I did not vote Leave because I thought I would be better off financially. I wanted My children, Grandchidren and great grandchildren to be out of a EU superstate where we were always treated as second class members
Whereas I voted Remain so that my children and future grandchildren etc. would retain the rights and privileges of being EU citizens, rather than being stuck with just being UK citizens and restricted as such. If my children (grandchildren etc) want to study at a European university (outwith the UK) then they now need to leap through a load of hoops to get a place, if they want to take up a job in the rest of Europe they need to pay for visas and have all that hassle. That's on top of none of us having a say in the regulations for products and services in the EU, a move from the UK government being one of the strongest voices in the processes of formulating such legislation, regulations that will continue to affect us for as long as we trade with other European nations. The result of so many people voting Leave has been to turn my children etc from citizens of the EU with all the privileges that holds to just being UK citizens, a big step down from that (though they would qualify for US citizenship, but currently I'm not sure that's a step back up).
So, thanks for helping turn my children, and every other person in their generation, into second class citizens and taking away an array of options for their future (or, at least, making taking up those options much harder).
With examples. As a result of Brexit, we have ceased to be one of the rule makers and become rule takkers (breakers?), the reverse of what was promised.
I wanted My children, Grandchidren and great grandchildren to be out of a EU superstate where we were always treated as second class members
Citation needed.
Quite. I was only commenting the other day how much the UK was always an arms' length member, with this opt out and that opt out and so on. If anything, we were allowed more latitude than other members of the EU.
Misplaced resentment is unfortunately a hallmark of Conservative instincts these days.
I did not vote Leave because I thought I would be better off financially. I wanted My children, Grandchidren and great grandchildren to be out of a EU superstate where we were always treated as second class members
And now your children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren are second-class citizens. As our mine. But why did you want that?
I am obliged to say that Brexit has not effected me at all. I have never been so well off financially.
However, I accept that I may well be in a minority. I do not import or export. I have found that all the regular medicines I need are available I do not travel abroad.
However, you do purchase foodstuffs, clothing and household items occasionally. Have you noticed any changes in prices or supply as a result of Brexit? This American would like to know.
I do notice increases in foodstuffs but I don't investigate the cause. Our shopping is done by credit card and we just buy what we want. Every month, the card is paid off by our current account. Sometimes the prices do not increase but the product becomes a bit smaller
Not me . We voted to leave and we left. That's what I call democracy.
Here we go again. There was no vote on how we left. As soon as the leave side won they deviated from a Swiss style Brexit to a hard Brexit.
Democracy also means not having just one vote on a subject. Though if you listen to Bexiteers it does.
I may not be keen on Starmer and the current Labour Party, but he is starting sensible talks with the EU which I applaud
Did you vote for a Swiss style Brexit ? I suspect that you didn't.
The talks will only be sensible if they can improve the situation in the island of Ireland. Everything else is fine
As @Alan Cresswell said there was no type of leave to vote for. It was either in or out. I voted in. As I said it was not until the Cons under Boris won that election that a hard Brexit was pushed.
We are paying the consequences for that.
I voted out as I wanted us to be more independent. I got what I wanted. I would have been OK with Custom Union etc but it was not to be
But how independent are we really. Our biggest trading partner is the EU we have to follow their rule. We used to have a say in those rules now we don’t. As to border independence well we decided to open wide our borders to EU peoples. We needn’t have done so, look at Spain. For none Spanish people (including other EU citizens) to live in the country you need to be financially independent. They have strong rules. We could have done the same. So our independence has made us rule takers not rule makers. Our influence around the world has dropped not risen. Our deals with other countries have been laughable, in that Australia and other countries were laughing at us over how easy it was to do us over because we were so desperate to get a deal. Yep really independent.
Missed the post time.
The right wing hate of the EU and the disaster hedge funds wanting to make money out of the fall of the UK were the real reasons for the Con government to leave the EU. The fact that we have a business deal with a group at the other side of the world proves this.
If my children (grandchildren etc) want to study at a European university (outwith the UK) then they now need to leap through a load of hoops to get a place, if they want to take up a job in the rest of Europe they need to pay for visas and have all that hassle.
The standard answer to that would be simply: why would they want to do that in the first place? It's easy to see why so many EU citizens wanted to come to the UK - it's a richer country where they can make more money than at home - but outside of a few very niche jobs that only exist in the EU (and for which visas remain available) what's the advantage to a UK citizen of going to the EU?
My sister-in-law works in the EU, but I suppose she has one of those niche jobs. My brother for obvious reasons also works in the EU and he doesn't have a niche job.
I can't believe my family is entirely unrepresentative of the UK population so I suspect it affects more people than you think.
Nobody in my family has a retirement home in Spain, but I believe that's not unheard of.
