For all those who say the EU needs us more than we need them.
Look its simple
If Germany loses £30bn in lost exports to us and we only lose £20 bn If France loses £20 bn in lost exports to us and we only lose £15bn If Spain loses £10bn in lost exports to us and we only lose £7bn
In Sun logic Germany France and Spain are worse off than us FFS
In actual terms we lose £42bn guess who is worst off plus there are 24 other losses for us to add in and only 1 for Italy, Greece etc etc
It would depend on the extent to which the decline in imports from those countries was replaced by sales from domestic producers.
If, say, we lost exports worth £42 bn, and imported £60 bn in imports from countries other than those three, then we would be worse off. If we lost exports worth £42 bn, but domestic production matched the loss of imports from those three, we would be better off.
I’m struggling here... how does having to replace £60bn of imports with more costly or inferior goods (otherwise they wouldn’t be imported) make us better off?
The German government certainly claims to have done one, the problem is that it's utterly implausible. Just a 0.2% loss of German GDP under hard Brexit, compared to a 1.7% loss of UK GDP. This claim is from a country whose exports to the UK are double what we export to them and whose industries benefited hugely from the opening up of UK markets for manufacturing goods in the 1970s on our joining the EEC, whereas it sounded the death knell for many of ours. It's fantasy stuff frankly designed to bolster a negotiating position, which is why the UK government needs to do it properly and spell it out to them and their people.
The German government's piece is very interesting*, because it attempts to model exports based on how easy it is to find other end markets.
So, it assumes that sales of German cars to the UK fall by 28% in year one. Which is a pretty big drop. It then looks at price elasticity of demand, and concludes that to shift 80% of the lost cars, would require a small change in price. (That is, Americans and South Koreans would pay less for their Mercedes, and would therefore buy more.) They also look at import substitution in the EU, which is especially important for industries like auto, where the EU has a full supply chain and we (to be frank) do not.
For the UK, I find their analysis less robust, but still interesting. They assume that the fall in sterling means that the UK has higher import costs of raw materials (oil, coal, gas, metals, etc), which drag on the UK economy. They also posit that exports services are less price elastic than exports of goods, which may or may not be correct.
Personally, I think they are correct that a hard Brexit (which, people forget, would almost certainly affect UK exports to countries like South Korea, Canada, Switzerland, etc., with which we have FTAs through the EU) would affect the UK more than Germany.
I also think it's worth remembering that the German government has more policy leavers they can pull than we can. The German savings rate is elevated. They can encourage spending to bolster demand in a way we cannot.
* Interesting is not the same as correct, of course.
Nobody seems that excited about temporary rules during transitions - you need to focus on the medium to long term.
She's going to concede on a customs union, you might as well brace yourself now.
Remember there were some on here who were convinced that Cameron was going to declare for Leave.
That is a fascinating counter-factual, that Cameron must play in his head at least once a week. Would the EU have blinked - and come up with a better deal? If they had, Cameron would have been a hero for having balls of steel and would have easily won the Referendum. And be planning to stand down at a time of his choosing.
It comes down to whether the EU really wanted to prevent Brexit, at the risk of others saying "me too!" to the Cameron deal. I'm still not sure they have the innate flexibility, so in the end, Cameron would just have owned Brexit on a (maybe) 60-40 vote. But Cameron would have been a hero for having balls of steel to support Brexit. And be planning to stand down at a time of his choosing.
The German government certainly claims to have done one, the problem is that it's utterly implausible. Just a 0.2% loss of German GDP under hard Brexit, compared to a 1.7% loss of UK GDP. This claim is from a country whose exports to the UK are double what we export to them and whose industries benefited hugely from the opening up of UK markets for manufacturing goods in the 1970s on our joining the EEC, whereas it sounded the death knell for many of ours. It's fantasy stuff frankly designed to bolster a negotiating position, which is why the UK government needs to do it properly and spell it out to them and their people.
The German government's piece is very interesting*, because it attempts to model exports based on how easy it is to find other end markets.
So, it assumes that sales of German cars to the UK fall by 28% in year one. Which is a pretty big drop. It then looks at price elasticity of demand, and concludes that to shift 80% of the lost cars, would require a small change in price. (That is, Americans and South Koreans would pay less for their Mercedes, and would therefore buy more.) They also look at import substitution in the EU, which is especially important for industries like auto, where the EU has a full supply chain and we (to be frank) do not.
