One of the reasons we have never benefitted fully from what weight we have in the EU is because we've always been half in, half out - so allies couldn't trust us and opponents didn't fear us. Now we're half out, half in - but the result is just the same.
hhiusa
Senior member
- Messages
- 2,687
- Likes
- 140
It is more likely that the UK never benefited because it does not export enough comparatively as I have said. The UK is an importing mercantilist nation that basically funds smaller exporting EU nations by buying their goods.
Tell me again how the UK is going to throw its weight around while representing 13% of EU trade. It is only the fifth or sixth largest exporter in Europe. Germany, France, Italy and The Netherlands represent much greater interests in the EU.
Maybe it never benefited because it did not have enough weight to throw around. This is a blessing in disguise. It is telling the UK that they should seek other trade partners.
The UK should expand its already sizeable trade with the US. No more EU restrictions. Trade with Japan, China, Hong Kong, Canada and the US more freely.
Nevertheless, it can't be good for an economic union to lose its second largest economy and third largest population. The reality of that loss is now at hand and like in any business deal we should get what we can. But if our negotiating position is weakened by internal disagreement, we will have to expect a reduced profit.
hhiusa
Senior member
- Messages
- 2,687
- Likes
- 140
Third largest economy, but sixth largest trading partner. No. The UK should stop focusing upon the EU entirely. They do not need to beg for anything.
We can do much business with the EU and we would both gain. Like in any sensible business deal both parties gain something, what would help us now is to drive a hard bargain with the very real prospect of a referendum-driven brexit, which was all bluff before. But driving a bargain is hard when half your team want to go shop/trade somewhere else anyway - and that's just for their own political advantage, not actually to get a better deal for the UK.
hhiusa
Senior member
- Messages
- 2,687
- Likes
- 140
What you are proposing is analagous to a bad marriage. People have a bad taste in their mouth about the EU. The UK threatened divorce from the EU because they were an abusive spouse spending £165 billion of their money each year. What you are suggesting is aking to saying, "if you promise not to take the house and spend all my money, we can stay married." The UK-EU marriage is unhealthy and built upon codependency.
What business turns its back on trading partners we buy from and sell to and who send us Euros to invest?
hhiusa
Senior member
- Messages
- 2,687
- Likes
- 140
UK doesn't sell jack $**t. They had $466 billion in exports and less than half of that went to Europe. How many times must I say in the UK is a mercantilist nation like the US.
I would turn my back on and business partner or trading partner who doesn't know how to have him fiscal responsibility and spends all of my money. A business partner that charges me 10% year just to be his partner.
Explain your statement about the euro.
Last edited:
Debatable whether $466 billion in exports is jack $**t to our economy but I think we know the answer.
A fool's money is as good as anyone else's, and I only hope UK financial services sector continues to receive euros (and dollars) whether or not as payment of exported goods.
A fool's money is as good as anyone else's, and I only hope UK financial services sector continues to receive euros (and dollars) whether or not as payment of exported goods.
What I don't understand is the argument that we will save 10 billion a year to EU, as if that is a big deal!
Our social services, health and pensions, etc costs us hundreds of billions a year. The HS train extension into the centre of London is estimated to be going to cost the taxpayer 55 billion. How much will the expansion of the airport cost? There is little comparison. It seems to me that the UK has committed an economic blunder which will take years to digest.
However, what's done is done. I was against it but we must make the best of a bad job.
Here's to a good negotiating team!
Our social services, health and pensions, etc costs us hundreds of billions a year. The HS train extension into the centre of London is estimated to be going to cost the taxpayer 55 billion. How much will the expansion of the airport cost? There is little comparison. It seems to me that the UK has committed an economic blunder which will take years to digest.
However, what's done is done. I was against it but we must make the best of a bad job.
Here's to a good negotiating team!
hhiusa
Senior member
- Messages
- 2,687
- Likes
- 140
What I don't understand is the argument that we will save 10 billion a year to EU, as if that is a big deal!
Our social services, health and pensions, etc costs us hundreds of billions a year. The HS train extension into the centre of London is estimated to be going to cost the taxpayer 55 billion. How much will the expansion of the airport cost? There is little comparison. It seems to me that the UK has committed an economic blunder which will take years to digest.
However, what's done is done. I was against it but we must make the best of a bad job.
Here's to a good negotiating team!
It is not only £10 billion. £55,000,000*365 = £200,750,000,000 per year. That is 7.4% of the UK total GDP. There is not two ways about it. That is F$%* load of money for the UK. :whistling
Signalcalc
Veteren member
- Messages
- 4,670
- Likes
- 1,031
And it would continue year after year after decade and the contributions would increase.
hhiusa
Senior member
- Messages
- 2,687
- Likes
- 140
Similar threads
