TWA772LR wrote:

OA260 wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

How long would it take for the Article 50 process to be completed?

IMO, the UK should have at least waited to bring up the pound before officially waiving good bye. Rough waters ahead for you guys across the pond.

Why do you think they should have waited for the £ to go up ?

From a superficial standpoint, it reduces oportunities for Brite to travel.

Big picture, value of domestic currency is a large sign of economic conditions. While the UK will definately attract foreign investors, money held by UK households and private savings won't be doing a lot of consumption as prices rise because of the weak pound. And the foreign investors will eventually come but not in the short run because of all the red tape that will be happening because of Brexit. It won't be a good time to go into the UK because of any stability the UK had before today is gone, pushing away investors purely on the basis that no one knows for sure how the process will pan out.

The pound fell because of the Brexit vote. It happened right away. If you delay Brexit, either things will get worse, or enough people will think that Brexit ain't happening, and the pound might got up again because of that. If you then cause Brexit, it will crash again, harder.

LJ wrote:

I don't know to which Swiss you talk, but judging by the number of Swiss "looting" German (but also Italian and French) stores near the border (and collecting the VAT on their return) I doubt they hate the agreement Switzerland has with the EU.

That's been going on for a lot longer than the EU or the bilateral treaties have been around - I don't see your point. You seem to be under the impression that international trade outside the bounds of the EU is impossible.

Aesma wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

OA260 wrote:

Why do you think they should have waited for the £ to go up ?

From a superficial standpoint, it reduces oportunities for Brite to travel.

Big picture, value of domestic currency is a large sign of economic conditions. While the UK will definately attract foreign investors, money held by UK households and private savings won't be doing a lot of consumption as prices rise because of the weak pound. And the foreign investors will eventually come but not in the short run because of all the red tape that will be happening because of Brexit. It won't be a good time to go into the UK because of any stability the UK had before today is gone, pushing away investors purely on the basis that no one knows for sure how the process will pan out.

The pound fell because of the Brexit vote. It happened right away. If you delay Brexit, either things will get worse, or enough people will think that Brexit ain't happening, and the pound might got up again because of that. If you then cause Brexit, it will crash again, harder.

Of course the £ going down is not always a bad thing. Many say it was over valued anyway. There will always be winners and loosers. The one thing people forget is that at one stage the £ went 1-1 some years ago and no one was screaming how bad it was. It seems to be used as an arguement for whatever side people are on. In some camps its bad and some camps its good. I live on the border between NI/ROI so this effects me more then most. I cross the border all the time and deal in both currencies daily so I am watching all this more then most. Personally for me a weak £ is good. I buy a lot of my goods in NI as its cheaper then ROI. The £ seems to be stable currently even after today but we may see this go down or up depending on whats agreed over the next 2-4 years.

OA260 wrote:

Aesma wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

From a superficial standpoint, it reduces oportunities for Brite to travel.

Big picture, value of domestic currency is a large sign of economic conditions. While the UK will definately attract foreign investors, money held by UK households and private savings won't be doing a lot of consumption as prices rise because of the weak pound. And the foreign investors will eventually come but not in the short run because of all the red tape that will be happening because of Brexit. It won't be a good time to go into the UK because of any stability the UK had before today is gone, pushing away investors purely on the basis that no one knows for sure how the process will pan out.

The pound fell because of the Brexit vote. It happened right away. If you delay Brexit, either things will get worse, or enough people will think that Brexit ain't happening, and the pound might got up again because of that. If you then cause Brexit, it will crash again, harder.

Of course the £ going down is not always a bad thing. Many say it was over valued anyway. There will always be winners and loosers. The one thing people forget is that at one stage the £ went 1-1 some years ago and no one was screaming how bad it was. It seems to be used as an arguement for whatever side people are on. In some camps its bad and some camps its good. I live on the border between NI/ROI so this effects me more then most. I cross the border all the time and deal in both currencies daily so I am watching all this more then most. Personally for me a weak £ is good. I buy a lot of my goods in NI as its cheaper then ROI. The £ seems to be stable currently even after today but we may see this go down or up depending on whats agreed over the next 2-4 years.

According to the Big Mac Index (http://www.economist.com/content/big-mac-index/) the PPP for the Pound is less than the Euro, which fits how you describe your consumption. I was thinking for the UK economy as a whole would be better going into Art. 50 with a stronger pound than today. Do you know if there are any projections as to what will happen to the Euro? From what I can tell, the GBP is fairing better than the Euro when compared to the USD after the news today; GBP/USD down ~0.16% vs EUR/USD down ~0.47%. per Yahoo Finance.

OA260 wrote:

What Spain has said is that they will under no circumstances allow Scotland to remain or have special status whilst part of the UK. If Scotland were to vote to leave the UK it would need to become a truly independent nation and then apply as any candidate would ie: the likes of Serbia and get in the line.

There's no such thing as a line.

Countries need to comply with the 35 chapters of the acquis and an independent Scotland would be compliant right away (besides economic criteria).

