Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    How do you know it would take years to rearrange a deal with EU on trade with the UK? Some say 2 months, some say 2 years, others say 10 years.
    The truth is that nobody knows how long it will take and it is also true that we don't actually need a trade deal in order to trade.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Ask Obama. :bigsmile::bigsmile:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    This doesn't take into account the immeasurable benefits the UK gets from free trade in services.
    No need to take that into account as trade would continue (unless you think the EU is so moronic as to jeopardise the EU's very advantageous trade surplus with the UK?)
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tamora)
    No need to take that into account as trade would continue (unless you think the EU is so moronic as to jeopardise the EU's very advantageous trade surplus with the UK?)
    Trade would continue if and only if we essentially continued making payments.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Trade would continue if and only if we essentially continued making payments.
    That's fine. We could charge them in return.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tamora)
    That's fine. We could charge them in return.
    Here's the problem. Like it or not, people in the UK practically rely on EU imports to a really significant degree, as well as enjoying free movement in Europe. You can't just point to a simple balance of payments without context. The EU has a massive, massive negotiating advantage with a post-Brexit UK.

    You'd think the Brexit camp would stop making economic arguments tbh considering as of the last few weeks especially, the vast, vast majority of qualified opinion indicates that it would range from indifferent to devastating in the long term (and basically everyone, including pro-Brexit economists, accept that it would simply be terrible in the short term).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Here's the problem. Like it or not, people in the UK practically rely on EU imports to a really significant degree, as well as enjoying free movement in Europe. You can't just point to a simple balance of payments without context. The EU has a massive, massive negotiating advantage with a post-Brexit UK.

    You'd think the Brexit camp would stop making economic arguments tbh considering as of the last few weeks especially, the vast, vast majority of qualified opinion indicates that it would range from indifferent to devastating in the long term (and basically everyone, including pro-Brexit economists, accept that it would simply be terrible in the short term).
    The EU doesn't have much of an economic argument with an independent UK. If 3 million UK jobs depend on trade with the EU, imagine how many more rest of the EU jobs depend on trade with the UK. Do you really think the EU will want to risk those jobs by playing hardball with the UK over trade? Just how popular do you think it wants to be with its remaining citizens?

    People travelled, lived and worked in countries not their own long before the EU was formed. I don't believe they should have the right to do that if it is not what their host country wants. Their host country should have the right to refuse entry.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tamora)
    The EU doesn't have much of an economic argument with an independent UK. If 3 million UK jobs depend on trade with the EU, imagine how many more rest of the EU jobs depend on trade with the UK. Do you really think the EU will want to risk those jobs by playing hardball with the UK over trade? Just how popular do you think it wants to be with its remaining citizens?
    The problem is that you're equating unequal markets. Because the EU is a much larger economy than the UK, the balance of payments isn't really that useful for reaching conclusions about bargaining power. The UK relies on the EU for exports to a much greater extent than the EU relies on the UK (and that's before we consider the fact that UK consumers value EU imports greatly, and thus there's a political imperative against imposing tariffs, whereas the UK's financial services exports are much less a matter of political expediency): the EU is the destination of approximately 45% of UK exports, whereas the UK is the destination of only 16% of EU exports. Anyone with a basic understanding of game theory will be able to easily understand that that shifts equilibrium in the EU's favour (admittedly, trade is not a zero-sum game, but nevertheless, it means that the EU is essentially able to dictate terms).

    People travelled, lived and worked in countries not their own long before the EU was formed. I don't believe they should have the right to do that if it is not what their host country wants. Their host country should have the right to refuse entry.
    Maybe you're right (though there are huge economic arguments for free movement); though I personally disagree. The point remains that UK citizens find qualitative value in EU imports (holidays, Parma ham, and Belgian beer) to a huge extent, and imposing tariffs is pretty much political suicide.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    The problem is that you're equating unequal markets. Because the EU is a much larger economy than the UK, the balance of payments isn't really that useful for reaching conclusions about bargaining power. The UK relies on the EU for exports to a much greater extent than the EU relies on the UK (and that's before we consider the fact that UK consumers value EU imports greatly, and thus there's a political imperative against imposing tariffs, whereas the UK's financial services exports are much less a matter of political expediency): the EU is the destination of approximately 45% of UK exports, whereas the UK is the destination of only 16% of EU exports. Anyone with a basic understanding of game theory will be able to easily understand that that shifts equilibrium in the EU's favour (admittedly, trade is not a zero-sum game, but nevertheless, it means that the EU is essentially able to dictate terms).



