The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[snowychap]

1 hour ago, Risso said:

Any trade restrictions would be massively cutting off their nose to spite their face.  Not going to happen.

Protectionism is pretty daft, yet it happens.

 

[snowychap]

42 minutes ago, meregreen said:

My point is, the EU will happily put tariffs on our goods as we have few home grown alternatives to turn to for many high tech goods.So we would still have to buy from them, particularly Germany.They on the other hand would probably have multiple in house suppliers.The fact is we could have left the EU far more easily 30 years ago. Now however, our economy is geared to being part of the single market. It would in my opinion be a logistical and practical nightmare to leave it. And all this is simply being played out because of the interminable civil war within the Tory Party over Europe. 

I don't think your point works.

[HanoiVillan]

6 hours ago, Awol said:

Okay, "bust" isn't a particularly technical term... but when the banks have a problem with the recovery of issued debt, which if crystalized as losses they can't cover and can't be made good directly by the national government (as was done in the US and UK circa 2008), what is the technical term to describe that country's financial circumstances, insolvent? 

If the idea is to go through some great charade with the Germans as was done with the Bubbles a few years ago, that seems like a dangerous game to play. I also recall reading that Italy was too big to fail - in that it couldn't be rescued by the EU if its banking sector went arse over elbow.  Are you saying Germany has the means to bail out the Italians? 

 

I don't know if there is an exact name for that situation, though 'in big trouble' would seem to cover it. Italy doesn't seem to be in that situation though. Several banks have made bad losses last year, and partly for historical reasons and partly because of a slow recovery, these banks have rather high numbers of non-performing loans on their books. These loans are damaging bank balance sheets and are potentially slowing the economic recovery in the country as they make banks less willing to lend. They are a problem, there's no denying that. However, it isn't the government's job to 'make good' bank losses. Obviously the government has an interest in these institutions not failing, but their role is limited (especially since the 'bail-in' rules) to guaranteeing deposits. To that end, the Italian government has guaranteed deposits up to 100,000 euros, and should there be a run on a bank or two that will provide the government with an unwelcome bill. Financial help from the ECB is being sought to shore up some of the worst-affected banks, through a variety of complicated means that I happily admit I don't really understand, but which I believe the ECB will provide under enough sufferance eventually. 

The worst case scenario is this situation affecting the interest rates on the sale of sovereign bonds. However, we are still a very long way from this situation. Much more likely is that bank restructurings and consolidation among Italian banks, combined with changes to the bankruptcy law (one of the main reasons for the number of NPL's) and a growing economy, will reduce the salience of the issue. Since the crisis is currently more to do with a lack of confidence than a lack of capital, this should defuse the situation in time. 

It's true that if the Italian sovereign were to enter a situation where debt default were necessary, that the ECB couldn't save it. As a sovereign, it's 'too big to save' rather than 'too big to fail'. But there's no reason to think that the weaknesses of a few smaller banks will cause that level of crisis. 

I don't think this tells us much one way or the other about whether Britain should stay or leave the EU. It's a Eurozone issue, and happily we're not a part of it. 

[blandy]

8 hours ago, Risso said:

The point AWOL is making is that they export far more to us than we do to them.  Of the 2.1m new cars sold in the UK last year for example, something like 2/3 of them came from EU manufacturers.  Any trade restrictions would be massively cutting off their nose to spite their face...

In money terms, yes. I don't think anyone disputes that continental car makers etc. Wouldn't seriously pressure their gov'ts to speedily come to a new trade agreement. On the other hand, maybe some continental industries might rather like tariffs being imposed on British goods  ( which would bring about the same response from whoever was the tory leader) - maybe French farmers, for example. 

Another point about this "unequal" balance where they need us to buy their stuff more than we need them - well yes in cash terms, but while we'd lose 50% of our export market, the EU would lose just 7% of its market. In other words a much greater part of our economy is at risk than is the case for the rest of the EU. Which is a weak negotiating position to be in for the UK.