If my children (grandchildren etc) want to study at a European university (outwith the UK) then they now need to leap through a load of hoops to get a place, if they want to take up a job in the rest of Europe they need to pay for visas and have all that hassle.
The standard answer to that would be simply: why would they want to do that in the first place? It's easy to see why so many EU citizens wanted to come to the UK - it's a richer country where they can make more money than at home - but outside of a few very niche jobs that only exist in the EU (and for which visas remain available) what's the advantage to a UK citizen of going to the EU?
Food? Climate? Wine? Standard of living? Culture? There's five straight off without really thinking.
According to P G Wodehouse's Sir Roderick Spode, they (the foreigners) all have scrawny, bony Knees - unlike the muscular Knees of a True-Blue Englishman™.
If my children (grandchildren etc) want to study at a European university (outwith the UK) then they now need to leap through a load of hoops to get a place, if they want to take up a job in the rest of Europe they need to pay for visas and have all that hassle.
The standard answer to that would be simply: why would they want to do that in the first place? It's easy to see why so many EU citizens wanted to come to the UK - it's a richer country where they can make more money than at home - but outside of a few very niche jobs that only exist in the EU (and for which visas remain available) what's the advantage to a UK citizen of going to the EU?
Food? Climate? Wine? Standard of living? Culture? There's five straight off without really thinking.
Have to dispute on Climate. I love the British Climate and wouldn't swap it for the climate of anywhere else in the world - everywhere else seems to get too hot, too cold, or both for weeks at a time.
My biggest problem though would be the almost complete absence of cask ale outside these shores.
We'd lost £140 bn up to a year ago. Another £35 bn, fag packet, since, and it's going to get worse and worse. And that's without being caught in the middle of the US vs, EU. Wurf evry penny, fer sovereignty! A whole year of the NHS gone every five years.
The economic questions are no doubt important but I was always more worried about the geopolitical implications of Brexit. I think there is a good chance of being caught between the US and the EU which are likely to be at loggerheads for the foreseeable future. Pressure may come on Britain from both sides to line up diplomatically, politically and even militarily with one or the other. It is difficult enough to think about militarily resisting Russia without US assistance but it is no longer unthinkable that Europe might come into military conflict with the US.
It's one thing to bully Colombia. Quite another to bully the entire EU, or India, or China, or Russia, etc. Trump isn't going to run the table with his Bravado First economic policy.
Maybe not, but it looks as though he's at least going to try...
Starting with friends and neighbours. The EU is a fractured joke, with fascists wagging the dog in Germany already, they already run Italy, approvingly be Sir Keir; Hungary, Austria, the Netherlands, now Belgium. France is a political dog's breakfast.
He wants to annex part of the EU and a fello Commonwealth member of whuch our King is head of state. The UK may need to invite him to go forth and multiply.
If my children (grandchildren etc) want to study at a European university (outwith the UK) then they now need to leap through a load of hoops to get a place, if they want to take up a job in the rest of Europe they need to pay for visas and have all that hassle.
The standard answer to that would be simply: why would they want to do that in the first place? It's easy to see why so many EU citizens wanted to come to the UK - it's a richer country where they can make more money than at home - but outside of a few very niche jobs that only exist in the EU (and for which visas remain available) what's the advantage to a UK citizen of going to the EU?
There are lots of Universities in the rest of Europe doing great research, if someone wants to pursue a career in one of those fields then a Masters or PhD from one of those universities may well be a better career choice than doing that in the UK, and also doing a early career research posts it's a good idea to move around and work with people in different universities - to experience both different research environments and building networks.
If not pursuing a research career then it's always good early in a career to build up a network of contacts and experience different cultures - and, if you're going to work in a field that involves extensive international collaboration or cooperation (eg: university admin, with large numbers of international students and staff and research collaborations etc) then having people around (even better being the person) who has direct experience of different cultures is almost essential. Companies dealing with customers or suppliers in the rest of Europe will have need of people with expertise in European law, just as their customers and suppliers will need the services of people with expertise in UK law, and how do people get that expertise without studying and working in the EU (and letting EU citizens study here)?
And, that's even without considering that some people may simply want to live somewhere with guaranteed sun, or a culture where they can sit in a wine bar for a quiet drink without dealing with drunken yobs.
If my children (grandchildren etc) want to study at a European university (outwith the UK) then they now need to leap through a load of hoops to get a place, if they want to take up a job in the rest of Europe they need to pay for visas and have all that hassle.
The standard answer to that would be simply: why would they want to do that in the first place? It's easy to see why so many EU citizens wanted to come to the UK - it's a richer country where they can make more money than at home - but outside of a few very niche jobs that only exist in the EU (and for which visas remain available) what's the advantage to a UK citizen of going to the EU?
