Brexit thread - what happens next

[Borsch]

Oh so you are conflating a general sense that Brexit will be bad for universities with a specific negative event that occurred to 6 of them and think that fulfils the remit of "experts told you so"?

Its basic probability- prediction of a downturn in a vast population of subjects, does not predict downturn for each subject or downturn for some particular subjects. Its predicting downturn as a probabilistic distribution - difficult to say who will be affected and by how much, but the general trend is negative.

It is clear though how leaving the EU will affect even the bottom tier universities - fewer students from EU means more spaces available, means bottom tier UK students will be able to go to higher tier unis, with the bottom unis being squeezed out. Because economics is not blind to the future, the repercussions are materialising already.

Hiding behind semantics and sophistry is the best way forward for BriLeave now, I do get that.

 

[Borsch]

So far I've heard: Canada, South Korea, Australia & New Zealand, China.

The development of those countries was not interrupted in such a violent way though. On many aspects UK will be losing like 40 years of development (rewriting laws, treaties, agreements, funding etc). None of those countries have had that, their incremental development over the past 40 years continues even now in an organic way.

 

[StriderX]

The development of those countries was not interrupted in such a violent way though. On many aspects UK will be losing like 40 years of development (rewriting laws, treaties, agreements, funding etc). None of those countries have had that, their incremental development over the past 40 years continues even now in an organic way.

We will hardly be removing everything... just removing the connections to the EU and its requirements if necessary.

Most of our laws are a step above the minimum anyway, so it doesn't matter really, though it will be the Tory's rewriting it (Really should be cross parliament committee, might still occur).

Would be best if we could use the spare few years we get to actually rejig the UK relationship in general with its constituent parts, Federalise on our own terms with each major constituency being heavily autonomous besides issues which affect them all.

 

[Pudney]

So far I've heard: Canada, South Korea, Australia & New Zealand, Sri Lanka, Ghana, Mexico, Russia, and China.

Might be more, just off the top of my head. Some U.S. senators were also expressing interest in getting a deal done.

Have you ever thought other countries may be eager to get deals sorted with us because we are in a position of weakness? If I was in any of those countries I'd be knocking at our door as well because I'd be confident I could secure a better deal for my own country than if I waited and let the UK's economy become more secure and the UK's trade negotiators to gain experience.

Ultimately until deals start being finalised everything is guesswork for either side. Evidence of people wanting to trade isn't necessarily good or bad until you know what the terms of the trade are.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Looks like DELL are hiking the price of everything by 10%, blaming Brexit.

Funny that they didn't do this in 2009 when it was 1.35, and did they lower prices when it was 1.5? Nope.

Scummy.

Dell Europe ships from Ireland. The Euro rate has dropped over 10% so that seems reasonable.

 

[Stretch]

You are suggesting that.

If I trade under WTO rules.
If I trade under a tariff free trade deal.

Because we are trading. What are we missing out on.

** Don't get personal ***

We are already trading with the rest of the world.

What you are suggesting is we should throw away our extremely good trade relationship with the EU, and replace it with a deal similar to what we currently have with the rest of the world, which is apparently isn't good enough.

We will never get a deal as good as the EU deal with the rest of the world. It's just too difficult. It requires giving up sovereignty, lots of red tape, years and years of market and regulatory alignment.

i.e going through the same process we've spent 4 decades going through with the EU that we're about to throw away.

 

[Borsch]

We will hardly be removing everything... just removing the connections to the EU and its requirements if necessary.

It depends on staying in the single market. If UK leaves for WTO, then finance services will lose their passporting deal. That's already like -20% of UK economy in a single swipe. At the moment UK trades with China based on EU trade agreement, once we leave - it will have to be developed from scratch and it is bound to be worse than the current one as EU market is bigger than Uk's.

So not only waiting for deals will cost money, but also the deals will rarely be as good as EU's. See video below:

In a word, A LOT will need changing resulting in a lot of uncertainty and mostly poorer deals.

 

[Chuk_Chuk]

So far I've heard: Canada, South Korea, Australia & New Zealand, Sri Lanka, Ghana, Mexico, Russia, and China.

Might be more, just off the top of my head. Some U.S. senators were also expressing interest in getting a deal done.

So the entire leave campaign is to severely disrupt/break trade agreement with 27+ other countries to build trade agreements with 9/10 countries.

 

[Mulder]

Swiss bankers propose alliance with London to negotiate EU terms

The Swiss bankers’ association has proposed an alliance with London and leading non-European international financial centres to help thrash out deals on access to EU markets.

Switzerland, London, Hong Kong and Singapore would pool ideas and resources under a plan put forward by Patrick Odier, chairman of the Swiss association.

The proposal to create a “F4” alliance follows the British vote last month to leave the EU, which would mean London joining Switzerland as a financial centre operating outside the bloc.

Brexit no 'existential’ threat – Mervyn King

The immediate consequences of Britain’s vote to leave the European Union are likely to be more severe in the bloc itself than in the UK, but aren’t likely to pose existential challenges to either, according to Lord Mervyn King.

King, who said that he had voted in the recent UK referendum but declined to indicate which way, said that the move towards a monetary union in the euro area had been “reckless” and that countries like Italy were now feeling the consequences.

