[Oldmanmatt]

I have always wondered about that, the whole collapse thing.
This seems as good a place to ask as any, with  Simon and Habrich reading...

The Euro zone, from my ignorant perspective (I mean that), seems to be (fiscally) a single country. That is to say, my impression is, that it is a block with a single monetary policy and currency.
So, how does that differ from a single country, with regions of varying wealth? You know, like the US?
The states of the US have considerable autonomy, no? But the Federal US is united under a single fiscal policy, right? And surely the Euro zone is too? I assume it's constituent nations are more "troublesome" than the US states, but still highly constrained, so how is any more likely to collapse than the Dollar?
If the Greek meltdown didn't kill it, what will?


All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...

[i.munro]

I was wondering exactly that.

[tomtom]

You could argue that 2007 nearly bought the dollar down... and might have if the odd bank hadn't been saved...

[jwi]

There's a theory about optimal currency zones that people say predicts the immediate demise of the Euro. Since that hasn't happened I assume that the theory is flawed

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

[seankenny]

Pretty much; nobody can usefully predict the future and I am of the view that we are moving as well as possible down the right road and will be nicely out of the way when the Euro, as widely predicted by wiser folk than I, hits the fan.

So you believe some experts...

 

But seriously having read most of Mervyn King's End of Alchemy that seems implicit in his analysis unless a lot of fundamental things change that are politically too hard to imagine happening. The economies of the member countries are too far out of step with each other.

The FT examined Mervyn King's record as a forecaster...

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/70d2c34a-ded9-11e5-b7fd-0dfe89910bd6?client=safari

[i.munro]

Can anyone comment on the view from Scotland? Lloyd's and several Japanese banks have announced that they are in the process of moving at least some of their business from London to the EU and I assume most others in the City are putting similiar plans in place. It seems to me that Edinburgh could be well positioned to catch some of that money if it was clear that ( a presumably independent ) Scotland would be remaining within the single market.

What's the independence mood like there now?

[SA Chris]

What's the independence mood like there now?

I think that when / if Art 50 gets triggered, another referendum vote will be unavoidable, and I can't see it going No again.

[i.munro]

I think that when / if Art 50 gets triggered, another referendum vote will be unavoidable, and I can't see it going No again.

I guess it has to wait on Art 50 . Although it seems like that might be missing the boat if the big money guys are already working on where to go.

[SA Chris]

Possibly.  I expect everyone  has a and b scenarios though

Sent from my SM-A300FU using Tapatalk

[petejh]

Interesting post Dave. The problem is that virtually everyone, me and most (all?) other posters on this forum included, have no substantial technical understanding of the rules and possibilities surrounding trade.

A minority seem to optimistically embrace the Francis Drake image of buccaneering Blighty, free to do whatever it wants - as long as other countries agree of course, because trade is an agreement between two parties who both shape the outcome.

A majority see that point and and whilst recognising the volatility of this new situation will present some successes realise that the other parties will be able shape our future in less positive ways because a) their own interests come first and b) trade deals with us are not such a high priority to them as our Brexit voices would have you believe.

It is grossly naive to imagine that we can successfully be 'pro having our cake and pro eating it'. Add to that the economic drag of the huge length of time these arrangements will take, with the huge investment of government resources they will consume and we are looking at a period of clear economic decline.

I am not now going to get into the two biggest reasons for remaining in the EU, including the economic aspect, namely stability in Europe and the ability to align and discuss action on the environment and climate change.

I wouldn't mind so much hearing people say ' I know the economy will contract and Britain's international role will be diminished, and this perhaps permanently; I just think it is worth it to be outside of the EU for ideological reasons'.

But I haven't heard that yet. And I don't like be taking for a fool.


I have read pjh's contributions with interest. I hope he keeps posting- it is good to be challenged, good to hear another voice, good to not just sit inside an echo chamber.

But I can't help thinking that optimism is horribly misplaced.

