leave = brexit consequences (786)
lifeisadream: That is the interesting part.
What are going to be UK moves after the Brexit.
What are going to be UK moves after the Brexit.
i'm curious to see the experiment go forward..
------ This thread is Archived ------
lifeisadream: Btw I would much rather be childish than senile.
------ This thread is Archived ------
lifeisadream: Thank for your words Purr4mance yet it is not about taking sides but to analyze the consequences of the Brexit. Here are some facts and scenarios given by experts.
* The European Union (EU) is the UK’s largest trade partner. Around a half of the UK’s trade is with the EU. EU membership reduces trade costs between the UK and the EU. This makes goods and services cheaper for UK consumers and allows UK businesses to export more. ?
* ? Leaving the EU (‘Brexit’) would lower trade between the UK and the EU because of higher tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade. In addition, the UK would benefit less from future market integration within the EU. The main economic benefit of leaving the EU would be a lower net contribution to the EU budget. ?
* ? Our analysis first quantifies the ‘static’ effects of Brexit on trade and income. In an ‘optimistic’ scenario, the UK (like Norway) obtains full access to the EU single market. We calculate this results in a 1.3% fall in average UK incomes (or £850 per household). In a ‘pessimistic’ scenario with larger increases in trade costs, Brexit lowers income by 2.6% (£1,700 per household). ?
* ? All EU countries lose income after Brexit. The overall GDP fall in the UK is £26 billion to £55 billion, about twice as big as the £12 billion to £28 billion income loss in the rest of the EU combined. Non-EU countries experience some smaller income gains.
?
* ? If the UK unilaterally removed all its tariffs on imports from the rest of the world after Brexit, UK incomes fall by 1% in the optimistic case and 2.3% in the pessimistic case.
?
* ? In the long run, reduced trade lowers productivity. Factoring in these effects substantially increases the costs of Brexit to a loss of 6.3% to 9.5% of GDP (about £4,200 to £6,400 per household). ?
* ? Being outside the EU means that the UK would not automatically benefit from future EU trade deals with other countries. This would mean missing out on the current US and Japanese deals, which are forecast to improve real incomes by 0.6%. ?
* ? After Brexit, would the UK obtain better trade deals with non-EU countries? It would not have to compromise so much with other EU states, but the UK would lose bargaining power as its economy makes up only 18% of the EU’s ‘single market’. ?
* ? It is unclear whether there are substantial regulatory benefits from Brexit. The UK already has one of the OECD’s least regulated product and labour markets. ‘Big ticket’ savings are supposedly from abolition of the Renewable Energy Strategy and the Working Time Directive – both of which receive considerable domestic political support in the UK.
London School of Economics and Political Science
Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE, UK Tel: +44 (0)20 7955 7673?Email: cep.info@lse.ac.uk Web:
* The European Union (EU) is the UK’s largest trade partner. Around a half of the UK’s trade is with the EU. EU membership reduces trade costs between the UK and the EU. This makes goods and services cheaper for UK consumers and allows UK businesses to export more. ?
* ? Leaving the EU (‘Brexit’) would lower trade between the UK and the EU because of higher tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade. In addition, the UK would benefit less from future market integration within the EU. The main economic benefit of leaving the EU would be a lower net contribution to the EU budget. ?
* ? Our analysis first quantifies the ‘static’ effects of Brexit on trade and income. In an ‘optimistic’ scenario, the UK (like Norway) obtains full access to the EU single market. We calculate this results in a 1.3% fall in average UK incomes (or £850 per household). In a ‘pessimistic’ scenario with larger increases in trade costs, Brexit lowers income by 2.6% (£1,700 per household). ?
* ? All EU countries lose income after Brexit. The overall GDP fall in the UK is £26 billion to £55 billion, about twice as big as the £12 billion to £28 billion income loss in the rest of the EU combined. Non-EU countries experience some smaller income gains.
?
* ? If the UK unilaterally removed all its tariffs on imports from the rest of the world after Brexit, UK incomes fall by 1% in the optimistic case and 2.3% in the pessimistic case.
?
* ? In the long run, reduced trade lowers productivity. Factoring in these effects substantially increases the costs of Brexit to a loss of 6.3% to 9.5% of GDP (about £4,200 to £6,400 per household). ?
* ? Being outside the EU means that the UK would not automatically benefit from future EU trade deals with other countries. This would mean missing out on the current US and Japanese deals, which are forecast to improve real incomes by 0.6%. ?
* ? After Brexit, would the UK obtain better trade deals with non-EU countries? It would not have to compromise so much with other EU states, but the UK would lose bargaining power as its economy makes up only 18% of the EU’s ‘single market’. ?
