[kelvin]

Brexit or no brexit, in life you'l probably do well if you work hard, seek to develop yourself and have a good attitude. Combined with a slice of good luck and grabbing opportunities where you can. The same as it's always been. (Along with that great guarantee of future prosperity - being born into wealth).

I agree that this is the reality of life and it applies to people from the UK, Japan, Cambodia or Burundi. The difference being that doing okay as a working class man on a Burundian level doesn't get you too far on the world stage and whilst Matt may have tried to make to make the arguments for and against Brexit about his children - of late, it's really about the UKs financial standing on the world stage surely? And it's pretty hard to ignore all the forecasts flying around saying it'll be crap for the UK despite almost all of the media being proBrexit.

In my mind you quite rightly said - "As more than one poster on this thread has pointed out, economic forecasts - especially ones involving GDP - are a) usually wrong and b) quite meaningless on a personal level." but on a national scale are they so meaningless? If the AAA rating gets lost, that means something, it has an effect and if the rest of the world sees Brexit as bad news on a national level, will that be any different?
And if Brexit turns out bad for the country in general, that does affect me personally, no matter how meaningless economic projections are on a personal level. I've spent on average 4 months a year climbing in Europe, I only earn 11k a year so adverse exchange rates play havoc with what I have to spend - normally as a Brit, you'd feel quite well off except in Swizzy and even that's not so bad. Now I have to watch what I spend, even in Spain.

[petejh]

The UK lost it's AAA rating over a year ago, in June 2016. 'For the first time since 1978', according to the BBC.

The UK also lost it's AAA rating in 2013. Also 'for the first time since 1978', according to the BBC...

And if Brexit turns out bad for the country in general, that does affect me personally, no matter how meaningless economic projections are on a personal level. I've spent on average 4 months a year climbing in Europe, I only earn 11k a year so adverse exchange rates play havoc with what I have to spend - normally as a Brit, you'd feel quite well off except in Swizzy and even that's not so bad. Now I have to watch what I spend, even in Spain.

Where's my violin.. Get a proper job! Next Barrows will be moaning about how he can now only afford to take 5 months off per year instead of 6. Yeah, the great depression it isn't.

[kelvin]

I don't think I blamed the AAA rating loss on Brexit anywhere, nor made any suggestion that it was.

You can keep the violins in their cases - you'll not meet a happier and more satisfied person than me but that doesn't change the fact that what happens on a national scale does affect me as an individual. Or are we just going to ignore that fact because hey, I'm the privileged white guy choosing to be a climbing bum?

[jfdm]

Not been on theses hallowed boards for a bit. Since they went from blue to white things have gone tits up at work. We are in the middle of a pay and benefits review, looking fowards to 2018 already.
We have been told that pay and benefits needs reviewing for many reasons but the one that crops up is Brexit.
Brexit is simply the elephant in the room.
Simply put, draft pay scales show experienced staff to lose up £4K a year. So Brexit is already having an affect for me personally and we haven't even exited.
All we have had are just talks about talks.. Things won't get better just progressively worse.
Employers using Brexit as leverage against the ordinary Joes of the world.
Absolutely madness...
Take back control,  EU remote government, making are own laws. Back to the fucking dark ages we are going...

[abarro81]

Next Barrows will be moaning about how he can now only afford to take 5 months off per year instead of 6. Yeah, the great depression it isn't.

Hey, I have a real job!! Five days a week and all.

[slackline]

Brexit minister David Davis’ sectoral impact assessments - Groningen style

The elasticities that need to be fed into computable general equilibrium models can only be estimated on the basis of historical data, but we have never experienced disintegration of this dramatic type. Still, analyses of good quantitative data about the current economic structure of the UK and the links of its sectors to EU countries might well lead to relevant insights.

I am amazed that certain people are unable to make the link between a countries overall productivity and economic viability, quantified by for example GDP, and its ability to care for those who fall on hard times.  Statistics are properties of populations, and it is very hard to determine who might hit a rough patch and need support....

