Is the EU responsible for Brexit chaos

Such a shame as it didn’t have to be like this, so still hopeful that rational thinking will prevail in the end and that we can reach an agreement that is mutually beneficial.

Having said that....a few thoughts about Mickeyfinn’s last reference to “a much poorer nation”.

To what extent “ Poorer” I wonder? 

Here’s an alternative economic analysis from the economists for free trade, linked to no - deal, which implies quite a different story......

—————————————————

“A “no deal” outcome from the Brexit negotiations would lead to a £500 billion loss for the European Union, according to a new analysis.

A study by Patrick Minford, a professor of economics at Cardiff University, states that while a failure to reach a deal would lead to “short term nuisance” for both sides, Brussels would face a “substantial economic loss”, compared to a net gain for the UK.

Prof Minford, who chairs the Eurosceptic Economists for Free Trade group, concludes: “It could not be more open and shut who least wants a breakdown”.

The analysis comes after David Davis, the Brexit Secretary, complained in a letter to the Prime Minister that Brussels was damaging British interests by talking up the threat to companies if the UK leaves the European Union without a deal.

Prof Minford said: “For the UK a breakdown would be a short term nuisance but a substantial economic gain; for the EU it is both a short term nuisance and a substantial economic loss.”

According to the analysis, the largest cost to the EU would be from paying the UK some £433 billion in tariff revenue. It would also lose around £28 billion which the UK would otherwise pay into the budget period to 2020, and a reported £10 billion contribution to longer term liabilities, as part of a financial settlement, Prof Minford concluded.

“Because its customs union with the UK would stop immediately, it would lose two years’ worth of the terms of trade gain its producers make on its balance of trade surplus with the UK- estimated at around £18 billion a year: so two years’ worth of that would be another £36 billion one-off loss,” he added.

By contrast, a breakdown in talks would lead to a “one-off gain” of £38 billion on savings in relation to the EU budget, in addition a £180 billion windfall as a result of bringing forward the “long-term gain” of “free trade, own-regulation and own-border-control” in the absence of the otherwise expected two-year implementation period for a deal.

The UK would also gain the total of £433 billion tariff revenue which Prof Minford calculated would be paid by the EU to the Treasury, he said.

He concluded: “So plus £641 billion for the UK versus minus £507 billion for the EU: it could not be more open and shut who least wants a breakdown. For the UK a breakdown would be a short term nuisance but a substantial economic gain; for the EU it is both a short term nuisance and a substantial economic loss.”

———————————————-

Yet again, who do you believe from the variety of forecasting methods? And more importantly why is this DETAIL not being more openly debated?  We should all be provided with far greater transparency.

If past history is anything to go by then these economists have gained credibility by their previous forecasts that were proved correct ( which led to Govt changing their modelling). 

If this is correct then perhaps it could be argued that this may well be the reason for lack of transparency in the ongoing economic debate and why the staunch remainers in parliament are so intent on scuppering the no-deal scenario without open, full and careful economic analysis going forward.

But the most telling and concerning aspect to this appears to have been the fact that the EU have been damaging  UK interests by talking up the threat to companies in the interim with all the knock on effects thereafter.

As with all this of this.....the devil is in the detail.

Ads.    

No John.....remain willing to analyse the economic failures and learn from them going forward instead of sticking to tribal political allegiances.

The electorate get to change their minds every 4 or 5 years in a democracy. On that basis, surely it will be time soon for a second referendum?

Isn’t this reliant on trusted economic data so that people know what the various options really entail, as opposed to manipulative political ploys to purposefully or mischievously hide the realities?

Ads   ` Isn’t this reliant on trusted economic data`

I have two sons, both successful accountants, one  is remain the other leave. 

Both make very convincing arguments based on trusted ecomomic data, but which is right ?  (rhetorical  question of course)

Again essential to look to historical realities and learn from the failures.... such as the recent wrong predictions which were taken more seriously and economic forecasts were amended accordingly.

But It also comes down to a willingness to take off the political hat or peer group pressure and remain open minded to constantly review data. Not easy for many but so essential in this day and age.

