Monday, 27 June 2016

The fall in the pound does not prove Brexit was a poor choice.


Brexit means the UK re-arranges the way it trades with other countries. In particular, tariffs and non-tariff barriers are re-arranged.

Assuming extra tariffs imposed by the EU against UK exports is exactly matched by a REDUCTION in tariffs facing UK exports from other countries (and same goes for tariffs imposed by the UK against imports) then roughly speaking, there shouldn’t be an effect on Sterling when the dust has settled.

On the other hand, if raised tariffs by the EU exceed the effect of REDUCED tariffs by other countries, then the pound will fall in value.

But where would those increased tariffs erected by the EU actually get the EU? The answer is: “nowhere”. That is, as explained in the introductory economics text books, if country A erects tariffs against goods coming from country B, then BOTH COUNTRIES are likely to be hurt to the same extent. I.e. countries which impose tariffs against other countries shoot themselves in the foot.

People voted for Brexit for several reasons. One was the lack of democracy in EU institutions. Another was the fact that totally free and unrestricted movement of people for some strange reason is regarded as “sacrosanct” in the EU. That’s a problem because the EU has now lost control of its borders: Africans, Muslims etc are marching into the EU like an invading army. Plus it looks like there’s a good chance of Turkey joining the EU in the next five or ten years. In short, Brexit offers the chance of reducing the speed at which Britain becomes an Afro-Islamic state. (The fact that Islam is ten miles to the right of European “far right” parties, combined with the fact that the political left is positively in love with Islam is a self-contradiction that political left refuses to explain, far as I can see.)

So if the view of Brits is that they’d rather quit the EU because of the latter two and similar reasons, that’s not unreasonable. If the EU reacts by imposing relatively high tariffs against the UK, that is illogical behavior by the EU. It will result in a fall in Sterling. But that does not prove Brexit was a poor choice: you could equally well argue it proves the EU has gone into a sulk and decided to shoot itself (and the UK) in the foot. Plus those who attach a lot of weight to the above "democracy" and "Islam" point, may regard any cut in living standards that results from a Sterling devaluation as being a price worth paying for the benefits of more democracy and less Islam.


5 comments:

  1. Was talking to a German in his late 70's on Friday.He was not happy with Merkel allowing all the refugees into his country.Seems many Germans agree.I don't blame Merkel here, the left or the EU actually.Most folk are genuinely concerned about refugees,it is indeed hertbreaking to see some of their stories.Naturally most ordinary, decent folk want to help,but they are not really thinking beyond that.The problem is that refugee asylum rights are to blame.We signed the UN Convention on refugees in 1951,in those days most foreigners suffering poverty/wars had to stay put.That has all changed now,and many have the money and knowledge to migrate to a better life.We just cannot cope with the influx coming now.It's no ones fault it is the way things have evolved.Can't see an easy way out,other than stopping wars in foreign countries(plus not starting new ones!) and reducing world poverty.Alsp setting up camps in affected or neighboutring countries has been mooted by Cameron,which is not a bad idea since they are more likely to go home at some point.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Syrian refugees can be dealt with via much better facilities for them in neighbouring countries, paid for by Europeans. Next problem, according to the only survey I've seen, most so called refugees are bogus: certainly huge numbers come from Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan etc, not Syria. That can only be solved I think by withdrawing from the UN Convention: the latter was drawn up in circumstances a million miles from those pertaining today, and are it's now a farce. We should set up our own convention to cater for where it is clear beyond any reasonable doubt that someone is a GENUINE refugee.

      Delete
  2. My view is we would have left eventually,we do not want complete political union with the EU in this country,which is the ultimate goal.We just wanted a common market,which we can still do...using UNECE.

    http://www.eureferendum.com/Default.aspx

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes: there's an article by Tim Worstall in Forbes saying that more or less:

      http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/06/28/brexit-isnt-about-leaving-todays-european-union-its-about-not-joining-tomorrows/#261f93395b4b

      Delete
  3. "That’s the size of what has to happen in Europe too. Approximately, and roughly you understand, half of all German taxes should be sent to Brussels there to be spent as those in Brussels decide."

    Thats about what it costs to run a functioning European Union....enquiring minds want to know,will they pay the price?

    ReplyDelete

Post a comment.