* ? It is unclear whether there are substantial regulatory benefits from Brexit. The UK already has one of the OECD’s least regulated product and labour markets. ‘Big ticket’ savings are supposedly from abolition of the Renewable Energy Strategy and the Working Time Directive – both of which receive considerable domestic political support in the UK.
London School of Economics and Political Science
Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE, UK Tel: +44 (0)20 7955 7673?Email: cep.info@lse.ac.uk Web:
thanks for the info...
------ This thread is Archived ------
TheRedSquirrel87: Yes they are the wrong candidates. A Trump stalled by congress would be the best lesson. The establishment needs to learn the compromise between the Borg and the people, they've yet to of this, and without a credible option the best thing to do is nothing at all.
Here I'd like to see Theresa May - so long as her seriousness and professionalism is more than a carefully-nurtured public image - or even Stephen Crabb as next PM. Michael Gove is Thatcher mk II and if it was up to me I'd have him back as secretary of state for education, but no more than this.
Here I'd like to see Theresa May - so long as her seriousness and professionalism is more than a carefully-nurtured public image - or even Stephen Crabb as next PM. Michael Gove is Thatcher mk II and if it was up to me I'd have him back as secretary of state for education, but no more than this.
if trump were to get in, he certainly wouldn't have a mandate as he would probably win by the narrowness of margins. just today, i saw a poll that stated trump has 1% approval rating from blacks. there is no way he wins without this vote.
he will need the establishment to win the general whether he likes it or not.
what i see happening, is his vice presidential candidate, who i feel will be steeped in not only how government runs but in addition, will be able to communicate and compromise in an effective way with the established congress. i can see it now, all trump's supporters saying he sold us out but if he's able to pull it off i think his pick will be key. the two will play good cop bad cop.
i;m going to have a look at a few of your potential leaders this weekend. thanks
------ This thread is Archived ------
..trump is no fool...business wise. but i would love to see a man who has his country and its people...at heart, not just for his personal gains......jmo.
------ This thread is Archived ------
The stupidity/ignorance of the Millenials:
------ This thread is Archived ------
Capricorn143: The stupidity/ignorance of the Millenials:
interesting vid. scary thought that in the future those will be the ones running britain brexit or not.
------ This thread is Archived ------
tomcatwarne: i haven't been able to put my finger on the pulse of your potential leadership, yet.
for that reason, at this time, i am unable to access just how your officials are going to move brexit forward.
You seem to forget the public voted for Brexit, the confidence was already there. It will work, and the British public want it.
Which [art of popular vote don't you understand??
for that reason, at this time, i am unable to access just how your officials are going to move brexit forward.
You seem to forget the public voted for Brexit, the confidence was already there. It will work, and the British public want it.
Which [art of popular vote don't you understand??
i think you're living in fantasy land.
correction by the way... PART of britain wants it. a very small majority i might add.
------ This thread is Archived ------
epirb: if Trump wins you might not be aloud to send it out , whats more you will need it and a whole lot more . I don't see him anything more than an entertaining least worst option . In the short term he probably is a bigger risk to beef prices , my income . Where's Clinton is a risk for the rest of my working life and that of my children trapping NZ with the other TPP countries with an EU style agreement , far more advanced than the EEC was when Britain joined . Trump can only last eight years , 2920 days plus two more for leap years . Sneaky feeling a few will be crossing them off like a sentence .
a keg possibly
------ This thread is Archived ------
Reported in the Daily Telegraph this morning that Conservatives may have a new leader with few days due to May's seemingly overwhelming support.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Aragorn11: Reported in the Daily Telegraph this morning that Conservatives may have a new leader with few days due to May's seemingly overwhelming support.
*within*
------ This thread is Archived ------
Brexit
*The European Union (EU) is the UK’s largest trade partner. Around a half of the UK’s trade is with the EU. EU membership reduces trade costs between the UK and the EU. This makes goods and services cheaper for UK consumers and allows UK businesses to export more.
*Leaving the EU (‘Brexit’) would lower trade between the UK and the EU because of higher tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade. In addition, the UK would benefit less from future market integration within the EU. The main economic benefit of leaving the EU would be a lower net contribution to the EU budget.
*Our analysis first quantifies the ‘static’ effects of Brexit on trade and income. In an ‘optimistic’ scenario, the UK (like Norway) obtains full access to the EU single market. We calculate this results in a 1.3% fall in average UK incomes (or £850 per household). In a ‘pessimistic’ scenario with larger increases in trade costs, Brexit lowers income by 2.6% (£1,700 per household).
