UK forum members, BREXIT?

[nctnico]

Everyone took a hit 2008-2009, the UK briefly dipped below the Eurozone early in the recovery but had been outperforming the Eurozone and is once again outperforming the Eurozone.

Yeah, it seems I got the wrong charts from http://www.tradingeconomics.com/

[Delta]

The Single Currency typifies the folly of those who run the EU.  I'm not an economist, merely a technician, but even to me it is blindingly obvious that one currency, with one central bank, one interest rate (and thus one and only one economic policy) could never work across countries with economies as different as Germany and Greece, the Netherlands and Cyprus, etc etc.  The countries with weaker economies were essentially bribed with huge EU grants, subsidies and loans, but the reality of the situation soon showed (I have seen this first hand in Ireland), and these countries were plunged into debt and recession.

This economic folly alone shows that the EU is either completely incompetent, or puts its goal of a United States of Europe at any cost above the economic practicalities of their policies.

[nctnico]

Your mind invoked another unnecessary unexisting problem.
Manufacturer makes product, chooses to certify CE or chooses to not certify and sell it with a workaround as experimental of not-working.
Buyer buys with CE to be ready to sell/integrate or without CE and does everything himself.

No difference if the buyer buys it in Germany of Serbia.
No diference if the manufacturer sells it from Germany or Serbia.

Now explain that to the lawyers in case your product caused a problem with a liability claim consisting of 7 figures. They have a shortage of arms and legs to do this 

[chris_leyson]

Something else popped into my mind: how about CE when dealing with the UK in case of a Brexit?

I don't think it would be as issue, even if we left it would make sense to adhere to the harmonized EU standards for chemical,. medical, electrical, machinery and all the rest. Anyone exporting to Europe would have to follow these standards, there may be some exceptions and that is where import controls or the lack of them come into play, it's our fault for letting this stuff get into the country not the EU. Don't forget a hell of a lot of work has gone into harmonizing the various European standards over the last 40 years, one o the better aspects of the EU.

[doobedoobedo]

Your point is moot. We're not part of the Eurozone and never have been thank $deity.

Except for 2008 the EU as a whole has outperformed the UK significantly when it comes to economic growth since 1992 until now. Who is -obviously- doing something wrong here? IMHO the people in the UK are paying a hefty price for a bit of pride.

Everyone took a hit 2008-2009, the UK briefly dipped below the Eurozone early in the recovery but had been outperforming the Eurozone and is once again outperforming the Eurozone.



However what I worry about is this



Manufacturing took a huge hit in 2008-9 and really has not recovered.

More up to date GDP growth here http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/gdp-growth and here http://www.tradingeconomics.com/euro-area/gdp-growth

Probably best not mention Eurozone youth unemployment http://www.statista.com/statistics/266228/youth-unemployment-rate-in-eu-countries/ and for $deity sake don't, whatever you do, look at the figures for the Southern EU states.

[bitslice]

Probably best not mention Eurozone youth unemployment

Eek, France is worse than expected.
I reckon their employment laws need looking at, overly protective from what I gather.

[nctnico]

The Single Currency typifies the folly of those who run the EU.  I'm not an economist, merely a technician, but even to me it is blindingly obvious that one currency, with one central bank, one interest rate (and thus one and only one economic policy) could never work across countries with economies as different as Germany and Greece.

You have to put that into perspective: In hindsight it is very obvious Greece should never have been allowed to use the euro in the first place. It wouldn't surprise me if Greece stops using the euro in the next couple of years because their problems are still huge.

Still using a single currency makes doing business a lot easier by eliminating risk and reducing costs but you have to interlink some economical aspects of the countries involved but that shouldn't be a problem for countries which are run well (unlike Greece). An idea isn't bad just because it is poorly executed.

[Delta]

Probably best not mention Eurozone youth unemployment http://www.statista.com/statistics/266228/youth-unemployment-rate-in-eu-countries/ and for $deity sake don't, whatever you do, look at the figures for the Southern EU states.

Sssssshhhhhhhh!  Be quiet!  The EU (and particularly the Euro) have been a huge success for those countries!  The experts in Brussels keep telling us so!  They don't bother to ask people in said countries how the Euro project has actually worked out for them of course...


Anyway, as someone has mentioned, whether we leave or not, the Eurozone will implode in the next 5 years, leading to a breakup of the EU anyway...

