BREXIT - a different opinion (from Malta)

[PeteandSylvi]

I got the strong feeling when reading Colonnelli 's article that it was not a factually researched piece but a journalist's piece trying to convey emotions. This does not sit well with me. When I voted for Brexit it was not because I believe Britain should be out of a European alliance but that the EU was not the alliance that I believe Britain should be in. It was not what we originally signed up for and it's remit has become too broad, it's powers too great, it's level of financial incompetence too high and it's costs excessive. If Brexit becomes the cue for the collapse of the existing EU structure, I will be very happy particularly when a replacement is put into place that can unite Europe as a trading entity without excessive domestic interference, enforced open border policies and the gravy train of cost and corruption.

Putting aside speculation, scaremongering and pure lies, so far Brexit has not had any significant damaging effects. I exclude exchange rate from this as it is the domain of speculators not governments. On this basis Colonnelli's article is worthless.

The Malta today article is far more interesting and relevant being based on facts. The conclusion on trade for Malta, Ireland, Luxembourg and Cyprus may well be correct however it would be a poor EU they were a member of that would prevent them maintaining their trading position with the UK or attempted to shoot them in their feet with obnoxious tariffs. So the indications suggested in the article could be turned the other way to suggest that the EU needs to negotiate favourable trading terms with the UK in order not to penalise their own members.

Pete

[Royal]

The article doesn't particularly strike a chord with me, Lloyd, except that I fully agree that the vote has been deeply divisive.

Like it or not, Brexit will happen, however, despite the constant obstacles being placed in its path. What amazes me, however, is that so many people are talking us down when we should all be pulling together to secure the future for our children and grandchildren. I respect the views of the Remainers and am not suggesting that they don't maintain their opposition stance, but markets don't like uncertainty and that is damaging us more than anything else. It seems to me that even on this Forum, Remainers relish the seemingly bad news as confirmation of all their dire predictions, but when the news is good, they dismiss it as "Article 50 hasn't been triggered yet - just wait and see" until the next piece of seemingly bad news comes along, which invariably seems to be based on just another opinion.

The latest downward movement of the £ to € exchange rate followed the House of Lords decision to seek to amend the very simple bill set before it and passed by the elected House of Commons to trigger Article 50. It seems to me that every time Sterling starts to creep up, a Brexit obstacle sends it back down again. Markets do not like uncertainty. As Pete said, however, governments cannot control this - the money men are in control, and are making huge profits.

As far as the substance of the article is concerned, let's take a reality check:

1. The article states that Sterling "remains pressured". Actually, Sterling had been overvalued for some time and as good as it was for us expats recently, if you look at a 10 year graph of the £ to € rate, you will find that the average has been just a tad higher than where it is now. The current exchange rate is good for UK exports, inward investment and tourism to the UK.

2. According to the article, investors fear that Scotland will leave the UK in order to remain in the EU after Brexit. There are no plans whatsoever for Scotland to have a referendum on this matter and even if it was to happen, I suspect that Sturgeon has misrepresented the mood of the people she purports to represent. We rightly opposed the BNP, yet seem to give the SNP credence and respectability.

3. The article states that "the UK is leaving the largest trading bloc in the world". I would suggest that it should actually read "the UK is leaving the largest trading block in the world". The single market is flawed in that it places excessive tariffs on the emerging economies like Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS). The single market also ensures that 3rd world countries stay in that position through tariffs against their goods in favour of European produce. The UK will have no such restrictions placed upon it and will be free to trade with whosoever we choose. Now that's a truly 'Free Market'.

4. The article gloomily states that "the UK is weaker on its own...GDP performance in the fourth quarter of 2016, which at 0.7 percent was exactly the same as in the same period in 2015." What the author failed to say, however, was that 0.7% was one point higher than forecast. He also failed to say that consumer spending grew by 1.2%, growth was 1.8% higher than 2015 and GDP per head in volume terms was estimated to have increased by 0.5% between Q3 and Q4. Meanwhile, stock markets have been bullish since the Brexit vote. The FTSE 100 closed at a record high at the end of 2016, up 14.4% during the year.

[geoffreys]

For Royal:
Believe me when I say there are none so deaf as those who don't wanna hear!
Having said that your latest post was an excellent one, and helps restore the forum's balance about this touchy issue.
BTW, I had lost patience with the House of Lords, now this morning we learn that the House of Commons Exiting the EU Committee
are telling the PM to protect the rights of EU citizens living in the UK immediately. What about OUR rights living in the EU?
Geoff.

[cyprusgrump]

Excellent, detailed well thought out post Royal.

[PeteandSylvi]

Thank you Royal for your excellent post summing up the situation as it currently stands. It has saved me having to reply as I have nothing to add to what you have written.