Four years ago, they delivered 70 hampers. “This year we are doing 3,000,” said Ema Wilkes, who runs the Neo community cafe and social supermarket in Rock Ferry, one of the most deprived wards in Wirral. “People look at this and say: ‘Isn’t it brilliant what you’re doing?’ But I get really upset: this project should be getting smaller, not bigger.”

Even if the economic forecasts are over-estimates, if they are in the right direction* then "austerity" measures will continue as there will not be enough money in the coughers to fund support and the cracks in the welfare system will widen and more will fall into them (actually since the government deficit reduction has not gone to plan they still have a lot of ground to make up on Osbornes aim in 2010 to eliminate the deficit by 2015 so I'd expect "austerity" will continue even if there is immediate economic growth, which I very much doubt there will be even in the long term of 20 years or so).   Being industrious and having a "can do" attitude certainly helps individuals improve their lot but sometimes situations conspire against you and you do need help (loved ones being ill/dying, your own physical or mental health problems, redundancies and the need to retrain and so on).  Having moved recently the MP for where I now live, Louise Haigh is as shadow Home Secretery highlighting the problems the police are dealing with as a consequence of cuts in funding to their services and indirectly those the NHS has been experiencing.  One of the biggest increases has been a dramatic rise in the amount of mental health issues the police, rather than the NHS are having to deal with, a stark and obvious consequence of "austerity" (read through her linked Twatter stream for more on this if you care to). Compassionate civilised societies (and individuals) recognise that sometimes some people need some help, its why the Welfare system and NHS exists.  I think its a shame some individuals posting in this thread don't seem to understand or agree with this, I hope they never fall on hard times and have to experience it first hand.

This sort of myopic inability to see a bigger picture and recognise that underneath the statistics are real people has cropped up before in the discussion of the NHS (never did get a response to what I wrote there, strange) and that is what has put me off engaging in conversation here, not that my views are challenged.


* Things seem to be looking worse every day, Michel Barnier’s stark declaration quashes hopes for a bespoke trade deal to include financial services.

[petejh]

I am amazed that certain people are unable to make the link between a countries overall productivity and economic viability, quantified by for example GDP, and its ability to care for those who fall on hard times.  Statistics are properties of populations, and it is very hard to determine who might hit a rough patch and need support....

Productivity in the UK has flatlined for the last decade since the financial crash. It isn't a new phenomenon caused by brexit.

And it's illuminating to read your previous opinion on forecasts/GDP and how they relate to the individual. You're just adept at arguing in whichever way suits your political ideology as the next person, and not the objective stat-bot you're made out to be:

I've said before I don't particularly care for the economic arguments, economists seem particularly shit at predicting what is going to happen and most forecasts of growth, should they be accurate, will benefit a small minority of rich people since increases in GDP are not evenly distributed, its a neat way of using statistics to mask things.

Compassionate civilised societies (and individuals) recognise that sometimes some people need some help, its why the Welfare system and NHS exists.  I think its a shame some individuals posting in this thread don't seem to understand or agree with this, I hope they never fall on hard times and have to experience it first hand.
This sort of myopic inability to see a bigger picture and recognise that underneath the statistics are real people has cropped up before in the discussion of the NHS (never did get a response to what I wrote there, strange) and that is what has put me off engaging in conversation here, not that my views are challenged.

That's some absolutely massive assumptions you make there in a particulalry righteous post. You don't have a monopoly on giving a shit.

[tregiffian]

I’m with you Pete. Let’s walk away with Rene to the nice straightforward WTO. It seems to work OK for the vast majority of UN member states.

[Oldmanmatt]

I’m with you Pete. Let’s walk away with Rene to the nice straightforward WTO. It seems to work OK for the vast majority of UN member states.

I know, right!

Just look at all those tossers that waste all that time and energy and money; negotiating Trade Deals over and above the WTO!