Well, I'm happy to say I disagree with us being part of the EU project due to ideological reasons. And I'm happy to say I think that us leaving will inevitably change the landscape of our economy for the worse in the short term for sure.

Though I don't believe it will be for the worse permanently, far from it.

My ideaolgy in a nutshell is: I believe in the idea of a free trade agreement in Europe; I believe in the idea of free movement of goods, services and capital.
I don't believe that the unrestricted free movement of people from 27 other nations is sustainable or desirable in the long run for the UK. I do believe in *relatively* unrestricted movement for people with the skills our country most requires. It isn't racist or bigoted to think that - it's reasonable.
For context. The two foriegn countries I've lived and worked in for a sustained length of time (Canada and New Zealand) don't have unrestricted free movement of people - they required that I got a work visa. This was easy enough to do - I worked 5 years on work visas; and then residancy if I wanted to stay. I don't consider Canada or New Zealand racist for refusing me free movement into their countries.
It's absurd that some people (sometiems feels like many) are quick to use the racist club to beat people with. It strikes me that they do this because they can't form good enough arguments on their own and need the nuclear option of *racism* to feel like they're on the right side. It freezes any sensible discussion.
Though I do recognise that a racist element exists in the UK as it does everywhere, and they undoubtedly see brexit in racist terms.

I believe the EU goverment is a restriction on our own goverment, and also gives our government a place to hide, and the UK would be better off without it in the long run. Can I eloquently cite any examples of specific actions the EU have taken that I strongly disagree with of the top of my head, no. I've read a selection of 'experts' who can give examples, and I've read plenty of 'experts' who think the EU's postiive for us. I'm going with my gut instinct after reading a balance of views. I've made my choice that governance by the EU isn't the best course for us.

I believe the ideal situation is free trade and free movement of capital, goods, services - with as large a block of countries as possible and who serve each others' interests. Without having a central European government whose aim is ever closer union. Of course I'm not naive, and if this isn't possible than the best possible outcome will have to suffice.

I've recently been reading a little bit about NAFTA and how it compares to the EU. Also about the US's moves to offer the UK membership of NAFTA. Some interesting views here, from before the referendum result: http://www.euro-know.org/europages/telegraph/dt990719.html

[Duma]

Interesting post Dave. The problem is that virtually everyone, me and most (all?) other posters on this forum included, have no substantial technical understanding of the rules and possibilities surrounding trade.

A minority seem to optimistically embrace the Francis Drake image of buccaneering Blighty, free to do whatever it wants - as long as other countries agree of course, because trade is an agreement between two parties who both shape the outcome.

A majority see that point and and whilst recognising the volatility of this new situation will present some successes realise that the other parties will be able shape our future in less positive ways because a) their own interests come first and b) trade deals with us are not such a high priority to them as our Brexit voices would have you believe.

It is grossly naive to imagine that we can successfully be 'pro having our cake and pro eating it'. Add to that the economic drag of the huge length of time these arrangements will take, with the huge investment of government resources they will consume and we are looking at a period of clear economic decline.

I am not now going to get into the two biggest reasons for remaining in the EU, including the economic aspect, namely stability in Europe and the ability to align and discuss action on the environment and climate change.

I wouldn't mind so much hearing people say ' I know the economy will contract and Britain's international role will be diminished, and this perhaps permanently; I just think it is worth it to be outside of the EU for ideological reasons'.

But I haven't heard that yet. And I don't like be taking for a fool.


I have read pjh's contributions with interest. I hope he keeps posting- it is good to be challenged, good to hear another voice, good to not just sit inside an echo chamber.

But I can't help thinking that optimism is horribly misplaced.

Well, I'm happy to say I disagree with us being part of the EU project due to ideological reasons. And I'm happy to say I think that us leaving will inevitably change the landscape of our economy for the worse in the short term for sure.

Though I don't believe it will be for the worse permanently, far from it.