That would put Scotland not on a fast track as such, but surely top of the pile after their request to enter is accepted.

JJJ wrote:

OA260 wrote:

What Spain has said is that they will under no circumstances allow Scotland to remain or have special status whilst part of the UK. If Scotland were to vote to leave the UK it would need to become a truly independent nation and then apply as any candidate would ie: the likes of Serbia and get in the line.

There's no such thing as a line.

Countries need to comply with the 35 chapters of the acquis and an independent Scotland would be compliant right away (besides economic criteria).

That would put Scotland not on a fast track as such, but surely top of the pile after their request to enter is accepted.

Line is what has been used as a term by various media/MEPs/MPs etc... Its obviously not a physical line as neither is there a fast track There may not even be a top of the pile either.

For those that think Scotland will be rushed through they are dreaming. If everything went to plan we would be lucky to see Scotland back in the EU within 10 years. Just think these Brexit talks/fights could go on for 4 years or more. Then there maybe a transition period. The EU would not take Scotland in whilst still divorcing from the UK which as I said would take years.

It's sadly ironic that this news comes just as I'm reading through the early 1941 chapters of William Manchester's magnificent biography of Churchill. It was during this time that Roosevelt got the Lend Lease Act through the Senate and Churchill was spending many late nights entertaining US envoys and talking about post-war plans for Europe. He hated Hitler but knew that the only way forward for Europe was a unified continent, including Germany, that had an integrated economic and political apparatus to control the "natural tendencies" of the day. I wonder what his take would be on Brexit. It probably sounds ludicrous to many but I get very uneasy seeing the EU start to crack and Putin licking his chops at Ukraine, the Balkans, even the choicer bits of Northern Europe that used to be under Russia's control. And to have a complete naif like Trump in the White House, absolutely clueless to the vital importance of the TA relationship, the timing is all about as bad as it could possibly be. Scotland, Catalunya, the Northern League..it's really not that unrealistic to think of a catastrophic sequence of events over 5-10 years that sees Europe right back in the middle of it. For the life of me I can't see anything positive coming from Brexit.

Klaus wrote:

The way she right now completely disregards all scottish requests for a referendum she is reinforcing the appearance that Scotland is effectively being held captive against the will of its population and that it is forcibly being dragged out of the EU.

Nicola Sturgeon is playing games. She knows full well that there is no way that the UK Parliament will approve another independence referendum while the Brexit process is under way. How can they? Scotland voted convincingly to remain part of the UK, so they're hardly being "held captive against their will", are they?

Scotland voted on independence from an UK that was an EU member.
Scotland now wants to vote on independence from an UK that is no longer an EU member (based on the fact that the majority of Scots voted against Brexit).

I don't think it could be any clearer that this is a material change and not just the same thing all over again.

As we are just at it: If Theresa May / the Tories / you are so certain about the position of the Scots (ie a majority will vote to remain part of Great Britain), why for heaven's sake aren't you encouraging a referendum that will prove your point and leave the SNP with egg on the face? To me, it is just whistling through the graveyard, just like the continous self-assurances that the EU will cut the UK the best deal ever. I just read an interesting article commenting on today's events that sums it all up nicely from the EU27 perspective. It begins with the header "Fantasies from Brexit Land: That the Brits live on an island is not just a geographical fact. It is also true for British mentality. But as far as Brexit is concerned, one has to wonder these days on which planet this island is located."

A quick thing popped into my mind while reading a bit on the progress of the EU: when the UK leaves, I wonder if Sweden can inherit the UK's opt-out from the eurozone. Legally speaking, Sweden right now is violating EU regulations by not joining the single currency (or the mechanism to join it). I wonder if the final agreement will transfer the opt-out in an official capacity.

[quote='TWA772LR"]From what I can tell, the GBP is fairing better than the Euro when compared to the USD after the news today; GBP/USD down ~0.16% vs EUR/USD down ~0.47%. per Yahoo Finance.[/quote]The pound already took a beating during the Brexit vote so its current value already priced in this process. All investors can do is wait to see if the negotiations will benefit the UK economy or not. This process has larger implications for the EU than the UK (already a reluctant member): get another EU state to pull a UK-style tactic, and the EU project will start collapsing.

Imagine if Marine Le Pen wins big in France and she decides to invoke Article 50. That's the 2nd and 3rd largest EU economies already pulling away, the latter in eurozone which also has implications to the currency and its users.

einsteinboricua wrote:

A quick thing popped into my mind while reading a bit on the progress of the EU: when the UK leaves, I wonder if Sweden can inherit the UK's opt-out from the eurozone. Legally speaking, Sweden right now is violating EU regulations by not joining the single currency (or the mechanism to join it). I wonder if the final agreement will transfer the opt-out in an official capacity.

Nah, that's not needed. Expanding the Eurozone is a dead issue for the time being.