Total Muppets! Am I right?

...


...


?

[Ru]

Let’s walk away with Rene to the nice straightforward WTO. It seems to work OK for the vast majority of UN member states.

I don't know very much about trading under WTO agreements but from the little I do know, there is nothing straight-forward about it at all.

Firstly, the UK entered the WTO agreement as part of the EU and its rights under the WTO agreements will not continue if we leave the EU. The UK would remain a member, but one without any rights.

Secondly, even once agreement has been reached under which we could trade under WTO rules, the rules only cover tariffs and not other regulatory blockages to trade. They would need to be negotiated separately. This not only covers our trade with the EU, but all other states for which we have agreements to trade only by virtue of our EU membership.

Now it's not that all this can't be sorted out, given time. Renegotiation of the WTO rights would need to take place before we could trade under WTO rules. This would likely take a long time, but no one really knows how long as there is no formal process about how this might even be done. It is an unprecedented situation, as has been admitted by the head of the WTO. No talks with the WTO have been started and the likely scenario is that the government won't even start to consider them unless a no-deal looks likely.

My counting might be out, but we currently trade with 24 countries under the WTO agreement we have by virtue of being in the EU, a further 68 by virtue of trade agreements we are party to by being in the EU, and then the EU its self. None of these agreements will continue with a no-deal brexit.

[Oldmanmatt]

I’m with you Pete. Let’s walk away with Rene to the nice straightforward WTO. It seems to work OK for the vast majority of UN member states.

I know, right!

Just look at all those tossers that waste all that time and energy and money; negotiating Trade Deals over and above the WTO!

Total Muppets! Am I right?

...


...


?

Hang about!

 Thought I’d have a quick scooby, like, and check my assumption was correct.

‘Parently not:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/pirs.12334/full

Who knew? Right?

I mean, it stands to reason, you’d have thought.

[tregiffian]

I must swap my dusty old ice axe for a white stick. I am blinded by the science. I wonder how much of the funding was from the EU?

[Oldmanmatt]

I must swap my dusty old ice axe for a white stick. I am blinded by the science. I wonder how much of the funding was from the EU?

Yeah! Hadn’t  thought of that.

Shills! Big EU buying off the experts!
Bet Dave Wolf knows the truth!

[petejh]

Let’s walk away with Rene to the nice straightforward WTO. It seems to work OK for the vast majority of UN member states.

I don't know very much about trading under WTO agreements but from the little I do know, there is nothing straight-forward about it at all.

Firstly, the UK entered the WTO agreement as part of the EU and its rights under the WTO agreements will not continue if we leave the EU. The UK would remain a member, but one without any rights.

Secondly, even once agreement has been reached under which we could trade under WTO rules, the rules only cover tariffs and not other regulatory blockages to trade. They would need to be negotiated separately. This not only covers our trade with the EU, but all other states for which we have agreements to trade only by virtue of our EU membership.

Now it's not that all this can't be sorted out, given time. Renegotiation of the WTO rights would need to take place before we could trade under WTO rules. This would likely take a long time, but no one really knows how long as there is no formal process about how this might even be done. It is an unprecedented situation, as has been admitted by the head of the WTO. No talks with the WTO have been started and the likely scenario is that the government won't even start to consider them unless a no-deal looks likely.

My counting might be out, but we currently trade with 24 countries under the WTO agreement we have by virtue of being in the EU, a further 68 by virtue of trade agreements we are party to by being in the EU, and then the EU its self. None of these agreements will continue with a no-deal brexit.

A search of The Institute for Government site gives clear answers to the points in your post Ru. To your point about 'agreements not applying', in the immediate period following exit in the worst-case scenario of a 'no deal' see points 2,3, 4 and 8.
For the longer term scenario see points 9 and 10.

