14 Responses to “That British Election”

1. 1 1 F. E. Guerra-Pujol
   December 13, 2019 at 10:43 pm

   I suppose nationalism is the lesser evil …

2. 2 2 Pat
   December 14, 2019 at 7:17 am

   I’d love to see you expand on that first sentence because I don’t think it’s hard to know (socialism is worse) but I’m often persuaded by you here.

3. 3 3 Roger Schlafly
   December 15, 2019 at 1:12 pm

   Belief in the EU is just nationalism on a different level. It is a belief in a European nation to pursue its interests against other nations.

   Likewise Scotland independence is nationalism at a lower level. I doubt that the new British government wants that.

   So all the players seem like nationalists to me.

4. 4 4 Steve Landsburg
   December 15, 2019 at 5:41 pm

   Roger Schlafly: A fair point. Thanks.

5. 5 5 Thaomas
   December 16, 2019 at 3:03 pm

   IF one could count on Corbyn/”Socialism” plus no Brexit, then Corbyn/”Socialist” would be much better as EU rules would prevent most of the damage Corbyn could do. But if you’re going to get Brexit either way, then let’s just pass on the “Socialism.”

6. 6 6 iceman
   December 16, 2019 at 6:22 pm

   It seems the coalition was between the conservatives and “nationalists” (Brexit Party) so as to not split tickets and hand a majority to the socialists.

   If this finally clears the way for a trade deal between the UK and US, that seems like a net win.

7. 7 7 Harold
   December 20, 2019 at 9:13 am

   I like the National Socialist joke. The chances of a coalition seem remote.

   #6 “If this finally clears the way for a trade deal between the UK and US, that seems like a net win.”

   No, because it must come at the cost of the loss of totally free trade with the EU, with whom the UK does most of its business. Currently, dealing with Germany is as easy as dealing with Scotland. No customs or declarations. To get a deal with the US, we must have more barriers with the EU. If we have more barriers, this must result in less trade. That will cost both EU and UK, but since we do nearly 50% of our trade with them and they do 13% with us, it is more of a problem for us. That only includes goods, whilst services are our biggest export to the EU by quite a way. USA is a lot further away than the EU. We also lose the trade deals the EU has negotiated with third countries. It is really, really hard to see how this could benefit the UK economy for decades at least.

   The most notable economist (Patrick Minford)that was fully behind Brexit as good for the UK would scrap all tariffs. He acknowledged that this would reduce the size of manufacturing and agriculture, but would be worth it. I cannot see the voters in Sunderland and Barnsley agreeing with him, so such an approach seems vanishingly unlikely.

   Johnson will be able to enforce leaving at the end of 2020. This means we must finalise the trade deal with the EU by then or leave with no deal. It would be easy to get a deal by agreeing to stay aligned with the EU as they are already aligned, but Johnson has ruled that out, so we will have to negotiate a complex deal. I don’t see that happening in a year.

   It will be interesting to see how the trade negotiations play out. It seems incredible, but for the last 3 years this has been off the table until the divorce agreement was settled.

   It is amusing that the full name of the Tories is the Conservative and Unionist Party. In a poll if Tory membership the majority would have been glad to see Northern Ireland and Scotland leave the union in order to get Brexit through. The divorce agreement puts up a barrier between Britain and NI, which can only increase the pressure for NI to join Ireland, although for now that does not seem likely to happen soon. It also increases the pressure for Scotland to leave.

   One problem we had was that Corbyn disliked the EU as well. There was no proper opposition to it and the benefits were never pushed. He was forced to keep to a luke-warm opposition to keep the party slightly together, but he never seemed on-board.

8. 8 8 Harold
   December 20, 2019 at 9:35 am

   #6 also, any trade deal with the USA will not be totally free trade. It is not as if we can swap our deal with the EU for one with the USA. We will have given free trade with the EU for two, not free-trade deals.

9. 9 9 iceman
   December 23, 2019 at 4:26 pm

   7-8: As is often the case, it seems the key is how equal “all else” is. I’m all for free trade, however as I understand it, beyond the friction costs of having a border (the UK never did take on the purported benefits of giving up its currency), much of the breakup pain is being imposed by the EU as deterrence – which is why we’re here 3 years on. That may be a given, but should still be called for what it is (i.e. not unavoidable).

