Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Richard Hakluyt]

There was also an attitude that the area had been neglected and not thought about; and satisfaction that "they" would have to do some work to sort things out. There seemed to be no conception that future developments could affect them adversely at all.

[Sheilbh]

Sheilbh imthinkmyou keep analysing the rationality of the exit process purely from the British perspective, which is only one of the 27 sides of this problem, actually.

A staged withdrawal may sound very bad for the EU, where there are a number of ticking time bombs, Italy in particular, and the last thing they probably need is a non-final Brexit status for years to come.

Sure, it is impossible to solve all open questions to Briatin's benefit in two years but that is hardly the EU's problem now.

What is the downside to a staged withdrawal to the other 27?

The UK is a big importing country within the EU. The economic shock for us will be worse, no doubt, but it will also affect the rest of Europe - whose interest is that in if, say, Ireland and Belgium are suddenly plunged into recession? Similarly is it anyone's interests that rather than negotiating a final position the right to free movement just stops at two years?

I mean we see that already. So far it looks like the biggest economic consequence of Brexit is that it's the external shock that may force a couple of hundred billion bailout of Italy's banks. Obviously the UK doesn't want a sort-of artificial recession after the couple of years, assuming the next two years don't solve the Eurozone crisis I think it'd be odd for Europe to be choosing an economic shock.

As I say everyone seems to assume that there should be some form of final deal - that there will need to be a formal relationship between the UK and the EU but that it will take a long time to negotiate. If that's your starting assumption I don't see anyone who benefits from having a two year guillotine at which point all the barriers go up. It still wouldn't solve the final Brexit status, the negotiations would have to continue they'd just be continuing during some form of economic crisis with no legal framework for things like free movement.

Edit: Incidentally it looks like Canada is the preferred model at this time so we won't be in the single market and we're not looking for a Norway or Switzerland style deal.

[Tamas]

It makes perfect sense for the EU countries to require the start of the two year countdown before negotiatins begin as that will put them in a huge advantage. I can't see them reversing their position on that.

And Canada, really? Half of the UK's export is going to the EU and the country is willingly raising a wall I'm front of that? Wonderful

[Sheilbh]

It makes perfect sense for the EU countries to require the start of the two year countdown before negotiatins begin as that will put them in a huge advantage. I can't see them reversing their position on that.

No doubt, but I was really talking about after the two years of article 50 rather than instant end to free movement, border controls, visas and tariffs it makes sense for everyone that the UK leaves and gets out of everyone's way but goes to EEA status while the negotiations on a final deal continue.

And Canada, really? Half of the UK's export is going to the EU and the country is willingly raising a wall I'm front of that? Wonderful

Yeah. As everyone's said free movement and the single market are inextricable so it looks like the government is prioritising ending free movement (though I understand there are agreements in the Canada agreement to do with migration and travel). May is echoing Juncker a lot and keeps repeating that Brexit means Brexit.

I know he's a Donald Trump to the rest of Europe but I really think the best chance for a soft Brexit deal was Boris Johnson as PM.

[Hamilcar]

There was also an attitude that the area had been neglected and not thought about; and satisfaction that "they" would have to do some work to sort things out. There seemed to be no conception that future developments could affect them adversely at all.

Let Britain slowly slide into poverty and irrelevance. If someone consciously chooses suicide, let them.

[garbon]

There was also an attitude that the area had been neglected and not thought about; and satisfaction that "they" would have to do some work to sort things out. There seemed to be no conception that future developments could affect them adversely at all.

Let Britain slowly slide into poverty and irrelevance. If someone consciously chooses suicide, let them.

While a blow to Britain for sure, I don't think Brexit has to mean any of the things you describe.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah. In fact I think that sort of argument actively hurt the Remain campaign.

[Agelastus]

Quite frankly, to poltically/sovereignty motivated "Brexiter"s* the "irrelevance" and "suicide" part describes our situation if we remain in the EU more than if we leave.

The "poverty" part, while exaggerated, has more impact - but apparently not enough for those more motivated by economic than political concerns. At least, at the time of the referendum, anyway.


*I still find this a truly horrible mangling of the English language.

[grumbler]

It is becoming increasingly difficult to tell Hamilcar from grallon.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Yeah. In fact I think that sort of argument actively hurt the Remain campaign.

Most of the people seemed to be offended by the argument that Britain couldn't make its own way in the world. Thinking about it I was offended by it too.

I'd say that "project fear" is a poor campaigning technique generally, "stay in the club or you get your balls chopped off!" incites people to stand up for themselves.