I particularly agree with your second paragraph and urge all Remainers to move from their position of "doom and gloom" and seek the positives.

Pete

[cyprusgrump]

Now, as someone (me) who is clearly not getting the Brexit message, can one of you bright sparks please elucidate on how the purported £350 million a week saving by leaving the EU - but which was in reality about £175m pw after rebates were applied - relates to the £60bn set aside to cover Brexit costs?

It doesn't - the two are completely unrelated.

[PeteandSylvi]

Lloyd, it's about time the 350 million a week thing was put to bed. The figure that was used was, as you indicated, the gross figure. This was part of the spin (political word for lie) used by UKIP. To most of us with any common sense that were considering the "facts" at the time this was a nonsense claim as were some of the claims made by Cameron and other Remainers. I don't keep bringing up these claims in trying to argue what is or is not happening and I truly wish Remainers ceased from doing it. They are all water under the bridge. Finished with. Gone. Irrelevant.

Now to the main point you made. The opening statement you quoted talks of a war chest to guard against economic resilience. It does not say this will be the cost of economic resilience as you have argued. So the Chancellor is creating a fund to deal with any and possibly worst case situation that may need assistance. Just as any business person or company might do as financial assurance against possible downside effects in trading, costs, etc whatever the cause.

Try as you may to create an argument where Remainers are right and Brexiters are wrong, you cannot do it at this stage but I truly hope we can discuss it when the outcome is clear in, say, 10 years time.

Pete

[Royal]

Front page news on the ST today: "Chancellor's £60bn Brexit fighting fund". First paragraph:

"Philip Hammond will use this week's budget to build up a £60bn Brexit war chest to boost Britain's "resilience" to economic turbulence as the UK withdraws from the European Union".

Now, as someone (me) who is clearly not getting the Brexit message, can one of you bright sparks please elucidate on how the purported £350 million a week saving by leaving the EU - but which was in reality about £175m pw after rebates were applied - relates to the £60bn set aside to cover Brexit costs? You see, £175m saving per week equates to £9.1bn a year, so this suggests that it will take around 7 years before any financial benefit whatsoever arises from leaving the EU. And this presumably assumes that everything goes smoothly

Lloyd, I am not the brightest spark in the box (although to mix my metaphors, 'the flame that burns twice as bright burns half as long').

This was a very selective cut and paste on your part - for obvious reasons. In addition, the headline itself was misleading. The article goes on to explain:

An upturn in economic growth — set to hit 2% this year — higher tax receipts and a fall in borrowing, mean that the £27bn the chancellor had set aside for 2020 is set to more than double to nearly £60bn.

Now that is positive news...

[geoffreys]

But like I said, Brexit hasn't started yet; I hate to use the saying "calm before the storm" yet again, but that remains the situation. Why would Hammond set aside such a huge war chest if he was not anticipating stormy waters ahead?

Anyway, we'll have a much better idea of how things are going by the end of this year.

I think you will find that once UK exits the EU things will be even better than at the end of this year; already things are much better than many thought they would be post-referendum.
The future is rosy for UK residents.
Geoff.

[Devil]

I think you will find that once UK exits the EU things will be even better than at the end of this year; already things are much better than many thought they would be post-referendum.
The future is rosy for UK residents.
Geoff.

No! You have the wrong end of the stick. The UK cannot exit the EU until March 2019.

I suggest that the only thing rosy is the colour of your reading glasses. The UK is in for two years of upheaval, which is why the Chancellor has set aside a massive war chest. The future? Unlike you, I would not be so arrogant as to predict it. At least, I won't be accused in two years of 'I told you so!'

[geoffreys]

I think you will find that once UK exits the EU things will be even better than at the end of this year; already things are much better than many thought they would be post-referendum.
The future is rosy for UK residents.
Geoff.

No! You have the wrong end of the stick. The UK cannot exit the EU until March 2019.

I suggest that the only thing rosy is the colour of your reading glasses. The UK is in for two years of upheaval, which is why the Chancellor has set aside a massive war chest. The future? Unlike you, I would not be so arrogant as to predict it. At least, I won't be accused in two years of 'I told you so!'

You mis-read my earlier post.
I said things would be even better at the end of this year, and suggested even better still when UK actually leaves EU - 2019 as you rightly say.
For Happy (??) in Cyprus:
1.40 was the latest prediction from my chums in the City following Article 50 being triggered.
Geoff.

[Jim B]

This is a leaked document from the Treasury; of course the government is scaremongering itself now.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 24706.html

[kingfisher]

The "leaked" document referred to was compiled nearly a year ago by Treasury civil servants.
Nothing more than pre-referendum scaremongering, i.e., old fake news.

[Pete G]

I seem to recall the Home Office leaked a similar one in 1975, showing they had assessed that continued membership of the EEC was in no way a threat to sovereignty.