   This speaks to the fact that “totally free” has always come at the price of compliance with all of the rules, regulations, tax “harmonization” etc. as decreed from Brussels. These material new friction costs were a major reason many saw benefits from leaving *without* any reference to a deal with the US. The fact such a deal is now possible seems like an additional, meaningful offset. Perhaps some of any trade “lost” with the EU might now be redirected to the US. And it would seem the UK can negotiate new deals with other 3rd countries as well.

   BTW your relative %s seem a bit misleading…I imagine the UK is an important reciprocal partner with many of the individual European countries, but of course taken as a whole they represent a larger entity. Similar results could likely be produced by measuring the US vs. the ROW.

10. 10 10 Harold
    December 27, 2019 at 8:04 pm

    My percents are a bit estimated, but broadly the Uk does nerly half its trade with the rest if the EU whilst the EU does very much less trade with the UK, as would be expected by their relative sizes. the actual figures are not too far removed from what I stated.

    It is probable that some EU countries would bear the brunt if a trade barriers with the UK. Even so, we would be talking of say France, Germany, netherlands, belgium, each of which would suffer about 1/4 the harm UK suffers if evenly distributed. There is obviuosly some trade with the rest of Europe, so this will be diluted further.

    ” I imagine the UK is an important reciprocal partner with many of the individual European countries,”

    It is not possible to have individual deals with countries within the EU. We of course have trade with EU members, not as a partner but as members of a free trade area. We do not have any reciprocal partners within the EU.

11. 11 11 Dismalist
    December 28, 2019 at 1:07 am

    I’ve followed Brexit negotiations since inception. Why must the leave desire be painted in such demonic colors? Seems to be painted like Nullification! :-)

12. 12 12 iceman
    December 31, 2019 at 10:10 am

    11 – you dare say there are “good people on both sides”?

13. 13 13 iceman
    December 31, 2019 at 4:02 pm

    10 – I know there are no individual deals, by “reciprocal” I was just considering the incentives of each EU member e.g. France prob stands to lose about as much business with the UK as vice-versa. Collectively, the current %s reflect the current rules i.e. trade deal with Europe and none with the US, and the two economies are of similar size so flip that arrangement. The barges just have to float a bit farther.

    (The US does 100% with the ROW which is by definition more than their share with us, but I’m guessing many other countries would be hurt more if we stopped trading. The % of X/M of the domestic economy is probably key…lower for UK than continental Europe?)

14. 14 14 Harold
    January 10, 2020 at 11:54 am

    Dismalist. I think it is because of things such as the Conservative and Unionist Party being overwhelmingly in favor of leaving at the cost of dissolution of the Union, which is actually in the name of their party, so a sort of nullification of their identity.

    Iceman
    OK, I get the reciprocal deal thing, I misunderstood you. It remains an indisputable fact that the UK must suffer more in lost trade than any individual country in the EU. Most of our trade probably is with 6 or so countries. I could look it up but the details are not too important to the case.

    “The barges just have to float a bit farther.” Not the case, because there is no way we are seeking a similar deal with the USA as we had with the EU. That would entail a complete alignment with USA standards, which is not on the cards. Also, having to float a bit further is a big barrier to trade. We can get stuff overnight to EU for next day delivery by surface transport. That is never going to be the case for USA.

    ” much of the breakup pain is being imposed by the EU as deterrence – which is why we’re here 3 years on.”

    It may be a factor, but it is not true that much of the pain is imposed by the EU as a deterrence. It is of course portrayed as such by leavers, but it is unsubstantiated. EU has principles which it will not break. That is not punitive. Abandoning these principles will undermine the whole project.

    UK had no clear idea of what it wanted and failed to come up with a coherent plan. They wanted no border between Britain and NI and free trade between NI and Ireland whilst cutting deals with the ROW. That is effectively impossible unless EU abandons its principles, which it will not do. Johnson got around this by selling out the DUP and having a border between Britain and NI.