If my children (grandchildren etc) want to study at a European university (outwith the UK) then they now need to leap through a load of hoops to get a place, if they want to take up a job in the rest of Europe they need to pay for visas and have all that hassle.
The standard answer to that would be simply: why would they want to do that in the first place? It's easy to see why so many EU citizens wanted to come to the UK - it's a richer country where they can make more money than at home - but outside of a few very niche jobs that only exist in the EU (and for which visas remain available) what's the advantage to a UK citizen of going to the EU?
There are lots of Universities in the rest of Europe doing great research, if someone wants to pursue a career in one of those fields then a Masters or PhD from one of those universities may well be a better career choice than doing that in the UK, and also doing a early career research posts it's a good idea to move around and work with people in different universities - to experience both different research environments and building networks.
If not pursuing a research career then it's always good early in a career to build up a network of contacts and experience different cultures - and, if you're going to work in a field that involves extensive international collaboration or cooperation (eg: university admin, with large numbers of international students and staff and research collaborations etc) then having people around (even better being the person) who has direct experience of different cultures is almost essential. Companies dealing with customers or suppliers in the rest of Europe will have need of people with expertise in European law, just as their customers and suppliers will need the services of people with expertise in UK law, and how do people get that expertise without studying and working in the EU (and letting EU citizens study here)?
Not unrelated (though not strictly EU) my older sister has just moved to Norway to take up an assistant professorship.
In particular, if you want a specific example: if you want to study comparative literature, say in English and German, you will almost certainly find yourself going to study in Germany at some point.
A friend of mine is a research chemist, in an extremely specialised field. There was only one suitable post in that field in the UK and it was filled. He worked for a time at the University of Riyadh but had to leave that country in a hurry having refused to certify (falsely) that the son of an influential Saudi had successfully completed his course. on return to this country, there was still no post available to him. He gained employment with SANOFI in France, moved there and enjoyed a highly successful career, and a congenial lifestyle with his wife and family. Following Brexit, he has taken out French citizenship to safeguard his pension, and right to remain in the country.
If my children (grandchildren etc) want to study at a European university (outwith the UK) then they now need to leap through a load of hoops to get a place, if they want to take up a job in the rest of Europe they need to pay for visas and have all that hassle.
The standard answer to that would be simply: why would they want to do that in the first place? It's easy to see why so many EU citizens wanted to come to the UK - it's a richer country where they can make more money than at home
To a point, though the effect of this was somewhat exaggerated by Blair's decision in 2004 to open borders to the 8 EU ascension countries at the time. Though this has often worked the other way, the "Sick man of Europe" was a powerful incentive to join the European project to start with, and "Auf Wiedersehen, Pet" was based on an actual social phenomena of the time. Ironically, one could make a powerful argument that it was being part of the European project that made the UK richer.
one could make a powerful argument that it was being part of the European project that made the UK richer.
No, one SHOULD make that argument, for it's blatantly true. Many people were making that argument in 2015/16, but not enough people were willing to listen to people who knew what they were talking about and instead listened to people who knew nothing wittering on about "sovereignty" and other topics they were essentially ignorant about.
In the 1970s where the UK economy was struggling opportunities for people to work elsewhere in Europe reduced the costs to the government of providing them with services (and, often dole and other welfare payments) and put money into the economy as a portion of wages earned elsewhere were paid back to families at home (overall, there probably were some who spent all their income but many did send money home). Then in 2004 opening the borders to the new EU countries allowed a lot of people to come into the country to fill job vacancies and boosting the economy - just as Germany etc in the 1970s got economic benefit from migrants from the UK filling jobs and paying taxes and not putting significant strain on health and education services.
Where most people feel it is at the border on holiday. When reality first hit that we couldn’t just show a passport and walk through any more people were angry.
If my children (grandchildren etc) want to study at a European university (outwith the UK) then they now need to leap through a load of hoops to get a place, if they want to take up a job in the rest of Europe they need to pay for visas and have all that hassle.
The standard answer to that would be simply: why would they want to do that in the first place? It's easy to see why so many EU citizens wanted to come to the UK - it's a richer country where they can make more money than at home - but outside of a few very niche jobs that only exist in the EU (and for which visas remain available) what's the advantage to a UK citizen of going to the EU?
I was off the market when I did erasmus back in the dim distant past but I think it a great shame for students not to have the wonderful opportunity to learn in a European context
If my children (grandchildren etc) want to study at a European university (outwith the UK) then they now need to leap through a load of hoops to get a place, if they want to take up a job in the rest of Europe they need to pay for visas and have all that hassle.
