Reply to: Confused Britain

[Zero Liability]

Or they may maintain zero tariffs etc to avoid the UK targeting other markets.

[petergriffin]

I'm addressing the argument that they are likely to do so.

They are not likely to do so. They would still trade, but with added VAT and restrictions. They would trade with other member states first, with China second, the US third, and so on.

SNP lost a referendum because they were not good at projecting the consequences of an exit and banked on nationalism. Kippers are overestimating their influence. They will do well as a political party as long as they remain underdogs, but I doubt they have the skills to convince the non-angry, non-nationalistic electorate.

[vetran]

I don't know where you got it that they will refuse having business with us. Nobody really knows what the scenario will be if/when Britain leaves the EU.

This is what frightens me. Little England is up in arms against evil EU, but responsible politicians should offer a vision of the consequences would be. It's not just UKIP that have failed to so, no major parties is offering a clear alternative.

well apart from UKIP non of the parties actually want to leave.

[Zero Liability]

I'm addressing the argument that they are likely to do so. Both the euro sceptic and Europhile sides have put out projections on what may happen, often hinging on assumptions like the cessation of trade or imposition of tariffs. How credible these are or can be is another matter entirely, as it all depends on whether the assumptions hold and whether any unknowns exist that have a material effect on it, but such is the nature of economic prediction - it makes predicting the weather look easy. Both staying in and leaving have opportunity costs to them.

This will all be brought to the fore if we do get a referendum, as we should.

[petergriffin]

If they refuse to trade with the UK. There is no contradiction there. My point is that they have absolutely nothing to gain from it. Or do they think the value they extract from the UK contributions exceeds the value of trade with it, in which case what is being lost anyway? Vindictive trade reprisals are costly, and if they can find other trade partners, so can the UK.

I don't know where you got it that they will refuse having business with us. Nobody really knows what the scenario will be if/when Britain leaves the EU.

This is what frightens me. Little England is up in arms against evil EU, but responsible politicians should offer a vision of the consequences would be. It's not just UKIP that have failed to so, no major parties is offering a clear alternative.

[Zero Liability]

If they refuse to trade with the UK. There is no contradiction there. My point is that they have absolutely nothing to gain from it. Or do they think the value they extract from the UK contributions exceeds the value of trade with it, in which case what is being lost anyway? Vindictive trade reprisals are costly, and if they can find other trade partners, so can the UK.

[petergriffin]

You can thank fractional reserve banking for that

Fractional reserve banking is the root cause of all the problems we have today, so I'm not thanking it. I would like to see a collapse of the Euro as much as of all fiat currencies. I am pretty sure the first major fiat currency to fall will be the pound.

, but really, why does Britain require a position of 'strength' to trade work other EU countries? Does it not require this same position within it in the first place?

Exactly, the supposed position of strength is a myth. In fact:

EU countries need all the exports they can get, they lack the luxury of simply turning the UK away. They can certainly try and watch their GDP plummet further.

... you have just contradicted yourself by thinking that the UK will be better off if and when the EU countries will experience a fall of their GDP or even a collapse.

You little Englanders are stuck to a 1940s mercantilist mentality and you are deluded that the economy is a zero sum game and Britain will be better off when our neighbours suffer.

[expat]

I finally managed to get the wife to agree to move. She's the only one without a Canadian nationality so I have to "Sponsor" her across. But its a no brainer really. My Brother-in-Law owns a high-tech company in Vancouver. I do some work from him already, but he really needs me there. I took a look at a lot of his stuff, and its quite the mess. It will cost a bundle to sort out.

Its hilarious really. As soon as I show them Canadian money, Brits "hey the queen. That means that we rule you and we can move to Canada anytime we like". Oh yeah uh huh. Yeah please do try that one on at the border control.

It's embarrassing. Why don't you calmly point out that the rest of the English-speaking world has already taken their best, and is not interested in what's left. I'm sure they will appreciate that perspective.

[lilelvis2000]

Because they have moved on. Maybe we should too. ("we" - many of the Brits, not including me)

BTW like most people who have spent some years working outside this country, I sympathise with your point about the salaries. I don't know what you're still doing here, but my big regret is that I came back. Now that the reason for doing so has changed I'm not intending that to be permanent.

