[UK] No deal Brexit and FIRE

[Jamese20]

Funny enough I heard a lot of people say recently that they have faith in Boris, that he's a true character and not some bland bureaucrat. Which is if course true but absolutely not an advantage in this situation. The European leaders aren't the type of people who are going to be impressed by a PM without tact or attention to detail no matter how good company he might be in the pub. Imagine a meeting between him and Angela Merkel.... It would make great comedy if it wasn't so awful.

I also don't believe he is an idiot - far from that - but "making it up as you go along" seems a pretty fair description of his career (and his private life) so far. I think the lack of sympathy that is felt for him in Brussels will affect the UK's chances of a good deal.

@never give up I absolutely agree that the EU in its current form is deeply flawed, however, the benefits currently outweigh the cost imho  The core issue is that over the past half of a century the EU has developed constantly, but has (on purpose) avoided the question of what we are developing into, because it's politically so controversial. But you can't keep ignoring the basics for much longer: if we want a completely open market, we logically need the same set of rules everywhere. This would imply a federal Europe and that's where we're headed now, but without anyone saying it out loud. If that happens we need a lot more political transparancy and more power for the elected parliament, like in a regular federal state. It seems like most EU citizens are less interested in a federal Europe than their leaders and see no other option than to talk about leaving the EU all together, which I think would be a very bad development (although I guess Brexit is a good deterrant). Whatever way we are headed, we need to have a fundamental discussion about the direction and the destination of the European project and implement the necessary changes if we don't want the whole EU to collapse.

The EU was never going to give a good deal... it is incredible how people cannot see this reality for the obvious reason - hence why the deal that is on the table is so bad it cannot be passed through parliament... the reality is no sensible agreement was ever going to be plausible as a result of a leave result.

as for Federal europe... it has been a deceitful plan for the last 45+ years and anything involved in that method of change will end up with a bad ending and brexit is just the start of it. Also, why anyone wants a federal europe where the presidents wont be elected by the people of this federal europe is deeply concerning indeed - seems a rather kinder version of the soviet union to me - no thanks

[Imma]

Ok Jim555, caring about the UK didn’t come across to me in your earlier posts. No worries.  I’m sorry to hear your FIRE plans could be disrupted by this.

I actually care deeply about the UK (I have plans to FIRE there) and it saddens me so much that this has caused so much division and mess. As a European, I don't mind at all if countries want to leave the EU, but the UK has handled this badly. There should have been negotions for possible scenario's first and then people should have had their say. Now the Brexiters were basically given a blank check and ran with it. I don't think many Leavers intended to vote for a hard Brexit.

One of the slogans on the Brexit side during the referendum was something along the lines of “Love Europe, hate the EU”. I voted remain so I’m not endorsing this, but it is clear many people dislike the structure of the EU and the way it goes about things but actually have nothing against Europe itself and like Europe and being European a lot. I can accept this view. I kind of think the EU should concentrate on the things that the individual countries can’t do on their own I.e. trade, environment and security. I can understand the view of not wanting the EU to get involved in other things e.g. single currency etc.

If the referendum had been:

1. Remain
2. Remain but reform the EU and our relationship with it
3. Leave (but as Imma says with a clear definition of what that would look like)

Then I reckon 2 would have won.

Sadly being a choice between 1 and 3 made it difficult to campaign for 1. It’s instantly on the back foot. Leave sounds positive, assertive, taking back control etc. It by its very nature sounds optimistic and patriotic. For me it was clear that remaining was actually the patriotic choice but saying “we’ll just stay and remain as we are” instantly sounds needy and pathetic.

As a result the remain campaign just played on project fear and quite rightly no one believed it. Saying we’ll slowly decline over a twenty to thirty year period doesn’t have the punch so they went for nonsense statements such as emergency budgets, and immediate disaster. What they should have done was state the positive case for being in the EU in a really patriotic and positive way. Instead they were complacent and wishy washy, and that makes me as angry as I feel towards Cameron putting his party above the national interest in the first place.

I fail to see how the democratic will of the people is relevant here when both campaigns were so shoddily run and information provided so sub-standard. I would be genuinely interested now after these last three years how a second referendum would turn out. The Irish border I can barely remember being discussed too much, when it should have been one of the key talking points. As Imma says I can easily see this leading to the break up of the UK in the worst case. Did people vote for that?

From a FIRE perspective though all we can do is keep indexing, minimise expenses, hone as many skills as possible and cycle lots (because it’s cool) I.e. all things we want to be doing anyway.

"reform the EU" impossible the EU have only reformed to create a a federalist united europe only which has always been the plan. - this is a really naive thing and you cant be following the actions of the EU throughout time thinking they can reform - Cameron also tried to reform the EU which lead to a brexit win.

On the contrary, I believe momentum for reform is growing. It's the only thing the EU can do to prevent falling apart within the next couple of decades. Reform and democratisation was the biggest issue in the most recent European election. I am personally pro a federal Europe, but within a democratic framework. My own small country has no future on it's own, if the EU would collapse the only option we'd have is joining Germany as a Bundesland.

I have a law degree and I watch the EU more closely than most. I don't agree with the current jurisprudence of the ECJ - the judges are too activist and are pushing countries in a direction that wasn't agreed upon. I am a big fan of the Bundesverfassungsgericht though and their influence is huge. My gut feeling is that in the future they will defy the ECJ and as they're the most dominant country in the EU there's nothing much that can be done about that.

This is all very off topic though. On topic: I read a pretty comprehensive overview of the consequences of a no-deal Brexit in the Daily Mail of all places. Someone sent it to me and it was much more informative than I thought it would be.

[MarcherLady]

On topic: I read a pretty comprehensive overview of the consequences of a no-deal Brexit in the Daily Mail of all places. Someone sent it to me and it was much more informative than I thought it would be.

Shame they printed it three years too late, really :-(

[londonbanker]

How do people feel now about OP question?

[former player]

How do people feel now about OP question?

I'm not entirely convinced by the assumptions behind the question - the notion of buying stocks at a discount is complicated (negated?) by the fall in the value of the pound, and with the world economy as a whole heading into troubled waters there is a risk that economic trouble in the UK would be deeper and harder than it otherwise would be, and that sort of lost ground is rarely recovered from.

As to where Brexit is, tonight's vote weakens a Government that has just lost its majority (appointing Rees-Mogg as Leader of the House having its inevitable effect even sooner than I expected) but it will still be an uphill struggle for the opposition to push through a coherent alternative.  Another election won't clear things up any more than the last two have: the only sensible way through a hopelessly deadlocked government and Parliament would be another referendum.  But that's too sensible for the politicos to countenance it.

Boris trying to pretend he can get a better deal out of Brussels is probably the lyingest lier ever to be Prime Minister.

[Zola.]

I think its pretty obvious now this shit show isn't going happen, for at least another year, if ever.

The whole thing is so utterly monotonous.

[frugledoc]

I think its pretty obvious now this shit show isn't going happen, for at least another year, if ever.

The whole thing is so utterly monotonous.

If there is a general election and tories get a significant majority it might happen.

The initial referendum should have been leave with no deal or stay from the start.  They should just have another referendum with stay or leave and be done with it.

[SpreadsheetMan]

I think its pretty obvious now this shit show isn't going happen, for at least another year, if ever.

The whole thing is so utterly monotonous.

That's the thing, for a vitally serious topic it is so far beyond tedious now that I can't even bear to think about it.

And another thing - the sheer glee of the media at the turmoil while our country falls apart around us makes me sick.

[Zola.]

I have actually tried to ignore it, but its literally on all mass media devices. Sick to death of it!

[shelivesthedream]

I've been wondering if there's a chance that BoJo might lose his seat - his majority was 5000 last time. But my mother reckons he'll swap to a safe seat now he's kicked out half the party.

[Jamese20]

Ok Jim555, caring about the UK didn’t come across to me in your earlier posts. No worries.  I’m sorry to hear your FIRE plans could be disrupted by this.

I actually care deeply about the UK (I have plans to FIRE there) and it saddens me so much that this has caused so much division and mess. As a European, I don't mind at all if countries want to leave the EU, but the UK has handled this badly. There should have been negotions for possible scenario's first and then people should have had their say. Now the Brexiters were basically given a blank check and ran with it. I don't think many Leavers intended to vote for a hard Brexit.

One of the slogans on the Brexit side during the referendum was something along the lines of “Love Europe, hate the EU”. I voted remain so I’m not endorsing this, but it is clear many people dislike the structure of the EU and the way it goes about things but actually have nothing against Europe itself and like Europe and being European a lot. I can accept this view. I kind of think the EU should concentrate on the things that the individual countries can’t do on their own I.e. trade, environment and security. I can understand the view of not wanting the EU to get involved in other things e.g. single currency etc.

If the referendum had been:

1. Remain
2. Remain but reform the EU and our relationship with it
3. Leave (but as Imma says with a clear definition of what that would look like)

Then I reckon 2 would have won.

Sadly being a choice between 1 and 3 made it difficult to campaign for 1. It’s instantly on the back foot. Leave sounds positive, assertive, taking back control etc. It by its very nature sounds optimistic and patriotic. For me it was clear that remaining was actually the patriotic choice but saying “we’ll just stay and remain as we are” instantly sounds needy and pathetic.