For the UK, I find their analysis less robust, but still interesting. They assume that the fall in sterling means that the UK has higher import costs of raw materials (oil, coal, gas, metals, etc), which drag on the UK economy. They also posit that exports services are less price elastic than exports of goods, which may or may not be correct.
Personally, I think they are correct that a hard Brexit (which, people forget, would almost certainly affect UK exports to countries like South Korea, Canada, Switzerland, etc., with which we have FTAs through the EU) would affect the UK more than Germany.
I also think it's worth remembering that the German government has more policy leavers they can pull than we can. The German savings rate is elevated. They can encourage spending to bolster demand in a way we cannot.
* Interesting is not the same as correct, of course.
1. We can have Black Mon-Fri 2. I think we conclusively have more policy leavers than Germany does
1. We can have Black Mon-Fri 2. I think we conclusively have more policy leavers than Germany does
I didn't perhaps put it well
We have one additional policy lever: which is the ability to set interest rates. However, that is only a lever if it can be pushed any further. Which it probably can't.
Germany's big lever is this: over the past 16 years, the German government has aggressively pursued policies that encourage saving, and discourage spending, which has led to an elevated current account surplus. (And which made Eurozone rebalancing that much harder. Those policies were probably responsible for a million unemployed Spaniards and Greeks.)
Anyway. Should Germany find external demand slipping due to Brexit, they can ease off on some of their consumption sapping policies (or indeed, reduce the subsidies that encourage excessively high levels of saving).
There are ways of being integrated that do not involve political and legal unions. Your idea of integration is akin to the Soviet bloc or Yugoslavia. Mine is akin to the United Nations or the Commonwealth.
The United Nations had been superb in some areas (such as polio eradication), and terrible to disastrous in others, such as virtually any conflict zone. The Commonwealth has pretty much been a non-entity taking-shop.
I'm far from sure that these models are ones to extend in the future, at least without some fairly hefty fixes that are probably politically impossible.
On the other hand, the EU has mostly 'worked'. I find it odd that you prefer broken models over a flawed but working one.
Neither the Commonwealth nor the UN are broken models. They both serve important functions - primarily in communication but also in mutual assistance and cooperation - which is why, for example, we now have countries that were never part of the British Empire wanting to be part of the Commonwealth. They are exactly the model we need.
The EU has not 'mostly worked', certainly not from the British perspective and its comtinual steady moves towards political and legal union, even against considerable internal opposition from its own citizens- put it firmly in the Soviet and Yugoslav models.
There are ways of being integrated that do not involve political and legal unions. Your idea of integration is akin to the Soviet bloc or Yugoslavia. Mine is akin to the United Nations or the Commonwealth.
The United Nations had been superb in some areas (such as polio eradication), and terrible to disastrous in others, such as virtually any conflict zone. The Commonwealth has pretty much been a non-entity taking-shop.
I'm far from sure that these models are ones to extend in the future, at least without some fairly hefty fixes that are probably politically impossible.
On the other hand, the EU has mostly 'worked'. I find it odd that you prefer broken models over a flawed but working one.
The German government certainly claims to have done one, the problem is that it's utterly implausible. Just a 0.2% loss of German GDP under hard Brexit, compared to a 1.7% loss of UK GDP. This claim is from a country whose exports to the UK are double what we export to them and whose industries benefited hugely from the opening up of UK markets for manufacturing goods in the 1970s on our joining the EEC, whereas it sounded the death knell for many of ours. It's fantasy stuff frankly designed to bolster a negotiating position, which is why the UK government needs to do it properly and spell it out to them and their people.
The German government's piece is very interesting*, because it attempts to model exports based on how easy it is to find other end markets.
So, it assumes that sales of German cars to the UK fall by 28% in year one. Which is a pretty big drop. It then looks at price elasticity of demand, and concludes that to shift 80% of the lost cars, would require a small change in price. (That is, Americans and South Koreans would pay less for their Mercedes, and would therefore buy more.) They also look at import substitution in the EU, which is especially important for industries like auto, where the EU has a full supply chain and we (to be frank) do not.
