Brexit

[pegelli]

Pieter,

All that can be concluded is that 52% of the electorate that voted wish to leave the EU.

I think we're saying the same, but thanks for the additional clarification. I can't imagine many leave voters still wanting that money to go to and spent by the EU.

[drmike]

Does Britain manufacture anything that the US wants?  Seriously, I see lots of German manufactured products here in the US but precious little from Britain.

Apparently in Apr4il we exported 4.4 billion dollars worth of goods to teh US which sounds like a lot to me and perhaps unlikely Exports but that site seems credible.

What we export seems to be  all kinds of shit

So what we export must include lots of stuff you don't get to see, but surely Jaguars, Range Rovers and Land Rovers are two a penny in the US?

I wonder what German stuff is more prominent? Always seems to me German engineering is best at self promotion and the creation of the idea that they are superb engineers. Really VW?

Mike

[Alan Goldhammer]

Apparently in Apr4il we exported 4.4 billion dollars worth of goods to teh US which sounds like a lot to me and perhaps unlikely Exports but that site seems credible.

What we export seems to be  all kinds of shit

So what we export must include lots of stuff you don't get to see, but surely Jaguars, Range Rovers and Land Rovers are two a penny in the US?

I wonder what German stuff is more prominent? Always seems to me German engineering is best at self promotion and the creation of the idea that they are superb engineers. Really VW?

Mike

Yes, I do see Range Rovers and Jaguars where I live but these are vastly outnumbered by BMWs, Mercedes, Audis, and VWs.  I do see more of them than Porches.  In terms of imported housewares and appliances I don't know if Britain even makes that kind of stuff.  I see lots of Bosch, Miele, and other German brands, though they are way outsold by Whirlpool.  Did not know we bought oil from Britain and I presume that is Scottish oil that will be lost to England if the Scots leave the UK.  The pharmaceuticals number appears way to high and I'll have to look into that one (I'm retired from the pharma industry). 

53% of the exports go to EU countries and of course all those trade agreements will now have to be negotiated if there is a Brexit.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

What if politicians were like Pinocchio?

The Economist cartoonist asks whether the world would be different if politician's noses grew as they lied.

https://youtu.be/Da64lrfeykg

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Does Britain manufacture anything that the US wants?...

Accent? In high regard here

[Rajan Parrikar]

Accent? In high regard here

Rolls Royce aircraft engines and McVitie's biscuits are in high demand, too.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... I tend to see the EU as a possible counterweight/alternative/stabilizer to China (economically), Russia (military) and the US (both)...

Interesting observation.

If you've come to that conclusion, it is not inconceivable that the troika could have done the same. It can be argued that the biggest threat to U.S. dominance is not China or Russia, but the E.U., at least economically. It has larger population, bigger total GDP (I think), etc. What it lacks is a (truly) unified market, and free(er) movements of goods and people. Common language would help too. But it has been moving in that direction, slowly but steadily, toward a United States of Europe. If and when that would happen, it would be a serious competitor to the U.S.

Euro in itself poses a threat to the dollar's dominance as the world's single currency. First central banks around the world started diversifying their reserves by acquiring Euro, in addition to dollars. Then some countries started floating the idea to denominate their oil sales in Euros. Some would argue that as soon as Saddam Hussein publicized that idea, and Russia and Venezuela initially responded favorably, it was the end of him.

For those who like to indulge in conspiracy theories, the following wouldn't be totally improbable: if E.U. is seen as a serious competitor to the U.S., it surely must have crossed the minds of Americans that it makes sense to slow down that advance. The first attempt to destabilize Europe was to support Islamic states within its borders (Bosnia and Kosovo). Having a war in the middle of Europe was also designed to scare potential investors and re-establish the U.S. as the only true safe haven, the last bastion. Then someone must have realized that the regime-change policy, adopted by several administrations, Democratic and Republican alike, and the subsequent destabilization of many states in the Middle East and North Africa, resulted in an unprecedented surge of already existing refugee attempts to reach Europe. They couldn't find a better way to destabilize Europe. Apparently, it's been working.

[Alan Klein]

In 1776, America also didn't want taxation without representation.   Look where it got us.  So now the Brits face the same issue.  Small world.    It'll turn out ok for them too.

[Ray]

......and the exchange rate of the GBP versus the Euro and versus the USD has dropped, making everything that is a form of loan, and imported goods, more expensive (especially troublesome because the UK already has a trade deficit, more imports than exports).

Hi Bart,
What amazes me in this modern era is that people seem so cosseted by a 'nanny' state of affairs that they expect all changes and all progress to be made without any requirement for some degree of sacrifice or austerity.

If the UK already imports more than it exports, then a lower value pound should help increase exports and encourage investment in new industries, which in turn should reduce unemployment,  increase over all prosperity, create a trade surplus and eventually make Britain Great again. 

It seems to me that too many people like to have their cake and eat it. 

[Jeremy Roussak]

Contrary ?

Yes, contrary. Why do you persist in apparently disagreeing with something I've written and then repeating exactly what I wrote, in your own paraphrase. It's awfully tiresome.