As a result the remain campaign just played on project fear and quite rightly no one believed it. Saying we’ll slowly decline over a twenty to thirty year period doesn’t have the punch so they went for nonsense statements such as emergency budgets, and immediate disaster. What they should have done was state the positive case for being in the EU in a really patriotic and positive way. Instead they were complacent and wishy washy, and that makes me as angry as I feel towards Cameron putting his party above the national interest in the first place.

I fail to see how the democratic will of the people is relevant here when both campaigns were so shoddily run and information provided so sub-standard. I would be genuinely interested now after these last three years how a second referendum would turn out. The Irish border I can barely remember being discussed too much, when it should have been one of the key talking points. As Imma says I can easily see this leading to the break up of the UK in the worst case. Did people vote for that?

From a FIRE perspective though all we can do is keep indexing, minimise expenses, hone as many skills as possible and cycle lots (because it’s cool) I.e. all things we want to be doing anyway.

"reform the EU" impossible the EU have only reformed to create a a federalist united europe only which has always been the plan. - this is a really naive thing and you cant be following the actions of the EU throughout time thinking they can reform - Cameron also tried to reform the EU which lead to a brexit win.

On the contrary, I believe momentum for reform is growing. It's the only thing the EU can do to prevent falling apart within the next couple of decades. Reform and democratisation was the biggest issue in the most recent European election. I am personally pro a federal Europe, but within a democratic framework. My own small country has no future on it's own, if the EU would collapse the only option we'd have is joining Germany as a Bundesland.

I have a law degree and I watch the EU more closely than most. I don't agree with the current jurisprudence of the ECJ - the judges are too activist and are pushing countries in a direction that wasn't agreed upon. I am a big fan of the Bundesverfassungsgericht though and their influence is huge. My gut feeling is that in the future they will defy the ECJ and as they're the most dominant country in the EU there's nothing much that can be done about that.

This is all very off topic though. On topic: I read a pretty comprehensive overview of the consequences of a no-deal Brexit in the Daily Mail of all places. Someone sent it to me and it was much more informative than I thought it would be.

reform unfortunately is not an option for the EU - the clear aim since the 1970's has been clear its literally in black and white in ted heaths top secret document for anyone who wishes to see it - any form of new treaty is to gain more central power over the nation states and there has been literally nothing that has been put in place to demonstrate any kind of reform whatsoever - this is what the illiberal undemocrats keep preaching - reform..whilst listening to good old guy verhofstadt preaching a european empire and all of the whole party cheering about it - so they are openly lying to the electorate about it the intentions of the EU.

this is why people voted out at the end of the day

as for no deal brexit... the whole thing has been dramatised to make you live in fear of it - just like a vote to leave was - that didnt work and this wont either - we buy more than we sell and tariffs placed on us will be met with the same back and guess who makes more money in that situation? the UK.

the UK is a strong nation always has been and we won't collapse just because of leaving a political union - the press are all pro remain pretty much and are peddling fear at every turn... if you listen to the press and politics to make your investment decisions you are making a huge mistake and probably should go through some MMM posts and JL collins posts again

[Imma]

Oh, it's not a top secret document: the whole point of the EU was to form an ever closer union. That was the agreed upon goal when the EU was started and it's literally what countries signed up for when they joined. It's not some sort secret mission that some people sneaked in behind everyone's back. It's the reason we started this whole club in the first place.

I am very unconvinced that the role that the ECJ has designed for itself was what the states intended for the Court. I do not believe their intent was for the ECJ to overrule the countries' constitution and I also believe that is not something that is constitutionally possible in most countries. The German Constitutional Court agrees with me on that and is pushing back very hard. The Bundesverfassungsgericht being the most powerful Court in the most powerful European country,  I believe they will likely succeed.

I also disagree that no reform has happened, although it is sometimes difficult because many countries are afraid to lose control by giving too much power to the European Parliament. They don't want democratisation because they're afraid of the will of the people. But progress has certainly been made with the Lisboa-treaty and EU2020.

I don't believe that the UK will suddenly collapse due to Brexit, but it will certainly affect the future in a way that I believe is negative. I still plan to FIRE there and I hope that plan will work out (I'm maybe 20 years from FIRE so who knows what's going on in the world then)

[MarcherLady]

we buy more than we sell and tariffs placed on us will be met with the same back and guess who makes more money in that situation? the UK.

Can you talk me through the maths on this? because I don't understand why you believe tariffs will net the country more money than they cost us.

• I agree that we buy more than we sell. Over 50% of what we buy comes from the EU.
• Therefore if our imports are charged a tariff by the exporters those goods cost us more money. ('Us' being you and me and the UK companies we ultimately buy the imports from.)
• We could choose not to import those goods, and therefore avoid paying the tariffs. But last time I checked our home grown citrus fruit, coffee, tea, entertainment, wine... you name it, were not quite as varied as the international offerings we have become accustomed to, so I doubt that will be very palatable to most of the country.
• If we charge tariffs on our exports in return, then yes, the government will receive those tariffs as income, and we can hope that the government chooses to spend that income on things we approve of. Cruise missiles, tax breaks for BoJo's ex school chums, houses for MP's ducks... to name but a few. 
• The buyers of our exports can also choose to not buy our goods, and avoid the tariffs. Are we happy to bet that our exports are better than anything else available in the whole of the rest of the world? We are that unique that our customers are going to decide that our exports are irreplaceable when they go up in price?
• What do we export? The top 5 exports by US$ - according to Wikipedia are Cars, Refined Petroleum, Crude Petroleum, Pharmaceuticals and Gas Turbines.
• Several of the (Non-UK) car manufacturers have said they will reduce or cease production in the UK in the case of a No Deal Brexit. So that income stream will reduce.
• Petrol is petrol is petrol, no one has an emotional response to where they buy their petrol, they go to the cheapest place. So that income stream will reduce.
• Pharmaceuticals, I know very little about, but let's assume that we have some unique products that cannot be made anywhere else, and cannot be counterfeited by India or China. So that income stream may increase.
• Gas turbines, seems like most things can be made cheaper elsewhere, why would these be different? So that income stream will reduce.
• And finally, Cars, Petroleum Products and Gas turbines aren't exactly products of the future, are they? They are all last millennium products, that are fated, sooner or later, to become obsolete or vastly less important in the global economy as Climate change becomes something we accept and have to deal with.

the UK is a strong nation always has been and we won't collapse just because of leaving a political union

Of course we won't collapse. But there will be blood on the streets in NI again, and there is a good chance that Scotland will vote Yes for independence. The options are not 'collapse vs continue', they are 'survive vs thrive'. I would prefer to see us thrive rather than just scrape by. We are a small country with a glorious (if morally dubious) history, but history doesn't pay the bills.

[Jamese20]

we buy more than we sell and tariffs placed on us will be met with the same back and guess who makes more money in that situation? the UK.

Can you talk me through the maths on this? because I don't understand why you believe tariffs will net the country more money than they cost us.

• I agree that we buy more than we sell. Over 50% of what we buy comes from the EU.
• Therefore if our imports are charged a tariff by the exporters those goods cost us more money. ('Us' being you and me and the UK companies we ultimately buy the imports from.)
• We could choose not to import those goods, and therefore avoid paying the tariffs. But last time I checked our home grown citrus fruit, coffee, tea, entertainment, wine... you name it, were not quite as varied as the international offerings we have become accustomed to, so I doubt that will be very palatable to most of the country.
• If we charge tariffs on our exports in return, then yes, the government will receive those tariffs as income, and we can hope that the government chooses to spend that income on things we approve of. Cruise missiles, tax breaks for BoJo's ex school chums, houses for MP's ducks... to name but a few. 
• The buyers of our exports can also choose to not buy our goods, and avoid the tariffs. Are we happy to bet that our exports are better than anything else available in the whole of the rest of the world? We are that unique that our customers are going to decide that our exports are irreplaceable when they go up in price?
• What do we export? The top 5 exports by US$ - according to Wikipedia are Cars, Refined Petroleum, Crude Petroleum, Pharmaceuticals and Gas Turbines.
• Several of the (Non-UK) car manufacturers have said they will reduce or cease production in the UK in the case of a No Deal Brexit. So that income stream will reduce.
• Petrol is petrol is petrol, no one has an emotional response to where they buy their petrol, they go to the cheapest place. So that income stream will reduce.
• Pharmaceuticals, I know very little about, but let's assume that we have some unique products that cannot be made anywhere else, and cannot be counterfeited by India or China. So that income stream may increase.
• Gas turbines, seems like most things can be made cheaper elsewhere, why would these be different? So that income stream will reduce.
• And finally, Cars, Petroleum Products and Gas turbines aren't exactly products of the future, are they? They are all last millennium products, that are fated, sooner or later, to become obsolete or vastly less important in the global economy as Climate change becomes something we accept and have to deal with.

the UK is a strong nation always has been and we won't collapse just because of leaving a political union

Of course we won't collapse. But there will be blood on the streets in NI again, and there is a good chance that Scotland will vote Yes for independence. The options are not 'collapse vs continue', they are 'survive vs thrive'. I would prefer to see us thrive rather than just scrape by. We are a small country with a glorious (if morally dubious) history, but history doesn't pay the bills.

the maths are that basic i question why you would ask the question... if we get tarriff charges we do the same... we buy more than we sell.. its that simple - when you have a deficit like that tarriffs favour the UK not the EU - also the trade is growing outside of the EU and contracting within... how in the mid term or even short term is this going to be negative if we come out? so more trade is on WTO than it is in the free market which isnt actually free

let me guess... you backed remain - i didnt back either by the way

[Jamese20]

[/quote]
Of course we won't collapse. But there will be blood on the streets in NI again, and there is a good chance that Scotland will vote Yes for independence. The options are not 'collapse vs continue', they are 'survive vs thrive'. I would prefer to see us thrive rather than just scrape by. We are a small country with a glorious (if morally dubious) history, but history doesn't pay the bills.
[/quote]

there will be? first off, that is not true at all that is crystal ball type stuff... and why would there be blood on the street... unless you seriously believe this border issue is a real issue.. and who is going to put up a hard border? nobody so the GFA will not be broken... also border people have confirmed there is no need for one either..even the eu have.