Countries like Sweden, Denmark, Poland, Czech Republic will join the Euro when the Eurozone countries have stabilized the Euro, balanced their economies and kept it balanced for several consecutive years.

prebennorholm wrote:

Nah, that's not needed. Expanding the Eurozone is a dead issue for the time being.

Countries like Sweden, Denmark, Poland, Czech Republic will join the Euro when the Eurozone countries have stabilized the Euro, balanced their economies and kept it balanced for several consecutive years.

It's on pause, no question about it. But there's a legal framework as to who must join and who can stay away. The UK and Denmark are not required to join the euro (hence their opt-outs). Sweden, however, does not have that privilege. So would Sweden seek to have it transferred for the time when the EU economy stabilizes enough that eurozone membership expands again? A transfer of the opt-out would solve the question by formally letting Sweden join whenever it wants, if it wants to at all.

Just thinking here...it's kinda like an office coworker leaving the office and others raiding their desk for anything they can get. The UK's opt-outs will be abolished (it's not like the UK will have the luxury of retaining them if it decides to rejoin the EU in the future, though that could be negotiated).

TWA772LR wrote:

From what I can tell, the GBP is fairing better than the Euro when compared to the USD after the news today; GBP/USD down ~0.16% vs EUR/USD down ~0.47%. per Yahoo Finance.

Day to day fluctuations are irrelevant. What matters is that today one GBP can buy you roughly 1.24 USD (or 1.15 EUR), while on the day before Mr. Cameron announced the Brexit referendum it could buy you roughly 1.50 USD (or 1.40 EUR).

So when our British friends buy a product from the continent, or travels to the continent, including the North American continent, or travels within Britain on a shiny new Boeing or Airbus plane, then he will see his hard earned salary have been cut some 20%.

Dutchy wrote:

Brexit

Mmmmmmmmmm, breakfast...

einsteinboricua wrote:

It's on pause, no question about it. But there's a legal framework as to who must join and who can stay away. The UK and Denmark are not required to join the euro (hence their opt-outs). Sweden, however, does not have that privilege.

This is not justice, it is politics. There are two sorts of politics, ordinary politics and real politics. The latter is in effect here.

In this case real politics tells us that the first Swedish politician, who mentions the word Euro, has at the same moment committed political suicide.

vfw614 wrote:

I think it is beyond reasonable doubt that the EU will bend over backwards to accommodate a Scottish EU membership application should the opportunity ever arise - what better way can you dream of to flip the bird to Westminster and demonstrate others that a EU membership is something rather desirable?

It would simply make logic sense to keep the "Exit-EU" and then "Reenter-EU" costs as little as possible. The harder the Bexit, the more sense fast tracking makes for all parties involved, including the UK.

prebennorholm wrote:

einsteinboricua wrote:

It's on pause, no question about it. But there's a legal framework as to who must join and who can stay away. The UK and Denmark are not required to join the euro (hence their opt-outs). Sweden, however, does not have that privilege.

This is not justice, it is politics. There are two sorts of politics, ordinary politics and real politics. The latter is in effect here.

In this case real politics tells us that the first Swedish politician, who mentions the word Euro, has at the same moment committed political suicide.

Sorry, but that is nonsense. The UK and Denmark didn´t have to adopt the EURO because they already have been members of the EU before the Maastricht Treaty. Sweden joint after that, hence like everybody else that joined after 1992, has to at least perspectively join the EURO at some point. However, the EU will not force any member state to do that in any other pace than its own, and Sweden doesn´t meet the requirements as of yet, so can´t join even if they wanted.
And political suicide? It largely depends on what exactly you propose. In Poland for example just as many people would support joining the EUR asap as in Sweden (~15ish %), but overall support for joining the EURO at some point in the future has a consistent majority during the last couple of years, even during the Euro-crisis.

best regards
Thomas

OA260 wrote:

JJJ wrote:

OA260 wrote:

What Spain has said is that they will under no circumstances allow Scotland to remain or have special status whilst part of the UK. If Scotland were to vote to leave the UK it would need to become a truly independent nation and then apply as any candidate would ie: the likes of Serbia and get in the line.

There's no such thing as a line.

Countries need to comply with the 35 chapters of the acquis and an independent Scotland would be compliant right away (besides economic criteria).

That would put Scotland not on a fast track as such, but surely top of the pile after their request to enter is accepted.

Line is what has been used as a term by various media/MEPs/MPs etc... Its obviously not a physical line as neither is there a fast track There may not even be a top of the pile either.

For those that think Scotland will be rushed through they are dreaming. If everything went to plan we would be lucky to see Scotland back in the EU within 10 years. Just think these Brexit talks/fights could go on for 4 years or more. Then there maybe a transition period. The EU would not take Scotland in whilst still divorcing from the UK which as I said would take years.

Take a look at past accessions, the most recent being Croatia. It took only a few months from 2003 to 2004 to be official candidate, and negotiations started on the same year. Negotiations were dragged by a few chapters in the acquis: free movement of capital, public procurement procedures, competition policy, agriculture, food safety/veterinary/phytosanitary, fisheries, transport and taxation, judiciary and fundamental rights and environmental law, some of which dragged the process into 2011. In 2012 there was a referendum and Croatia finally was a member in 2013.