For the UK, I find their analysis less robust, but still interesting. They assume that the fall in sterling means that the UK has higher import costs of raw materials (oil, coal, gas, metals, etc), which drag on the UK economy. They also posit that exports services are less price elastic than exports of goods, which may or may not be correct.
Personally, I think they are correct that a hard Brexit (which, people forget, would almost certainly affect UK exports to countries like South Korea, Canada, Switzerland, etc., with which we have FTAs through the EU) would affect the UK more than Germany.
I also think it's worth remembering that the German government has more policy leavers they can pull than we can. The German savings rate is elevated. They can encourage spending to bolster demand in a way we cannot.
* Interesting is not the same as correct, of course.
1. We can have Black Mon-Fri 2. I think we conclusively have more policy leavers than Germany does
It's the no-policy leavers that are the problem, surely?
Of course, if I'd known that voting Blair would (eventually) get me Brown, I might have paused for thought.
Based on this thread you're not the only person who switched to Blair in 1997 and ended up voting for Brexit. It's probably a far more interesting demographic to analyse in terms of understanding what happened in 2016 than the Labour heartlands Leavers.
1. We can have Black Mon-Fri 2. I think we conclusively have more policy leavers than Germany does
I didn't perhaps put it well
We have one additional policy lever: which is the ability to set interest rates. However, that is only a lever if it can be pushed any further. Which it probably can't.
Germany's big lever is this: over the past 16 years, the German government has aggressively pursued policies that encourage saving, and discourage spending, which has led to an elevated current account surplus. (And which made Eurozone rebalancing that much harder. Those policies were probably responsible for a million unemployed Spaniards and Greeks.)
Anyway. Should Germany find external demand slipping due to Brexit, they can ease off on some of their consumption sapping policies (or indeed, reduce the subsidies that encourage excessively high levels of saving).
There are ways of being integrated that do not involve political and legal unions. Your idea of integration is akin to the Soviet bloc or Yugoslavia. Mine is akin to the United Nations or the Commonwealth.
The United Nations had been superb in some areas (such as polio eradication), and terrible to disastrous in others, such as virtually any conflict zone. The Commonwealth has pretty much been a non-entity taking-shop.
I'm far from sure that these models are ones to extend in the future, at least without some fairly hefty fixes that are probably politically impossible.
On the other hand, the EU has mostly 'worked'. I find it odd that you prefer broken models over a flawed but working one.
Welcome to Brexistan.
Its a better vision than yours for sure.
Does it include old maids bicycling to holy communion?
Of course, if I'd known that voting Blair would (eventually) get me Brown, I might have paused for thought.
Based on this thread you're not the only person who switched to Blair in 1997 and ended up voting for Brexit. It's probably a far more interesting demographic to analyse in terms of understanding what happened in 2016 than the Labour heartlands Leavers.
Lisbon William. Lisbon happened. Don't overthink.
So the sight of Gordon Brown signing the Lisbon treaty had a similar effect on you to seeing Norman Lamont lose control of the pound, and both made you amenable to populism?
Miss Anazina, not Yorkshire's fault Southerners are so soft.
Half a flake in London and it dominates the coverage. Few weeks ago, there was barely a dusting and it got top story. Meanwhile, there was a foot of snow in south Wales that got scarcely a mention. One can only imagine how much Highlanders were laughing at the 'travel chaos' story then.
Of course, if I'd known that voting Blair would (eventually) get me Brown, I might have paused for thought.
Based on this thread you're not the only person who switched to Blair in 1997 and ended up voting for Brexit. It's probably a far more interesting demographic to analyse in terms of understanding what happened in 2016 than the Labour heartlands Leavers.
Lisbon William. Lisbon happened. Don't overthink.
So the sight of Gordon Brown signing the Lisbon treaty had a similar effect on you to seeing Norman Lamont lose control of the pound, and both made you amenable to populism?
That's a bizarre proposition. Still, keep theorising if that's your pleasure.
For all those who say the EU needs us more than we need them.
Look its simple
If Germany loses £30bn in lost exports to us and we only lose £20 bn If France loses £20 bn in lost exports to us and we only lose £15bn If Spain loses £10bn in lost exports to us and we only lose £7bn
In Sun logic Germany France and Spain are worse off than us FFS
In actual terms we lose £42bn guess who is worst off plus there are 24 other losses for us to add in and only 1 for Italy, Greece etc etc
It would depend on the extent to which the decline in imports from those countries was replaced by sales from domestic producers.