Scotland leaving... well that has been promoted well before the eu referendum so its just an excuse to use the eu situation to try and get another referundum.. i dont see how scotland being independent is some disaster to be honest considering they cost the rest of UK a ton

[Jamese20]

Oh, it's not a top secret document: the whole point of the EU was to form an ever closer union. That was the agreed upon goal when the EU was started and it's literally what countries signed up for when they joined. It's not some sort secret mission that some people sneaked in behind everyone's back. It's the reason we started this whole club in the first place.

I am very unconvinced that the role that the ECJ has designed for itself was what the states intended for the Court. I do not believe their intent was for the ECJ to overrule the countries' constitution and I also believe that is not something that is constitutionally possible in most countries. The German Constitutional Court agrees with me on that and is pushing back very hard. The Bundesverfassungsgericht being the most powerful Court in the most powerful European country,  I believe they will likely succeed.

I also disagree that no reform has happened, although it is sometimes difficult because many countries are afraid to lose control by giving too much power to the European Parliament. They don't want democratisation because they're afraid of the will of the people. But progress has certainly been made with the Lisboa-treaty and EU2020.

I don't believe that the UK will suddenly collapse due to Brexit, but it will certainly affect the future in a way that I believe is negative. I still plan to FIRE there and I hope that plan will work out (I'm maybe 20 years from FIRE so who knows what's going on in the world then)

it was a secret and the lib dems dont believe in in it according to them.. which is a lie... so still,  political parties are trying to deceive the public on the whole project and i believe this is the main reason people voted out

[shelivesthedream]

we buy more than we sell and tariffs placed on us will be met with the same back and guess who makes more money in that situation? the UK.

Can you talk me through the maths on this? because I don't understand why you believe tariffs will net the country more money than they cost us.

• I agree that we buy more than we sell. Over 50% of what we buy comes from the EU.
• Therefore if our imports are charged a tariff by the exporters those goods cost us more money. ('Us' being you and me and the UK companies we ultimately buy the imports from.)
• We could choose not to import those goods, and therefore avoid paying the tariffs. But last time I checked our home grown citrus fruit, coffee, tea, entertainment, wine... you name it, were not quite as varied as the international offerings we have become accustomed to, so I doubt that will be very palatable to most of the country.
• If we charge tariffs on our exports in return, then yes, the government will receive those tariffs as income, and we can hope that the government chooses to spend that income on things we approve of. Cruise missiles, tax breaks for BoJo's ex school chums, houses for MP's ducks... to name but a few. 
• The buyers of our exports can also choose to not buy our goods, and avoid the tariffs. Are we happy to bet that our exports are better than anything else available in the whole of the rest of the world? We are that unique that our customers are going to decide that our exports are irreplaceable when they go up in price?
• What do we export? The top 5 exports by US$ - according to Wikipedia are Cars, Refined Petroleum, Crude Petroleum, Pharmaceuticals and Gas Turbines.
• Several of the (Non-UK) car manufacturers have said they will reduce or cease production in the UK in the case of a No Deal Brexit. So that income stream will reduce.
• Petrol is petrol is petrol, no one has an emotional response to where they buy their petrol, they go to the cheapest place. So that income stream will reduce.
• Pharmaceuticals, I know very little about, but let's assume that we have some unique products that cannot be made anywhere else, and cannot be counterfeited by India or China. So that income stream may increase.
• Gas turbines, seems like most things can be made cheaper elsewhere, why would these be different? So that income stream will reduce.
• And finally, Cars, Petroleum Products and Gas turbines aren't exactly products of the future, are they? They are all last millennium products, that are fated, sooner or later, to become obsolete or vastly less important in the global economy as Climate change becomes something we accept and have to deal with.

the UK is a strong nation always has been and we won't collapse just because of leaving a political union

Of course we won't collapse. But there will be blood on the streets in NI again, and there is a good chance that Scotland will vote Yes for independence. The options are not 'collapse vs continue', they are 'survive vs thrive'. I would prefer to see us thrive rather than just scrape by. We are a small country with a glorious (if morally dubious) history, but history doesn't pay the bills.

the maths are that basic i question why you would ask the question... if we get tarriff charges we do the same... we buy more than we sell.. its that simple - when you have a deficit like that tarriffs favour the UK not the EU - also the trade is growing outside of the EU and contracting within... how in the mid term or even short term is this going to be negative if we come out? so more trade is on WTO than it is in the free market which isnt actually free

let me guess... you backed remain - i didnt back either by the way

Sorry, I'm not clear which of MarcherLady's points you are disagreeing with. Could you be more specific? It seems like she is saying that at the moment we buy more than we sell, and when tariffs are added (in both directions) then goods we buy from the EU will cost the consumer more and goods bought by the EU from us will cost their consumer more so they will choose to shop elsewhere, reducing our export profits and raising prices in our country.

And you are saying that EU consumers will keep choosing UK goods even though they are more expensive because EU governments will want to keep the UK's custom? And that the EU is not an important trade partner because trade is growing with non-EU countries in both directions?

I hope you don't think this is a rude question, but might I ask how old you are? I'm interested in the historical perspective you are coming from, particularly wrt the NI question.

[Jamese20]

we buy more than we sell and tariffs placed on us will be met with the same back and guess who makes more money in that situation? the UK.

Can you talk me through the maths on this? because I don't understand why you believe tariffs will net the country more money than they cost us.

• I agree that we buy more than we sell. Over 50% of what we buy comes from the EU.
• Therefore if our imports are charged a tariff by the exporters those goods cost us more money. ('Us' being you and me and the UK companies we ultimately buy the imports from.)
• We could choose not to import those goods, and therefore avoid paying the tariffs. But last time I checked our home grown citrus fruit, coffee, tea, entertainment, wine... you name it, were not quite as varied as the international offerings we have become accustomed to, so I doubt that will be very palatable to most of the country.
• If we charge tariffs on our exports in return, then yes, the government will receive those tariffs as income, and we can hope that the government chooses to spend that income on things we approve of. Cruise missiles, tax breaks for BoJo's ex school chums, houses for MP's ducks... to name but a few. 
• The buyers of our exports can also choose to not buy our goods, and avoid the tariffs. Are we happy to bet that our exports are better than anything else available in the whole of the rest of the world? We are that unique that our customers are going to decide that our exports are irreplaceable when they go up in price?
• What do we export? The top 5 exports by US$ - according to Wikipedia are Cars, Refined Petroleum, Crude Petroleum, Pharmaceuticals and Gas Turbines.
• Several of the (Non-UK) car manufacturers have said they will reduce or cease production in the UK in the case of a No Deal Brexit. So that income stream will reduce.
• Petrol is petrol is petrol, no one has an emotional response to where they buy their petrol, they go to the cheapest place. So that income stream will reduce.
• Pharmaceuticals, I know very little about, but let's assume that we have some unique products that cannot be made anywhere else, and cannot be counterfeited by India or China. So that income stream may increase.
• Gas turbines, seems like most things can be made cheaper elsewhere, why would these be different? So that income stream will reduce.
• And finally, Cars, Petroleum Products and Gas turbines aren't exactly products of the future, are they? They are all last millennium products, that are fated, sooner or later, to become obsolete or vastly less important in the global economy as Climate change becomes something we accept and have to deal with.

the UK is a strong nation always has been and we won't collapse just because of leaving a political union

Of course we won't collapse. But there will be blood on the streets in NI again, and there is a good chance that Scotland will vote Yes for independence. The options are not 'collapse vs continue', they are 'survive vs thrive'. I would prefer to see us thrive rather than just scrape by. We are a small country with a glorious (if morally dubious) history, but history doesn't pay the bills.

the maths are that basic i question why you would ask the question... if we get tarriff charges we do the same... we buy more than we sell.. its that simple - when you have a deficit like that tarriffs favour the UK not the EU - also the trade is growing outside of the EU and contracting within... how in the mid term or even short term is this going to be negative if we come out? so more trade is on WTO than it is in the free market which isnt actually free

let me guess... you backed remain - i didnt back either by the way

Sorry, I'm not clear which of MarcherLady's points you are disagreeing with. Could you be more specific? It seems like she is saying that at the moment we buy more than we sell, and when tariffs are added (in both directions) then goods we buy from the EU will cost the consumer more and goods bought by the EU from us will cost their consumer more so they will choose to shop elsewhere, reducing our export profits and raising prices in our country.