[grumpydoc]

The Single Currency typifies the folly of those who run the EU.  I'm not an economist, merely a technician, but even to me it is blindingly obvious that one currency, with one central bank, one interest rate (and thus one and only one economic policy) could never work across countries with economies as different as Germany and Greece.

One might draw parallels with the US which has one currency, one economic policy, one interest rate and 50 states with GDP's per capita which range from over $180,000 (OK, DC is an outlier) to under $36,000 - how do they manage?

The countries with weaker economies were essentially bribed with huge EU grants, subsidies and loans, but the reality of the situation soon showed (I have seen this first hand in Ireland), and these countries were plunged into debt and recession.

The EU itself can't really afford "huge grants, subsidies and loans", its budget isn't actually that large - in very round figures about €150 billion.

Greece got into trouble, then couldn't get out the usual way by devaluing its currency (and thus its debt).

I would agree, though, that for the Euro to survive closer political integration is likely to be needed which might not be in the UK's interest - at the moment, however, we are able to stand back from that.

More up to date GDP growth here http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/gdp-growth and here http://www.tradingeconomics.com/euro-area/gdp-growth

Which supports the fact that the UK is currently doing better than the eurozone. Slightly hard to put the two side by side though so this might make things clearer (note different vertical scales):



The real question though is not whether the UK is currently outperforming the EU but whether it will continue to do so if we leave. I am inclined to think not and that Michael Dougan's point is important - that a lot of countries use us as a gateway to the EU. This is, of course, very good for us but we have to be clear that we need to be a member of the EU to play that role.

[Kjelt]

Watch the video from the professor from Liverpool again, the UK might be doing better because they are part of the eurozone.
Now noone knows what is going to happen after a Brexit but chances are that economic growth might plummet.

[dannyf]

"chances are that economic growth might plummet."

Generally consensus is for a 2 to 3 percent declined, with some extreme figures on the downside.

Long term numbers are hard to tell. But economics really isn't what's driviv this. It is thee displeasure with the political systems as well as existential concerns, both for the people and for their culture and identify. IE this is an issue that no amount of money can solve.

[grumpydoc]

"chances are that economic growth might plummet."

Generally consensus is for a 2 to 3 percent declined, with some extreme figures on the downside.

Long term numbers are hard to tell. But economics really isn't what's driviv this. It is thee displeasure with the political systems as well as existential concerns, both for the people and for their culture and identify. IE this is an issue that no amount of money can solve.

Economics is and certainly should be part of the debate, but I agree that it is not the whole picture.

I suspect that it is a much bigger factor in the decision making process of better off and better educated people who, on the whole, favour remaining in the EU.

Amongst the red-top reading classes I think the issue of immigration is likely to be higher especially with the "taking our jobs, houses, NHS and school places" propaganda that UKIP likes to push.

These are real issues, of course, but have varying degrees of b**g*r all to do with us being in the EU.

Jobs - lack of UK investment in appropriate training and development - nothing to do with membership of the EU except that they are supplying workers that we need.
NHS - government policy ultimately to privatise the service - nothing to do with membership of EU and promises by "leave" campaigners unlikely to be realised.
Schools - OK, yes, extra pressure from immigrant groups, especially in London but lack of investment in infrastructure given that the population is growing anyway is nothing to do with membership of the EU.
Houses - possibly increased pressure from migrant groups but possibly not. Anyway 30 years of underinvestment by the government has nothing to do with EU membership.

[Corporate666]

Now you are moving the goal posts. First you say to use Paypal and have them convert the currency and then you say let your bank do the conversion. That is a great idea  NOT! First you pay Paypal transaction fees and then currency conversion fees to your bank. The added value of Paypal is zero in this situation. A bank to bank wire transfer is the simplest and cheapest solution compared to using Paypal or a credit-card.

You're being obstinate.

PayPal is a convenient method to invoice someone and to pay someone, regardless of the location of the seller and the buyer.

PayPal also will do the currency conversion if you choose.  It is trivial to let your bank do the currency conversion (you simply select the button marked "pay in the receivers currency").  You still get the convenience of PayPal.  You're suggesting that the buyer needs to jump through additional hoops - they don't.  They select a radio button during the checkout process.  That doesn't negate the other benefits of PayPal. 

The point is that buying things from foreign countries with differing currencies is a non-issue.  It's been a non-issue for years.  We are not talking about sending tens of thousands of Euros or Pounds in which case there are other methods which have also been in place for years.  We are talking about the impact to the average resident of the UK leaving the EU.  Suggesting that transactions will be more complicated in this case simply isn't accurate.