My ideaolgy in a nutshell is: I believe in the idea of a free trade agreement in Europe; I believe in the idea of free movement of goods, services and capital.
I don't believe that the unrestricted free movement of people from 27 other nations is sustainable or desirable in the long run for the UK. I do believe in *relatively* unrestricted movement for people with the skills our country most requires. It isn't racist or bigoted to think that - it's reasonable.
For context. The two foriegn countries I've lived and worked in for a sustained length of time (Canada and New Zealand) don't have unrestricted free movement of people - they required that I got a work visa. This was easy enough to do - I worked 5 years on work visas; and then residancy if I wanted to stay. I don't consider Canada or New Zealand racist for refusing me free movement into their countries.
It's absurd that some people (sometiems feels like many) are quick to use the racist club to beat people with. It strikes me that they do this because they can't form good enough arguments on their own and need the nuclear option of *racism* to feel like they're on the right side. It freezes any sensible discussion.
Though I do recognise that a racist element exists in the UK as it does everywhere, and they undoubtedly see brexit in racist terms.

I believe the EU goverment is a restriction on our own goverment, and also gives our government a place to hide, and the UK would be better off without it in the long run. Can I eloquently cite any examples of specific actions the EU have taken that I strongly disagree with of the top of my head, no. I've read a selection of 'experts' who can give examples, and I've read plenty of 'experts' who think the EU's postiive for us. I'm going with my gut instinct after reading a balance of views. I've made my choice that governance by the EU isn't the best course for us.

I believe the ideal situation is free trade and free movement of capital, goods, services - with as large a block of countries as possible and who serve each others' interests. Without having a central European government whose aim is ever closer union. Of course I'm not naive, and if this isn't possible than the best possible outcome will have to suffice.

I've recently been reading a little bit about NAFTA and how it compares to the EU. Also about the US's moves to offer the UK membership of NAFTA. Some interesting views here, from before the referendum result: http://www.euro-know.org/europages/telegraph/dt990719.html

Thanks Pete, really good post, appreciate you taking the time.

this bit interests me:

I believe the ideal situation is free trade and free movement of capital, goods, services - with as large a block of countries as possible and who serve each others' interests. Without having a central European government whose aim is ever closer union. Of course I'm not naive, and if this isn't possible than the best possible outcome will have to suffice.

Do you have a veiw of what "the best possible outcome" may be? I'm guessing, but I suspect many remainers may not be for from your position, but also not being naive, consider that remaining is a much better "possible outcome" than any realistic outcome of leaving, and without the inevitable and significant short term pain.

[Oldmanmatt]

The odd thing is, I disagree with you, Pete, much less than you think.
But, where you (possibly rightly) point out my prognostications of doom, your (to me) unfounded optimism, almost pushes me to greater extremes of doom mongering; just for balance!

You needed to have a Visa in both NZ and Canada because you are a European and not from within any trading block of which those nations are members, had you been your immigration status would have been different. Your status within Europe would have been the same had you been a national of either of those nations, working here.

What you appear to advocate are closer ties amongst English speaking nations. Personally, I don't imagine you to be racist, I am impressed that you have presented some of the better arguments for Brexit of any I have come across; in a debate that (I'm sure you can imagine) I have followed avidly.
However, can you not see how that advocacy could be perceived as racist? Why that trope is trotted out so often as a response?

Further, isn't one of the President Elect's flagship policies the rolling back of NAFTA?

One of the biggest holes in the argument for retreat from a large union, to me, is that it seems a bizarre reaction to a globalised world.
In an era of increasingly few, increasingly powerful and influential Corporations; how does turning your back on collective bargaining makes any sense at all?

I think you are wrong, I think our economy and influence will decline, not just in the short term. To avoid that we need to be an exporting nation, with something to offer the world that the world needs. What would that be? Even if it were a whole series of commodities, what?
Our economy is predominantly service based and vastly biased to the financial services, a sector which faces a very real possibility of simply buggering off elsewhere.
Nothing that hasn't been said before and less than has been asked repeatedly by the remain camp. There has been no answer! None at all.
Which is why we are pissed off, we are being dragged into the unknow based solely on peoples gut feelings OR (in many cases) out and out racism (many of the leave leaders are unabashed racists).