And you are saying that EU consumers will keep choosing UK goods even though they are more expensive because EU governments will want to keep the UK's custom? And that the EU is not an important trade partner because trade is growing with non-EU countries in both directions?

I hope you don't think this is a rude question, but might I ask how old you are? I'm interested in the historical perspective you are coming from, particularly wrt the NI question.

your point works both ways in regard to that so what is your point? this is the issue with confirmation bias - before i tell you my age.. what has that got to do with NI question... there won't be a hard border and nobody will build one no matter the circumstance so the NI question is actually mute from the point of "there will be blood on the streets" as the GFA agreement wont be breached

[Kwill]

there won't be a hard border and nobody will build one no matter the circumstance so the NI question is actually mute from the point of "there will be blood on the streets" as the GFA agreement wont be breached

How do you know this? Why are you certain?

I believe you mean 'moot', rather than 'mute'. Certainly, nobody in this thread seems muted.

[Jamese20]

there won't be a hard border and nobody will build one no matter the circumstance so the NI question is actually mute from the point of "there will be blood on the streets" as the GFA agreement wont be breached

How do you know this? Why are you certain?

I believe you mean 'moot', rather than 'mute'. Certainly, nobody in this thread seems muted.

correct thanks for correcting me... im trying to reply and watch something at the same time so forgive my grammar and misspelling

because there is no need for a hard border... border experts have already confirmed this despite the political motives - not to mention that both eu and uk have fully confirmed there will be no border even in the event of no deal brexit.

[shelivesthedream]

we buy more than we sell and tariffs placed on us will be met with the same back and guess who makes more money in that situation? the UK.

Can you talk me through the maths on this? because I don't understand why you believe tariffs will net the country more money than they cost us.

• I agree that we buy more than we sell. Over 50% of what we buy comes from the EU.
• Therefore if our imports are charged a tariff by the exporters those goods cost us more money. ('Us' being you and me and the UK companies we ultimately buy the imports from.)
• We could choose not to import those goods, and therefore avoid paying the tariffs. But last time I checked our home grown citrus fruit, coffee, tea, entertainment, wine... you name it, were not quite as varied as the international offerings we have become accustomed to, so I doubt that will be very palatable to most of the country.
• If we charge tariffs on our exports in return, then yes, the government will receive those tariffs as income, and we can hope that the government chooses to spend that income on things we approve of. Cruise missiles, tax breaks for BoJo's ex school chums, houses for MP's ducks... to name but a few. 
• The buyers of our exports can also choose to not buy our goods, and avoid the tariffs. Are we happy to bet that our exports are better than anything else available in the whole of the rest of the world? We are that unique that our customers are going to decide that our exports are irreplaceable when they go up in price?
• What do we export? The top 5 exports by US$ - according to Wikipedia are Cars, Refined Petroleum, Crude Petroleum, Pharmaceuticals and Gas Turbines.
• Several of the (Non-UK) car manufacturers have said they will reduce or cease production in the UK in the case of a No Deal Brexit. So that income stream will reduce.
• Petrol is petrol is petrol, no one has an emotional response to where they buy their petrol, they go to the cheapest place. So that income stream will reduce.
• Pharmaceuticals, I know very little about, but let's assume that we have some unique products that cannot be made anywhere else, and cannot be counterfeited by India or China. So that income stream may increase.
• Gas turbines, seems like most things can be made cheaper elsewhere, why would these be different? So that income stream will reduce.
• And finally, Cars, Petroleum Products and Gas turbines aren't exactly products of the future, are they? They are all last millennium products, that are fated, sooner or later, to become obsolete or vastly less important in the global economy as Climate change becomes something we accept and have to deal with.

the UK is a strong nation always has been and we won't collapse just because of leaving a political union

Of course we won't collapse. But there will be blood on the streets in NI again, and there is a good chance that Scotland will vote Yes for independence. The options are not 'collapse vs continue', they are 'survive vs thrive'. I would prefer to see us thrive rather than just scrape by. We are a small country with a glorious (if morally dubious) history, but history doesn't pay the bills.

the maths are that basic i question why you would ask the question... if we get tarriff charges we do the same... we buy more than we sell.. its that simple - when you have a deficit like that tarriffs favour the UK not the EU - also the trade is growing outside of the EU and contracting within... how in the mid term or even short term is this going to be negative if we come out? so more trade is on WTO than it is in the free market which isnt actually free

let me guess... you backed remain - i didnt back either by the way

Sorry, I'm not clear which of MarcherLady's points you are disagreeing with. Could you be more specific? It seems like she is saying that at the moment we buy more than we sell, and when tariffs are added (in both directions) then goods we buy from the EU will cost the consumer more and goods bought by the EU from us will cost their consumer more so they will choose to shop elsewhere, reducing our export profits and raising prices in our country.

And you are saying that EU consumers will keep choosing UK goods even though they are more expensive because EU governments will want to keep the UK's custom? And that the EU is not an important trade partner because trade is growing with non-EU countries in both directions?

I hope you don't think this is a rude question, but might I ask how old you are? I'm interested in the historical perspective you are coming from, particularly wrt the NI question.

your point works both ways in regard to that so what is your point? this is the issue with confirmation bias - before i tell you my age.. what has that got to do with NI question... there won't be a hard border and nobody will build one no matter the circumstance so the NI question is actually mute from the point of "there will be blood on the streets" as the GFA agreement wont be breached

I'm 29 and my generation hasn't really lived through the "Troubles" so I don't really hear my friends talking about the Irish border as being as big an issue as, for example, ease of working in other EU countries or how the creative industries might be affected by Brexit. Obviously we're aware of it as a "thing", but we've never seen it live on the news, iyswim. Whereas for my parents generation it's a much more real, present and emotive worry for them because they've seen sectarian violence in Ireland within their lifetimes so it feels like a bigger potential issue to them than it does to us. There's always been peace (ish) in Ireland in my political memory - not so if you're over a certain age, so I think one would perceive the peace as more fragile than my (English) generation does. I feel like I can't tell which generation you belong to, hence my asking (as I roughly know the age of the other participants in the present discussion already).

I'm genuinely unclear by what you mean by the bolded bit. Is it somehow in reference to my request for you to be more specific about which bit of MarcherLady's scenario you think is false?

[MarcherLady]

But there will be blood on the streets in NI again

Actually, I was wrong, it is not a case of there will be blood, there already is blood.

Belfast Telegraph, June 2019 'Cases of violent crime in Northern Ireland have jumped almost 6% in the last year'


Guardian, 2018 'NI Punishment attacks rise 60% in four years'

Independent, Aug 2019 'NI is already spiraling out of control but no one is paying any attention.'

[Jamese20]

we buy more than we sell and tariffs placed on us will be met with the same back and guess who makes more money in that situation? the UK.

Can you talk me through the maths on this? because I don't understand why you believe tariffs will net the country more money than they cost us.

• I agree that we buy more than we sell. Over 50% of what we buy comes from the EU.
• Therefore if our imports are charged a tariff by the exporters those goods cost us more money. ('Us' being you and me and the UK companies we ultimately buy the imports from.)
• We could choose not to import those goods, and therefore avoid paying the tariffs. But last time I checked our home grown citrus fruit, coffee, tea, entertainment, wine... you name it, were not quite as varied as the international offerings we have become accustomed to, so I doubt that will be very palatable to most of the country.
• If we charge tariffs on our exports in return, then yes, the government will receive those tariffs as income, and we can hope that the government chooses to spend that income on things we approve of. Cruise missiles, tax breaks for BoJo's ex school chums, houses for MP's ducks... to name but a few. 
• The buyers of our exports can also choose to not buy our goods, and avoid the tariffs. Are we happy to bet that our exports are better than anything else available in the whole of the rest of the world? We are that unique that our customers are going to decide that our exports are irreplaceable when they go up in price?
• What do we export? The top 5 exports by US$ - according to Wikipedia are Cars, Refined Petroleum, Crude Petroleum, Pharmaceuticals and Gas Turbines.
• Several of the (Non-UK) car manufacturers have said they will reduce or cease production in the UK in the case of a No Deal Brexit. So that income stream will reduce.
• Petrol is petrol is petrol, no one has an emotional response to where they buy their petrol, they go to the cheapest place. So that income stream will reduce.
• Pharmaceuticals, I know very little about, but let's assume that we have some unique products that cannot be made anywhere else, and cannot be counterfeited by India or China. So that income stream may increase.
• Gas turbines, seems like most things can be made cheaper elsewhere, why would these be different? So that income stream will reduce.
• And finally, Cars, Petroleum Products and Gas turbines aren't exactly products of the future, are they? They are all last millennium products, that are fated, sooner or later, to become obsolete or vastly less important in the global economy as Climate change becomes something we accept and have to deal with.

the UK is a strong nation always has been and we won't collapse just because of leaving a political union

Of course we won't collapse. But there will be blood on the streets in NI again, and there is a good chance that Scotland will vote Yes for independence. The options are not 'collapse vs continue', they are 'survive vs thrive'. I would prefer to see us thrive rather than just scrape by. We are a small country with a glorious (if morally dubious) history, but history doesn't pay the bills.

the maths are that basic i question why you would ask the question... if we get tarriff charges we do the same... we buy more than we sell.. its that simple - when you have a deficit like that tarriffs favour the UK not the EU - also the trade is growing outside of the EU and contracting within... how in the mid term or even short term is this going to be negative if we come out? so more trade is on WTO than it is in the free market which isnt actually free

let me guess... you backed remain - i didnt back either by the way

Sorry, I'm not clear which of MarcherLady's points you are disagreeing with. Could you be more specific? It seems like she is saying that at the moment we buy more than we sell, and when tariffs are added (in both directions) then goods we buy from the EU will cost the consumer more and goods bought by the EU from us will cost their consumer more so they will choose to shop elsewhere, reducing our export profits and raising prices in our country.