Jeremy

[hjulenissen]

Euro in itself poses a threat to the dollar's dominance as the world's single currency. First central banks around the world started diversifying their reserves by acquiring Euro, in addition to dollars. Then some countries started floating the idea to denominate their oil sales in Euros. Some would argue that as soon as Saddam Hussein publicized that idea, and Russia and Venezuela initially responded favorably, it was the end of him.

Interesting idea. I guess we will know more when the guys in charge become old and start talking to the staff at the retirement home. As they obviously lied to their people and allies, and plausible understanding of "why" is still lacking, I guess the question is still open.

For those who like to indulge in conspiracy theories, the following wouldn't be totally improbable: if E.U. is seen as a serious competitor to the U.S., it surely must have crossed the minds of Americans that it makes sense to slow down that advance. The first attempt to destabilize Europe was to support Islamic states within its borders (Bosnia and Kosovo). Having a war in the middle of Europe was also designed to scare potential investors and re-establish the U.S. as the only true safe haven, the last bastion. Then someone must have realized that the regime-change policy, adopted by several administrations, Democratic and Republican alike, and the subsequent destabilization of many states in the Middle East and North Africa, resulted in an unprecedented surge of already existing refugee attempts to reach Europe. They couldn't find a better way to destabilize Europe. Apparently, it's been working.

I see myself as a cynic, but I have a hard time believing that theory. Creating bad conditions in Europe (economically, politically, safety) would probably to (a significant degree) cross the pond. Wearing the tin-foil-hat, one might argue that having "bad" conditions in the US makes it easier for the politicians to justify having more power, but without a shred of evidence or plausible mechanisms (let alone the utter lack of faith in humanity needed to make such claims), it seems unfruitful.

-h

[stamper]

Does Britain manufacture anything that the US wants?  Seriously, I see lots of German manufactured products here in the US but precious little from Britain.

Scotch whisky especially malts. To be absolutely accurate they come from Scotland but because Scotland is still part of Britain - unfortunately - it answers your point. 

[hjulenissen]

Does Britain manufacture anything that the US wants?  Seriously, I see lots of German manufactured products here in the US but precious little from Britain.

http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/gbr/

What does the UK export:
http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/visualize/tree_map/hs92/export/gbr/all/show/2014/

To whom does it export:
http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/visualize/tree_map/hs92/export/gbr/show/all/2014/

I guess the source of crude oil is not very visible to the end-user, while cars are.

-h

[Paulo Bizarro]

Well, it seems that Mr. Farage is jumping ship already:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/04/andrea-leadsom-brexit-tory-leadership-campaign-ukip-live/

What a surprise...

[Manoli]

Yes, contrary. Why do you persist in apparently disagreeing with something I've written and then repeating exactly what I wrote, in your own paraphrase. It's awfully tiresome.

Because when you write:

The important point is that nothing in Article 50 provides that negotiations must wait until we leave: quite the contrary.

the expression 'quite the contrary' implies that there IS an obligation to start negotiations prior to receiving notification under Art 50. There is no such obligation.


--

Jeremy,

I've got no argument with you, we've conversed, via Lula, often enough and you've always come over as reasoned, amiable and courteous. Hopefully we can continue in the same vein, without the patronising tone ?

Manoli

[pegelli]

Manoli, I believe you are confusing "serving notice under article 50" with "GB leaving the EU"

I think what Jeremy is saying that there is no problem to start negotiations of trade deals before leaving (which is maximum 2 years after providing notice under article 50).

But there is indeed nothing in article 50 that would legally force the EU start negotiations before serving the notice.

[Alan Klein]

American imports and exports by country.  Canada, Mexico, China and Japan top the list.   Germany and GB are close to each other.
https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/highlights/toppartners.html

[Rajan Parrikar]

The Original Brexit.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Interesting idea. I guess we will know more when the guys in charge become old and start talking to the staff at the retirement home. As they obviously lied to their people and allies, and plausible understanding of "why" is still lacking, I guess the question is still open...

A brief overview of pros and cons on the oil-euro-dollar-Saddam theory:

http://usiraq.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000911

[Manoli]

Pieter,

Confusion doesn't enter into it. I know not of what Jeremy meant, only of what he wrote and the context in which it was written.

The important point is that nothing in Article 50 provides that negotiations must wait until we leave: quite the contrary.  Cecilia Maelstrom is nothing more than yet another unelected EU official talking nonsense.

This is what, according to the BBC, Maelstrom said:

There are actually two negotiations. First you exit, and then you negotiate the new relationship, whatever that is," she said.  "The referendum - which of course we take note of and respect - has no legal effect. First there has to be notification, which the next prime minister will do, I hope swiftly. And then that process can start."

The triggering of Art50 is the formal act by which the UK leaves the EU.

There has been far too much spin and bluster by Brexit-ers, so rather than waste another 1,000 words refuting much of it, who better than Jo Maugham QC (talking to Sky News today) to explain the vagaries of our current situation and the status of pending litigation.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=em0Zuvxmqk4

M

Manoli, I believe you are confusing "serving notice under article 50" with "GB leaving the EU"

I think what Jeremy is saying that there is no problem to start negotiations of trade deals before leaving (which is maximum 2 years after providing notice under article 50).

But there is indeed nothing in article 50 that would legally force the EU start negotiations before serving the notice.