Scotland is already compliant with all of the points in the acquis. In an eventual independence they would have to roll back any possible post-Brexit legislation that's incompatible with EU though (probably as part of the package deal with the UK, just like the UK is going to incorporate some EU law to prevent legislation void).

All in all, it's not unrealistic at all to state Scotland could be in the EU by 4-5 years after formally leaving the UK. So if it's not a fast track it looks a lot like one.

prebennorholm wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

From what I can tell, the GBP is fairing better than the Euro when compared to the USD after the news today; GBP/USD down ~0.16% vs EUR/USD down ~0.47%. per Yahoo Finance.

Day to day fluctuations are irrelevant. What matters is that today one GBP can buy you roughly 1.24 USD (or 1.15 EUR), while on the day before Mr. Cameron announced the Brexit referendum it could buy you roughly 1.50 USD (or 1.40 EUR).

So when our British friends buy a product from the continent, or travels to the continent, including the North American continent, or travels within Britain on a shiny new Boeing or Airbus plane, then he will see his hard earned salary have been cut some 20%.

I'm living abroad, on earnings from the UK. So yes, my "salary" has been cut by 20%, but I voted leave and expected the Pound to drop. A small price to pay as the Pound had been overvalued for years.

vfw614 wrote:

Scotland voted on independence from an UK that was an EU member.
Scotland now wants to vote on independence from an UK that is no longer an EU member (based on the fact that the majority of Scots voted against Brexit).

London voted overwhelmingly to remain, shall it seek independence as well? What about the town where I live? We voted to remain, shall I start the Woking Independence Party? How ridiculous does that sound?

vfw614 wrote:

As we are just at it: If Theresa May / the Tories / you are so certain about the position of the Scots (ie a majority will vote to remain part of Great Britain), why for heaven's sake aren't you encouraging a referendum that will prove your point and leave the SNP with egg on the face?

A ludicrous suggestion, frankly. Even Queen Nicola agrees that now is not the right time for another independence vote, so I don't hear any whistling in the graveyard.

TWA772LR wrote:

OA260 wrote:

Aesma wrote:

The pound fell because of the Brexit vote. It happened right away. If you delay Brexit, either things will get worse, or enough people will think that Brexit ain't happening, and the pound might got up again because of that. If you then cause Brexit, it will crash again, harder.

Of course the £ going down is not always a bad thing. Many say it was over valued anyway. There will always be winners and loosers. The one thing people forget is that at one stage the £ went 1-1 some years ago and no one was screaming how bad it was. It seems to be used as an arguement for whatever side people are on. In some camps its bad and some camps its good. I live on the border between NI/ROI so this effects me more then most. I cross the border all the time and deal in both currencies daily so I am watching all this more then most. Personally for me a weak £ is good. I buy a lot of my goods in NI as its cheaper then ROI. The £ seems to be stable currently even after today but we may see this go down or up depending on whats agreed over the next 2-4 years.

According to the Big Mac Index (http://www.economist.com/content/big-mac-index/) the PPP for the Pound is less than the Euro, which fits how you describe your consumption. I was thinking for the UK economy as a whole would be better going into Art. 50 with a stronger pound than today. Do you know if there are any projections as to what will happen to the Euro? From what I can tell, the GBP is fairing better than the Euro when compared to the USD after the news today; GBP/USD down ~0.16% vs EUR/USD down ~0.47%. per Yahoo Finance.

Don't forget that at the moment governments WANT weak currencies. All the main central banks are printing money like there is no tomorrow to lower the value of their currencies. It's all about favoring exports and discouraging imports.

Of course for the average fella who buys things made abroad and who doesn't realize his salary is dependent on his company's exports, it looks bad.

OA260 wrote:

What Spain has said is that they will under no circumstances allow Scotland to remain or have special status whilst part of the UK. If Scotland were to vote to leave the UK it would need to become a truly independent nation and then apply as any candidate would ie: the likes of Serbia and get in the line. They would also not want to see them fast tracked as this could cause issues with other members who are waiting to get in. So while I can see no blocking to become a candidate member they would still go through a process of a number of years to become a full member. Just remember if Scotland were to vote for leaving the UK that process would take years. There are many issues such as who controls the military bases and many other issues such as pension liabilities,assets etc..

I think Spain wants to keep Catalunia in the Kingdom, so if they decide to leave Spain, they will not automatically remain in the EU. Has nothing to do with Serbia or others

London voted overwhelmingly to remain, shall it seek independence as well? What about the town where I live? We voted to remain, shall I start the Woking Independence Party? How ridiculous does that sound?

Very ridiculous. But the legal status of Scotland (and Northern Ireland) is quite different than that of Yorkshire, London, Woking etc. I am sure I don't need to explain that to you in detail and you are only pretending to be ignorant on those basics of constitutional and public law. Nobody, by the way, is seriously disputing that as there has already been a referendum in Scotland, unlike in Yorkshire, London or Woking, that could have led to independence, subject to the required majority. Or has the UK government misunderstood something when the first referendum took place?