King said: “I have great sympathy with the Italian [authorities]. They can see what needs to be done but they can’t do it because of the European rules

 

[Dave M]

Swiss bankers propose alliance with London to negotiate EU terms

Trade association tries to strengthen it's members position

Brexit no 'existential’ threat – Mervyn King

UK will continue to exist after brexit - wow, really? If you break my knees I'll continue to live but my hurdles days are over.

 

[Borsch]

Swiss bankers propose alliance with London to negotiate EU terms



Brexit no 'existential’ threat – Mervyn King

Swiss may propose whatever they want, but as it is, their finance sector has no passporting rights of London. Even IF this porposition came true some many years in the future, London would still be worse off, as it would share its current profits with the Swiss.

As for no existential threat - I agree. UK won't turn to Somalia with starvation, epidemics and genocide. Lets take comfort from that.

 

[Mr Jack]

Brexit no 'existential’ threat – Mervyn King

Who has talked about an existential threat? We're looking at the economy being, under WTO terms, around 9% smaller than it would otherwise be in 2030 in some of the more pessimistic forecasts. But let's put than in perspective: if we meet historical long term average growth, we'd expect the economy to be 49% larger than it is now in 14 years time. The loss from Brexit may mean the economy being 35% larger than it is now instead and with higher debt.

Don't me wrong, that will hurt, but it's not an "existential" threat to the UK. The UK is very likely to experience a recession because of Brexit but we're still going to have a stronger economy in the future than we do now.

 

[Avenged7Fold]

They are putting Italy's poor financial situation down to the euro?

lol

Very few people in Italy would place the blame outside of their country, they all know the dire situation has been created from local corruption, incredibly ridiculous over regulation of small and medium businesses (Italy is pretty much built on small businesses) stunting business growth and lack of incentive for overseas investment. The reason why Italy's economy is stagnant is the fault of its local government, not the EU and it has been the case since the days of the Lira. In fact the EU helped Italy recover from one if its hardest economic times in the mid 80s after years of inflation by catering to the small and medium size businesses of Italy and encouraging its exports.

While there are negatives to the EU, throwing blame around when it is not warranted does no one any good. Shifting the blame takes attention away from the problem. As far as i am concerned, Italy and Greece's financial issues are internal and the Euro cushioned the blow of their failing economies at its expense.

 

[platypus]

So far I've heard: Canada, South Korea, Australia & New Zealand, Sri Lanka, Ghana, Mexico, Russia, and China.

Might be more, just off the top of my head. Some U.S. senators were also expressing interest in getting a deal done.

Anything concrete? Other than political posturing I mean.

Anyway: I strongly hope so.

 

[Judgeneo]

Swiss bankers propose alliance with London to negotiate EU terms

So many opportunities for new relationships with the rest of the world coming up. Great to see

Iceland wants a north sea alliance and trading partnership, this Swizz-HK-SP-London finance group (vast majority of world finance), heavy interest in trade deals with the anglosphere, Mexico, China and others, EU countries have expressed a willingness for calm and swift negotiations.

Economic shocks won't last forever, and without government intervention like we had in 2008, we might finally see the much needed culling of our weaker businesses.

The long term prospects for the UK are looking as good as I'd hoped pre-vote.



The downside is we're probably going to have May as PM. I can't see any positives to that appointment at all

 

[delta0]

Who has talked about an existential threat? We're looking at the economy being, under WTO terms, around 9% smaller than it would otherwise be in 2030 in some of the more pessimistic forecasts. But let's put than in perspective: if we meet historical long term average growth, we'd expect the economy to be 49% larger than it is now in 14 years time. The loss from Brexit may mean the economy being 35% larger than it is now instead and with higher debt.

Don't me wrong, that will hurt, but it's not an "existential" threat to the UK. The UK is very likely to experience a recession because of Brexit but we're still going to have a stronger economy in the future than we do now.

WTO is not what any of the leaders are saying so that is not going to happen. They are going for market access and full passporting rights which they said was their number 1 priority.

 

[Borsch]

if we meet historical long term average growth, we'd expect the economy to be 49% larger than it is now in 14 years time. The loss from Brexit may mean the economy being 35% larger than it is now instead and with higher debt.

What does this even mean? "Historical long term average growth"? Hasn't it happened as part of EU evolution?
So we are taking UK's growth when it was part of EU, subtract the £350 million a week and come up 14% better economy in 14 years time?

 

[Mulder]

Trade association tries to strengthen it's members position

It's another example of the new trading relationships that will (and are currently) slowly emerging now we're free from the EU "negotiating" (I would have said failing to negotiate...) trade deals on our behalf.

I've banged on about how totally useless the EU is at negotiating trade deals but here's a quick example.

UK will continue to exist after brexit - wow, really? If you break my knees I'll continue to live but my hurdles days are over.

I think the more prominent point is that the Ex Governor of the Bank of England thinks it's more of a risk to the EU itself than Britain. The equity markets would tend to agree with him. Why is that important? Because we're heading into a series of negotiations with them.

 

[Bonjour]

Screw the experts.

I'm all for 'historical long term average growth'. It's where it's at.

 

[Mr Jack]

What does this even mean? "Historical long term average growth"?

It means exactly what it says, average yearly growth over the historical long term.