* All EU countries lose income after Brexit. The overall GDP fall in the UK is £26 billion to £55 billion, about twice as big as the £12 billion to £28 billion income loss in the rest of the EU combined. Non-EU countries experience some smaller income gains.
*If the UK unilaterally removed all its tariffs on imports from the rest of the world after Brexit, UK incomes fall by 1% in the optimistic case and 2.3% in the pessimistic case.
* In the long run, reduced trade lowers productivity. Factoring in these effects substantially increases the costs of Brexit to a loss of 6.3% to 9.5% of GDP (about £4,200 to £6,400 per household).
*Being outside the EU means that the UK would not automatically benefit from future EU trade deals with other countries. This would mean missing out on the current US and Japanese deals, which are forecast to improve real incomes by 0.6%.
*After Brexit, would the UK obtain better trade deals with non-EU countries? It would not have to compromise so much with other EU states, but the UK would lose bargaining power as its economy makes up only 18% of the EU’s ‘single market’.
*It is unclear whether there are substantial regulatory benefits from Brexit. The UK already has one of the OECD’s least regulated product and labour markets. ‘Big ticket’ savings are supposedly from abolition of the Renewable Energy Strategy and the Working Time Directive – both of which receive considerable domestic political support in the UK.
London School of Economics and Political Science
Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE, UK Tel: +44 (0)20 7955 7673
Email: cep.info@lse.ac.uk
Web:
(Sorry about the question marks in my previous post of this info i should have previewed and edited)
*The European Union (EU) is the UK’s largest trade partner. Around a half of the UK’s trade is with the EU. EU membership reduces trade costs between the UK and the EU. This makes goods and services cheaper for UK consumers and allows UK businesses to export more.
*Leaving the EU (‘Brexit’) would lower trade between the UK and the EU because of higher tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade. In addition, the UK would benefit less from future market integration within the EU. The main economic benefit of leaving the EU would be a lower net contribution to the EU budget.
*Our analysis first quantifies the ‘static’ effects of Brexit on trade and income. In an ‘optimistic’ scenario, the UK (like Norway) obtains full access to the EU single market. We calculate this results in a 1.3% fall in average UK incomes (or £850 per household). In a ‘pessimistic’ scenario with larger increases in trade costs, Brexit lowers income by 2.6% (£1,700 per household).
* All EU countries lose income after Brexit. The overall GDP fall in the UK is £26 billion to £55 billion, about twice as big as the £12 billion to £28 billion income loss in the rest of the EU combined. Non-EU countries experience some smaller income gains.
*If the UK unilaterally removed all its tariffs on imports from the rest of the world after Brexit, UK incomes fall by 1% in the optimistic case and 2.3% in the pessimistic case.
* In the long run, reduced trade lowers productivity. Factoring in these effects substantially increases the costs of Brexit to a loss of 6.3% to 9.5% of GDP (about £4,200 to £6,400 per household).
*Being outside the EU means that the UK would not automatically benefit from future EU trade deals with other countries. This would mean missing out on the current US and Japanese deals, which are forecast to improve real incomes by 0.6%.
*After Brexit, would the UK obtain better trade deals with non-EU countries? It would not have to compromise so much with other EU states, but the UK would lose bargaining power as its economy makes up only 18% of the EU’s ‘single market’.
*It is unclear whether there are substantial regulatory benefits from Brexit. The UK already has one of the OECD’s least regulated product and labour markets. ‘Big ticket’ savings are supposedly from abolition of the Renewable Energy Strategy and the Working Time Directive – both of which receive considerable domestic political support in the UK.
London School of Economics and Political Science
Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE, UK Tel: +44 (0)20 7955 7673
Email: cep.info@lse.ac.uk
Web:
(Sorry about the question marks in my previous post of this info i should have previewed and edited)
------ This thread is Archived ------
purr4mance: i'
lifeisadream: Btw I would much rather be childish than senile.
sorry Purr4mance
My comment was not intented to you (or anyone
)it was just in reference to one of my comments -in this thread- being "childish".
------ This thread is Archived ------
lifeisadream: Brexit
*The European Union (EU) is the UK’s largest trade partner. Around a half of the UK’s trade is with the EU. EU membership reduces trade costs between the UK and the EU. This makes goods and services cheaper for UK consumers and allows UK businesses to export more.
*Leaving the EU (‘Brexit’) would lower trade between the UK and the EU because of higher tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade. In addition, the UK would benefit less from future market integration within the EU. The main economic benefit of leaving the EU would be a lower net contribution to the EU budget.
