Brexit and Future of UK : Discussions
- Thread starter Vergennes
- Start date
I have a few neighbors from the UK who are at my university for a research/study abroad program. They seem to have really bought into the idea that a "CANZUK" free-trade/movement agreement can (or "definitely will") be made between the UK, Canada, New Zealand and Australia post-Brexit. How real do you think this proposition is? Is there really appetite in the UK to leave one union and jump right into another one (that has far less economic and geopolitical value)?
I personally don't see the point. These countries don't trade much with each other and are literally on opposite ends of the earth from one another.
I think there is an appetite for it in the UK if the same is true for the other parties. There was actually a fair amount of trade between them before 1973, when EEC membership effectively blocked it off. We share a common language and have far more in common with them than the EU in general. It's also important for us to replace EU exports to the UK once tariffs and NTBs come into force. Some of that can be replaced with domestic production and the rest could be replaced with exports from those other countries. We already have over £100bn of trade with Asia and the same again with North America, so the distance isn't as big a deal as some think it is.
For example, we had enough trade with Australia for our membership of the EEC to cause a recession there.
Economic history of Australia - Wikipedia
It really was an unforgivable mistake to join the EU.
I don't think it was a mistake to join the EU as much as if was the most logical path forward at the time. The empire was unaffordable to maintain and pressure to decolonize was immense and so had to be let go. The UK needed a new powerbase to compete in the world with the Soviets and in the long term the US & Chinese. The European neighborhood was banding together, so the UK hopped on board as well.
The trade with the EU is easily available through the UK government's websites. Although I am sure this has been posted here before.
as well as
If there is a hard-Brexit, do you expect to see the trade deficit with the EU increase even more?
That's true of certain parts of the empire but most of them had been let go. The core nations - UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand - were able to support themselves. The reason for the harsh economic times were the fact the UK had to pay down national debt from 240% of GDP to 40% of GDP after WWII between 1945 and 1973. By 1973 we'd actually fixed the problem, so there was no need to join the EU. However, the WTO did not exist back then, so tariffs were unlimited and the EEC basically blocked UK access to the Western European market and we had to ditch the other 3 nations to get in. However, now the tables have turned, we're a net importer from the EU and the WTO exists, and they take tons of money from us each year by several mechanisms - % of GDP contributions, tariffs on non-EU imports, remittances from other EU nationals working in the UK, overseas payment of child benefits where workers leave their kids in another country (which really takes the p1ss), subsidisation of EU students at UK universities, keeping EU convicts in UK prisons, hidden infrastructure and public services costs. It's a very one-sided arrangement.
It's not quite as simple as that. Some of those exports to the EU aren't actually going into the EU due to the Rotterdam effect, they're just stopping at a port before going elsewhere. But loss of trade works both ways. What we lose in exports to the EU we could make back by replacing their exports to us with domestic production and we wouldn't have all the other aforementioned costs. The EU is also a shrinking share of the global market and 90% of the growth over the next 15 years will come from outside the EU.
If we manage tariffs but especially non-tariff barriers correctly we can reduce the deficit to near zero. For example, whilst the WTO limits tariffs on vehicles to ~10%, we could make SVA (Single Vehicle Approval) tests mandatory for every single car coming from the EU, make the test expensive, have very few testing stations and staff each one with the laziest civil servants we can possibly find. That way the supply of EU cars into the UK market will effectively be blocked whilst fully complying with WTO rules. EU manufacturers would be forced to either have factories in the UK or face their market share being taken over as potential Golf customers turn their noses up at a 25% price hike and a 3 year waiting list.
Since you were so keen on preservation of the purity of this thread from off topic comments @Ashwin ; @Guynextdoor
Too bad the UK kept insisting after De Gaulle left, because:
I agree. The UK in the EEC/EU never really made sense. The UK remained insular and was never truly comfortable in Europe, negotiating opt-outs and rebates and exemptions at every step. It only wanted Europe to be a great free-trade area, always pushing for rapid enlargement while fighting against deeper integration, and in the end Brexit happened once the British people got fed up with free trade as for them it only meant losing jobs to Eastern European countries.
We already pay more than France on net even with the rebate. The original payment was completely ridiculous.
All the countries were pushing for expansion, they all had to sign off on it. Why do you say 'integration' when you really mean federalisation? I seem to remember the French weren't so keen on integration/federalisation when it came to the EU Constitution.
2005 French European Constitution referendum - Wikipedia
But hey, they renamed it the Lisbon Treaty and put it through anyway.
So much for democracy. This is why Brexit happened and why people are burning EU flags.
Associated with Brexit there is a sentiment which has spread beyond Britain, therefore relevant. Things that happened 70+ years ago, not so much.
Britain was nothing to do with the formation of the EEC or the ECSC. It was established to stop tards like France and Germany fighting each other in 1951. It was on the go 22 years before Britain joined. Colonialism had nothing to do with it either since both Portugal and French maintained colonies in India and other places for a considerable time after the formation of the ECSC.
The main worry was that European bickering and warring would open up Europe to a Soviet invasion. Or rather the rest of Europe, since half of it was gone already.