The standard answer to that would be simply: why would they want to do that in the first place? It's easy to see why so many EU citizens wanted to come to the UK - it's a richer country where they can make more money than at home - but outside of a few very niche jobs that only exist in the EU (and for which visas remain available) what's the advantage to a UK citizen of going to the EU?
I was off the market when I did erasmus back in the dim distant past but I think it a great shame for students not to have the wonderful opportunity to learn in a European context
Absolutely.
And it's not just people who meet on the Erasmus scheme who fall in love across countries.
If you know any Brits married to a non-Brit, ask them about the challenges of getting settled status / citizenship for their spouse.
There are lots of reasons why people might choose to live in another country. Free movement made it very much easier to do so.
Today's YouGov survey included the following question:
If the US imposes higher tariffs on the EU, but not on the UK, would that be ...
a) A significant benefit that helps to show why leaving the EU was the right thing to do
b) A small benefit that is outweighed by the costs of Brexit
c) Nothing to do with Brexit one way or the other
d) Don't know.
I'm curious as to who commissioned this question from YouGov and what news story will be generated by it. If a story appears stating that a high percentage of British people think there are "significant benefits" to Brexit, based on people ticking a) I will be deeply unimpressed.
I felt I couldn't answer c) because obviously our not being part of the EU has something to do with Brexit, but both a) and b) include the word "benefit"
I went for d).
I can confidently state that when the pro-Brexit politicians were forecasting sunny uplands, none were suggesting we should leave the EU to get a better deal in the event of a tariff war with America.
Today's YouGov survey included the following question:
If the US imposes higher tariffs on the EU, but not on the UK, would that be ...
a) A significant benefit that helps to show why leaving the EU was the right thing to do
b) A small benefit that is outweighed by the costs of Brexit
c) Nothing to do with Brexit one way or the other
d) Don't know.
I'm curious as to who commissioned this question from YouGov and what news story will be generated by it.
Especially as it leaves out the possibility that it would be both related to Brexit and actually bad for the UK.
As to who commissioned it, just wait for the new stories, I expect.
As the EU is much much bigger than the UK, a single country I would expect higher tariffs. We have a lot less to trade.
This trade in steel confuses me. I know that there are different 'grades' of steel but why would steel producers want to import steel ?
Because some of those types of steel require specialised equipment that aren't dual use, or special techniques that may be part trade secret and may take a long time to develop.
Also, the big issue is that most richer nations have a high demand for steel - both bulk steel used in construction and other large applications and the various specialist steels for specific smaller applications. But, those nations do not have the capacity to produce all the steel they need, and hence have no option but to import what they can't produce. That lack in capacity often relates to costs, labour costs in particular, that means they simply can't compete with steel produced elsewhere where costs are less - except for specialist steels that carry a price premium that covers larger costs, and often require more skill in staff to produce.
Add to that, steel production requires raw materials, iron ore and coke, and in many rich nations (eg: UK) the economically extractable reserves of those materials are small and so if the UK was to reintroduce large scale steel production we'd also need to import iron ore and coke (or, mine the remaining domestic reserves at greater cost than costs for mining in other nations), adding yet more to costs. The historic heavy industry in the UK was a result of there being significant reserves of ores and coal within the UK, and as these were worked out supplemented by imports from Empire. That situation has changed massively, and the changes aren't going to be reversed.
That lack in capacity often relates to costs, labour costs in particular, that means they simply can't compete with steel produced elsewhere where costs are less
Isn't that the whole point of tariffs - to make steel produced elsewhere more expensive thus removing the inability for domestic producers to compete on price, which leads to more customers buying locally, which in turn provides the market and finances for domestic producers to increase their output to meet domestic need?
That lack in capacity often relates to costs, labour costs in particular, that means they simply can't compete with steel produced elsewhere where costs are less
Isn't that the whole point of tariffs - to make steel produced elsewhere more expensive thus removing the inability for domestic producers to compete on price, which leads to more customers buying locally, which in turn provides the market and finances for domestic producers to increase their output to meet domestic need?
And raises the prices for end users of the product of course as now British manufacturers using steel will pay higher prices.* They will then have to pass them onto consumers. This means they won't be able to sell any of their product out of the country because the European competitors who bought the European steel can sell their product more cheaply. So now you also have a worse trade deficit.
*Just because European steel is more expensive doesn't make British steel any cheaper.
UK Steel issued a statement the day the tariffs came into effect, pointing out that foreign tariffs hurt UK steel producers in two ways:
President Trump’s 25% tariffs on steel and steel derivative products have today come into effect, with no exemptions granted to the UK or any other trading partners. These will have hugely damaging consequences for UK suppliers and their customers in the US. They will also have a further harmful indirect effect of deflecting steel trade from the US into markets like the UK.