All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...

[petejh]

You needed to have a Visa in both NZ and Canada because you are a European and not from within any trading block of which those nations are members, had you been your immigration status would have been different. Your status within Europe would have been the same had you been a national of either of those nations, working here.

The rules aren't the same.
The rules for citizens of NAFTA member states to work in each others' countries are more restrictive than for EU citizens to work in EU member states. In NAFTA states you need a pre-arranged job offer and for the job to be on a government list. Explained here:
https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/employment/nafta.html

[petejh]

What you appear to advocate are closer ties amongst English speaking nations.

No, I do not. I'm in favour of trade agreements, period.

What you appear to advocate are closer ties amongst English speaking nations. Personally, I don't imagine you to be racist, I am impressed that you have presented some of the better arguments for Brexit of any I have come across; in a debate that (I'm sure you can imagine) I have followed avidly.
However, can you not see how that advocacy could be perceived as racist? Why that trope is trotted out so often as a response?

I can accept that people perceive all kinds of things that aren't accurate, and which suit their outlook, attitude, beliefs, circumstances etc.

[petejh]

One of the biggest holes in the argument for retreat from a large union, to me, is that it seems a bizarre reaction to a globalised world.
In an era of increasingly few, increasingly powerful and influential Corporations; how does turning your back on collective bargaining makes any sense at all?

A globalised world means just that. Membership of the EU precludes the UK from striking agreements in a global market. Currently the EU does not have a trade agreement with the US, China, India, Australia, Brazil and many other large trading nations. That isn't to say the UK will either. But self-evidently, not having a trade deal in place hasn't killed us all .

Trade agreements aren't the be all and end all. The way people are talking about them you'd think we'll drop off an economic cliff never to resurface. To quote one commentator:
'Countries succeed, with or without trade deals, if they produce goods and services other countries want.'

The UK could do with some of that attitude right now.

[tomtom]

One of the biggest holes in the argument for retreat from a large union, to me, is that it seems a bizarre reaction to a globalised world.
In an era of increasingly few, increasingly powerful and influential Corporations; how does turning your back on collective bargaining makes any sense at all?

A globalised world means just that. Membership of the EU precludes the UK from striking agreements in a global market. Currently the EU does not have a trade agreement with the US, China, India, Australia, Brazil and many other large trading nations. That isn't to say the UK will either. But self-evidently, not having a trade deal in place hasn't killed us all .

Trade agreements aren't the be all and end all. The way people are talking about them you'd think we'll drop off an economic cliff never to resurface. To quote one commentator:
'Countries succeed, with or without trade deals, if they produce goods and services other countries want.'

The UK could do with some of that attitude right now.

OK - so what goods and services do we produce that other countries want?

Finance sector is a good one. But that's only relevant if we're part of the EU...
Car assembly. Honda, Mini, Jaguar, Nissan: But that's only relevant if we're part of the EU...

Erm.... whisky? reality TV? (Edit) Royal Family?

Honestly, I'm not trying to be an arse, but I'm struggling to think of what items/things/services the rest of the world will bite our arm off to make trade deals for...

[petejh]

We're the ninth largest global exporter of merchandise (not services) so we must have something. Try googling it (other search engines etc). Bearing in mind our currency until 5 months ago didn't help the our exports' competitiveness...

And I personally wouldn't use the term 'rest of the world will bite our arm off' - we're a wealthy advanced country of approx 70 million people, not a pair of shoes.

[andy popp]

Higher education (though we're on the verge of royally buggering that up as an export).

[Oldmanmatt]

We're the ninth largest global exporter of merchandise (not services) so we must have something. Try googling it (other search engines etc). Bearing in mind our currency until 5 months ago didn't help the our exports' competitiveness...