If, say, we lost exports worth £42 bn, and imported £60 bn in imports from countries other than those three, then we would be worse off. If we lost exports worth £42 bn, but domestic production matched the loss of imports from those three, we would be better off.
I’m struggling here... how does having to replace £60bn of imports with more costly or inferior goods (otherwise they wouldn’t be imported) make us better off?
In that scenario, growth in net trade boosts UK GDP.
One of the worst consequences of bad weather is northerners wittering on about how tough they are (even in jest).
In reality, London gets similar levels of snowfall to Leeds. It's a complete misconception that it never snows in London.
The city received significant falls in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2017 and 2018.
The trouble is, every time it snows in London, the rest of the country gets informed 24/7, but even if it is 6 foot deep in the north, not a peep on the national news.
It's hard to believe that Sir John Major and Rees-Mogg are both in the same party,except one is a Conservative and Unionist and the other is simply an English nationalist,the Tory party's fault-line.It is only a matter of time before Brexit forces such a schism between these 2 competitors that the party disintegrates.
There are ways of being integrated that do not involve political and legal unions. Your idea of integration is akin to the Soviet bloc or Yugoslavia. Mine is akin to the United Nations or the Commonwealth.
The United Nations had been superb in some areas (such as polio eradication), and terrible to disastrous in others, such as virtually any conflict zone. The Commonwealth has pretty much been a non-entity taking-shop.
I'm far from sure that these models are ones to extend in the future, at least without some fairly hefty fixes that are probably politically impossible.
On the other hand, the EU has mostly 'worked'. I find it odd that you prefer broken models over a flawed but working one.
Welcome to Brexistan.
Its a better vision than yours for sure.
Does it include old maids bicycling to holy communion?
Much as I love Orwells essays, that was archaic even when written in 1942.
Of course, if I'd known that voting Blair would (eventually) get me Brown, I might have paused for thought.
Based on this thread you're not the only person who switched to Blair in 1997 and ended up voting for Brexit. It's probably a far more interesting demographic to analyse in terms of understanding what happened in 2016 than the Labour heartlands Leavers.
Lisbon William. Lisbon happened. Don't overthink.
So the sight of Gordon Brown signing the Lisbon treaty had a similar effect on you to seeing Norman Lamont lose control of the pound, and both made you amenable to populism?
That's a bizarre proposition. Still, keep theorising if that's your pleasure.
I think there's something in it. You started out asserting that John Major ruined your finances...
It's hard to believe that Sir John Major and Rees-Mogg are both in the same party,except one is a Conservative and Unionist and the other is simply an English nationalist,the Tory party's fault-line.It is only a matter of time before Brexit forces such a schism between these 2 competitors that the party disintegrates.
Our major parties have always been broad churches. We're seeing some of the seams in both parties. I doubt Liz Kendall has much to say to John McDonnell.
For all those who say the EU needs us more than we need them.
Look its simple
If Germany loses £30bn in lost exports to us and we only lose £20 bn If France loses £20 bn in lost exports to us and we only lose £15bn If Spain loses £10bn in lost exports to us and we only lose £7bn
In Sun logic Germany France and Spain are worse off than us FFS
In actual terms we lose £42bn guess who is worst off plus there are 24 other losses for us to add in and only 1 for Italy, Greece etc etc
It would depend on the extent to which the decline in imports from those countries was replaced by sales from domestic producers.
If, say, we lost exports worth £42 bn, and imported £60 bn in imports from countries other than those three, then we would be worse off. If we lost exports worth £42 bn, but domestic production matched the loss of imports from those three, we would be better off.
I’m struggling here... how does having to replace £60bn of imports with more costly or inferior goods (otherwise they wouldn’t be imported) make us better off?
In that scenario, growth in net trade boosts UK GDP.
That rather assumes two things:
1. Price elasticity of demand is zero. I.e. the amount of economic activity does not change with price. 2. That we do not swap EU imports for non-EU imports.
There are ways of being integrated that do not involve political and legal unions. Your idea of integration is akin to the Soviet bloc or Yugoslavia. Mine is akin to the United Nations or the Commonwealth.
The United Nations had been superb in some areas (such as polio eradication), and terrible to disastrous in others, such as virtually any conflict zone. The Commonwealth has pretty much been a non-entity taking-shop.