We all learn by a willingness to accept failures and adapt accordingly. Trouble is that politicians rarely admit their mistakes, preferring to cover up or manipulate the realities “to save face” or retain power regardless of the impact on the electorate, but sadly also in that process they frequently indulge in proliferating division as a technique to distract away from uncomfortable truths! Divide and rule and all that....

This message was last edited by ads on 13/04/2019.

This message was last edited by ads on 13/04/2019.

The difficulty with making predictions, particularly economic ones is they are dependent on a set of circumstances consistently prevailing. Events tend to knock them off course.

In actual fact, most of the predictions during the referendum have slowly come to pass as the UK get nearer the exit door. It's just the severity that politicians promised during the campaign for understandable reasons have yet to materialise. The UK has not yet left the EU to trade on WTO terms, economic confidence is low currently with a knock-on effect in Europe.

Patrick Minford, although distinguished economist is a maverick in terms of mainstream economic thinking. I don't say that to discredit him. I just don't agree with his analysis. It was he that said Britain needs to rid itself of the car industry for example.

I tend to hold fast to the simple adage that if you want to know the future simply look at the past. Also if you ignore past history you're liable to keep repeating it. Britain trading alone in a globalised world on WTO terms is going back to the past. America will extract a hard bargain in trade deals that will make the UK dependent on the USA for generations. History tells us where that leads.

It could be argued that the reasons why the economic predictions are currently changing are due to continual “ doom and gloom fear mongering”, to delaying tactics, which in itself is impacting investment. A self fulfilling prophecy by those intent on remaining. By talking up the fear.

As for the car industry, most rational thought now points to the decline in diesel cars and the inevitable changes towards electric or hybrid technology and the required supportive infrastructure, so Brexit is not the cause. Again this is where all politicians should be planning ahead for strategies to minimise the impact on those within the industry ....timely change to adapt accordingly.

But Mickeyfinn, re dependence, the UK HAS become dependent on the EU and when you witness EU decisions being made that negatively impact your society from failures to adapt and be more flexible to changing circumstances, to deny that need for timely change,  is it any wonder that disillusionment kicks in?

Without a willingness to reform and listen to citizens concerns instead of sticking to ideological political mantra, or theoretical aims that in reality impact peace agreements, that have led to zero hours contracts, that have the potential to disrupt cohesion by impacting infrastructure and national systems, etc the disillusionment will only grow.

I agree in part the EU has in the past seemed too remote in the view of British people. National poiticians of differing colours have driven that opinion even further.  However it's false perception that drives peoples thought process which leads usually to bad decisions. Decision based on popularist thinking rather than the bigger, wider picture.

If the EU is today's bogeyman in the thought processes of a large section of the leaving British society and I accept that it is then after the country has left who will they blame then when those expectations don't materialise. In fact it's very difficult to understand what the ordinary leaver expects from living in a seperate state again. How will it make ordinary peoples lives any better? Truth is by any standard i can think of it will not. The big red bus was a lie.

If you believe in history repeating as I do the British will eventually realise what they gave up. A movement to rejoin the EU and even the Euro will begin. The terms will be harsher than the country currently enjoys but mistakes always have a cost.

“Popularist “....... might that be the term for citizens speaking up about their firsthand concerns? Might it be about making leaders and politicians, multinational companies, financial organisations etc more accountable for their decision making? Might it be with good intent to benefit people’s lives?

It is sad when something with good intent is manipulated as being something underhand and negative.

It’s quite amazing how so many know so much about BREXIT including the future.

“I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing.”

"It is sad when something with good intent is manipulated as being something underhand and negative."

Ads, good to see you finally agree with the pro-EU mindset 

Ha ha! Reality of the here and now rules however Roberto.

Talking of which....Stop press...

———————————

Published at 10:57am 13th April 2019. (Updated at 12:53pm 13th April 2019)

The UK's second-biggest steel producer is seeking an urgent £100m‎ government loan after Theresa May's failure to pass a Brexit deal left it frozen out of an EU-wide carbon trading scheme.

Sky News has learnt that British Steel, which directly employs 5,000 people, is in talks with Whitehall about securing the emergency funding within weeks.

