming increasingly out of touch with the reality of the changing world.

Since analogies are all the fave, it would be like not speaking to your neighbours because you're still on good terms with your ex who lives across town.

And I think you'll find that many of the Commonwealth countries did have preferred access to the EU market through the Lome Convention. From first-hand knowledge - I spent a long time living in the Caribbean and we got better than market rates for sugar sold to the EU (something like a 20% premium) yet in the time I lived their our annual production went from over 140,000 tonnes to under 40,000 tonnes. If that doesn't demonstrate that the world was changing I don't know what does.

 

[SteveP29]

We shifted our focus and the fulcrum of our trade to the European continent and turned our back on our old friends and allies, many of which volunteered and died for us in wars and, yes, many of which had non-white skin. I'm ashamed of it.

Isn't this what most Brexiteers are relying on to kickstart our trade/ replace the EU trade once we do leave?
If its true that we turned out back on them in the 70's (forgive me, I don't really know, I was only born in 72), without even saying sorry or anything, why should they WANT to start trading with us again?

 

[Barn]

I get where you are coming from, but most of those older relationships with the Commonwealth were based on a colonial heritage that was becoming increasingly out of touch with the reality of the changing world.

I agree about the colonial heritage. It's a shame that we were interrupted in our efforts to turn that heritage into something better. I'm blaming the UK's decision to join here more than I am the club that it joined.

Isn't this what most Brexiteers are relying on to kickstart our trade/ replace the EU trade once we do leave?
If its true that we turned out back on them in the 70's (forgive me, I don't really know, I was only born in 72), without even saying sorry or anything, why should they WANT to start trading with us again?

We can only apologise and try to set matters straight again.

(Btw: trade is something that happens between peoples and businesses. All governments can do is make that trade easier or harder.)

 

[Barn]

And I think you'll find that many of the Commonwealth countries did have preferred access to the EU market through the Lome Convention. From first-hand knowledge - I spent a long time living in the Caribbean and we got better than market rates for sugar sold to the EU (something like a 20% premium) yet in the time I lived their our annual production went from over 140,000 tonnes to under 40,000 tonnes. If that doesn't demonstrate that the world was changing I don't know what does.

The biggest issue for sugar trade with the EU is that there are caps from each country on cane imports, after which there are prohibitive tariffs charged to most favoured nations.

The purpose of the tariffs are to reduce sugar cane imports to protect sugar beet plantations in Europe (which also benefit from massive CAP subsidies).

So European beet producers are protected and subsidised and cane producers (which Britain has historic links with) are seriously harmed. When Britain joined this system, it damaged its historic friends to help European countries.

It has harmed Britain too - the sugar industry in the London Docklands (designed to refine cane sugar) has really suffered with layoffs and closures - see Tate & Lyle, Tunnel Refineries, etc.

 

[najaB]

The biggest issue for sugar trade with the EU is that there are caps from each country on cane imports, after which there are prohibitive tariffs charged to most favoured nations..

I know. Yet certainly in the Caribbean few (if any) producers ever meet their quota.

So the punitive tariffs rarely actually enter into the equation. At least that is what I remember from 20 years living in the region.

 

[AlterEgo]

I agree about the colonial heritage. It's a shame that we were interrupted in our efforts to turn that heritage into something better. I'm blaming the UK's decision to join here more than I am the club that it joined.




We can only apologise and try to set matters straight again.

(Btw: trade is something that happens between peoples and businesses. All governments can do is make that trade easier or harder.)

Why would we want to prioritise trade with the (far away) Commonwealth when there's a perfectly good trading bloc literally on our doorstep?

It's surely more expensive and less environmentally responsible to source things from Australia/India/Canada than the EU.

 

[meridian2]

It's surely more expensive and less environmentally responsible to source things from Australia/India/Canada than the EU.

We don't seem to have a problem shipping £2.50 widgets on a boat all the way from China.

 

[Barn]

Why would we want to prioritise trade with the (far away) Commonwealth when there's a perfectly good trading bloc literally on our doorstep?

It's surely more expensive and less environmentally responsible to source things from Australia/India/Canada than the EU.

1.

Have a look at some of the numbers (e.g. here) to see that the Commonwealth is where the growth is.

2.

Because the best markets are made up of very different traders. European countries are all pretty similar, with pretty similar resources and pretty similar needs. It's like a medieval market where everyone is a butcher, whereas you need the bakers and the candlestick makers too.

3.

Because we owe them.

4.

Because distance doesn't really matter like it used to with containerised shipping and cheap refrigeration (although we do need to work on diesel emissions from ships, granted).

5.

Because free trade is the best way of increasing global development, something which the Commonwealth needs more than the EU.

 

[Senex]

Why would we want to prioritise trade with the (far away) Commonwealth when there's a perfectly good trading bloc literally on our doorstep?

Because the Tory old fogeys and Mrs Sonderburg-Glücksburg-Battenberg have some sort of lingering fixation with a Commonwealth that most of us have no interest in at all?

 

[najaB]

1. Have a look at some of the numbers...

The question wasn't why should we trade with the world, it was why should we prioritise trade with distant countries over those we share a continent with.