If it where a non-issue then the euro would not have been in use nowadays. Also in many industries (like oil) they use one currency to make life easier. Now again try to explain why having different currencies is a non-issue. Also a 20% fluctuation on a 100k euro project means being 20k euro too expensive or earning 20k euro less.

The implementation of the Euro has at least as much to do with monetary policy as it has to do with transaction ease.  And you're still ignoring the point that the UK *already* has their own currency and always has.  You're doggedly pursuing this point of debate when it represents exactly nothing different post-Brexit as pre-Brexit. 

The only possible change is the pound and euro would possibly fluctuate more than they do with the UK being part of the EU, but that's speculation and not really rooted in fact, IMO - after all, the UK has it's own economy, parliament and society and that won't change.

[Corporate666]

However what I worry about is this



Manufacturing took a huge hit in 2008-9 and really has not recovered.

I know you're not in favor of an exit, but having more control over their own future and laws ought to allow the Brits to set up a favorable manufacturing infrastructure (financial, logistical, labor) that would make the nation an outstanding choice for companies looking to manufacture high-end goods for fast and easy transport to the mainland.

I'd say the biggest challenge for the UK - and the biggest opportunity - if they do exit is to implement such a favorable competitive environment as compared to the EU.

It's definitely doable, but it would be hard to implement with all the various factions jockeying for power and control. 

[tggzzz]

...but having more control over their own future and laws ought to allow the Brits to set up a favorable manufacturing infrastructure (financial, logistical, labor) that would make the nation an outstanding choice for companies looking to manufacture high-end goods for fast and easy transport to the mainland.

But that wouldn't happen. In order to get favourable trade agreements, we would have to agree to the Ts&Cs that "the other side" follows, putting us in the same boat as them. That's the Swiss experience based on their 2014 "anti-immigration" referendum, https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601721/why-scientists-are-so-worried-about-brexit/

Start by considering the TTIP

[Kjelt]

I know you're not in favor of an exit, but having more control over their own future and laws ought to allow the Brits to set up a favorable manufacturing infrastructure (financial, logistical, labor) that would make the nation an outstanding choice for companies looking to manufacture high-end goods for fast and easy transport to the mainland.

Watch the video of the professor from Liverpool, that is not going to happen after a Brexit. Goods can not be imported as is without hassle to the mainland, paperwork, customs, taxes, laws, you name it.
And this is already going on, a blueray sent from London, no problem. A blueray sent from the canal islands like Jersey, two weeks delay and customs charge.

[Corporate666]

The Single Currency typifies the folly of those who run the EU.  I'm not an economist, merely a technician, but even to me it is blindingly obvious that one currency, with one central bank, one interest rate (and thus one and only one economic policy) could never work across countries with economies as different as Germany and Greece, the Netherlands and Cyprus, etc etc.  The countries with weaker economies were essentially bribed with huge EU grants, subsidies and loans, but the reality of the situation soon showed (I have seen this first hand in Ireland), and these countries were plunged into debt and recession.

This economic folly alone shows that the EU is either completely incompetent, or puts its goal of a United States of Europe at any cost above the economic practicalities of their policies.

I think the (foolish) belief was that a monetary policy could be enacted that would provide EU-wide stability and would even out the peaks and valleys, so that if one country was having difficulty, another would be able to pitch in to help.

Like Germany bailing out Greece.

But that doesn't really work unless the financial decision making is centralized too - there's not much to stop (for example) Greece from voting themselves largess, and not having to really worry about footing the bill.  I think an unexpected consequence is sort of a double negative in that countries like Germany necessarily have to pick up the tab for someone like Greece causing resentment from the German side - but that also leads to resentment from the Greeks who feel like they're under the thumb of Germany and their own wealth was taken and used to bail them out.

Germany has gotten a mixed bag - if they had kept the Deutchemark, it would be so highly valued compared to the Euro that their exports would suffer. 

And that really underscores the necessary ultimate goal and result of the EU.  Either administration MUST become much more centralized, which means countries lose much or most of their power and identity, or it has to fall apart.  Adding somewhere like Turkey into the mix would really throw everything for a loop.

I think it's a ultimately a binary choice between a one-EU government or reversing back to a trading authority only, and I don't see any way the former will ever happen.  The EU has only faced one real test in the 2008 financial crisis where it performed pretty badly.  Wait until it faces war, or economic implosion in a member country or something like that - it will crumble.