A combination of a wish to punish us politically, a wish to make an example to other would be leavers that leaving doesn't pay, plus a degree of pressure from French farmers and other continental industries that compete with British industry for market share to tilt the field in their favour, or just drag out negotiations so they can gain market share, plus the knowledge that the British government has half of its export market hit will outweigh or counteract the noise from BMW etc about giving the British what they want so they can still sell their motors to us.

Or to summarise it's really not so clear at all that "they need us more than we need them, so we'll get the deal we want". It's pretty certain that's simply untrue, though neither side can guarantee now what the future outcome of negotiations would be. The "leave" people like IDS, making their claims are basically therefore either stupid or liars or both* and whichever, are so blinded by their zeal to leave that they probably don't care what the consequences are. They just "know" they want out, God save the Queen, rule britannia, up yours delors.

 

* yes, yes, I know.

[Risso]

3 hours ago, blandy said:

In money terms, yes. I don't think anyone disputes that continental car makers etc. Wouldn't seriously pressure their gov'ts to speedily come to a new trade agreement. On the other hand, maybe some continental industries might rather like tariffs being imposed on British goods  ( which would bring about the same response from whoever was the tory leader) - maybe French farmers, for example. 

Another point about this "unequal" balance where they need us to buy their stuff more than we need them - well yes in cash terms, but while we'd lose 50% of our export market, the EU would lose just 7% of its market. In other words a much greater part of our economy is at risk than is the case for the rest of the EU. Which is a weak negotiating position to be in for the UK.

A combination of a wish to punish us politically, a wish to make an example to other would be leavers that leaving doesn't pay, plus a degree of pressure from French farmers and other continental industries that compete with British industry for market share to tilt the field in their favour, or just drag out negotiations so they can gain market share, plus the knowledge that the British government has half of its export market hit will outweigh or counteract the noise from BMW etc about giving the British what they want so they can still sell their motors to us.

Or to summarise it's really not so clear at all that "they need us more than we need them, so we'll get the deal we want". It's pretty certain that's simply untrue, though neither side can guarantee now what the future outcome of negotiations would be. The "leave" people like IDS, making their claims are basically therefore either stupid or liars or both* and whichever, are so blinded by their zeal to leave that they probably don't care what the consequences are. They just "know" they want out, God save the Queen, rule britannia, up yours delors.

 

* yes, yes, I know.

That 7% will be the whole EU tough.  From individual countries like Germany and France, it will be much, much higher.

[blandy]

56 minutes ago, Risso said:

That 7% will be the whole EU tough.  From individual countries like Germany and France, it will be much, much higher.

Not it won't be and isn't.
So for France to the UK a quick mooney reveals

Quote

39B/$564B

 which is 6.9%, and for Germany to the UK the same quick mooney reveals

Quote

88.8B/$1.38T

which is 6.4%. They're actually lower than some other EU nations.

This is the point - each nation to each individual nation is a small percentage, by and large - but the UK losing tariff free access to the entire rest of the EU is a big percentage for us. We could negotiate tariff free access, maybe, but only if we accept the condition the EU places on that, which is freedom of movement - thus the immigration issue which so exercises the out people (or a chunk of them) isn't "solved".

The problem with the out people in particular is they are making claims which don't stand up to even relatively gentle scrutiny. Well that and the utter hypocrisy.

Just for clarity, I'll probably reluctantly vote stay, or abstain, but I'm not an enthusiast for the EU. I just can't get my head round how poor the out people's case actually is. There's a massive credibility and plausibility gap. It's based on made up stuff and "instinct". 

 

 

[Awol]

@blandy So on the commercial negotiations post Brexit we are agreed that the EU will not let us study their notes when they are discussing what strategy to pursue...They'd be pretty daft to include us in those as the counter party to the deal so that seems entirely logical to me.

On tariffs we just don't know as you say, the balance of probability is on both sides agreeing a free trade deal, if not full access to the single market. As the majority of our economy consists of the service sector, in which the EU still doesn't have a single market, I think we'd be pretty happy with a free flow of manufactured goes coming to and from without barriers. 