I'm far from sure that these models are ones to extend in the future, at least without some fairly hefty fixes that are probably politically impossible.
On the other hand, the EU has mostly 'worked'. I find it odd that you prefer broken models over a flawed but working one.
Welcome to Brexistan.
Its a better vision than yours for sure.
Does it include old maids bicycling to holy communion?
Much as I love Orwells essays, that was archaic even when written in 1942.
Brexiters are torn between the image and their current bete noire.
For all those who say the EU needs us more than we need them.
Look its simple
If Germany loses £30bn in lost exports to us and we only lose £20 bn If France loses £20 bn in lost exports to us and we only lose £15bn If Spain loses £10bn in lost exports to us and we only lose £7bn
In Sun logic Germany France and Spain are worse off than us FFS
In actual terms we lose £42bn guess who is worst off plus there are 24 other losses for us to add in and only 1 for Italy, Greece etc etc
It would depend on the extent to which the decline in imports from those countries was replaced by sales from domestic producers.
If, say, we lost exports worth £42 bn, and imported £60 bn in imports from countries other than those three, then we would be worse off. If we lost exports worth £42 bn, but domestic production matched the loss of imports from those three, we would be better off.
I’m struggling here... how does having to replace £60bn of imports with more costly or inferior goods (otherwise they wouldn’t be imported) make us better off?
In that scenario, growth in net trade boosts UK GDP.
That rather assumes two things:
1. Price elasticity of demand is zero. I.e. the amount of economic activity does not change with price. 2. That we do not swap EU imports for non-EU imports.
I raised 2 in my original post. If we lost £42 bn of exports, while still importing £60 bn from elsewhere, we would certainly be worse off.
The German security services have an appalling reputation for, well, security. It seems as if it's afflicting other parts of the teutonic machine, too. From 2016:
There are ways of being integrated that do not involve political and legal unions. Your idea of integration is akin to the Soviet bloc or Yugoslavia. Mine is akin to the United Nations or the Commonwealth.
The United Nations had been superb in some areas (such as polio eradication), and terrible to disastrous in others, such as virtually any conflict zone. The Commonwealth has pretty much been a non-entity taking-shop.
I'm far from sure that these models are ones to extend in the future, at least without some fairly hefty fixes that are probably politically impossible.
On the other hand, the EU has mostly 'worked'. I find it odd that you prefer broken models over a flawed but working one.
Welcome to Brexistan.
Its a better vision than yours for sure.
Does it include old maids bicycling to holy communion?
Much as I love Orwells essays, that was archaic even when written in 1942.
Brexiters are torn between the image and their current bete noire.
Of course, if I'd known that voting Blair would (eventually) get me Brown, I might have paused for thought.
Based on this thread you're not the only person who switched to Blair in 1997 and ended up voting for Brexit. It's probably a far more interesting demographic to analyse in terms of understanding what happened in 2016 than the Labour heartlands Leavers.
Lisbon William. Lisbon happened. Don't overthink.
So the sight of Gordon Brown signing the Lisbon treaty had a similar effect on you to seeing Norman Lamont lose control of the pound, and both made you amenable to populism?
That's a bizarre proposition. Still, keep theorising if that's your pleasure.
I think there's something in it. You started out asserting that John Major ruined your finances...
Perception is reality, I suppose.
I think my comment was slightly hyperbolic. We exited the ERM before the base rate change took effect. I guess you have to have been there.
You seem to conflate 'populism' with 'popular'. Blair won in a landslide. Many, many 'Tories' voted for him. People were genuinely enthused - I know I was. It's a pity that Iraq overshadowed his achievements. Sadly, his messianic leanings and inability to accept that he's electoral poison has tainted his legacy.
For the first time in months I'm starting to think that Brexit isn't going to happen. And it's not just because almost everyone with a measurable IQ is against it but because Ireland is finally deeply involved. The Irish don't think in weeks months years or even decades. They think in centuries. And when a significant section of the population dig their heels in they stay dug in.
It's hard to believe that Sir John Major and Rees-Mogg are both in the same party,except one is a Conservative and Unionist and the other is simply an English nationalist,the Tory party's fault-line.It is only a matter of time before Brexit forces such a schism between these 2 competitors that the party disintegrates.