I finally managed to get the wife to agree to move. She's the only one without a Canadian nationality so I have to "Sponsor" her across. But its a no brainer really. My Brother-in-Law owns a high-tech company in Vancouver. I do some work from him already, but he really needs me there. I took a look at a lot of his stuff, and its quite the mess. It will cost a bundle to sort out.

Its hilarious really. As soon as I show them Canadian money, Brits "hey the queen. That means that we rule you and we can move to Canada anytime we like". Oh yeah uh huh. Yeah please do try that one on at the border control.

[expat]

Although, and I'm sure this does happen, Brits wonder why they can't just move to country which "they used to rule".

Because they have moved on. Maybe we should too. ("we" - many of the Brits, not including me)

BTW like most people who have spent some years working outside this country, I sympathise with your point about the salaries. I don't know what you're still doing here, but my big regret is that I came back. Now that the reason for doing so has changed I'm not intending that to be permanent.

[Zero Liability]

What makes you think this would happen? It takes two to tango! On which position of strength would Britain negotiate advantageous deals with the European Union?

Or do you think that member states would undercut the EU altogether and negotiate directly with Britain?

Britain imports more than it exports, so yes, they are in healthy position of balance.

You can thank fractional reserve banking for that, but really, why does Britain require a position of 'strength' to trade work other EU countries? Does it not require this same position within it in the first place?

EU countries need all the exports they can get, they lack the luxury of simply turning the UK away. They can certainly try and watch their GDP plummet further.

[lilelvis2000]

Not true. She is also head of state of Australia, but that doesn't make me an Aussie.

Although, and I'm sure this does happen, Brits wonder why they can't just move to country which "they used to rule".

[lilelvis2000]

And just how many do you think there are? Most are probably on a gap year earning a few bob just to enable them to live. Aussies do the same here and have done for years and Brits work for peanuts in Australia. Eastern Europeans do it because it is their only route out of abject poverty . The brits on the other hand it is a lifestyle choice.

I look at the wages in the UK and I think they are peanuts compared to similar jobs in the USA. A mate of mine went for a "project manager" role, the company was offering £19,000! There are senior asp.net roles with 7 years experience needed offering £26,000. Crikey! In Canada 10 years ago I had a salary equivalent to £60K here. Sometimes, in fact right now, I cry.

[vetran]

But: 'However he did say that there were abuses of the system and rules could be tightened to prevent these.' So he wouldn't lose face as that is the argument he would use if there were any caps on immigration but as you know, Juncker is not responsible for actually making the decision, it would have to be passed by other first so its a bit of scaremongering by the press. He also said that freedom of movement has been “a basic principle of the European Union since the very beginning and I’m not prepared to change this,” and is part of the EU makeup which means that the basic tenets of the EU would need to be changed. Once you start to change then others will want changes made, I think you'll find that he's just stating what is currently fact but that amendments can be made...

I wait with bated breath for his about face, but a wiser negotiator would have managed to say nothing that blocked avenues of negotiation.

Glad we have established he said it and meant it.

[darmstadt]

He has publicly taken a position in a negotiation, if he backs down he will risk losing face.

He could have said a number of non committal things or nothing. What he has done is publicly slammed the door in the other negotiators face.

It is not hypothetical if the BBC said 'we believe Mr Junker doesn't want to negotiate this that would be hypothetical, he said it therefore it is factual reporting. Its not nonsense because the EU President has stated clearly he has no wish to negotiate.

This chap here is an impersonator then?

BBC News - Juncker: EU freedom of movement "will not be changed"

As I said they have publicly denied there will be any major change in the rules of Freedom of movement.

Not sure which planet you are on?

But: 'However he did say that there were abuses of the system and rules could be tightened to prevent these.' So he wouldn't lose face as that is the argument he would use if there were any caps on immigration but as you know, Juncker is not responsible for actually making the decision, it would have to be passed by other first so its a bit of scaremongering by the press. He also said that freedom of movement has been “a basic principle of the European Union since the very beginning and I’m not prepared to change this,” and is part of the EU makeup which means that the basic tenets of the EU would need to be changed. Once you start to change then others will want changes made, I think you'll find that he's just stating what is currently fact but that amendments can be made...