That doesn't mean we'd have to accept freedom of movement and could rebalance our immigration policy to one of need based on skills, and we could then stop discriminating against non-EU countries.

We would as discussed then be able to pursue free trade deals that could really benefit large sectors of our economy, for example with China. Yes Mr Chinaman, you make lovely solar panels that we want but you give the makers state subsidies - tut tut, very naughty.. You can sell them to us without tariffs but in return you allow our professional services sector unfettered access to Shanghai and Beijing. Deal? Great. This stuff is not beyond the wit of man, or even UKTI. 

Food bills will come down as we allow tariff free access for African and other global south food producers, in return for taking X,Y and Z from us. Y'know, trade and that. We used to be double good at it too before we decided to let someone else take responsibility for it.

Now it takes 7 years to agree a trade deal with Canada... Canada FFS, a democratic, first world, English speaking (the good ones anyway) straight laced, rule abiding bunch of nice people. Seven F****** years! My 3 year old could have learned to write and still got there faster.

i think it's the Remainians who lack credibility, that and confidence and probably a bit of vision too. The status quo has us locked into a declining trading block with an ever decreasing share of global GDP and systemic faults that are only going to become more problematic as time goes by.  It's like listening to a battered wives meeting at a Stockholm syndrome convention. 

Maybe there is an element of simple belief that we can and should do much better, there are few certainties in life and sometimes you roll the dice and take a chance.  On balance I think the prospects of the current situation vs where we could be make it worth taking.

 

[blandy]

2 hours ago, Awol said:

@blandy So on the commercial negotiations post Brexit we are agreed that the EU will not let us study their notes when they are discussing what strategy to pursue...They'd be pretty daft to include us in those as the counter party to the deal so that seems entirely logical to me.

No that's not it, Jon. The rule says that "the [UK] shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in European decisions concerning [the UK]'  - so when "they" are discussing what measures they might want to impose, or whether they would want to "punish" us for leaving, or whatever they might discuss concerning the UK we are barred from being present. We would have no representation in any discussions amongst the other 27 regarding their approach to us - it's a lot more than just not seeing notes.

Access to the single market absolutely does mean accepting freedom of movement - it's another part of the constitution.

On the rest, we just have a different view, which is fine, but there's no point me putting my view again. Though I do agree to an extent with the bits of your post about Canada and about systemic faults.

If the EU and nice reasonable Canada can't do a deal quickly, why would the EU and UK be any different?

[jon_c]

^

And the UK negotiating the deal would probably be represented by Boris Johnson or Jeremy Corbyn. 

So that'll go well for us.

[chrisp65]

5 minutes ago, jon_c said:

^

And the UK negotiating the deal would probably be represented by Boris Johnson or Jeremy Corbyn. 

So that'll go well for us.

It won't be Corbyn doing the negotiation on behalf of the UK, he has a pre booked speech of solidarity to give at a pro lesbian chickens freedom rally that same day.

He can't just cancel that.

Boris probably can make it, but you just know he'll go by ferry and get his knickers snagged on the anchor and arrive at Calais wedgied, dangling off the bow, waving a little flag and with 900 photographers in tow purely by chance.

 

[jon_c]

I didn't really think it would actually be Corbyn but I was trying not to be partisan about it.

And on Corbyn, is he just hiding somewhere right now, so he doesn't have to commit a decision on this nasty Europe business? I haven't seen him on a single media outlet make comment about it.

[mjmooney]

I reiterate my original point - the whole thing is too complicated and confusing for Joe Public. If it was a nice left/right split - (say) businessmen want IN, unions want OUT (or vice versa) - we'd all know how to vote, one way or the other. But there's no consensus. People want Goodies and Baddies, but we just get emotive sloganeering and reams and reams of dull figures. I still have absolutely no idea what would be the best way to go. 