Additionally (and more in relation to impending actions by the EU),
Meanwhile, the UK is only partially shielded from trade diversion. Steel safeguard quotas have been liberalised every year and are now 22% larger than when they were first introduced in 2018. All while UK demand has contracted by 16%. These quotas are oversized and do not offer adequate protection from the large-scale trade diversion that is likely to take place.
The UK already has steel tariffs in place, and has had for several years. The current rate of duty is 25%, but this is imposed using a quota system (mentioned above) - the tariffs kick in when cumulative imports of particular types of steel (from 15 product categories) from particular nations or regions reach a specified threshold. The UK government's current measures are detailed here and here.
(The second notice addresses category 1 steel - non-alloy and other alloy hot-rolled sheet and strip - which became category 1A and a new category 1B was introduced, being "Category 1 steel products used for downstream processing into other product categories".)
The short version of the UK Steel industry's position is that they want the UK government to reduce the quotas:
These measures [the UK tariff-rate quotas] will lapse in June 2026. It is essential that existing measures are tightened, as the EU is doing with its own measures, and concrete plans are put in place for the replacement of safeguards, ideally well before their expiry. There is a huge amount of momentum around steel in the EU, including its Steel and Metals Action Plan to be presented on 19 March. This will further add to the pressure both on the UK’s direct exports, as well as our trade defences.
Part of the background to this is the significant amount of overcapacity in the global steel industry, detailed in the notes to the UK Steel statement:
UK exports to the US: In 2024, the UK exported 180 thousand tonnes of semi-finished and finished steel to the US, worth £370 million. This accounts for 7% of the UK’s total steel exports by volume and 9% by value. Global excess capacity: Global excess capacity was estimated at 543 million tonnes in 2023 and is forecasted to reach 630 million tonnes by 2026 – equivalent more than 100x the UK’s production. EU steel activity: ... Before the end of the month, the Commission will also be announcing the outcome of its steel safeguards review, which is widely expected to result in tariff-rate quotas becoming more restrictive.
The other issue *looks around at the state of the world* is that historically there is a strong correlation between your available steel production and your chances of winning any war you happen to be involved in.
There are probably some kinds of strategic resources you want to maintain a minimum of capacity for (and perhaps rapid expansion capacity) even if you need to subsidise those industries.
The other issue *looks around at the state of the world* is that historically there is a strong correlation between your available steel production and your chances of winning any war you happen to be involved in.
There are probably some kinds of strategic resources you want to maintain a minimum of capacity for (and perhaps rapid expansion capacity) even if you need to subsidise those industries.
Perhaps. But those industries might also include coal mining, oil and gas for military aircraft, tanks and ships and perhaps even nuclear reactors and reprocessing plants for... purposes. We might find these "strategic investments" difficult to embrace.
That lack in capacity often relates to costs, labour costs in particular, that means they simply can't compete with steel produced elsewhere where costs are less
Isn't that the whole point of tariffs - to make steel produced elsewhere more expensive thus removing the inability for domestic producers to compete on price, which leads to more customers buying locally, which in turn provides the market and finances for domestic producers to increase their output to meet domestic need?
And raises the prices for end users of the product of course as now British manufacturers using steel will pay higher prices.* They will then have to pass them onto consumers.
True. But there's an argument that outsourcing steel production to countries that have lower wages and poor or nonexistent worker safety legislation just so that our own consumers can continue to pay artificially low prices is a strategy that was always going to fail sooner or later - be it through deteriorating political relationships with those countries or simply because those countries end up improving worker safety and remuneration, driving up prices - and that when that happens we'll be left either without access to raw steel or paying the same high prices anyway but without a manufacturing sector to prop up our economy.
This means they won't be able to sell any of their product out of the country because the European competitors who bought the European steel can sell their product more cheaply. So now you also have a worse trade deficit.
It's possible that we may be seeing the first signs of the end of globalisation and a return to national self-sufficiency, especially in those countries that still retain a meaningful manufacturing sector. If a country can produce all the steel it needs without generating too much of a surplus then it won't need to either buy or sell steel from or to anywhere else.
It's possible that we may be seeing the first signs of the end of globalisation and a return to national self-sufficiency,
And that would be a disaster. Autarky is not a way to improve standards of living either globally or in one country. It's especially annoying to see parties that used to understand this abandon their free-trade credentials. If different parts of the world have competitive advantage in specialising it is in everyone's economic interest to do so and then trade. This is Economics 101 surely.
“These measures [the UK tariff-rate quotas] will lapse in June 2026. It is essential that existing measures are tightened, as the EU is doing with its own measures, and concrete plans are put in place for the replacement of safeguards, ideally well before their expiry. There is a huge amount of momentum around steel in the EU, including its Steel and Metals Action Plan to be presented on 19 March. This will further add to the pressure both on the UK’s direct exports, as well as our trade defences.