*Our analysis first quantifies the ‘static’ effects of Brexit on trade and income. In an ‘optimistic’ scenario, the UK (like Norway) obtains full access to the EU single market. We calculate this results in a 1.3% fall in average UK incomes (or £850 per household). In a ‘pessimistic’ scenario with larger increases in trade costs, Brexit lowers income by 2.6% (£1,700 per household).
* All EU countries lose income after Brexit. The overall GDP fall in the UK is £26 billion to £55 billion, about twice as big as the £12 billion to £28 billion income loss in the rest of the EU combined. Non-EU countries experience some smaller income gains.
*If the UK unilaterally removed all its tariffs on imports from the rest of the world after Brexit, UK incomes fall by 1% in the optimistic case and 2.3% in the pessimistic case.
* In the long run, reduced trade lowers productivity. Factoring in these effects substantially increases the costs of Brexit to a loss of 6.3% to 9.5% of GDP (about £4,200 to £6,400 per household).
*Being outside the EU means that the UK would not automatically benefit from future EU trade deals with other countries. This would mean missing out on the current US and Japanese deals, which are forecast to improve real incomes by 0.6%.
*After Brexit, would the UK obtain better trade deals with non-EU countries? It would not have to compromise so much with other EU states, but the UK would lose bargaining power as its economy makes up only 18% of the EU’s ‘single market’.
*It is unclear whether there are substantial regulatory benefits from Brexit. The UK already has one of the OECD’s least regulated product and labour markets. ‘Big ticket’ savings are supposedly from abolition of the Renewable Energy Strategy and the Working Time Directive – both of which receive considerable domestic political support in the UK.
London School of Economics and Political Science
Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE, UK Tel: +44 (0)20 7955 7673
Email: cep.info@lse.ac.uk
Web:
(Sorry about the question marks in my previous post of this info i should have previewed and edited)
*The European Union (EU) is the UK’s largest trade partner. Around a half of the UK’s trade is with the EU. EU membership reduces trade costs between the UK and the EU. This makes goods and services cheaper for UK consumers and allows UK businesses to export more.
*Leaving the EU (‘Brexit’) would lower trade between the UK and the EU because of higher tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade. In addition, the UK would benefit less from future market integration within the EU. The main economic benefit of leaving the EU would be a lower net contribution to the EU budget.
*Our analysis first quantifies the ‘static’ effects of Brexit on trade and income. In an ‘optimistic’ scenario, the UK (like Norway) obtains full access to the EU single market. We calculate this results in a 1.3% fall in average UK incomes (or £850 per household). In a ‘pessimistic’ scenario with larger increases in trade costs, Brexit lowers income by 2.6% (£1,700 per household).
* All EU countries lose income after Brexit. The overall GDP fall in the UK is £26 billion to £55 billion, about twice as big as the £12 billion to £28 billion income loss in the rest of the EU combined. Non-EU countries experience some smaller income gains.
*If the UK unilaterally removed all its tariffs on imports from the rest of the world after Brexit, UK incomes fall by 1% in the optimistic case and 2.3% in the pessimistic case.
* In the long run, reduced trade lowers productivity. Factoring in these effects substantially increases the costs of Brexit to a loss of 6.3% to 9.5% of GDP (about £4,200 to £6,400 per household).
*Being outside the EU means that the UK would not automatically benefit from future EU trade deals with other countries. This would mean missing out on the current US and Japanese deals, which are forecast to improve real incomes by 0.6%.
*After Brexit, would the UK obtain better trade deals with non-EU countries? It would not have to compromise so much with other EU states, but the UK would lose bargaining power as its economy makes up only 18% of the EU’s ‘single market’.
*It is unclear whether there are substantial regulatory benefits from Brexit. The UK already has one of the OECD’s least regulated product and labour markets. ‘Big ticket’ savings are supposedly from abolition of the Renewable Energy Strategy and the Working Time Directive – both of which receive considerable domestic political support in the UK.
London School of Economics and Political Science
Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE, UK Tel: +44 (0)20 7955 7673
Email: cep.info@lse.ac.uk
Web:
(Sorry about the question marks in my previous post of this info i should have previewed and edited)
IDK, Life, I read this post (and I seldom read the long political posts) because in earlier conversations with you I admitted my lack of knowledge on Brexit.
To me it seems the calculation we really need to see is whether what the UK might lose outpaces what they save in EU membership dues (that was somewhere between 200-350 million depending on the news source and what authority we believe). That's a pretty big savings.
