Geopolitical impact of Brexit

[Hazir]

Oops, May seems to have been a naughty girl; the pound is getting a beating again. Of course saying 'as close as possible' is not much of a result if your audience wants to hear 'inside'.

And just to show I'm not just being mean to the Bumbling Brexiteers: there is an upside to screwing your financial sector; it may result in cutting it down to a size that doesn't endanger the stability of your entire economy every time there's a bank with a problem. That should be somewhat reassuring given the fact that the UK is a smallish economic power.

[RandBlade]

"real experts"? Are the other experts "fake experts"?

No they're just not necessarily experts on the Bank's policies and objectives. See for example the put down by former Governor of the Bank of England Mervyn King. It's pretty funny when someone warns that what you're trying to achieve will be the unfortunate consequence of doing what you want

Lord King, the former Governor of the Bank of England, echoed the comments on sterling, saying the sell-off was largely welcome.
"During the referendum campaign, someone said the real danger of Brexit is you'll end up with higher interest rates, lower house prices and a lower exchange rate, and I thought: dream on.

Because that's what we've been trying to achieve for the past three years and now we have a chance of getting it."

Randblade lives in a parallel universe created by the Daily Mail and the like (he claims not to read it, yet gobbles down its recieved truths). In that universe Brexit is just brilliant, and nothing bad will ever come from it for Britain.

Sure bad things can happen. Just what you're claiming is either nonsense or simply not bad.

That whole thing about it all being a tad chaotic and outright damaging; that's just talk for defaitists in the UK and Brit-hating Europeans who are jealous jealous jealous of not being allowed upon England's pleasant pastures any longer. Don't believe it, a collapse in Sterling is good, fucking up production lines never hurt the economy and the euro is going to collapse any day now.

It is good, you've not shown a single negative yet. If production lines get fucked up that will be bad, that's not happened yet either. The Euro isn't going to collapse it already has failed for the last eight years in a row.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-37627308

How is that news? The UK possibly paying has been a possible outcome all along, it is an EEA-style solution which has always been possible. The possibility in that article is that we'll pay half of what we would have paid if we'd Remained which would be good news.

One possible win/win solution we chould have is that we pay for development funds for Eastern Europe (as discussed as a compromise so Eastern Europe drops demands for free movement) and then count those development funds against our 0.7% international aid budget.

Oops, May seems to have been a naughty girl; the pound is getting a beating again.

Are you seriously so ignorant as to not realise that this is desired and not a problem? Lord King even said it was desired in my link, not sure what you're struggling to comprehend here.

[Aimless]

No they're just not necessarily experts on the Bank's policies and objectives.

This irrelevant provided they are referred to in their capacity as experts in their specific relevant areas of expertise. The BoE's policies represent just one small aspect of Brexit.

See for example the put down by former Governor of the Bank of England Mervyn King. It's pretty funny when someone warns that what you're trying to achieve will be the unfortunate consequence of doing what you want

This is not particularly funny because, while the outcome may seem to be similar, there's no guarantee that the path you take to that outcome will be the one you'd have chosen otherwise, or the journey as safe as you may have wanted wrt speed of change etc. It really is a pretty stupid put-down but obviously Mr. King would be well sheltered from the negative impact of any socioeconomic turbulence.

If production lines get fucked up that will be bad, that's not happened yet either.

But this is just plain ridiculous. It hasn't happened yet because you've only recently voted to leave, haven't actually triggered the withdrawal process and the future is still very uncertain. What's more interesting is to try to determine what is likely to happen to the logistics of eg. major multinational companies, under various scenarios. If you're drunk and driving 50km over the speed-limit on a difficult road in bad weather with a lot of people around then it's not particularly interesting to observe 30 seconds after beginning your journey that, "If I have an accident and kill people that would be bad, but that hasn't happened yet."

One possible win/win solution we chould have is that we pay for development funds for Eastern Europe (as discussed as a compromise so Eastern Europe drops demands for free movement) and then count those development funds against our 0.7% international aid budget.

What makes you think that freedom of movement is something only Eastern Europe demands when it is one of the most important policies of the EU since before they joined?

[RandBlade]

This irrelevant provided they are referred to in their capacity as experts in their specific relevant areas of expertise. The BoE's policies represent just one small aspect of Brexit.