...
“EU steel activity: ... Before the end of the month, the Commission will also be announcing the outcome of its steel safeguards review, which is widely expected to result in tariff-rate quotas becoming more restrictive.”
The EU currently operates tariff-rate quotas very similar to the UK's arrangements - which isn't very surprising, as the UK was operating them when it was part of the EU, and carried on applying them after Brexit.
In addition to countermeasures announced on 12 March, the EU indicated yesterday that it will reduce import quotas on steel by a further 15% to prevent inflows of cheap steel flooding the European market. UK Steel is still hoping for similar action from the UK government, issuing a new statement yesterday regarding the EU's latest actions:
Many of the new EU Commission policies align directly with proposals UK Steel has already put to Government. The UK must now match this ambition to avoid falling behind. While the Steel Strategy is under careful development, and should run its course, there is a critical opportunity for the UK Government to establish new measures now before it is finalised. For example, to strengthen UK steel safeguard quotas for 1 April, at the same timescale the EU has committed to for its steel sector.
So, I was going to ask whether England had any sources of lithium in its borders, and then I went googling and saved myself a little embarrassment.
But certainly anyone who has lived in an imperial center like England or the USA should realize that a lot of things we all take for granted come from other places. And that, historically speaking, massive wars have been fought over the fact that we could save a lot of money by getting goods from other places instead of domestically.
And I always thought the one good argument for open trade was that it discouraged war. It's not wise to shoot your trading partners in the face.
But I guess some folks are tired of peace?
We are going to have to relearn the cruel, costly lessons of the 20th century in the 21st, and I don't think they're going to get cheaper.
Plus...competition means more, smaller mines in more places, which means more resource consumption, which means more combustion, which means more climate change.
I'd really like to stop continuing in a way of life that screws over my still-hypothetical grandchildren. I feel bad enough for my kids as it is.
Isn't that the whole point of tariffs - to make steel produced elsewhere more expensive thus removing the inability for domestic producers to compete on price, which leads to more customers buying locally, which in turn provides the market and finances for domestic producers to increase their output to meet domestic need?
And raises the prices for end users of the product of course as now British manufacturers using steel will pay higher prices.* They will then have to pass them onto consumers.
True. But there's an argument that outsourcing steel production to countries that have lower wages and poor or nonexistent worker safety legislation just so that our own consumers can continue to pay artificially low prices is a strategy that was always going to fail sooner or later - be it through deteriorating political relationships with those countries or simply because those countries end up improving worker safety and remuneration, driving up prices - and that when that happens we'll be left either without access to raw steel or paying the same high prices anyway but without a manufacturing sector to prop up our economy.
Now you're changing the topic and implying that Britain has higher worker safety legislation than the countries you are competing with. I see that there is steel production in the European Union, your near neighbors. Do you have evidence that your steel is better than theirs?
This means they won't be able to sell any of their product out of the country because the European competitors who bought the European steel can sell their product more cheaply. So now you also have a worse trade deficit.
It's possible that we may be seeing the first signs of the end of globalisation and a return to national self-sufficiency, especially in those countries that still retain a meaningful manufacturing sector. If a country can produce all the steel it needs without generating too much of a surplus then it won't need to either buy or sell steel from or to anywhere else.
If so that will be a tragedy for the countries who stop cooperating, perhaps like mine. The ones who work together will be strong and happy while the others will be poorer and worse off. We can't all do everything. We work with other countries and trade with them to share resources.
Setting aside the question of industry for a moment, the UK does not produce enough food to feed its population. Even pre-industrial Britain was vulnerable to famine, as any fule kno who has gone beyond school-level history.
And I am surprised at you, Marvin, for wanting to go back to 'national self-sufficiency.' Don't you know that the (lone) economist in favour of Brexit approved on the grounds that it would destroy the remains of our heavy industry?
Comments
So, thanks for helping turn my children, and every other person in their generation, into second class citizens and taking away an array of options for their future (or, at least, making taking up those options much harder).
Citation needed.
Quite. I was only commenting the other day how much the UK was always an arms' length member, with this opt out and that opt out and so on. If anything, we were allowed more latitude than other members of the EU.
Misplaced resentment is unfortunately a hallmark of Conservative instincts these days.
But how independent are we really. Our biggest trading partner is the EU we have to follow their rule. We used to have a say in those rules now we don’t. As to border independence well we decided to open wide our borders to EU peoples. We needn’t have done so, look at Spain. For none Spanish people (including other EU citizens) to live in the country you need to be financially independent. They have strong rules. We could have done the same. So our independence has made us rule takers not rule makers. Our influence around the world has dropped not risen. Our deals with other countries have been laughable, in that Australia and other countries were laughing at us over how easy it was to do us over because we were so desperate to get a deal. Yep really independent.