There's always been a divide between economic and cultural Conservatism, but it's become more intense as the party has become increasingly dependent on working class voters.
There are ways of being integrated that do not involve political and legal unions. Your idea of integration is akin to the Soviet bloc or Yugoslavia. Mine is akin to the United Nations or the Commonwealth.
The United Nations had been superb in some areas (such as polio eradication), and terrible to disastrous in others, such as virtually any conflict zone. The Commonwealth has pretty much been a non-entity taking-shop.
I'm far from sure that these models are ones to extend in the future, at least without some fairly hefty fixes that are probably politically impossible.
On the other hand, the EU has mostly 'worked'. I find it odd that you prefer broken models over a flawed but working one.
Welcome to Brexistan.
Its a better vision than yours for sure.
Does it include old maids bicycling to holy communion?
Much as I love Orwells essays, that was archaic even when written in 1942.
Brexiters are torn between the image and their current bete noire.
Of course, if I'd known that voting Blair would (eventually) get me Brown, I might have paused for thought.
Based on this thread you're not the only person who switched to Blair in 1997 and ended up voting for Brexit. It's probably a far more interesting demographic to analyse in terms of understanding what happened in 2016 than the Labour heartlands Leavers.
There are a lot of seats, often new towns, and/or London overspill estates, where first Thatcher, then Blair, were very popular, and which went heavily for Leave.
There are ways of being integrated that do not involve political and legal unions. Your idea of integration is akin to the Soviet bloc or Yugoslavia. Mine is akin to the United Nations or the Commonwealth.
The United Nations had been superb in some areas (such as polio eradication), and terrible to disastrous in others, such as virtually any conflict zone. The Commonwealth has pretty much been a non-entity taking-shop.
I'm far from sure that these models are ones to extend in the future, at least without some fairly hefty fixes that are probably politically impossible.
On the other hand, the EU has mostly 'worked'. I find it odd that you prefer broken models over a flawed but working one.
Welcome to Brexistan.
Its a better vision than yours for sure.
Does it include old maids bicycling to holy communion?
If you knew me you would know it is more likely to include Hells Angels riding to the pub.
There are ways of being integrated that do not involve political and legal unions. Your idea of integration is akin to the Soviet bloc or Yugoslavia. Mine is akin to the United Nations or the Commonwealth.
The United Nations had been superb in some areas (such as polio eradication), and terrible to disastrous in others, such as virtually any conflict zone. The Commonwealth has pretty much been a non-entity taking-shop.
I'm far from sure that these models are ones to extend in the future, at least without some fairly hefty fixes that are probably politically impossible.
On the other hand, the EU has mostly 'worked'. I find it odd that you prefer broken models over a flawed but working one.
Welcome to Brexistan.
Its a better vision than yours for sure.
Does it include old maids bicycling to holy communion?
If you knew me you would know it is more likely to include Hells Angels riding to the pub.
I'm friendly with some members of a heavy metal band who look like Satan's priests, and they all voted Leave.
Am I the only person to be amused about John ERM Major whining about potential economic damage of the wrong EU policy ?
Or John Maastricht Major demanding free votes on European policy ?
It did also come to mind that John Major became PM after a more charismatic leader resigned because of the EU and by being more 'grey' than the rivals. After an early period of popularity disaster struck but he managed to remain as PM because Conservative MPs couldn't agree on whom to replace him with.
Does that sound similar to another Conservative PM ?
There are ways of being integrated that do not involve political and legal unions. Your idea of integration is akin to the Soviet bloc or Yugoslavia. Mine is akin to the United Nations or the Commonwealth.
The United Nations had been superb in some areas (such as polio eradication), and terrible to disastrous in others, such as virtually any conflict zone. The Commonwealth has pretty much been a non-entity taking-shop.
I'm far from sure that these models are ones to extend in the future, at least without some fairly hefty fixes that are probably politically impossible.
On the other hand, the EU has mostly 'worked'. I find it odd that you prefer broken models over a flawed but working one.
Welcome to Brexistan.
Its a better vision than yours for sure.
Does it include old maids bicycling to holy communion?
If you knew me you would know it is more likely to include Hells Angels riding to the pub.
I'm friendly with some members of a heavy metal band who look like Satan's priests, and they all voted Leave.