A ludicrous suggestion, frankly. Even Queen Nicola agrees that now is not the right time for another independence vote, so I don't hear any whistling in the graveyard.

If there is nothing to loose, let her have her referendum. She will not win it, have to resign and will be resigned to the history books - what better outcome could another referendum have? Or are all those sad male armchairm-FMs/PMs who are ridiculing her for her looks because they have no sensible arguments afraid of no longer being able to anonymously utter their pubescent vitriol?

Airstud wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Brexit

Mmmmmmmmmm, breakfast...

Come on, now. Stop showing off your American exceptionalism. You'll make the Europeans feel inferior with such a rich, thought-provoking contribution to the discussion.

Scotland and North Ireland independence (or lack off) are just a distraction. Nothing will happen until brexit is completed.

A USA news commentator pointed out yesterday another big trouble area for the UK and Brexit - Ireland. The majority of NI voters said no to the Brexit. The UK controls part of the island that would still have a land border with a EC member of Ireland so upon the formal ending of the UK as part of the EC would mean a need to put in strong border controls to prevent EC persons getting into Ireland and then sneaking across the border into NI.
The UK has always been a very conditional member of the EC, keeping its own money, requiring its own citizens to need a passport except for Ireland to travel to/from other EC countries, retaining tax dodging territories and financial policies.
The Brexit is about 2 major issues. One is over immigration and work migration. The other is to keep sovereign rights as to a number of laws. Sadly a small majority in a few places in the UK, mainly in England and too many who didn't understand or care enough about the Brexit caused it to become the new policy. I think eventually the UK and EU will have to come up with a new relationship, under pressure of the corporations and rich persons to keep trade and tourism going, tightly control work migration but also allow the UK government to appease their self-righteous voters.

reposted, please delete.

ltbewr wrote:

A USA news commentator pointed out yesterday another big trouble area for the UK and Brexit - Ireland. The majority of NI voters said no to the Brexit. The UK controls part of the island that would still have a land border with a EC member of Ireland so upon the formal ending of the UK as part of the EC would mean a need to put in strong border controls to prevent EC persons getting into Ireland and then sneaking across the border into NI.

That is a top priority to be sorted out up there with EU/UK citizens rights to continue to live in each others countries. The EU realises there needs to be a soft border for both political and security reasons. The British and Irish would find it near impossible to put physical barriers back up. The locals on both sides of the border would tear them down and worse the IRA could blow them up. It would set the peace process back decades and neither the UK/ROI/EU could stomach that and thats why it will not happen.

Currently there are discreet border checks as you cross the border. Customs and immigration units pop up in various operations to deal with illegals and illegal fuel smuggling. I expect this to continue in a similar form and maybe a move to electronic customs but not physical borders. Officers board buses and trains in random operations and detain and deport anyone without the right papers. This of course currently applies to Non EU nationals caught with wrong papers.


Eight illegal immigrants caught at checkpoint in Dundalk, Co Louth
A garda spokesperson said: "The eight people have been repatriated to where they came from."

Eight illegal immigrants were caught by Gardai at a checkpoint in Dundalk, Co Louth earlier this week.

The eight people whose nationalities are unknown are believed to have been making their way to the Republic via Northern Ireland and England.

A garda spokesperson said: "The eight people have been repatriated to where they came from."

http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-ne ... nt-9795692

ltbewr wrote:

A USA news commentator pointed out yesterday another big trouble area for the UK and Brexit - Ireland. The majority of NI voters said no to the Brexit. The UK controls part of the island that would still have a land border with a EC member of Ireland so upon the formal ending of the UK as part of the EC would mean a need to put in strong border controls to prevent EC persons getting into Ireland and then sneaking across the border into NI.
The UK has always been a very conditional member of the EC, keeping its own money, requiring its own citizens to need a passport except for Ireland to travel to/from other EC countries, retaining tax dodging territories and financial policies.
The Brexit is about 2 major issues. One is over immigration and work migration. The other is to keep sovereign rights as to a number of laws. Sadly a small majority in a few places in the UK, mainly in England and too many who didn't understand or care enough about the Brexit caused it to become the new policy. I think eventually the UK and EU will have to come up with a new relationship, under pressure of the corporations and rich persons to keep trade and tourism going, tightly control work migration but also allow the UK government to appease their self-righteous voters.

Sadly a small majority in many places in England who couldn’t care less and didn’t bother to vote caused it to become new policy, mainly the younger voters according to figures.
And the voters are no more self righteous than any other European. They simply have different ideas about the future and how they want it to play out. I don’t necessarily agree with them but denigrating them is about as much help as a not very helpful thing.