The right wing hate of the EU and the disaster hedge funds wanting to make money out of the fall of the UK were the real reasons for the Con government to leave the EU. The fact that we have a business deal with a group at the other side of the world proves this.
Poor and shunned, admittedly - but independently poor and shunned...
[for the benefit of those with no SOH, this is Irony]
The standard answer to that would be simply: why would they want to do that in the first place? It's easy to see why so many EU citizens wanted to come to the UK - it's a richer country where they can make more money than at home - but outside of a few very niche jobs that only exist in the EU (and for which visas remain available) what's the advantage to a UK citizen of going to the EU?
I can't believe my family is entirely unrepresentative of the UK population so I suspect it affects more people than you think.
Nobody in my family has a retirement home in Spain, but I believe that's not unheard of.
Food? Climate? Wine? Standard of living? Culture? There's five straight off without really thinking.
I'm sure @Marvin the Martian was being ironic.
Have to dispute on Climate. I love the British Climate and wouldn't swap it for the climate of anywhere else in the world - everywhere else seems to get too hot, too cold, or both for weeks at a time.
My biggest problem though would be the almost complete absence of cask ale outside these shores.
No it won't.
Starting with friends and neighbours. The EU is a fractured joke, with fascists wagging the dog in Germany already, they already run Italy, approvingly be Sir Keir; Hungary, Austria, the Netherlands, now Belgium. France is a political dog's breakfast.
Oh, Canada.
la vie en rouge, Purgatory host
If not pursuing a research career then it's always good early in a career to build up a network of contacts and experience different cultures - and, if you're going to work in a field that involves extensive international collaboration or cooperation (eg: university admin, with large numbers of international students and staff and research collaborations etc) then having people around (even better being the person) who has direct experience of different cultures is almost essential. Companies dealing with customers or suppliers in the rest of Europe will have need of people with expertise in European law, just as their customers and suppliers will need the services of people with expertise in UK law, and how do people get that expertise without studying and working in the EU (and letting EU citizens study here)?
And, that's even without considering that some people may simply want to live somewhere with guaranteed sun, or a culture where they can sit in a wine bar for a quiet drink without dealing with drunken yobs.
Love.
Not unrelated (though not strictly EU) my older sister has just moved to Norway to take up an assistant professorship.
IIRC, Jacob Rees-Mogg (whilst he was still a power in the land) asked readers of the Sun for a list, but I don't think it was ever published.
To a point, though the effect of this was somewhat exaggerated by Blair's decision in 2004 to open borders to the 8 EU ascension countries at the time. Though this has often worked the other way, the "Sick man of Europe" was a powerful incentive to join the European project to start with, and "Auf Wiedersehen, Pet" was based on an actual social phenomena of the time. Ironically, one could make a powerful argument that it was being part of the European project that made the UK richer.
In the 1970s where the UK economy was struggling opportunities for people to work elsewhere in Europe reduced the costs to the government of providing them with services (and, often dole and other welfare payments) and put money into the economy as a portion of wages earned elsewhere were paid back to families at home (overall, there probably were some who spent all their income but many did send money home). Then in 2004 opening the borders to the new EU countries allowed a lot of people to come into the country to fill job vacancies and boosting the economy - just as Germany etc in the 1970s got economic benefit from migrants from the UK filling jobs and paying taxes and not putting significant strain on health and education services.
I was off the market when I did erasmus back in the dim distant past but I think it a great shame for students not to have the wonderful opportunity to learn in a European context
Absolutely.
And it's not just people who meet on the Erasmus scheme who fall in love across countries.
If you know any Brits married to a non-Brit, ask them about the challenges of getting settled status / citizenship for their spouse.
There are lots of reasons why people might choose to live in another country. Free movement made it very much easier to do so.
AFZ
Not that I particularly want to. But it grates that I can't.
(FWIW I would be able to go to the UK with my son. But there's no way for my husband to get a visa on our current income.)
If the US imposes higher tariffs on the EU, but not on the UK, would that be ...
a) A significant benefit that helps to show why leaving the EU was the right thing to do
b) A small benefit that is outweighed by the costs of Brexit
c) Nothing to do with Brexit one way or the other
d) Don't know.
I'm curious as to who commissioned this question from YouGov and what news story will be generated by it. If a story appears stating that a high percentage of British people think there are "significant benefits" to Brexit, based on people ticking a) I will be deeply unimpressed.
I felt I couldn't answer c) because obviously our not being part of the EU has something to do with Brexit, but both a) and b) include the word "benefit"
I went for d).