And I personally wouldn't use the term 'rest of the world will bite our arm off' - we're a wealthy advanced country of approx 70 million people, not a pair of shoes.

You know, fairly sure from Tom's comment that he's read that (probably the OEC figures Tom?). Number one export from the UK? Cars I believe? One of the most threatened industries, no? Don't we actually import more cars (value) than we export? And that's our largest single export.
Centrax is based here, my uncle is an Engineer there. They manufacture Gas turbines, another of our biggest exports. As I understand one of the US manufacturers is looking to buy them out (Solar I think) and move production East somewhere. Only rumours there, but I do know that China is becoming more reliable as a precision tech manufacturing destination.

I don't see how "pulling our socks up" is going to help retain these industries?
Short of reducing our labour costs, how are we going to compete?
Most remainers argue that the much vaunted 5th this and 9th that, are exactly what we (greatly) risk losing!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[slackline]

Observatory of Economic Complexity - UK

Imports are higher than exports giving a negative trade balance of $191 billion (USD).

Majority of UK import/exports seem to be with the EU which might change in the future contingent on a swathe of unknowns.

[Oldmanmatt]

See? Cars! Surprised at Gold though. Have to check that out, I'm assuming some sort of re-export thing?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[galpinos]

We're the ninth largest global exporter of merchandise (not services) so we must have something. Try googling it (other search engines etc). Bearing in mind our currency until 5 months ago didn't help the our exports' competitiveness...

So I googled it (same link as Slackline) and our top five exports are:

Cars - At risk as we are leaving the EU - what will it cost the bgovernment to keep the plants here?
Gold - WTF?  I don't get how this  works but I doubt it benefits the man on the street.
Crude Petroleum - Declining Market
Refined Petroleum - Declining Market
Drugs - We seem to be doing ok at this but  don't know the market well enough.

and our top five imports are:

Cars (more than we export)
Crude Petroleum (more than we export)
Refined Petroleum (more than we export)
Drugs (more than we export)
Computers

Pete, I'd love more than anything to be proved wrong and it all to go amazingly well but.......... I really don't see how.I can still see the benefits, those that you've mentioned bplus getting out the CAF etc but I have zero confidence in our government to make a good go of it, ehen we were in the EU they stopped the EU from protecting european steel suppliers so as not to offend the Chinese, we've got not coherent energy policy, the only new l;arge scale energy generation project that's been signed is for an unproven EPR design that will run massively over budget and they are already promising to maintain the CAF subsidies to the large landowners - the bit that needed getting rid of.

I realise that all sounds pessimistic but.....

[Oldmanmatt]

Isn't the EPR French owned and Chinese built?

Edit:
Ah, yes to answer my own question and EDF say:

"EDF has acknowledged severe difficulties in building the EPR design. In September 2015 EDF stated that the design of a "New Model" EPR was being worked on, which will be easier and cheaper to build."

Which, even as a second hand quote, seems to imply "unproven".

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[slackline]

Drugs - We seem to be doing ok at this but  don't know the market well enough.

Currently it benefits from having European Medical Agencies and the harmonisation of drug approval across member states.  The process becomes more complicated, expensive and takes longer when done at the national level with each system having its own 'standards'*.  Currently pharmaceutical companies face challenges in getting even existing drugs approved in Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRIC) which are strong emerging markets but with their own disparate standards and systems of approval.



* Heard a quote the other day that amused me...

 Standards are like toothbrushes, a great idea but no one wants to use anyone elses - Anita Golderba

[galpinos]

Isn't the EPR French owned and Chinese built?

It's a financial joint venture (Hinkley C) between EDF (French, mainly state owned) and CGN (China, state owned).

However, the EPR is a French design, by Areva (French, state owned).

The fact that all other EPR projects on the go are massively over budget and behind schedule shouldn't worry us at all.......