That savings plus the increased self determination gained seem like pretty good reasons to exit. Also, why would a US -Japanese trade deal require the UK to depend on the EU? That doesn't make sense. They might be better off entering it as a 3rd party with the US and Japan. Fact is, the UK now has the opportunity to negotiate it's own trade deals. London is long a financial hub. I am sure they are quite capable.
So even if your author is right and there is a temporary economic loss to GB (which I doubt), I am sure they can find enough trade partners to turn that around.
------ This thread is Archived ------
purr4mance: i think you're living in fantasy land.
correction by the way... PART of britain wants it. a very small majority i might add.
correction by the way... PART of britain wants it. a very small majority i might add.
You mean you don't know how democracy works
------ This thread is Archived ------
felixis99: IDK, Life, I read this post (and I seldom read the long political posts) because in earlier conversations with you I admitted my lack of knowledge on Brexit..
I am not an expert in economics either Felix but I do look for reliable information from people/institutions that know better and way better than I do.
felixis99:
To me it seems the calculation we really need to see is whether what the UK might lose outpaces what they save in EU membership dues (that was somewhere between 200-350 million depending on the news source and what authority we believe). That's a pretty big savings.
That savings plus the increased self determination gained seem like pretty good reasons to exit. .
To me it seems the calculation we really need to see is whether what the UK might lose outpaces what they save in EU membership dues (that was somewhere between 200-350 million depending on the news source and what authority we believe). That's a pretty big savings.
That savings plus the increased self determination gained seem like pretty good reasons to exit. .
Savings is one thing not having the benefit of EU trading agreements (lower tariffs) is another (although there is still a 2 years period to go) and the numbers are way higher than that.
Self determination? With a second vote (to revoke Brexit) proposed?
felixis99:
Also, why would a US -Japanese trade deal require the UK to depend on the EU? That doesn't make sense. They might be better off entering it as a 3rd party with the US and Japan. Fact is, the UK now has the opportunity to negotiate it's own trade deals. .
Also, why would a US -Japanese trade deal require the UK to depend on the EU? That doesn't make sense. They might be better off entering it as a 3rd party with the US and Japan. Fact is, the UK now has the opportunity to negotiate it's own trade deals. .
The article of my authors explain it.
felixis99: ..temporary economic loss to GB..
I do prefer not to add to the falling of anything that will hurt lots of people but here is some info that might make you think twice.
(And it is not the Brexit which cause it is the Brexit that catalyze it)
felixis99:
London is long a financial hub. I am sure they are quite capable.
So even if your author is right and there is a temporary economic loss to GB (which I doubt), I am sure they can find enough trade partners to turn that around.
London is long a financial hub. I am sure they are quite capable.
So even if your author is right and there is a temporary economic loss to GB (which I doubt), I am sure they can find enough trade partners to turn that around.
That is right London is big financial entity and I hope it does not fall because it will hurt into your knees and mine as well but I am assuming we both have strong knees, not so for many, many people.
------ This thread is Archived ------
lifeisadream: sorry Purr4mance
My comment was not intented to you (or anyone )it was just in reference to one of my comments -in this thread- being "childish".
My comment was not intented to you (or anyone )it was just in reference to one of my comments -in this thread- being "childish".
i agreed with the comment and still stand.
i would much rather have some childish qualities than be some uptight, mothballed, fuddy duddy.
------ This thread is Archived ------
tomcatwarne: You mean you don't know how democracy works
don't be surprised if fantasy island sinks rather abruptly.
------ This thread is Archived ------
purr4mance: i agreed with the comment and still stand.
i would much rather have some childish qualities than be some uptight, mothballed, fuddy duddy.
i would much rather have some childish qualities than be some uptight, mothballed, fuddy duddy.
ok!
(I had to google fuddy duddy)
What is wrong with having all those attributes -from time to time-?
------ This thread is Archived ------
This Thread is Archived
This Thread is archived, so you will no longer be able to post to it. Threads get archived automatically when they are older than 3 months.
« Go back to All Threads
« Go back to All Threads
More Threads
Are the ads on here as phony as some of the profiles?
One week of the most outrageous GOP leadership!
What happened to CS while i was away.. (Long time)
The weird and the random facts around the world
Democrats destroyed America
Unions support Democrats!
s*xual skills
More Proof The GOP is a Criminal Organization
makeover
Ladies
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
Related Forums
- Are the ads on here as phony as some of the profiles?
- One week of the most outrageous GOP leadership!
- What happened to CS while i was away.. (Long time)
- The weird and the random facts around the world
- Democrats destroyed America
- Unions support Democrats!
- s*xual skills
- More Proof The GOP is a Criminal Organization
- makeover
- Ladies
Btw I would much rather be childish than senile.