Post by pamelaPost by James HarrisPost by pamelaPost by James Harris...
Post by pamelaPost by James HarrisPost by pamelaTrading with a fast growing country doesn't mean we become
fast growing! If that were the case China would have
lifted its trading partners in the last few decades to
dizzy heights of wealth.
Correct, it doesn't. I suggest to you that the large
established economies are beneficial for their volume and
that the growing economies are looking for such as skills
and services to help then grow. Both are good to partner
with.
So, what's new? What is Brexit going to change which makes
this situation into a massively more advantageous economic
proposition for us?
Can I give you a tip? Try asking me to justify something I've
said rather than something you've made up!
Please re-make your point about the fast growing developing
nations you listed and explain how they are going to help the
British economy after Brexit. Tell me why you think this is a
significantly large factor such that you mention it.
I didn't say they were. Here's what I said in that post. Note
the tense.
--- start ---
As long-term averages they are pretty amazing! The point being
that, unfortunately, we in Britain have been denied full access
to many of such growth areas because the EU keeps such rights to
itself and for various reasons it has been rubbish at
negotiating them. It still has no trade deal with China, India,
Indonesia and so on.
Put another way, I would suggest we are poorer /now/ than we
should be, and that is /because/ of us being members of the EU
(and submitting to its rules) rather than just trading with it.
The EU might insist on making us poorer in the short term as we
leave. But as long as we have sensible governments we should be
able to become significantly richer in the long term.
--- end of earlier text ---
That seems clear enough to me. I was saying that while you may
think that our EU membership has helped us with the single
market (it has) it has also denied us unfettered access to the
developing markets I listed because it has struck no trade deals
with them.
The problem I have with your point is not that there will be a bit
more uncontrolled trade to fast-growing developing countries but
that, as you claim, it is so valuable.
Well, my point was not directly about the future but about what we have
_already_ missed out on because of being bound by the Common Commercial
Policy of the EU's customs union. But I think it's very clear that we
would build up new global trade deals on our own far faster than we
would get them as EU members, and I think we can be confident of that
for three reasons: (1) The UK's instincts are to be business-friendly,
regulation-light, low-tax, entrepreneurial, outward-looking, and open to
trade; NONE of which are EU priorities! (2) The EU has repeatedly
demonstrated that it is poor at opening up such trade. (3) Individual
countries outside the EU have opened up bigger global trade deals than
the entire EU has; and if they can do it so can we.
Post by pamelaThat is why I ask, "What is Brexit going to change which makes
this situation into a massively more advantageous economic
proposition for us?"
I didn't say massively more. AISI Brexit will initially cause us to drop
back in our trade, though perhaps not by much. But more importantly it
will move us from the slow lane to the fast lane. And that would
obviously be better for the long term.
The small reduction in growth now will be more than rewarded by faster
progress. Even the pessimistic BoE governor Mark Carney recently
described Brexit as a step back to leap forward. Maybe even Remainers
are coming round to the idea. The disruption of the change is worth it.
Post by pamelaYou then contend I am exaggerating your contention but I don't
think I am. If you don't like the word "massively" then change it
to "significantly". Whatever you call it, I am at a loss to know
how post-Brexit trading with -growing developing countries si
going to change out economic outlook.
Hopefully, I've answered that now: Brexit will cause an initial dip (or
more likely no dip but only lower growth) but allow us thereafter to
make faster progress. That's not unreasonable. To use an analogy, a
business might decide to restructure itself. The change will cost it
money and its performance will be reduced. But the change is worth doing
because the new structure will allow it to grow more quickly.
Post by pamelaAs an example of the non-existence of benefits of trading with a
fast-growing developing country, I gave you the example of China's
trading partners who have not become greatly more wealthy on
account of their trade with China.
Post by James HarrisThink about that: we've been in for over 40 years and in all
that time (40 years, forty!) the EU has not negotiated trade
liberalisation deals with either the major economies of the
world or some of the fastest growing.
That's rubbish. The EU is making new trade agreements with such
countries the whole time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_free_trade_agreements
Yeah, work in progress. How can the big-money tickets still be work in
progress after 40 years?
Post by pamelaPost by James HarrisThat is surely an
incredible statistic and is a stain on the EU's supposed value
as a commercial entity.
Only in your head.
Post by James HarrisHence I repeat, we are poorer now than we should be because we
are members of the EU. It's economically worth leaving in the
long term so we can regain control of our trade policy.
"Regaining control" means relinquishing very many commerically
advantageous arrangements. The new "control" does not translate
directly to better deals.
In the short term, no, although it seems that the 40-ish deals we have
with the EU are to be grandfathered so Remain warnings about them are
looking as trustworthy as their other predictions.
Plus there are other countries who have _already_ indicated they are
keen to build new trade deals with us. For sure, we can build up new
trade much faster outside the EU. It's worth doing. Well worth it!
--
James Harris