[Chindie]

I've said for a while that this is the kind of decision a referendum is really, really bad for. It's too complicated, and can't easily be parsed down to sound bites and slogans without being ludicrously inaccurate.

It's also bloody boring for 99% of the public so nobody is going to bother doing any research.

It's going to turn into two camps lying to voters to push one way or another. 

[mjmooney]

3 minutes ago, Chindie said:

I've said for a while that this is the kind of decision a referendum is really, really bad for. It's too complicated, and can't easily be parsed down to sound bites and slogans without being ludicrously inaccurate.

It's also bloody boring for 99% of the public so nobody is going to bother doing any research.

It's going to turn into two camps lying to voters to push one way or another. 

Yes, yes, yes, exactly THIS. A referendum is great for something that people care about, but in the grand scheme of things doesn't actually matter. Say, the national anthem, or the flag. But to turn something as complex as this over to the great unwashed is a total cop-out by the politicians. 

[blandy]

2 hours ago, mjmooney said:

I reiterate my original point - the whole thing is too complicated and confusing for Joe Public. If it was a nice left/right split - (say) businessmen want IN, unions want OUT (or vice versa) - we'd all know how to vote, one way or the other. But there's no consensus. People want Goodies and Baddies, but we just get emotive sloganeering and reams and reams of dull figures. I still have absolutely no idea what would be the best way to go. 

I know where you're coming from, Mike. Definitely. To be frank though, I'm not at all sure the politicians are any wiser, most of them. The way we know it works with whips and party loyalties and career ambitions many many of the MPs will just do what they think is best for them.

Something this "big" probably needs to have the people have a direct say.

Also, while there are people for and against, I really don't think it was a good idea to offer a decision to leave - it was just tory internal squabbling and trying to head of the threat from UKIP to their seats.

There are a few neutral and also a few in (and out) websites that present data which are really quite informative. Websites like https://fullfact.org http://infacts.org and http://ukandeu.ac.uk are good resources. 

[tonyh29]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

I know where you're coming from, Mike. Definitely. To be frank though, I'm not at all sure the politicians are any wiser, most of them. The way we know it works with whips and party loyalties and career ambitions many many of the MPs will just do what they think is best for them.

Something this "big" probably needs to have the people have a direct say.

Also, while there are people for and against, I really don't think it was a good idea to offer a decision to leave - it was just tory internal squabbling and trying to head of the threat from UKIP to their seats.

There are a few neutral and also a few in (and out) websites that present data which are really quite informative. Websites like https://fullfact.org http://infacts.org and http://ukandeu.ac.uk are good resources. 

I was starting to write something similar so instead ...

 

This

[mjmooney]

Those websites will not be understood (or, frankly, read) by 90% of those who will vote in the referendum. 

It's going to be decided on the basis of whether you're a "Down with nationalism, let's all love each other" type, or a "Don't like foreigners, they make laws about straight bananas" type. 

 

[blandy]

17 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

Those websites will not be understood (or, frankly, read) by 90% of those who will vote in the referendum. 

 

Oh, I agree completely. I was just trying to "help" you with your " I still have absolutely no idea what would be the best way to go. " comment, Mike.

[Davkaus]

21 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

Those websites will not be understood (or, frankly, read) by 90% of those who will vote in the referendum. 

It's going to be decided on the basis of whether you're a "Down with nationalism, let's all love each other" type, or a "Don't like foreigners, they make laws about straight bananas" type. 

 

I'm torn, really, about where I stand in referendums in general. I take far more interest in politics than the man on the Clapham omnibus, and do my best to seek out coverage from media that is spread across the political spectrum, and I haven't got a bloody clue about how to vote.

Is it better for an incredibly important decision that'll affect our country's future significantly to be made by a huge group of (at best) uninformed, or (worse) misinformed people, or by 600 odd out of touch career politicians who were elected by that same electorate?

 

[penguin]

Additionally could the politicians be trusted to vote for whats best for the country as a whole over personal interests and agendas, I know where I lean on this particular point.