Indeed, unless they start claiming things outside their expertise like matter-of-factly claiming an objective is a negative.

This is not particularly funny because, while the outcome may seem to be similar, there's no guarantee that the path you take to that outcome will be the one you'd have chosen otherwise, or the journey as safe as you may have wanted wrt speed of change etc. It really is a pretty stupid put-down but obviously Mr. King would be well sheltered from the negative impact of any socioeconomic turbulence.

Though the path has been chosen and the journey may be risky but we have departed on that journey and complaining about the destination now is a bit moot.

But this is just plain ridiculous. It hasn't happened yet because you've only recently voted to leave, haven't actually triggered the withdrawal process and the future is still very uncertain. What's more interesting is to try to determine what is likely to happen to the logistics of eg. major multinational companies, under various scenarios. If you're drunk and driving 50km over the speed-limit on a difficult road in bad weather with a lot of people around then it's not particularly interesting to observe 30 seconds after beginning your journey that, "If I have an accident and kill people that would be bad, but that hasn't happened yet."

Agreed but I don't think we are driving drunk, we made a sober decision to get on the road.

What makes you think that freedom of movement is something only Eastern Europe demands when it is one of the most important policies of the EU since before they joined?

Because it is Eastern European migration that is most common and most unpopular while free movement is becoming unpopular in western Europe already. If Eastern Europe accepts restricted movement I doubt western politicians will die in a ditch to deny a trade deal because of a free movement requirement.

There is zero reason to link free trade with free movement. People are not widgets. Free movement in the EU is a political objective and we are leaving the political agreement.

[Aimless]

Indeed, unless they start claiming things outside their expertise like matter-of-factly claiming an objective is a negative.

Can you be more specific?

Though the path has been chosen and the journey may be risky but we have departed on that journey and complaining about the destination now is a bit moot.

Look, even if you might want to go down to the river you might not want to get there by being pushed off of a cliff onto a waterfall.

Agreed but I don't think we are driving drunk, we made a sober decision to get on the road.

The current discussion is about whether or not the journey is going to go well from this point onwards. In other words, regardless of whether or not you were sober when you got into the car, your safety may be compromised now or in the future, for example due to things that are beyond your control.

Because it is Eastern European migration that is most common and most unpopular while free movement is becoming unpopular in western Europe already. If Eastern Europe accepts restricted movement I doubt western politicians will die in a ditch to deny a trade deal because of a free movement requirement.

Freedom of movement is valued highly also by Western European citizens and esp. by businesses, not to mention the EU itself. Moreover, if the UK restricts movement, it means more Eastern Europeans may turn to other countries, perhaps to everyone's detriment or at least their frustration.

There is zero reason to link free trade with free movement. People are not widgets. Free movement in the EU is a political objective and we are leaving the political agreement.

[/QUOTE]

It is both an economical, political and social objective. There are also no purely economical reasons to link free trade with eg. human rights, labor protection laws, environmental laws etc.

[RandBlade]

Can you be more specific?

How about those bemoaning a fall in the sterling, a fall in house prices etc? Bring it on.

Look, even if you might want to go down to the river you might not want to get there by being pushed off of a cliff onto a waterfall.

OTOH if you want to go down river and you've already gone over the edge and landed back in the stream underneath without crashing then bemoaning that you are heading down river seems odd.

The current discussion is about whether or not the journey is going to go well from this point onwards. In other words, regardless of whether or not you were sober when you got into the car, your safety may be compromised now or in the future, for example due to things that are beyond your control.

Absolutely there may be issues in the future out of our control, but that doesn't make trying to manage what is in our control to our advantage is not unreasonable.

Freedom of movement is valued highly also by Western European citizens and esp. by businesses, not to mention the EU itself. Moreover, if the UK restricts movement, it means more Eastern Europeans may turn to other countries, perhaps to everyone's detriment or at least their frustration.

It is both an economical, political and social objective. There are also no purely economical reasons to link free trade with eg. human rights, labor protection laws, environmental laws etc.

It may be highly valued but if its not on the table then there's no reason to cut off your nose and deny free trade just because free movement isn't available. The EU has recognised that people aren't the same as widgets when it has organised trade deals that aren't linked to free movement. Turkey is in the EU's customs union (which we won't be) and doesn't have free movement. Funny how that works.