Aesma wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

OA260 wrote:

Of course the £ going down is not always a bad thing. Many say it was over valued anyway. There will always be winners and loosers. The one thing people forget is that at one stage the £ went 1-1 some years ago and no one was screaming how bad it was. It seems to be used as an arguement for whatever side people are on. In some camps its bad and some camps its good. I live on the border between NI/ROI so this effects me more then most. I cross the border all the time and deal in both currencies daily so I am watching all this more then most. Personally for me a weak £ is good. I buy a lot of my goods in NI as its cheaper then ROI. The £ seems to be stable currently even after today but we may see this go down or up depending on whats agreed over the next 2-4 years.

According to the Big Mac Index (http://www.economist.com/content/big-mac-index/) the PPP for the Pound is less than the Euro, which fits how you describe your consumption. I was thinking for the UK economy as a whole would be better going into Art. 50 with a stronger pound than today. Do you know if there are any projections as to what will happen to the Euro? From what I can tell, the GBP is fairing better than the Euro when compared to the USD after the news today; GBP/USD down ~0.16% vs EUR/USD down ~0.47%. per Yahoo Finance.

Don't forget that at the moment governments WANT weak currencies. All the main central banks are printing money like there is no tomorrow to lower the value of their currencies. It's all about favoring exports and discouraging imports.

Of course for the average fella who buys things made abroad and who doesn't realize his salary is dependent on his company's exports, it looks bad.

Sooooo........ mercantilism?

OA260 wrote:

Aesma wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

From a superficial standpoint, it reduces oportunities for Brite to travel.

Big picture, value of domestic currency is a large sign of economic conditions. While the UK will definately attract foreign investors, money held by UK households and private savings won't be doing a lot of consumption as prices rise because of the weak pound. And the foreign investors will eventually come but not in the short run because of all the red tape that will be happening because of Brexit. It won't be a good time to go into the UK because of any stability the UK had before today is gone, pushing away investors purely on the basis that no one knows for sure how the process will pan out.

The pound fell because of the Brexit vote. It happened right away. If you delay Brexit, either things will get worse, or enough people will think that Brexit ain't happening, and the pound might got up again because of that. If you then cause Brexit, it will crash again, harder.

Of course the £ going down is not always a bad thing. Many say it was over valued anyway. There will always be winners and loosers. The one thing people forget is that at one stage the £ went 1-1 some years ago and no one was screaming how bad it was. It seems to be used as an arguement for whatever side people are on. In some camps its bad and some camps its good. I live on the border between NI/ROI so this effects me more then most. I cross the border all the time and deal in both currencies daily so I am watching all this more then most. Personally for me a weak £ is good. I buy a lot of my goods in NI as its cheaper then ROI. The £ seems to be stable currently even after today but we may see this go down or up depending on whats agreed over the next 2-4 years.

According to some experts. The £ was over valued by 15-18%

OA260 wrote:

ltbewr wrote:

That is a top priority to be sorted out up there with EU/UK citizens rights to continue to live in each others countries. The EU realises there needs to be a soft border for both political and security reasons. The British and Irish would find it near impossible to put physical barriers back up. The locals on both sides of the border would tear them down and worse the IRA could blow them up. It would set the peace process back decades and neither the UK/ROI/EU could stomach that and thats why it will not happen.

Currently there are discreet border checks as you cross the border. Customs and immigration units pop up in various operations to deal with illegals and illegal fuel smuggling. I expect this to continue in a similar form and maybe a move to electronic customs but not physical borders. Officers board buses and trains in random operations and detain and deport anyone without the right papers. This of course currently applies to Non EU nationals caught with wrong papers.

That is all fine when you are in a customs union and the only goods you are checking for are illegal fuel and cigarettes. Without a customs union, there will be a need for a hard border to control the movement of goods between the UK and the EU. Everyone going to to Belfast to buy the latest iPhone (or any goods worth more than a €430) will be liable for Irish VAT and other duty. I cannot see what discreet/electronic border can fix that.

LTenEleven wrote:

That is all fine when you are in a customs union and the only goods you are checking for are illegal fuel and cigarettes. Without a customs union, there will be a need for a hard border to control the movement of goods between the UK and the EU. Everyone going to to Belfast to buy the latest iPhone (or any goods worth more than a €430) will be liable for Irish VAT and other duty. I cannot see what discreet/electronic border can fix that.

Revenue officials are working to develop a post-Brexit electronic customs system where vehicles will be able to cross the border between north and south without having to stop.

The Irish Independent understands that informal contacts have already taken place between Irish customs officials and their UK counterparts about the possibility of developing an integrated, joined-up electronic border system.

The head of Revenue's customs division said staff are at the early stages of a scoping exercise, and that the plan could take a number of years to fully build.

Anthony Buckley, deputy director general of Irish Customs with the Revenue Commissioners, said the aim is to develop a system whereby a truck can drive from one end of the island to the other without having to stop.