And you are saying that EU consumers will keep choosing UK goods even though they are more expensive because EU governments will want to keep the UK's custom? And that the EU is not an important trade partner because trade is growing with non-EU countries in both directions?

I hope you don't think this is a rude question, but might I ask how old you are? I'm interested in the historical perspective you are coming from, particularly wrt the NI question.

your point works both ways in regard to that so what is your point? this is the issue with confirmation bias - before i tell you my age.. what has that got to do with NI question... there won't be a hard border and nobody will build one no matter the circumstance so the NI question is actually mute from the point of "there will be blood on the streets" as the GFA agreement wont be breached

I'm 29 and my generation hasn't really lived through the "Troubles" so I don't really hear my friends talking about the Irish border as being as big an issue as, for example, ease of working in other EU countries or how the creative industries might be affected by Brexit. Obviously we're aware of it as a "thing", but we've never seen it live on the news, iyswim. Whereas for my parents generation it's a much more real, present and emotive worry for them because they've seen sectarian violence in Ireland within their lifetimes so it feels like a bigger potential issue to them than it does to us. There's always been peace (ish) in Ireland in my political memory - not so if you're over a certain age, so I think one would perceive the peace as more fragile than my (English) generation does. I feel like I can't tell which generation you belong to, hence my asking (as I roughly know the age of the other participants in the present discussion already).

I'm genuinely unclear by what you mean by the bolded bit. Is it somehow in reference to my request for you to be more specific about which bit of MarcherLady's scenario you think is false?

the buying goods elsewhere applies to the UK as it applies to the EU... 85% of the GDP is outside the EU... your point was referring the buying elsewhere only seemed to apply to the EU when it applies to both... i also think that because of this situation that the sensible thing to do is to form a free trade agreement.. we are aligned enough already that it would take not very long to sort. no deal does not mean no deal forever and in reality we are not even talking about a no deal its whether you accept that horrible withdrawal agreement or not... which is actually not needed either by the way.

the ireland issue... people who want to stir trouble will stir it and use any form of excuse to cause the mess irrespective of brexit..

in reality this has nothing to do with economics and everything to do with political ideology - and as we know, economic predictions are impossible to predict brexit or no brexit... there is no such thing as stay in the eu = great economics... and out = bad... you can always short the pound and bet on the UK contracting but i bet all the doom mongers wont be putting any money down on that will they now? we were told 500k jobs would go just by the act of voting to leave and we would need an emergency budget.. we would be in recession etc.. we havent come close to any of it even in this mass uncertainty... 

the issue with people in the UK is us UK people knock ourselves down all the time - maybe its our weather

just to the other point on united states of europe - i just heard femi of "our future our choice" talk about how he is against that concept and against the euro but wants us to remain frantically... so is he lying and trying to deceive or does he naively think the EU can be reformed in a way that leaves it as just a trading block? thats what we thought we had in the 70's... look what it is now

[MarcherLady]

this is the issue with confirmation bias

It's not confirmation bias. I voted Remain because I believe we are better off inside the EU.

More, I believe that as a country who stood against fascism in two world wars it is our duty to be inside the EU. I don't think the EU is perfect, on the contrary, I want the UK to be inside the EU, because from there we could help lead it, and influence it to be better, and ensure that Europe isn't the crucible for WWIII. We could have been one of the leaders of the EU, and made it into something that worked better for us, but instead successive governments distanced themselves from it, kept one foot on the floor and tried to pretend it wasn't happening.

We can't influence anything from the outside. I voted Remain because I want our country to have an increased role in the global economy, and I don't believe it makes sense to go it alone. Only idiots want to build walls...

[former player]

because there is no need for a hard border... border experts have already confirmed this despite the political motives - not to mention that both eu and uk have fully confirmed there will be no border even in the event of no deal brexit.

The thing is, the Irish border question has been the sticking point through three years of negotiations with Theresa May as PM, and still no solution has been found that satisfies Brexiteers, Parliament and the needs of the remainder of the EU.  That's not because the people involved in trying to find a solution were stupid, or not working hard.  Your "border experts", whoever they are, aren't the people who actually have to make the arrangements work for the next however many decades.

The idea that there won't be a border even if there is a no deal exit is a desperate political sign to the paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland, hoping that it will be enough for them not to start exploding bombs and firing bullets on 1 November 2019.  There's only a limited amount of time that "no border" can hold in the absence of a deal: the legal, financial and practical loopholes and losses it leaves in cross-border dealings will very rapidly become unsustainable.

I'm old enough to have lived through the English end of the Troubles.  I worked behind bomb-proofing in London for 20 years, I had colleagues injured in the IRA bombing of the Royal Courts of Justice and I sat in meeting rooms boarded up from damage caused by the IRA mortar attack on No.10.   No concept of the potential benefits of Brexit is worth going back to that.

[Jamese20]

this is the issue with confirmation bias

It's not confirmation bias. I voted Remain because I believe we are better off inside the EU.

More, I believe that as a country who stood against fascism in two world wars it is our duty to be inside the EU. I don't think the EU is perfect, on the contrary, I want the UK to be inside the EU, because from there we could help lead it, and influence it to be better, and ensure that Europe isn't the crucible for WWIII. We could have been one of the leaders of the EU, and made it into something that worked better for us, but instead successive governments distanced themselves from it, kept one foot on the floor and tried to pretend it wasn't happening.

We can't influence anything from the outside. I voted Remain because I want our country to have an increased role in the global economy, and I don't believe it makes sense to go it alone. Only idiots want to build walls...

it is confirmation bias.. thats exactly what it is.. and i will guess and assume nothing anyone would say to you would convince you that leaving the eu is a good thing... i notice this on the remain side more than the leave side... and i would stay in the EU if it genuinely wanted to keep it as a trading bloc but thats not to be as already proven.

i believe your stance here is based on the concept that we can lead the eu and reform it into how we want... i dont agree we distanced ourselves we tried to reform it.. cameron tried to reform and so have others and they have done zero on that front... Cameron proved how little influence we have in the EU which i believe was the major turn into deciding the referendum vote.

as for WW3... well we have nato which has stopped that before the EU even came on the scene

[Jamese20]

because there is no need for a hard border... border experts have already confirmed this despite the political motives - not to mention that both eu and uk have fully confirmed there will be no border even in the event of no deal brexit.

The thing is, the Irish border question has been the sticking point through three years of negotiations with Theresa May as PM, and still no solution has been found that satisfies Brexiteers, Parliament and the needs of the remainder of the EU.  That's not because the people involved in trying to find a solution were stupid, or not working hard.  Your "border experts", whoever they are, aren't the people who actually have to make the arrangements work for the next however many decades.

The idea that there won't be a border even if there is a no deal exit is a desperate political sign to the paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland, hoping that it will be enough for them not to start exploding bombs and firing bullets on 1 November 2019.  There's only a limited amount of time that "no border" can hold in the absence of a deal: the legal, financial and practical loopholes and losses it leaves in cross-border dealings will very rapidly become unsustainable.

I'm old enough to have lived through the English end of the Troubles.  I worked behind bomb-proofing in London for 20 years, I had colleagues injured in the IRA bombing of the Royal Courts of Justice and I sat in meeting rooms boarded up from damage caused by the IRA mortar attack on No.10.   No concept of the potential benefits of Brexit is worth going back to that.

what would restart the conflict specifically? considering the GFA wont be broken.. you are making an assumption that there has to be a hard border... this is not the case

[Kwill]

because there is no need for a hard border... border experts have already confirmed this despite the political motives - not to mention that both eu and uk have fully confirmed there will be no border even in the event of no deal brexit.

I've been trying to follow along with Brexit via the BBC website mainly. Here is its explanation about the Irish Border. The way they explain it, it sounds to me like nobody wants a hard border, but realistically, the logistics of having two separate countries without a border would pose some difficulties that might result in a hard border in the end. What is the solution?

[Jamese20]

got to go folks but i will leave you with this

we live in a democracy... the largest vote turnout in history of the UK and that vote was to leave... for better or for worse it is the right thing to go forward with - unless of course you do not want to live in a democracy any longer... which i would find very worrying to be honest

bye for now

[former player]

got to go folks but i will leave you with this

we live in a democracy... the largest vote turnout in history of the UK and that vote was to leave... for better or for worse it is the right thing to go forward with - unless of course you do not want to live in a democracy any longer... which i would find very worrying to be honest

bye for now

There are a lot of people in Scotland who think a second referendum on independence would be democratic.

And a second referendum would not be the same as the first: it would be not on a vague idea of leaving but on the concrete terms of leaving.