Hopefully it won't come to 'no deal' and WTO. But if it does, then it looks like a certain amount of common sense - rather than the kind of catastrophic thinking displayed on internet forums - will be needed on both sides of the channel.

1. The WTO sets the global rules of trade.

The WTO currently has 164 members which between them are responsible for 95% of world trade. It is a negotiating forum for its members to create international trade rules, and an organisation to oversee how they put the rules into practice. For example, WTO agreements place limits on tariffs (which tax imports) and prevent the spread of disease by establishing sanitary standards on agricultural products.

2. The UK is already a WTO member but will need to extricate itself from the European Union (EU) ‘schedules’.

The UK is a member of the WTO in its own right, having cofounded the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the WTO’s predecessor, with other 22 countries in 1948. It does not have to reapply to join the WTO once it leaves the EU.

But at present the UK operates in the WTO under the EU’s set of ‘schedules’ – a list of commitments that sets the terms of the EU’s tariffs, its quotas and its limits on subsidies. The UK will need to agree its own set of schedules at the WTO.

3. The UK aims to ‘copy and paste’ its EU schedules into new UK schedules.

The Government says that it plans “to replicate our existing trade regime as far as possible in our new schedules”. This is a sensible approach. It involves minimal disruption and so reduces the scope for other WTO members to object to the UK’s new schedules. For tariff levels in particular, copying and pasting should be straightforward.

But the copying and pasting approach will not work for all aspects of the schedules. There are some areas, notably on quotas and subsidy limits, where the UK must reach an agreement on what share of the EU figure it takes. This will in truth be a three-way negotiation, between the UK, the EU and other WTO members, because it will also lead to a reduction in the EU’s quotas and subsidy limits (covered in more detail below).

4. Copying and pasting EU tariffs means that the UK will have the same, or lower, tariffs as it does now.

The EU’s schedules contain the ‘ceiling’ for tariffs on a range of goods, such as 10% on cars or 3.7% on Christmas trees. Once the UK has copied across these tariff ceilings, it could apply lower (but not higher) tariffs rates in the future.

5. If the EU and UK cannot agree a deal, both will have to place tariffs on the other.

A key principle of the WTO is that countries do not discriminate against one another. If the UK does not have a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with the EU, the EU will have to treat the UK in the same way that it treats all other WTO members in that position, such as Russia, the US or Brazil. This means that EU tariffs would have to apply to the UK. It would be WTO-illegal for the EU not to place tariffs on the UK after Brexit if there was no FTA.

The same is true on the UK side. If it wants to apply any tariffs on any country, these will also have to apply to the EU if there is no deal.

6. Quotas will be difficult, because a divided quota is worth less than the sum of its parts.

Dividing the quotas in the EU’s schedule between the UK and the EU is not straightforward. For example, New Zealand is currently able to export just under 230,000 tonnes of sheep meat into the EU each year without any tariff, as compared to the 57% tariff, which includes a specific duty, for exporters that aren’t part of the quota. The UK and the EU would need to decide how to divide up this quota.

Countries that currently benefit from quotas will not want to see their quotas simply divided between the EU and the UK, as this will reduce their flexibility about which market they can sell to. If UK demand falls, it is useful for New Zealand to simply shift its sales to the continent, and vice versa. It is therefore likely that the UK will offer quotas that are slightly larger than the share of the EU quota that it currently consumes.

7. And subsidies may be difficult to divide if the UK does not inherit the EU’s generous, bespoke arrangements on agriculture.

The WTO’s Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) limits agricultural subsidies. It caps trade-distorting agricultural subsidies at 5% of the country’s total agricultural production.

The EU, however, has negotiated a bespoke, larger subsidy cap at the WTO that amounts to €72.4bn. Some people have raised questions about whether the UK could inherit a share of this bespoke subsidy cap. If it does not, there is a risk that its current level of subsidy paid to farmers in the UK could breach the WTO’s rules.