"Even if there's a free-trade agreement [between the UK and EU], we'll still need to know what is being traded, what's crossing the border," Mr Buckley told a Brexit briefing organised by the Irish Exporters' Association (IEA).

http://www.independent.ie/business/brex ... 37381.html

You will never catch everyone the same way customs in Dublin Airport will never catch all the cigarette smugglers on flights from the Canary Islands or shoppers back from a mini break to New York who go way over their allowances. ROI/NI have been co operating on various levels much closer then some other EU countries over the years so its not as if they are starting from scratch.

We are many years from from any electronic customs system. Even the article you quote from confirms this: "The head of Revenue's customs division said staff are at the early stages of a scoping exercise, and that the plan could take a number of years to fully build."

Even if we end up with an electronic system (which is years away), there will still have to be infrastructure to support substantial random checks needed to tackle people trying to chance it.


Authorises may have ongoing cooperation but it's nothing like the type that will be required when all goods traded across the ROI/NI are theoretically subject to customs. Nothing coming out of either the Irish or British governments suggests they have a solution in mind.

LTenEleven wrote:

We are many years from from any electronic customs system.

This Brexit process is going to take years also and expect there to be a transition period until things like this are sorted out. Also the Good Friday agreement needs changed to bring into law the new situation of the UK not being a EU member. To be honest it could be the Ireland/UK border that takes longer to resolve then a trade agreement. Had the UK not shared a land border with another EU state then it might have been easier and one might argue that its that land border and the intertwined nature of Irish/British history,demography that might go in favor of the UK. So the EU and UK will need to hammer it out. More then 50% in the North have Irish citizenship which in turn means they are EU citizens so I doubt the EU want to abandon them especially as the majority voted to remain. A deal will be done on customs in the end to avoid physical barriers.

Dreadnought wrote:

LJ wrote:

I don't know to which Swiss you talk, but judging by the number of Swiss "looting" German (but also Italian and French) stores near the border (and collecting the VAT on their return) I doubt they hate the agreement Switzerland has with the EU.

That's been going on for a lot longer than the EU or the bilateral treaties have been around - I don't see your point. You seem to be under the impression that international trade outside the bounds of the EU is impossible.

But increased when Switzerland became part of the common market and exploded after the collapse of the Euro. Prior to Switzerland being part of the common market one couldn't buy in Germany without limits. You seem to forget what the free trade agreement has done for the Swiss (and negatively for Swiss companies which sometimes struggle to survive due to the competition with their German counterparts). Furthermore, it made living in Germany and working in Switzerland a lot easier (which some Germans don't lke as it increases house prices).

I have ready in other posts that Scotland meets all requirements for membership of the EU apart from the financial ones.

I did try and find the financial requirements but could not find them. Can someone who knows these things please post what the requirements are, how Scotland does not meet them and whether or not they are ever likely to meet them?

Thanks

sbworcs wrote:

I have ready in other posts that Scotland meets all requirements for membership of the EU apart from the financial ones.

I did try and find the financial requirements but could not find them. Can someone who knows these things please post what the requirements are, how Scotland does not meet them and whether or not they are ever likely to meet them?

Thanks

Spain is by far the biggest obstacle for Scotland getting into the EU.
Basque country and Catalonia would be screaming for independence if getting to the EU as independent states was a realistic option.

P1aneMad wrote:

sbworcs wrote:

I have ready in other posts that Scotland meets all requirements for membership of the EU apart from the financial ones.

I did try and find the financial requirements but could not find them. Can someone who knows these things please post what the requirements are, how Scotland does not meet them and whether or not they are ever likely to meet them?

Thanks

Spain is by far the biggest obstacle for Scotland getting into the EU.
Basque country and Catalonia would be screaming for independence if getting to the EU as independent states was a realistic option.

At the same time, it is not like Spain is about to leave the EU.

P1aneMad wrote:

sbworcs wrote:

I have ready in other posts that Scotland meets all requirements for membership of the EU apart from the financial ones.

I did try and find the financial requirements but could not find them. Can someone who knows these things please post what the requirements are, how Scotland does not meet them and whether or not they are ever likely to meet them?

Thanks

Spain is by far the biggest obstacle for Scotland getting into the EU.
Basque country and Catalonia would be screaming for independence if getting to the EU as independent states was a realistic option.

Thanks both. I had read about the Spanish issue. The area I am not sure on is where and independent Scotland does not meet the financial requirements to join the EU - it is these requirements that I cannot find.

Is it a good thing if the Trojan Horse wants to leave?

sbworcs wrote:

P1aneMad wrote:

sbworcs wrote:

I have ready in other posts that Scotland meets all requirements for membership of the EU apart from the financial ones.

I did try and find the financial requirements but could not find them. Can someone who knows these things please post what the requirements are, how Scotland does not meet them and whether or not they are ever likely to meet them?

Thanks

Spain is by far the biggest obstacle for Scotland getting into the EU.
Basque country and Catalonia would be screaming for independence if getting to the EU as independent states was a realistic option.

Thanks both. I had read about the Spanish issue. The area I am not sure on is where and independent Scotland does not meet the financial requirements to join the EU - it is these requirements that I cannot find.