I can confidently state that when the pro-Brexit politicians were forecasting sunny uplands, none were suggesting we should leave the EU to get a better deal in the event of a tariff war with America.
Especially as it leaves out the possibility that it would be both related to Brexit and actually bad for the UK.
As to who commissioned it, just wait for the new stories, I expect.
This trade in steel confuses me. I know that there are different 'grades' of steel but why would steel producers want to import steel ?
Because some of those types of steel require specialised equipment that aren't dual use, or special techniques that may be part trade secret and may take a long time to develop.
Add to that, steel production requires raw materials, iron ore and coke, and in many rich nations (eg: UK) the economically extractable reserves of those materials are small and so if the UK was to reintroduce large scale steel production we'd also need to import iron ore and coke (or, mine the remaining domestic reserves at greater cost than costs for mining in other nations), adding yet more to costs. The historic heavy industry in the UK was a result of there being significant reserves of ores and coal within the UK, and as these were worked out supplemented by imports from Empire. That situation has changed massively, and the changes aren't going to be reversed.
Isn't that the whole point of tariffs - to make steel produced elsewhere more expensive thus removing the inability for domestic producers to compete on price, which leads to more customers buying locally, which in turn provides the market and finances for domestic producers to increase their output to meet domestic need?
And raises the prices for end users of the product of course as now British manufacturers using steel will pay higher prices.* They will then have to pass them onto consumers. This means they won't be able to sell any of their product out of the country because the European competitors who bought the European steel can sell their product more cheaply. So now you also have a worse trade deficit.
*Just because European steel is more expensive doesn't make British steel any cheaper.
(The second notice addresses category 1 steel - non-alloy and other alloy hot-rolled sheet and strip - which became category 1A and a new category 1B was introduced, being "Category 1 steel products used for downstream processing into other product categories".)
The short version of the UK Steel industry's position is that they want the UK government to reduce the quotas: Part of the background to this is the significant amount of overcapacity in the global steel industry, detailed in the notes to the UK Steel statement:
There are probably some kinds of strategic resources you want to maintain a minimum of capacity for (and perhaps rapid expansion capacity) even if you need to subsidise those industries.
Perhaps. But those industries might also include coal mining, oil and gas for military aircraft, tanks and ships and perhaps even nuclear reactors and reprocessing plants for... purposes. We might find these "strategic investments" difficult to embrace.
True. But there's an argument that outsourcing steel production to countries that have lower wages and poor or nonexistent worker safety legislation just so that our own consumers can continue to pay artificially low prices is a strategy that was always going to fail sooner or later - be it through deteriorating political relationships with those countries or simply because those countries end up improving worker safety and remuneration, driving up prices - and that when that happens we'll be left either without access to raw steel or paying the same high prices anyway but without a manufacturing sector to prop up our economy.
It's possible that we may be seeing the first signs of the end of globalisation and a return to national self-sufficiency, especially in those countries that still retain a meaningful manufacturing sector. If a country can produce all the steel it needs without generating too much of a surplus then it won't need to either buy or sell steel from or to anywhere else.
And that would be a disaster. Autarky is not a way to improve standards of living either globally or in one country. It's especially annoying to see parties that used to understand this abandon their free-trade credentials. If different parts of the world have competitive advantage in specialising it is in everyone's economic interest to do so and then trade. This is Economics 101 surely.
In addition to countermeasures announced on 12 March, the EU indicated yesterday that it will reduce import quotas on steel by a further 15% to prevent inflows of cheap steel flooding the European market. UK Steel is still hoping for similar action from the UK government, issuing a new statement yesterday regarding the EU's latest actions:
But certainly anyone who has lived in an imperial center like England or the USA should realize that a lot of things we all take for granted come from other places. And that, historically speaking, massive wars have been fought over the fact that we could save a lot of money by getting goods from other places instead of domestically.
And I always thought the one good argument for open trade was that it discouraged war. It's not wise to shoot your trading partners in the face.
But I guess some folks are tired of peace?
We are going to have to relearn the cruel, costly lessons of the 20th century in the 21st, and I don't think they're going to get cheaper.
Plus...competition means more, smaller mines in more places, which means more resource consumption, which means more combustion, which means more climate change.
I'd really like to stop continuing in a way of life that screws over my still-hypothetical grandchildren. I feel bad enough for my kids as it is.
If so that will be a tragedy for the countries who stop cooperating, perhaps like mine. The ones who work together will be strong and happy while the others will be poorer and worse off. We can't all do everything. We work with other countries and trade with them to share resources.
And I am surprised at you, Marvin, for wanting to go back to 'national self-sufficiency.' Don't you know that the (lone) economist in favour of Brexit approved on the grounds that it would destroy the remains of our heavy industry?