The real one, of course, the one that detailed areas where HMG could expect to see severe restrictions on its sovereignty in various key areas as the treaty developed, was confidentiality marked and then locked in a filing cabinet for 25 years, strangely enough.

[Jim B]

The "leaked" document referred to was compiled nearly a year ago by Treasury civil servants.
Nothing more than pre-referendum scaremongering, i.e., old fake news.

It's laughable that anything negative about Brexit is scaremongering or fake news; we shall see.

Jim

[Royal]

As has been said before, this is an old (ie pre-Referendum) report.

Why oh why does everyone fear leaving the Single Market? We thought we were joining the Single Market back in 1975 when they called it the Common Market. However, we hadn't counted on what is now called the 'Four Freedoms' one of which includes the unrestricted free movement of people within the 'Single Market'. For the life of me, I cannot understand why a free trade agreement between any countries MUST include free movement of people. It seems to me that the only countries which need such a clause are those with an ageing population which needs young, cheap labour (so that would be Germany) and those with rampant unemployment and little opportunity (so that takes in the Eastern European members).

I note that the article ends with the following positive prediction:

A study by the pro-Brexit group Economists for Free Trade last month found that if the UK removed all import tariffs, gross domestic product would grow by 4 per cent and Treasury receipts by 7.3 per cent.

Professor Patrick Minford, chair of the group, said: “While the naysayers will have us believe that the ‘WTO option’ of no trade deal with the EU will lead to economic decline, the reality is that we do not need any such deal with the EU to achieve prosperity. When we leave the single market, the UK will take up its full membership of the WTO and it is the pursuit of free trade from that point that will deliver economic success.”

I have a great deal of time for Prof Minford and his excellent analysis was part of the research I did last year in assessing my own position on the Referendum.

If anyone is interested, you can watch and listen to his assessment of Britain's free trade future here. It is very revealing. I commend it to the naysayers.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=leKEUT1TiLU

[Jim B]

Read upon WTO Schedules, quite interesting.

Jim

[PeteandSylvi]

As has been said before, this is an old (ie pre-Referendum) report.

Why oh why does everyone fear leaving the Single Market? We thought we were joining the Single Market back in 1975 when they called it the Common Market. However, we hadn't counted on what is now called the 'Four Freedoms' one of which includes the unrestricted free movement of people within the 'Single Market'. For the life of me, I cannot understand why a free trade agreement between any countries MUST include free movement of people. It seems to me that the only countries which need such a clause are those with an ageing population which needs young, cheap labour (so that would be Germany) and those with rampant unemployment and little opportunity (so that takes in the Eastern European members).

I note that the article ends with the following positive prediction:

A study by the pro-Brexit group Economists for Free Trade last month found that if the UK removed all import tariffs, gross domestic product would grow by 4 per cent and Treasury receipts by 7.3 per cent.

Professor Patrick Minford, chair of the group, said: “While the naysayers will have us believe that the ‘WTO option’ of no trade deal with the EU will lead to economic decline, the reality is that we do not need any such deal with the EU to achieve prosperity. When we leave the single market, the UK will take up its full membership of the WTO and it is the pursuit of free trade from that point that will deliver economic success.”

I have a great deal of time for Prof Minford and his excellent analysis was part of the research I did last year in assessing my own position on the Referendum.

If anyone is interested, you can watch and listen to his assessment of Britain's free trade future here. It is very revealing. I commend it to the naysayers.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=leKEUT1TiLU

I completely agree.

I'm convinced that one of the problems the Remainers have is due to a "black and white" view of things. This suggests to them that if Britain leaves the EU we will no longer have trade access, therefore we cannot trade. Or if we can trade there will be damaging tariffs. All of this ignores the fact that Britain's products are wanted and thus will be traded. If not it is the other EU countries that will lose out by denying themselves access to our products or having to pay more to satisfy tariffs. The other point I have to note is that there is no natural law that requires there to be any tariffs whatsoever. They are currently being used as a threat to try and create an argument in favour of Remaining that does not actually exist.

What also seems to be lost on Remainers is that Britain is a key world player and a key EU player. Thus Britain is in a position of strength and that is the best way to enter any negotiation.

Pete

[Dominic]

How will British goods fair in the UK if all tariffs are removed?

[Jim B]

We are a key player because of where we are today, not where we will be tomorrow and it's more than just about finance; it's the Sciences, the Arts and Education. Some of the top academics are leaving the UK and moving to other EU countries, there is a brain of top scientists that have started to leave knowing that funding will be limited. Educational opportunities in other EU Universities are being withdrawn from UK Students; these are what my concerns are, not whether another multi millionaire makes more money. of course this again will be written off as scare mongering but a quick Google will show Oxford University representatives met with May yesterday over these concerns.

Jim