8. Once the UK has a draft of its schedules, it can declare them and start trading.

Once the UK has a draft of its schedules, and once it has left the EU, it can start trading off them. The WTO does have a formal process for approving schedules – known as ‘certification’ – which requires unanimous approval from every WTO member, i.e. 164 countries.

However, WTO members can still trade off schedules that have not been certified. The EU, for instance, has not certified its schedules since 2004, but in the meantime, has altered its schedules to reflect successive waves of enlargement.

At some point the UK will want to certify its schedules, requiring the consensus of all WTO members. But the certification process does not pose an immediate threat to the UK’s ability to trade post-Brexit. We can trade without certification.

9. Other WTO members might challenge the UK schedules, but these challenges would take time to process.

Once the UK has declared its schedules and started trading, other countries in the WTO may object, particularly if they can demonstrate that the UK has in some way reduced the level of market access on offer. 

If there are challenges, these could be lengthy and expensive for the UK to contest. However, the disputes are likely to take several years to resolve, during which time the UK would be able to continue trading off its schedules (whether or not they have been certified). This means that potential disputes are a medium- or long-term challenge to the UK at the WTO, and not an immediate threat to our post-Brexit trading arrangements.

10. When the UK does move to certify its schedules, this will not be straightforward.

Other countries’ willingness to certify the UK’s schedules will be driven by several different factors.

Countries that have recently joined the WTO have had to place tougher limits on tariffs than the UK currently does as an EU member. For example, Russia had to limit itself to a 6.5% agricultural tariff, whereas the EU sets higher tariffs on most agricultural goods. Countries like Russia may not be content to see the UK get a more favourable deal than they achieved. Other factors (such as international political disputes or powerful domestic interests) may affect the willingness of countries to agree new UK schedules. Certifying the UK’s schedules is likely to take years.

[Oldmanmatt]

Ah yes, common sense.

That always prevails, doesn’t it.

It’s not like nation states ever behave like petulant toddlers with a loaded firearm...


Oh!

Hang on...

Umm.

[petejh]

And yet we somehow have built a world, in the 'west' at least, that doesn't just collapse into complete catastrophe and overt aggression whenever nations have differing agendas. Even the US under fucknuts still has sensible checks and balances.

[teestub]

"3. The UK aims to ‘copy and paste’ its EU schedules into new UK schedules."

Hmmmmm

[Oldmanmatt]

And yet we somehow have built a world, in the 'west' at least, that doesn't just collapse into complete catastrophe and overt aggression whenever nations have differing agendas. Even the US under fucknuts still has sensible checks and balances.

And the award for “most selective memory” goes to...


😝


The truth is, I think we probably both read pretty extensively, don’t we.

And probably both realise the truth of our future lies somewhere between the poles of this debate.

My “real” point is, that the future is unlikely to be “better” because of this and probably “not as good as it would have been” had it not happened.
I could have cited/linked as much “Pro” as I have “Con” and (to a certain extent) it’s a simple choice on my part to not do so.

(Partly, for the same reason I like to comma link sentences into veritable word carnivals. That is, I know it grips the piss of every grammar pedant that trawls through it).

But, mainly, I choose not to cite it, because it is generally less convincing and appears more “selective” in it’s composition.

I might be flippant or even a little hyperbolic, but that’s only to illustrate, in the same way a Cartoonist might, Lampoon, if you will.
(Ooh, that was some good comma action).

I’ve read both sides, up and down like a whore’s drawers on bankholiday in De Wallen and the “Con” is way more convincing. We will be worse off because of this, than we would have been without it.
And the risk of abject disaster, is very real, if improbable.