Here's a splendid analogy shared on Twitter by Jay Rayner, first from @alexbuchanan

"I’m not saying there wasn’t a democratic mandate for Brexit at the time. I’m just saying if I narrowly decided to order fish at a restaurant that was known for chicken, but said it was happy to offer fish, and so far I’ve been waiting three hours, and two chefs who promised to cook the fish had quit, and the third one is promising to deliver the fish in the next five minutes whether it’s cooked or not, or indeed still alive, and all the waiting staff have spent the last few hours arguing amongst themselves about whether I wanted battered cod, grilled salmon, jellied eels or dolphin kebabs, and if large parts of the restaurant appeared to be on fire but no-one was paying attention to it because they were all arguing about fish, I would quite like, just once, to be asked if I definitely still wanted the fish."

[UK Dancer]

got to go folks but i will leave you with this

we live in a democracy... the largest vote turnout in history of the UK and that vote was to leave... for better or for worse it is the right thing to go forward with - unless of course you do not want to live in a democracy any longer... which i would find very worrying to be honest

bye for now

Relevant points:

• A vote based on a campaign that has since been revealed to involve extensive lying, predominantly on one side.
• One side didn't just break but smashed spending limitations designed to preserve democracy by preventing it being a 'who spends most wins'
• The referendum was specifically put through legislation and emphasised to be advisory, not binding, yet the instant the result came through it was treated as compulsory by politicians taking advantage

That doesn't read like democracy to me.

[shelivesthedream]

I'm glad you mentioned WW3, @MarcherLady . I don't mention it much because it sounds (and probably is) a bit histrionic, but over the last few years of Brexit-wrangling, that has coalesced into my ultimate concern. Of course it probably won't happen, but I do feel like another European land war is on the cards for my lifetime, and no matter how unlikely it is, that would still be catastrophic. My view is certainly strongly coloured by my interest in civilian WW2 history, but we have lived through an unprecedented period of peace in EU countries since then, and I do NOT want to mess that up. I am concerned that Brexit would be just the start of breaking up the EU altogether, so we needn't be so worried about us-and-them but rather us-and-all-of-them and oh crap, suddenly there's nothing binding Europe together. The EU does a lot of low-key peacemongering amongst its citizens with exchange schemes and the like. Any volunteers to be the next in-recession Weimar Republic?

[Jamese20]

got to go folks but i will leave you with this

we live in a democracy... the largest vote turnout in history of the UK and that vote was to leave... for better or for worse it is the right thing to go forward with - unless of course you do not want to live in a democracy any longer... which i would find very worrying to be honest

bye for now

Relevant points:

• A vote based on a campaign that has since been revealed to involve extensive lying, predominantly on one side.
• One side didn't just break but smashed spending limitations designed to preserve democracy by preventing it being a 'who spends most wins'
• The referendum was specifically put through legislation and emphasised to be advisory, not binding, yet the instant the result came through it was treated as compulsory by politicians taking advantage

That doesn't read like democracy to me.

The remain side lied more - 500k jobs gone instant recession emergency budget... They also said the same if we didn't take the euro...they also lied about where the EU was heading in the 70's...so no moral high ground there

Let's just say you didn't like the outcome and so want one with the outcome you want... This is the reality and that is not democracy... So I can only assume you don't want to live in a democracy

As for breaking budgets...Cameron spent millions on a leaflet on top of all the spend so both sides broke spending requirements and this happens in general elections lots..I didn't hear much complaints on that front in them? The remain side in the 70's outspent the leave side by a mile the leave side couldn't even fund hotel costs - so does that mean the original referendum didn't count?

The vote was leave - the result was won fair and square and people voted in record numbers... People in every household got that leaflet from Cameron so there was no mistake on clarity

The advisory nonsense - I won't even comment on it, it's that weak of a point to make

It's clear you want an outcome that aligns with your views.. this isn't how democracy works..

[former player]

I'm glad you mentioned WW3, @MarcherLady . I don't mention it much because it sounds (and probably is) a bit histrionic, but over the last few years of Brexit-wrangling, that has coalesced into my ultimate concern. Of course it probably won't happen, but I do feel like another European land war is on the cards for my lifetime, and no matter how unlikely it is, that would still be catastrophic. My view is certainly strongly coloured by my interest in civilian WW2 history, but we have lived through an unprecedented period of peace in EU countries since then, and I do NOT want to mess that up. I am concerned that Brexit would be just the start of breaking up the EU altogether, so we needn't be so worried about us-and-them but rather us-and-all-of-them and oh crap, suddenly there's nothing binding Europe together. The EU does a lot of low-key peacemongering amongst its citizens with exchange schemes and the like. Any volunteers to be the next in-recession Weimar Republic?

We've already had two European land wars in your lifetime: one in the Balkans and another, still ongoing, between Russia and Ukraine.  You could probably add in Chechnia as well.

I think it's unlikely that western Europe will go to war with each other, but if our aim is to keep out tens of millions of climate refugees from Africa, the Middle East and South Asia extreme violence will be the only option.

[shelivesthedream]

I'm glad you mentioned WW3, @MarcherLady . I don't mention it much because it sounds (and probably is) a bit histrionic, but over the last few years of Brexit-wrangling, that has coalesced into my ultimate concern. Of course it probably won't happen, but I do feel like another European land war is on the cards for my lifetime, and no matter how unlikely it is, that would still be catastrophic. My view is certainly strongly coloured by my interest in civilian WW2 history, but we have lived through an unprecedented period of peace in EU countries since then, and I do NOT want to mess that up. I am concerned that Brexit would be just the start of breaking up the EU altogether, so we needn't be so worried about us-and-them but rather us-and-all-of-them and oh crap, suddenly there's nothing binding Europe together. The EU does a lot of low-key peacemongering amongst its citizens with exchange schemes and the like. Any volunteers to be the next in-recession Weimar Republic?

We've already had two European land wars in your lifetime: one in the Balkans and another, still ongoing, between Russia and Ukraine.  You could probably add in Chechnia as well.

I think it's unlikely that western Europe will go to war with each other, but if our aim is to keep out tens of millions of climate refugees from Africa, the Middle East and South Asia extreme violence will be the only option.

Not between countries which were in the EU at the time, is what I meant. That's true, isn't it? (Me and the second half of the 20th century are hazy acquaintances. There was the war, then the Beatles, then I was born, right? :P) It's not my biggest worry in the whole of life - climate change and the consquences are indeed more likely and serious. But Brexit as a first step towards the breakup of the EU with the eventual result of more war is a concern.

[PhilB]

• If we charge tariffs on our exports in return, then yes, the government will receive those tariffs as income, ...snip...

I'm hoping that's just a mistyping rather than a misunderstanding - obviously it's imports that we might charge tariffs on in retaliation rather than exports.  The taxes on those imports would flow into the UK treasury.
The simplistic argument (as sold by Trump to his economically illiterate supporters) is that if you are importing more than you export then you get a big inflow of taxes to your treasury - and indeed the US has had this in the short term.
As David Ricardo showed, however, in the end tariffs make all of us poorer because of the wider impacts and that's why world markets are terrified about Trump's trade war.
If post-Brexit arrangements are driven by sensible economics then you would indeed expect the EU to try to minimise tariffs to and from the UK.  That is a very big 'if' though.

[SpreadsheetMan]

...
The vote was leave - the result was won fair and square and people voted in record numbers... People in every household got that leaflet from Cameron so there was no mistake on clarity

...

Errr, no - The original 1975 referendum was 66:33 to join - that was clear. The 52:48 is marginal however you look at it.

If remain had the 52% there is no way on earth that the leave side would have stopped campaigning and agitating - c.f. the Scottish Nationalists & IndyRef2 that will inevitably happen in the next few years.

[former player]

I'm glad you mentioned WW3, @MarcherLady . I don't mention it much because it sounds (and probably is) a bit histrionic, but over the last few years of Brexit-wrangling, that has coalesced into my ultimate concern. Of course it probably won't happen, but I do feel like another European land war is on the cards for my lifetime, and no matter how unlikely it is, that would still be catastrophic. My view is certainly strongly coloured by my interest in civilian WW2 history, but we have lived through an unprecedented period of peace in EU countries since then, and I do NOT want to mess that up. I am concerned that Brexit would be just the start of breaking up the EU altogether, so we needn't be so worried about us-and-them but rather us-and-all-of-them and oh crap, suddenly there's nothing binding Europe together. The EU does a lot of low-key peacemongering amongst its citizens with exchange schemes and the like. Any volunteers to be the next in-recession Weimar Republic?

We've already had two European land wars in your lifetime: one in the Balkans and another, still ongoing, between Russia and Ukraine.  You could probably add in Chechnia as well.

I think it's unlikely that western Europe will go to war with each other, but if our aim is to keep out tens of millions of climate refugees from Africa, the Middle East and South Asia extreme violence will be the only option.

Not between countries which were in the EU at the time, is what I meant. That's true, isn't it? (Me and the second half of the 20th century are hazy acquaintances. There was the war, then the Beatles, then I was born, right? :P) It's not my biggest worry in the whole of life - climate change and the consquences are indeed more likely and serious. But Brexit as a first step towards the breakup of the EU with the eventual result of more war is a concern.