    Maybe you're right (though there are huge economic arguments for free movement); though I personally disagree. The point remains that UK citizens find qualitative value in EU imports (holidays, Parma ham, and Belgian beer) to a huge extent, and imposing tariffs is pretty much political suicide.
    The markets are unequal but neither side can afford to lose trade.

    What are the economic arguments for free movement? Aren't they balanced by its cost?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    Just want to put this out there to combat this campaign of blatant lies coming from the out campaign.

    Over half of the money we give to the EU comes directly back to us in the form of a rebate. We then get more back in the form of science grants, development funding and agriculture subsidies.

    I don't understand how this lie keeps being spread. Do none of the out voters actually do any research of their own? Do they just parrot whatever they read in their tabloid of choice? Ridiculous.

    Because we get it back doesn't change anything. We still give them £55million a day. We get it back, sure. but that doesn't meant we didn't give it to them in the first place
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tamora)
    The markets are unequal but neither side can afford to lose trade.

    What are the economic arguments for free movement? Aren't they balanced by its cost?
    globally speaking, it allows people to be allocated where they are best required

    free movement is not a zero sum game

    neither side can afford to lose trade but the potential costs for the UK are greater than the potential costs for the EU, and both sides know that (and know that each other know that) - that's what shifts equilibrium in the negotiation game
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    globally speaking, it allows people to be allocated where they are best required

    free movement is not a zero sum game

    neither side can afford to lose trade but the potential costs for the UK are greater than the potential costs for the EU, and both sides know that (and know that each other know that) - that's what shifts equilibrium in the negotiation game
    Pretty sure free movement is a zero sum game. They lose x amount of people, other countries gain a share of those people.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EuanF)
    Pretty sure free movement is a zero sum game. They lose x amount of people, other countries gain a share of those people.
    not when the outcome is assessed according to economic metrics
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tamora)
    No need to take that into account as trade would continue (unless you think the EU is so moronic as to jeopardise the EU's very advantageous trade surplus with the UK?)
    (Original post by Tamora)
    Do you really think the EU will want to risk those jobs by playing hardball with the UK over trade? Just how popular do you think it wants to be with its remaining citizens?
    This is the EU we're talking about here.............
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    globally speaking, it allows people to be allocated where they are best required

    free movement is not a zero sum game

    neither side can afford to lose trade but the potential costs for the UK are greater than the potential costs for the EU, and both sides know that (and know that each other know that) - that's what shifts equilibrium in the negotiation game
    Low and unskilled migrants are not required, and I can't understand the morality of taking skilled staff from poor countries.

    There'll be no costs for either side. Trade will continue as before. Even the EU isn't stupid enough to upset trade. Just how popular with its own citizens do you think it wants to be when it risks their jobs?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    This is the EU we're talking about here.............
    Yes I know. It's the same EU that won't exist without the support of corporations and banks. How long do you think it will have that support for it it tries to disrupt trade?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Take it from a graduate Economist: the UK does send c.£55m per day to EU institutions (gross, avg), which is set to grow by £100m+ p.a. | FullFact

    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    The correct statistics for 2015 are as below: Annual contribution: £18 billion[/b]
    That's public contributions, the £55m figure takes into account household contributions as well (as UK contributions includes both public + private)
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    Take it from a graduate Economist: the UK does send c.£55m per day to EU institutions (gross, avg), which is set to grow by £100m+ p.a. | FullFact

    That's public contributions, the £55m figure takes into account household contributions as well (as UK contributions includes both public + private)
    From your source, it states that the '£55m per day' figure does not include the rebate which amounts to around £5b. However I see that it does include 'payments to EU institutions by UK households'. With limited official information available, judging by its context I would say this should be included in the total figure.

    This calculates to £41.3m per day.

    If we consider the EU's spending on the UK as an additional 'rebate' this would bring it down to about £29m per day.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    does not include the rebate
    Hence "gross" :yy:
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    Hence "gross" :yy:
    Given that the rebate is applied automatically upon payment, I do not think it is fair to use a gross figure.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm all for leaving the EU, but I also believe our statistics must be fair and credible in order to make a persuasive case.
 
 
 
Poll
Who is your favourite TV detective?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.