I think this is what you are looking for.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro_convergence_criteria

sbworcs wrote:

P1aneMad wrote:

sbworcs wrote:

I have ready in other posts that Scotland meets all requirements for membership of the EU apart from the financial ones.

I did try and find the financial requirements but could not find them. Can someone who knows these things please post what the requirements are, how Scotland does not meet them and whether or not they are ever likely to meet them?

Thanks

Spain is by far the biggest obstacle for Scotland getting into the EU.
Basque country and Catalonia would be screaming for independence if getting to the EU as independent states was a realistic option.

Thanks both. I had read about the Spanish issue. The area I am not sure on is where and independent Scotland does not meet the financial requirements to join the EU - it is these requirements that I cannot find.

As far as I know, there are no requirements for that. If you are getting at joining the Euro zone, it is state debt of max. 60% of the GDP and deficit of max. 3% of the GDP. Great Britain had a public debt of around 90%. If Scotland secretes from the UK, then it will be obliged to take a proportional amount of that debt. So they probably don't qualify for the Euro, but knowing the EU, they might make an exemption for the very last time

BawliBooch wrote:

Is it a good thing if the Trojan Horse wants to leave?

Yes and no. That is the short answer. The feeling among Dutch politicians is that they lost an allay. Apparently on a number of subjects, the Brits wanted things the Dutch way, so in that sense the Dutch have lost an important ally. In another sense, perhaps we can move on and go and work on solving real problems without the nay sayers from London. Ah well, "mister no" is heading the British delegation so that will be interesting to watch.

Dutchy wrote:

If Scotland secretes from the UK, then it will be obliged to take a proportional amount of that debt. So they probably don't qualify for the Euro, but knowing the EU, they might make an exemption for the very last time

Given the issues with Greece, wouldn't it be rather silly for the EU to make exemptions on Euro membership? Should it not in fact be enforcing those standards even more rigorously?

UltimoTiger777 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

If Scotland secretes from the UK, then it will be obliged to take a proportional amount of that debt. So they probably don't qualify for the Euro, but knowing the EU, they might make an exemption for the very last time

Given the issues with Greece, wouldn't it be rather silly for the EU to make exemptions on Euro membership? Should it not in fact be enforcing those standards even more rigorously?

I was kind of joking in the end, but to answer your question, yes they should, as they should have done in 2003 when Germany and France were the first to break those rules, without consequences. The EU has no real power to enforce to standerds.

On a lighter note: https://www.facebook.com/TheIndependent ... 243851636/

Oh sweat irony, trying to burn an European flag out of protest, but it will not burn because of those piskey EU regulations

P1aneMad wrote:

sbworcs wrote:

I have ready in other posts that Scotland meets all requirements for membership of the EU apart from the financial ones.

I did try and find the financial requirements but could not find them. Can someone who knows these things please post what the requirements are, how Scotland does not meet them and whether or not they are ever likely to meet them?

Thanks

Spain is by far the biggest obstacle for Scotland getting into the EU.
Basque country and Catalonia would be screaming for independence if getting to the EU as independent states was a realistic option.

That's a (rather widespread) misinterpretation of the Spanish position in English-language media.

Spanish politicians (foreign minister, just last week) are on record saying they will not object to Scotland joining at all as long as the secession is through legal channels. What they won't do (and this is the same position as France) is. They just won't comment on the matter further since until that time Scotland is internal affairs of the UK.

Now back to the economic criteria. Euro stability criteria wouldn't immediately apply because no country has joined the EU and the euro at the same time but they should be on track to them (Copenhaguen criteria). The problem is, Scotland as a freshly independent nation would have no record of economic stability on its own.

JJJ wrote:

Now back to the economic criteria. Euro stability criteria wouldn't immediately apply because no country has joined the EU and the euro at the same time but they should be on track to them (Copenhaguen criteria). The problem is, Scotland as a freshly independent nation would have no record of economic stability on its own.

An interesting article with facts and figures :

Scotland almost £15 billion in debt and its deficit is almost twice as large as the UK as a whole, say new figures

New figures deal a severe blow to key SNP arguments in favour of independence

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 21381.html

OA260 wrote:

JJJ wrote:

Now back to the economic criteria. Euro stability criteria wouldn't immediately apply because no country has joined the EU and the euro at the same time but they should be on track to them (Copenhaguen criteria). The problem is, Scotland as a freshly independent nation would have no record of economic stability on its own.

An interesting article with facts and figures :

Scotland almost £15 billion in debt and its deficit is almost twice as large as the UK as a whole, say new figures

New figures deal a severe blow to key SNP arguments in favour of independence

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 21381.html

Yeah, but that's with a just partially devolved tax collection and spending. Scotland currently has little say on what, how and how much to collect, and what do they spend it in.

Oil prices are going up, anyway, that should ease the budget.

JJJ wrote:

Oil prices are going up, anyway, that should ease the budget.

Although nothing compared to what the SNP were basing their figures on.