Yes, bit in bold is right.  The starting point of the current EU was a Coal and Steel Treaty, intended to put the raw materials of land war into a commonality that eliminated the means for France and Germany to ever go to war again (the three low countries included as the inevitable first victims of any such war and Italy as a courtesy, to make the original six members of what first became the EEC and then the EU).

What might break up the EU, and arguably was behind the Brexit vote, is the pressure of migration from climate change (and concern, rightly or wrongly, that the EU right of freedom of movement exacerbates this), so your main concern is the right one.

[Jamese20]

...
The vote was leave - the result was won fair and square and people voted in record numbers... People in every household got that leaflet from Cameron so there was no mistake on clarity

...

Errr, no - The original 1975 referendum was 66:33 to join - that was clear. The 52:48 is marginal however you look at it.

If remain had the 52% there is no way on earth that the leave side would have stopped campaigning and agitating - c.f. the Scottish Nationalists & IndyRef2 that will inevitably happen in the next few years.

So what's your point? One is a story and one is fact 52% is a majority win that's how it works - if it was 52% win for remain would you be saying this ? No

[Jamese20]

I'm glad you mentioned WW3, @MarcherLady . I don't mention it much because it sounds (and probably is) a bit histrionic, but over the last few years of Brexit-wrangling, that has coalesced into my ultimate concern. Of course it probably won't happen, but I do feel like another European land war is on the cards for my lifetime, and no matter how unlikely it is, that would still be catastrophic. My view is certainly strongly coloured by my interest in civilian WW2 history, but we have lived through an unprecedented period of peace in EU countries since then, and I do NOT want to mess that up. I am concerned that Brexit would be just the start of breaking up the EU altogether, so we needn't be so worried about us-and-them but rather us-and-all-of-them and oh crap, suddenly there's nothing binding Europe together. The EU does a lot of low-key peacemongering amongst its citizens with exchange schemes and the like. Any volunteers to be the next in-recession Weimar Republic?

We've already had two European land wars in your lifetime: one in the Balkans and another, still ongoing, between Russia and Ukraine.  You could probably add in Chechnia as well.

I think it's unlikely that western Europe will go to war with each other, but if our aim is to keep out tens of millions of climate refugees from Africa, the Middle East and South Asia extreme violence will be the only option.

Not between countries which were in the EU at the time, is what I meant. That's true, isn't it? (Me and the second half of the 20th century are hazy acquaintances. There was the war, then the Beatles, then I was born, right? :P) It's not my biggest worry in the whole of life - climate change and the consquences are indeed more likely and serious. But Brexit as a first step towards the breakup of the EU with the eventual result of more war is a concern.

Yes, bit in bold is right.  The starting point of the current EU was a Coal and Steel Treaty, intended to put the raw materials of land war into a commonality that eliminated the means for France and Germany to ever go to war again (the three low countries included as the inevitable first victims of any such war and Italy as a courtesy, to make the original six members of what first became the EEC and then the EU).

What might break up the EU, and arguably was behind the Brexit vote, is the pressure of migration from climate change (and concern, rightly or wrongly, that the EU right of freedom of movement exacerbates this), so your main concern is the right one.

The idea that one central area can know what's good for 27 countries is for the birds - this is why the EU is doomed going forward - the UK being run just by Westminster doesn't even work and needs sorting so the idea that the EU can do it really is quite amusing

[former player]

The idea that one central area can know what's good for 27 countries is for the birds - this is why the EU is doomed going forward - the UK being run just by Westminster doesn't even work and needs sorting so the idea that the EU can do it really is quite amusing

Yes of course, which is why the EU operates on the principle of subsidiarity: that it does nothing at the EU level which is better done at nation state level.

[Manchester]

I'm glad you mentioned WW3, @MarcherLady . I don't mention it much because it sounds (and probably is) a bit histrionic, but over the last few years of Brexit-wrangling, that has coalesced into my ultimate concern. Of course it probably won't happen, but I do feel like another European land war is on the cards for my lifetime, and no matter how unlikely it is, that would still be catastrophic. My view is certainly strongly coloured by my interest in civilian WW2 history, but we have lived through an unprecedented period of peace in EU countries since then, and I do NOT want to mess that up. I am concerned that Brexit would be just the start of breaking up the EU altogether, so we needn't be so worried about us-and-them but rather us-and-all-of-them and oh crap, suddenly there's nothing binding Europe together. The EU does a lot of low-key peacemongering amongst its citizens with exchange schemes and the like. Any volunteers to be the next in-recession Weimar Republic?

We've already had two European land wars in your lifetime: one in the Balkans and another, still ongoing, between Russia and Ukraine.  You could probably add in Chechnia as well.

I think it's unlikely that western Europe will go to war with each other, but if our aim is to keep out tens of millions of climate refugees from Africa, the Middle East and South Asia extreme violence will be the only option.

Not between countries which were in the EU at the time, is what I meant. That's true, isn't it? (Me and the second half of the 20th century are hazy acquaintances. There was the war, then the Beatles, then I was born, right? :P) It's not my biggest worry in the whole of life - climate change and the consquences are indeed more likely and serious. But Brexit as a first step towards the breakup of the EU with the eventual result of more war is a concern.

I don't think Brexit, nor even a more widescale breakup of the EU would have any impact on war within Europe.  NATO is the biggest prevention of war following WW2.  If NATO ceased to exist, we would see significantly more wars, especially between the likes of Russia picking on smaller, neighbouring states. 

Theres an argument to say aspects of the EU, such as free movement, decreases safety.  I'm playing devils advocate here, but a terrorist can move from France to Belgium fairly easily.  A pickpocketer can move from Romania to ply their trade in London or Paris and we'll have a harder time deporting criminals, guilty of violent crimes.

I think there are more serious risks that we could be concerned about, such as disease, climate change etc that we could focus on... however, Mr Money Moustache's article on 'your circle of control' is a good read to try and block out the background noise and just concentrate on enjoying your life!

[Jamese20]

I'm glad you mentioned WW3, @MarcherLady . I don't mention it much because it sounds (and probably is) a bit histrionic, but over the last few years of Brexit-wrangling, that has coalesced into my ultimate concern. Of course it probably won't happen, but I do feel like another European land war is on the cards for my lifetime, and no matter how unlikely it is, that would still be catastrophic. My view is certainly strongly coloured by my interest in civilian WW2 history, but we have lived through an unprecedented period of peace in EU countries since then, and I do NOT want to mess that up. I am concerned that Brexit would be just the start of breaking up the EU altogether, so we needn't be so worried about us-and-them but rather us-and-all-of-them and oh crap, suddenly there's nothing binding Europe together. The EU does a lot of low-key peacemongering amongst its citizens with exchange schemes and the like. Any volunteers to be the next in-recession Weimar Republic?

We've already had two European land wars in your lifetime: one in the Balkans and another, still ongoing, between Russia and Ukraine.  You could probably add in Chechnia as well.

I think it's unlikely that western Europe will go to war with each other, but if our aim is to keep out tens of millions of climate refugees from Africa, the Middle East and South Asia extreme violence will be the only option.

Not between countries which were in the EU at the time, is what I meant. That's true, isn't it? (Me and the second half of the 20th century are hazy acquaintances. There was the war, then the Beatles, then I was born, right? :P) It's not my biggest worry in the whole of life - climate change and the consquences are indeed more likely and serious. But Brexit as a first step towards the breakup of the EU with the eventual result of more war is a concern.

I don't think Brexit, nor even a more widescale breakup of the EU would have any impact on war within Europe.  NATO is the biggest prevention of war following WW2.  If NATO ceased to exist, we would see significantly more wars, especially between the likes of Russia picking on smaller, neighbouring states. 

Theres an argument to say aspects of the EU, such as free movement, decreases safety.  I'm playing devils advocate here, but a terrorist can move from France to Belgium fairly easily.  A pickpocketer can move from Romania to ply their trade in London or Paris and we'll have a harder time deporting criminals, guilty of violent crimes.

I think there are more serious risks that we could be concerned about, such as disease, climate change etc that we could focus on... however, Mr Money Moustache's article on 'your circle of control' is a good read to try and block out the background noise and just concentrate on enjoying your life!

agreed - and i dont remember that article... i think i will look it up

[MarcherLady]

• If we charge tariffs on our exports in return, then yes, the government will receive those tariffs as income, ...snip...

I'm hoping that's just a mistyping rather than a misunderstanding

Nope, genuine misunderstanding, tariffs isn't an area I know anything about hence my original question asking for the maths to be explained, thanks!

So, on the basis I had it all arse about face, yes, I can see the logic on the surface that the government might see a short-term boost in revenues. I also stand by my view that if prices of the goods we export to the EU go up, our sales will go down, which would more than cancel out any income gained by the tariffs we charge.

If post-Brexit arrangements are driven by sensible economics then you would indeed expect the EU to try to minimise tariffs to and from the UK.  That is a very big 'if' though.

Ain't it just!

[cerat0n1a]

If post-Brexit arrangements are driven by sensible economics then you would indeed expect the EU to try to minimise tariffs to and from the UK.  That is a very big 'if' though.

The EU has to abide by WTO rules. If there is no trade deal with the UK, they have to charge us the same tariffs they apply to any other country they don't have a trade deal with. We automatically go onto that arrangement, there's no decision for the EU to take.