There are ways of being integrated that do not involve political and legal unions. Your idea of integration is akin to the Soviet bloc or Yugoslavia. Mine is akin to the United Nations or the Commonwealth.
The United Nations had been superb in some areas (such as polio eradication), and terrible to disastrous in others, such as virtually any conflict zone. The Commonwealth has pretty much been a non-entity taking-shop.
I'm far from sure that these models are ones to extend in the future, at least without some fairly hefty fixes that are probably politically impossible.
On the other hand, the EU has mostly 'worked'. I find it odd that you prefer broken models over a flawed but working one.
Neither the Commonwealth nor the UN are broken models. They both serve important functions - primarily in communication but also in mutual assistance and cooperation - which is why, for example, we now have countries that were never part of the British Empire wanting to be part of the Commonwealth. They are exactly the model we need.
The EU has not 'mostly worked', certainly not from the British perspective and its comtinual steady moves towards political and legal union, even against considerable internal opposition from its own citizens- put it firmly in the Soviet and Yugoslav models.
Sorry, late in replying - had to feed the little 'un.
I'm bemused that the only thing you can find good to say about the Commonwealth is that other countries want to join it, when the EU has expanded considerably over the years, and has countries wanting to join! If you measure the Commonwealth as a success as countries have wanted to join it, then the EU has been a massive success by the same measure.
As for the UN: when its history is written in a century or two, the first six decades of its existence will generally be a negative one. It is a well-meaning organisation, but one that has proven toothless time and time again when faced with the immediate challenges that face he world. Having said that, its successes have probably made its existence worthwhile. But it could have done so much more, and so many more lives could have been saved.
I don't think I've ever heard you say anything positive about the EU, and you seem incapable of acknowledging anything positive about it. That harms your arguments.
I quite liked him, up until he ruined my finances. He's also the chap who signed us up to Maastricht, without being clear what he was doing (c.f. his subsequent complaints).
You were one of home woners he literally threw to the wolves in his mad attempt to stay in the ERM then?
At least we all knew where we stood with the Tories after that... And most of us acted accordingly by voting for Labour in our droves in 1997.
Yes. My mortgage was about to go up to something redonkulous like 18% before we crashed out. I was lucky not to end up with negative equity, but he cost my sisters around 400k due to the housing slide.
In 1997 I voted Labour for the first time in my life.
Then you were very naive. Every move in interest rates from the time Major became Chancellor to 1994 was down.
Tue, 08 Feb 1994 5.1250 Tue, 23 Nov 1993 5.3750 Tue, 26 Jan 1993 5.8750 Fri, 13 Nov 1992 6.8750 Fri, 16 Oct 1992 7.8750 Tue, 22 Sep 1992 8.8750 Tue, 05 May 1992 9.8750 Wed, 04 Sep 1991 10.3750 Fri, 12 Jul 1991 10.8750 Fri, 24 May 1991 11.3750 Fri, 12 Apr 1991 11.8750 Fri, 22 Mar 1991 12.3750 Wed, 27 Feb 1991 12.8750 Wed, 13 Feb 1991 13.3750 Mon, 08 Oct 1990 13.8750 Fri, 06 Oct 1989 14.8750
It should be remembered that every interest rate reduction after 15/09/92 was a result of Major's ERM strategy collapsing and that Major thought interest rate INCREASES were worth doing if it maintained ERM membership.
Comments
So, it assumes that sales of German cars to the UK fall by 28% in year one. Which is a pretty big drop. It then looks at price elasticity of demand, and concludes that to shift 80% of the lost cars, would require a small change in price. (That is, Americans and South Koreans would pay less for their Mercedes, and would therefore buy more.) They also look at import substitution in the EU, which is especially important for industries like auto, where the EU has a full supply chain and we (to be frank) do not.
For the UK, I find their analysis less robust, but still interesting. They assume that the fall in sterling means that the UK has higher import costs of raw materials (oil, coal, gas, metals, etc), which drag on the UK economy. They also posit that exports services are less price elastic than exports of goods, which may or may not be correct.
Personally, I think they are correct that a hard Brexit (which, people forget, would almost certainly affect UK exports to countries like South Korea, Canada, Switzerland, etc., with which we have FTAs through the EU) would affect the UK more than Germany.
I also think it's worth remembering that the German government has more policy leavers they can pull than we can. The German savings rate is elevated. They can encourage spending to bolster demand in a way we cannot.