As to your “Western Civilisation” thingy point. Didn’t we just stumble out of a low intensity Civil war? I know it might be politically expedient to call it an insurgency or Terrorist campaign, but it was a Civil war; and it threatens to re-erupt because of this.
I must have been dreaming that thing in Barcelona, too. You remember? The one that seems to have ended up with Political prisoners and simmering anger that might just burst out in more violence?
Isn’t there an entire European nation without a functioning government, at the moment? Some sort of language/cultural/(dare I say) racial thingy? Might even host the EU capital iirc?
I mean, ffs, it was only a couple of years back my ‘ol Granddad was telling me the tale of how his one room hovel in a Coventry terrace was a bit battered by some Germanic high-jinks. I know the old fella has shuffled off now, but that was only six years before my Dad was born.

And...

On and on.
Ignoring the bulk of forcasts and hoping for the best, is just making an excuse for being too lazy carry an umbrella and just assuming some celestial being will pop-up with a snazzy Goretex when you need it.

[petejh]

If you're going to deal in metaphors.. It isn't being too lazy to carry an umbrella it's accepting that rainfall is a part of the world we live in, and sometimes it does you good to dance in it.

[Oldmanmatt]

If you're going to deal in metaphors.. It isn't being too lazy to carry an umbrella it's accepting that rainfall is a part of the world we live in, and sometimes it does you good to dance in it.

I know Gene seemed to enjoy singing and dancing in the rain, but he had a brolly.
And a shiny Macintosh too (not one with a half eaten apple on it either).

I think a good deal of the forcasts seem to indicate a prolonged Shit storm with Arctic blasts and a chance of heavy Golden showers. I have a feeling this might over stretch most people’s immune system and people who have substantial, offshore, tornado cellars (as described elsewhere in the forum) might be taking the “Golden shower” when telling everyone else that “into every life a liitle rain must fall” or “it’s good for you. Character building! Chin up! Mustn’t grumble! “


I could probably stretch this metaphor to several pages of A3, but I think I covered the basics.

[Oldmanmatt]

Do you know, it’s just occurred to me, but I actually like arguing with Pete.
It helps me review my own positions, greatly.

He just hasn’t found the lever to crack this foundation. Not that he is obligated to, of course.
Definitely come closer than anyone else I’ve debated with.

Don’t let my sarcasm overly irritate, just a little rain, which you dance in quite well.

[tomtom]

Or 52% of the (mainly old and/or less qualified) population have decided that umbrellas are going to be outlawed before having any sort of plan for alternative rain protection. 

:p

[Oldmanmatt]

Can I indulge in one last metaphor?
I remembered something after Moose’s Toccata and Fugue comment on the Aphantasia thread.

Why is it better to be part of the club? Even when other menbers of the club do things differently? Even when you’re pretty good at your own thing?

[Ru]

A search of The Institute for Government site gives clear answers to the points in your post Ru.

The answers contain assumptions that have been contradicted by the WTO itself.

By and large it seems to agree with what I wrote - namely that the current agreements will need to be renegotiated. It then says that the government intends to cut and paste them. Maybe they can, but when the Director General of the WTO Roberto Azevêdo has said that a cut and paste agreement is impossible and has raised significant concerns about the time it would take to renegotiate, I look at the government's blind optimism with a healthy degree of scepticism.

And then you still have the problem WTO only covers tariffs.

The point is that none of this is "straightforward."

[highrepute]

Anyone care to answer this one.

Regulatory alignment/divergance. What are the regulations that we are worried about aligning/diverging? It's constantly talked about on the news but I can't picture what it actually means and how it affects me/business/gov etc.

My experience of regulatory compliance is CE marking electronics products. Which is slightly painful process but has many advantages; for example you know what you're buying conforms to a level of performance/safety. We sell products to the EU, so we're not going to be suddenly able to save loads of money because we've diverged now. We have to comply with other regulations when we sell to other markets so that's not going to change. Is the expected benefit that someone only selling into the UK (either from within or outside the UK) might not have to comply with an irksome regulation anymore? The only things I can think of are things that ought to wanted by the majority - working hours directive or environmental protection for example.

I'd like a good example of a benefit diverging from EU regulations but I can't find anything.

For reference I've read these two articles but they are mainly bonkers.