Likewise, we also have to obey WTO rules and treat the EU the same as any other country we don't have a trade deal with (almost the entire world at this point) which is why the government's no-deal guidance explains that there will need to be tariffs introduced on certain goods traded with the EU. Hence the need for some kind of arrangement on both sides of the Irish border.

Tariffs are a bit of a side-show though, apart from food/agriculture and a few other areas. Most of the world's trade doesn't have tariffs imposed by anybody. It's regulatory differences that are the big barrier to trade, not tariffs. As you say, it's usually the customer who ultimately bears the cost of tariffs, not the producer.

I seriously doubt there is a single economist in the entire world who thinks that Britain's economy or government will benefit from tariffs. Even Patrick Minford and his "Economists for Brexit" group, pretty much the only economist who thinks Brexit will be good for the UK does so from the point of view of eliminating all tariffs. He thinks that the UK should stop manufacturing things altogether and that the millions of people employed in car & drugs manufacture, aerospace/ defence engineering etc etc. should retrain into other fields.

[Vashy]

On a certain level I'm really grateful for the EU referendum - it put the fear of the gods in me (44 years, EU citizen, long-term partnered with British person, still waiting for settled status to be approved). It kicked me into gear to make sure I'm not going to depend on the UK Gov to pay me a pension, so I doubled down on savings and paying off the mortgage to build up enough cash to be able to survive should I get kicked out.

I believe a "hard Brexit" is unlikely, but as a EU citizen, I see the hostile environment against "foriners" every day - I'm organized with other EU expats, and there are lots of horror stories that English people don't see/ignore, but are the truth. My Polish friends are terrified, my Romanian friend (banking mid-level manager) has already left the country with her family because her kid was racially abused at school and the teachers were doing nothing. That's just one of dozens of stories. I should add that my country was the Big Bad in WWII and I studied history at uni, so all that "RAH RAH SPITFIRES BULLDOGS WE WHIPPED THE NAZIS! YOUD ALL BE SPEAKING GERMAN" rhetoric is super unnerving. I hear "BUT WE DON'T MEAN YOU!" when I tell people I'm an immigrant (I came over for love), but it's hard to ignore the hostility in the press and even in casual conversation. My rights to stay in my own house, work at my job, and receive health care will stop existing on 1 November if the UK crashes out.

With all that, I'm preparing for the absolute worst. Which has paid off in purely financial terms. I've left a country before - I can do it again and be just fine  My partner will be much harder hit - he'd leave his friends, career and god children. I also worry a great deal about my English friends who depend on the NHS and social security (what little there is). But at least there will be cut-price and distressed Spanish and French real estate galore if anybody has the fresh cash to snap up a bargain.

[Manchester]

On a certain level I'm really grateful for the EU referendum - it put the fear of the gods in me (44 years, EU citizen, long-term partnered with British person, still waiting for settled status to be approved). It kicked me into gear to make sure I'm not going to depend on the UK Gov to pay me a pension, so I doubled down on savings and paying off the mortgage to build up enough cash to be able to survive should I get kicked out.

I believe a "hard Brexit" is unlikely, but as a EU citizen, I see the hostile environment against "foriners" every day - I'm organized with other EU expats, and there are lots of horror stories that English people don't see/ignore, but are the truth. My Polish friends are terrified, my Romanian friend (banking mid-level manager) has already left the country with her family because her kid was racially abused at school and the teachers were doing nothing. That's just one of dozens of stories. I should add that my country was the Big Bad in WWII and I studied history at uni, so all that "RAH RAH SPITFIRES BULLDOGS WE WHIPPED THE NAZIS! YOUD ALL BE SPEAKING GERMAN" rhetoric is super unnerving. I hear "BUT WE DON'T MEAN YOU!" when I tell people I'm an immigrant (I came over for love), but it's hard to ignore the hostility in the press and even in casual conversation. My rights to stay in my own house, work at my job, and receive health care will stop existing on 1 November if the UK crashes out.

With all that, I'm preparing for the absolute worst. Which has paid off in purely financial terms. I've left a country before - I can do it again and be just fine  My partner will be much harder hit - he'd leave his friends, career and god children. I also worry a great deal about my English friends who depend on the NHS and social security (what little there is). But at least there will be cut-price and distressed Spanish and French real estate galore if anybody has the fresh cash to snap up a bargain.

I think people blame 'Brexit' for racism in the UK.  I think this is quite unfair.  Right-wing, nationalistic politics are on the rise world wide (especially in Europe).  Trump became president on the back of a pledge to 'build a wall'. 

This article gives a good overview: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36130006

This shows there are wider causes, which trigger racism. 

Look at German Cities like Cologne where there have been riots because of the increase in refugees.  I think Germans are very welcoming, but there is that underlying racism in every country. 

I think these racists have used Brexit as a vehicle to normalise their hate.  We shouldn't blame Brexit for racism, we should look at why this trend is emerging on a global scale and think of new approaches to tackle racism.  If EU citizens like yourself are being deported after Brexit, it will be a travesty and will only incite further racism.  I'm hoping for a Brexit that leads to controlled and sensible immigration, new trade relations and opportunities.  There's no reason why Britain has to alienate itself from Europe, but there should also be no reason why Britain can't trade freely with any country of our choosing.  Brexit should be about the wider world.

[PhilB]

If the EU had allowed the UK some limits on immigration in the first place, you can be pretty sure that people wouldn't have voted for Brexit.  It just needed the EU to recognise the fundamental asymmetry caused by English being the world's dominant language.  Just about every child in every EU country learns English and because they are exposed to it through US cultural dominance they learn it to a pretty high level.  The upshot is that if there are economic or other issues in their own country, or they just want the experience of living in a different country, there is one obvious choice for most of them - Britain.  This is great for the British middle classes who can take advantage of cheap Polish builders, Lithuanian nannies, Portuguese cleaners or whatever.  It's not so good for the domestic working class who are suddenly competing for those jobs and that's where the anger builds.
A sensible compromise to recognise that the English language really does make the UK a special case and allow us to place some limits on the free movement of people and none of this mess would have happened.

[HomewardBound]

If the EU had allowed the UK some limits on immigration in the first place, you can be pretty sure that people wouldn't have voted for Brexit.  ...

They did.  The UK chose not to implement the controls that were available to them.  The big question is why did they do this?

Try pitching up in another EU country.  You'll need to register within 3 months which involves proving financial self sufficiency either with job or wealth, proving you have a home either rental or purchased in the country and prove medical cover which may come as part of your employment or privately.

[Vashy]

I think people blame 'Brexit' for racism in the UK.  I think this is quite unfair.  Right-wing, nationalistic politics are on the rise world wide (especially in Europe).  Trump became president on the back of a pledge to 'build a wall'. 

This article gives a good overview: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36130006

This shows there are wider causes, which trigger racism. 

Look at German Cities like Cologne where there have been riots because of the increase in refugees.  I think Germans are very welcoming, but there is that underlying racism in every country. 

I think these racists have used Brexit as a vehicle to normalise their hate.  We shouldn't blame Brexit for racism, we should look at why this trend is emerging on a global scale and think of new approaches to tackle racism.  If EU citizens like yourself are being deported after Brexit, it will be a travesty and will only incite further racism.  I'm hoping for a Brexit that leads to controlled and sensible immigration, new trade relations and opportunities.  There's no reason why Britain has to alienate itself from Europe, but there should also be no reason why Britain can't trade freely with any country of our choosing.  Brexit should be about the wider world.

Brexit seems to have made the expression of racism "salonfaehig", to borrow a term from my native language, ie it's become acceptable to express these views without fearing much repercussion (if any). My Polish and Romanian friends who suffered racist abuse had been in the country for sometimes decades without feeling unwelcome. That has now changed and is driving lots of them back "home". Statistics suggest that hate crimes are noticeably up. And I agree that racism needs tackling.

I'm unaware of "riots" in Cologne (there's been mass-groping of women, which has been instrumentalised by all kinds of global rightwingers...). I think the latest numbers I've seen suggest that 25% of Germans have a "migration background" - either they or one of their parents were not born in Germany, so yeah, pretty mixed and pretty welcoming.

Regarding "free trade" - the EU has all manner of trade agreements with all manner of countries and the network keeps growing. If Britain does crash out, it loses those trade agreements, and it'll take decades to put them back in place. Meanwhile, trade does have to do with distance, ie trade with your closest neighbours is generally more important and plentiful than with nations further away, that's just the logic of economics. I'm generally in favour of lower trade barriers, but the EU is doing a pretty good job at protecting those who cannot compete with others globally because those standards are lower (farmers, for example, who spend extra on animal welfare might not be able to compete on price alone with farmers who abuse animals). And trade barriers are generally coming down all over the world, so if you want to globalise trade even more, why not work inside a structure like the EU which has a totally different weight and power than any one country on its own?

The UK has always been in control of immigration, but chose to not enforce the rules it did have. Also, if it had, I wouldn't be here because it took me a couple of months to get a job (I took the first one I could - university grad working minimum wage data entry, but it didn't hurt me much...).

And the alienation has already happened - the UK's policy regarding Europe has - for centuries - been to keep a nice wedge between France and Germany, but those two are now closer than ever and that has potentially wide-ranging consequences. For somebody interested in history, it's fascinating.