Ministers have drafted in the professional services firm KPMG to advise them on the talks‎, which have been going on for several weeks, insiders said this weekend.

Greg Clark, the business secretary, has been briefed about the situation.

British Steel is understood to face a cash-flow shortfall as a consequence of the European Union's decision not to allocate UK-based companies their usual permits under its carbon emissions trading system (ETS).

Under the scheme, industrial polluters - which should have been awarded their permits last month - can use their allocation to pay for their previous year's‎ emissions.

The freezing out of British companies from this year's EU ETS allocation covers more than £2bn of emissions allowances, equating to 100m tonnes of carbon credits - with British Steel accounting for roughly 5% of the total.‎

However, British Steel is understood to have already utilised last year's permits to fund working capital requirements, leaving it unable to pay for the current round of carbon credits.

This week's six-month Brexit extension is thought to have exacerbated the issue for the company because ‎without an imminent deal being approved by parliament, the UK would continue to be excluded from the ETS.

——————————

So freezing out has been done prior to leaving? Does this demonstrate a form of interim blackmail to agree a deal?

Is this similar to the criticism of the EUs behaviour towards their manipulation of the Irish backstop? 

How can this bullying behaviour that directly impacts citizens endear citizens to remain?

So sad and so divisive....

This message was last edited by ads on 13/04/2019.

"How can this bullying behaviour that directly impacts citizens endear citizens to remain?" I would have thought it's blindingly obvious: you're talking about a direct impact of the vote to LEAVE (regardless of whether we've actually left yet or not). The simple fact is, it wouldn't have happened if we'd voted to REMAIN.

"In fact it's very difficult to understand what the ordinary leaver expects from living in a seperate state again. How will it make ordinary peoples lives any better? Truth is by any standard I can think of it will not. The big red bus was a lie."

Couldn't agree more. I keep thinking about my old acquaintance back in the UK who suggested it was "them damned EU laws" making his life difficult while he had a bar in Spain as the reason he wants to leave. It simply makes no sense whatsoever (or maybe it does to Tim Martin?) How will his life on benefits back in the UK improve?

Some light reading for anyone who's interested to know which EU laws have been forced upon us (because Tim Martin couldn't answer the question): https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/rationalist-destroys-leavers-with-list-of-all-eu-laws-that-have-been-forced-on-us-against-our-will/22/01/?fbclid=IwAR3qqovxF61Bd0s9tXDnr66Pr_wyII-aN6cjITVG1ofx5ys7RjNmnRVYZk4

It does amaze me that British people believe leaving the most sucessful trading block and political alliance on the planet will not bring negative concequences.

The EU expected the UK to be in a transition period by now and that does not mean business as usual. It means a trading relationship in every aspect has to be negotiated. With that in mind why would the EU continue with the carbon emissions scheme beforehand? it would make no sense. 

MEPs/MPs right across the EU/UK are responsible for the Brexit mess ....they just don't have a clue about carrying out the responsibility that come with the job... the  only thing that is clear is that the Gravy Train is over for MEPs.as soon as the UK leaves the so called European Union.

'the most sucessful trading block'

Who's share of world trade has dropped from 24% to 17% in the past 40 years?

Quite right Mickyfinn. Perhaps we should consider letting the royals run the country again. They are already paid so no cost there. Sack every MP/MEP and save the taxpayer a fortune. There would be no need for elections or referendums, so no more arguments, just do as your told.

Exactly the point Roberto, the EU appear to bully countries into remaining when they provided the right to leave from the outset.

Much depends upon your mindset of whether you are happy to remain in a system that bullies those countries whose citizens voted to leave, that says on the one hand that they wish to remain respectful of citizens' rights to leave, but on the other hand ironically refused to listen to major concerns and growing disillusionment born from their failure over several years to recognise the impact from their inflexibility and intransigence to reform.

  "If the EU wants to make the European project viable, it will need to address people’s legitimate concerns. When a political system fails to internalize opposition and give it a seat at the table, this opposition will eventually turn against the system itself.

This has been historically true for empires and nation-states – it could well be true for the EU itself."