[grumbler]

It makes perfect sense for the EU countries to require the start of the two year countdown before negotiatins begin as that will put them in a huge advantage. I can't see them reversing their position on that.

In a huge advantage to do what, exactly?  Let's say that the British remain in the EU for the two years, and then leave with no deal.  Who gains from that?  Why would the pressure be on Britain to concede.... whatever it is the remaining EU countries want them to concede?

[Hamilcar]

Yeah. In fact I think that sort of argument actively hurt the Remain campaign.

Most of the people seemed to be offended by the argument that Britain couldn't make its own way in the world. Thinking about it I was offended by it too.

"Offense" is for children.

The facts about Britain's lack of viability outside the EU, especially with punitive EU actions, are significant. The mobile wealthy individuals and corporations will move away for greener pastures, leaving the British people even more impoverished than they already are. Britain outside London always has been a rather poor country.

[alfred russel]

I'm not sure why wealthy individuals would want to move away from the UK because of isolation from the EU. To the extent that wealthy individuals are choosing their place of domicile based on political and regulatory regimes, I would think that the tax rate and financial controls would be the most important. I don't think it is likely either would be adversely affected by Brexit.

For corporations the case is more complex, but there are similar dynamics. Where the headquarters is domiciled is not the same as where production takes place. If the UK presents a more favorable corporate environment than EU countries, there is no reason companies couldn't domicile in the UK even without access to the common market, and then produce through subsidiaries domiciled in the common market.

[Zanza]

In a huge advantage to do what, exactly?

Negotiate.

Let's say that the British remain in the EU for the two years, and then leave with no deal.  Who gains from that?

Everybody loses in that scenario.

Why would the pressure be on Britain to concede.... whatever it is the remaining EU countries want them to concede?

The exact details of a more or less comprehensive free trade trade deal and possibly a framework for continued political cooperation in certain areas. Countries have interests and try to assert those in treaty negotiations. But you knew that already...so why ask?

[Sheilbh]

Most of the people seemed to be offended by the argument that Britain couldn't make its own way in the world. Thinking about it I was offended by it too.

I'd say that "project fear" is a poor campaigning technique generally, "stay in the club or you get your balls chopped off!" incites people to stand up for themselves.

Quite. It's the 'too wee and too poor' line all over again. While it worked in 2014 and 2015 it maybe didn't have that resonance for the people who were voting in 2016. And I think as Zanza says it actually meant that the other genuine pro-European arguments that people wanted to make weren't getting out there because the Remain campaign had decided as a whole to go down the project fear road.

So the only more interesting Remain arguments I can remember - in my view two of the more compelling ones - were Gordon Brown and Theresa May because they didn't focus on our impending economic collapse.

The facts about Britain's lack of viability outside the EU, especially with punitive EU actions, are significant. The mobile wealthy individuals and corporations will move away for greener pastures, leaving the British people even more impoverished than they already are. Britain outside London always has been a rather poor country.

Ish. There are reasons beyond being in the EU that people and companies choose London some of them are very difficult to replicate. For example very few insurance companies actually got an EU passport even though they could because for most of them, for most of their business it made no difference. The City is the world's biggest centre for Islamic finance and it's the West's biggest centre of Renmibi trading. Contracts for billions of dollars all over the world are governed by English law because we have the rule of law, we have a fairly predictable and stable common law environment and, compared to American law firms, we're cheap. I don't see any of those advantages being significantly hurt by leaving the EU. Other sectors within the City will be hit for sure but I don't think it'll be a catastrophe - but London voted Remain. I think the areas that actually depend more on export of goods which mostly voted Leave are more likely to be hurt.

And I think there's a tale of three countries going on in the UK. London itself has productivity per worker that is four times the EU average and double its nearest competitor cities (Paris, Frankfurt, Amsterdam) or the next most vibrant bit of the UK. It is very much an exception and I think a large part of that is the agglomeration effect that explains why, despite lots of trying by lots of places, it's actually difficult to build a major financial centre. In terms of GDP per capita it's as a whole (including the outer boroughs) about the level of a successful non-oil based Scandi country.

Then you've got Scotland, the South East, the East and the South West of England. Those areas are all roughly at the level of Italy as a whole or mid-income bits of France or Germany. Then you've got the North-West, North-East, the Midlands, Northern Ireland and Wales. In GDP terms they're roughly between Portugal and Spain or some of the bits of Southern Italy and East Germany, they've a similar GDP per capita to Abruzzo or Saxony.