* Interesting is not the same as correct, of course.
It comes down to whether the EU really wanted to prevent Brexit, at the risk of others saying "me too!" to the Cameron deal. I'm still not sure they have the innate flexibility, so in the end, Cameron would just have owned Brexit on a (maybe) 60-40 vote. But Cameron would have been a hero for having balls of steel to support Brexit. And be planning to stand down at a time of his choosing.
(Says me in my thick winter coat!)
2. I think we conclusively have more policy leavers than Germany does
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43223279
We have one additional policy lever: which is the ability to set interest rates. However, that is only a lever if it can be pushed any further. Which it probably can't.
Germany's big lever is this: over the past 16 years, the German government has aggressively pursued policies that encourage saving, and discourage spending, which has led to an elevated current account surplus. (And which made Eurozone rebalancing that much harder. Those policies were probably responsible for a million unemployed Spaniards and Greeks.)
Anyway. Should Germany find external demand slipping due to Brexit, they can ease off on some of their consumption sapping policies (or indeed, reduce the subsidies that encourage excessively high levels of saving).
The EU has not 'mostly worked', certainly not from the British perspective and its comtinual steady moves towards political and legal union, even against considerable internal opposition from its own citizens- put it firmly in the Soviet and Yugoslav models.
In reality, London gets similar levels of snowfall to Leeds. It's a complete misconception that it never snows in London.
The city received significant falls in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2017 and 2018.
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/968895631963107329
Half a flake in London and it dominates the coverage. Few weeks ago, there was barely a dusting and it got top story. Meanwhile, there was a foot of snow in south Wales that got scarcely a mention. One can only imagine how much Highlanders were laughing at the 'travel chaos' story then.
[The current situation is more severe, granted].
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43221384
Perception is reality, I suppose.
1. Price elasticity of demand is zero. I.e. the amount of economic activity does not change with price.
2. That we do not swap EU imports for non-EU imports.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4039080/GCHQ-fear-German-spies-t-trusted.html
[yes, it's the DM, but there are other sources if you give it a quick google]
You seem to conflate 'populism' with 'popular'. Blair won in a landslide. Many, many 'Tories' voted for him. People were genuinely enthused - I know I was. It's a pity that Iraq overshadowed his achievements. Sadly, his messianic leanings and inability to accept that he's electoral poison has tainted his legacy.
#FloridaSchoolShooting #ArmingTeachers https://twitter.com/ap/status/968903039942881281
Or John Maastricht Major demanding free votes on European policy ?
It did also come to mind that John Major became PM after a more charismatic leader resigned because of the EU and by being more 'grey' than the rivals. After an early period of popularity disaster struck but he managed to remain as PM because Conservative MPs couldn't agree on whom to replace him with.
Does that sound similar to another Conservative PM ?
John Major is no Messiah but look at those who face him. IDS Fox Johnson Rees Mogg Redwood Farage ....
Surely it must concern them that they're lining up behind a freaks circus?
NEW THREAD
https://twitter.com/AP/status/968903039942881281
And having looked at their website today I don't think I've been missing anything either.
It looks like another of those 'mediocre middle' shops that have been closing for over a decade - C&A, Woolworths, BHS and indeed ToysRUs.
How WHSmith keeps going I don't know.
It seems that Maplin and ToysRUs had 5,000 employees between them.
Now compare with:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Bargains
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B_&_M
which together have 45,000 employees and neither of which I had heard of a few years ago.
Retail has to be 'cheap and cheerful', 'niche and quality', supermarket or internet to prosper.
I'm going to actually go there now in the hope of some bargains
I'm bemused that the only thing you can find good to say about the Commonwealth is that other countries want to join it, when the EU has expanded considerably over the years, and has countries wanting to join! If you measure the Commonwealth as a success as countries have wanted to join it, then the EU has been a massive success by the same measure.
As for the UN: when its history is written in a century or two, the first six decades of its existence will generally be a negative one. It is a well-meaning organisation, but one that has proven toothless time and time again when faced with the immediate challenges that face he world. Having said that, its successes have probably made its existence worthwhile. But it could have done so much more, and so many more lives could have been saved.
I don't think I've ever heard you say anything positive about the EU, and you seem incapable of acknowledging anything positive about it. That harms your arguments.