[nctnico]

Adding somewhere like Turkey into the mix would really throw everything for a loop.

Forget about Turkey becoming part of the EU within the next 20 years. Turkey's dictator just set the clock back 30 years. Also Greece was a mistake the EU is likely not to make again.

I don't understand why you think the EU will suddenly fall apart. It has been there in one form or another since 1957. The EU is not some afterthought that was put in place during the last decade.

[Galenbo]

Now explain that to the lawyers in case your product caused a problem with a liability claim consisting of 7 figures. They have a shortage of arms and legs to do this 

No difference exists in explaining that to your lawyer for your product, with parts bought inside/outside EU.
There is no difference when you succesfully checked/traced the CE mark.
There is no difference when you unsuccesfully checked the CE mark.
There is no difference when in both situations you ignored the absence of a CE mark.

And please don't start those populist simplistic things when you refuse to explain your insights and jump to another generalising quote.

[Galenbo]

...Forget about Turkey becoming part of the EU within the next 20 years. Turkey's dictator just set the clock back 30 years.

Too late, they are already member of the EU-establishment.
The dictator in Turkey is elected thanks to the millions of turks across EU.
The Merkel/Juncker dictators are elected thank to the same guys.

[doobedoobedo]

Like Germany bailing out Greece.

Except the Greek bailout has nothing to do with assisting Greece. It's a way of funnelling money to the German banks who lent Greece a shit-ton of cash they knew Greece had no way of paying back.

By using the ECB to 'bail out' Greece, Greece's notional debt gets bigger, but as they will default as soon as no more bail out funds are paid to those banks, their debt is owned by the ECB and can be passed on to the populous of the Eurozone.

[nctnico]

Now explain that to the lawyers in case your product caused a problem with a liability claim consisting of 7 figures. They have a shortage of arms and legs to do this 

No difference exists in explaining that to your lawyer for your product, with parts bought inside/outside EU.
There is no difference when you succesfully checked/traced the CE mark.
There is no difference when you unsuccesfully checked the CE mark.
There is no difference when in both situations you ignored the absence of a CE mark.

And please don't start those populist simplistic things when you refuse to explain your insights and jump to another generalising quote.

The laws says that either the manufacturer or importer (in case the manufacturer is outside the EU) is responsible for the product. Now ask yourself: would you be willing to be responsible for someone else's goof up? Oh, and don't take my word for it: http://europa.eu/youreurope/business/product/ce-mark/index_en.htm

In other words: if the UK leaves the EU then many small electronics businesses will see that their customers who resell their products within the EU will require formal CE testing even though the production runs are small. The reason is simple: the UK based manufacturer is no longer within the EU and their customers suddenly become an importer instead of a distributor. A small change  but from a legal point of view being an importer is a very different role with much greater responsibilities and risks.

[Galenbo]

... to adhere to the harmonized EU standards for chemical,. medical, electrical, machinery and all the rest...

Like most also keep on manufacturing those things following reglementations of other countries, like UL. No need to invent other norms.

Don't forget a hell of a lot of work has gone into harmonizing the various European standards over the last 40 years, one o the better aspects of the EU.

I especially liked the parts where they copied what was in the german DIN norms for decades.

[Galenbo]

The laws says that either the manufacturer or importer (in case the manufacturer is outside the EU) is responsible for the product. Now ask yourself: would you be willing to be responsible for someone else's goof up? Oh, and don't take my word for it: http://europa.eu/youreurope/business/product/ce-mark/index_en.htm

You simplify it to a level you understand it yourself, fine for me. But don't start to use that as a reference for others.
Stop using populistic expressions like "goof up" in overgeneralised quotes. Specify.

Where is your big difference in being responsible for a part that is bought with a checked CE mark from outside EU, and being responsible for a part that is bought with a checked CE mark from inside EU?

... the UK based manufacturer is no longer within the EU and their customers suddenly become an importer instead of a distributor. A small change  but from a legal point of view being an importer is a very different role with much greater responsibilities and risks.

Same here: explain what those legal differences are you found between reselling a UK product with a legal checked EU mark, and a German product with a legal checked EU mark.

if the UK leaves the EU then many small electronics businesses will see that their customers who resell their products within the EU will require formal CE testing even though the production runs are small.

if the UK does not kick the EU dictators out then... same text.

CE tests/certification are mandatory if workers/customers/public/children/... are involved. I assumed you at least knew that.

[Koen]

Same question as Galenbo, it's interesting.