Brexit.

[seafoid]

https://www.ft.com/content/a70274ea-2ab9-11e9-88a4-c32129756dd8

   The Brexit delusion of creating 'Singapore upon Thames'
Promoting a small Asian city-state as a model for Britain is magical thinking
      
         Martin Wolf
         Singapore is not a laissez faire paradise © Bloomberg

         Inside two months, the UK might have crashed out of the EU into a "no deal" limbo. What happens then? For some Brexiters, the answer seems to be to blame this disaster on the EU and then turn the UK into Singapore, or what they imagine Singapore to be. These people are right on one thing: Singapore has been a great economic success. But it is not a laissez faire paradise. On the contrary, its success has been built on hard work, forced sacrifices and a (relatively benign) authoritarianism. We should learn from Singapore, but must not think it a plausible model for the UK's future.Of the economic successes of the UK's former colony, there is no doubt. By 1980, Singapore's real gross domestic product per head had converged on the UK's. By 2018, it was more than twice as high.

According to the IMF, Singapore's real GDP per head is fourth in the world (after Qatar, Macau and Luxembourg).As a city-state with a tiny domestic market, Singapore's future lay in attracting foreign multinationals and skills. With no domestic market to speak of, free trade was an obvious choice. But free trade is not laissez faire. Singapore promoted new industries. It continues to have large shareholdings via Temasek, its sovereign wealth fund. Singapore has exploited a superb location in the fast-growing Asian region, its increasingly high-quality workforce and low taxes to turn itself into a premier hub for international business. But it has also participated actively in regional integration via the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Crucially, the reliability of Singapore's "offer" to the world is underpinned by the fact that just one highly competent governing party has ruled it throughout its history as an independent country.Among complementary explanations for Singapore's fast growth is that it invests so much: between 2008 and 2018, it invested an average of 29 per cent of GDP, while the UK invested a mere 17 per cent. This also helps explain why Singapore's infrastructure is exceptional. Singapore had a staggering savings rate of 47 per cent of GDP in those years, against the UK's miserable 12 per cent.

Singapore's gross savings rates are heavily distorted by inclusion of the profits of multinationals. Yet even savings rates in "indigenous GDP" have been around 30 per cent.One explanation for these high savings is the "central provident fund", which compels workers and employers to contribute 37 per cent of wages and salaries up to age 55. People use this money for house purchases, health and pensions: it is Singapore's alternative to a redistributive welfare state. Another explanation is fiscal surpluses: between 2008 and 2018, these averaged 5 per cent of GDP. Amazingly, Singapore's net international assets reached 340 per cent of gross national income in 2017.
How can anybody imagine this is a credible model for Brexit Britain? Far from being able to offer stability to global businesses, the UK is busily blowing up the basis on which many of them came to the UK. Far from guaranteeing favourable access to its most important regional economic arrangement, the UK is leaving it, possibly without any deal at all. And, far from being a city-state of 5.6m people, the UK is a geographically, socially and politically diverse democratic polity of 66m. Its future should not — and will not — be determined by people and businesses enticed by turning it into nothing more than a haven of low taxation and light regulation.

That cannot stand.It would be wrong to argue that the UK lacks everything Singapore possesses. Its civil service is non-corrupt, for example, and the rule of law remains entrenched. It would be quite wrong, too, to argue that the UK is unable to learn a great deal from Singapore. Indeed, it would be a good idea for the UK to learn from successes elsewhere. A determined effort to raise abysmally low savings and investment rates, improve infrastructure and transform educational standards, all hallmarks of Singapore's development, would be highly desirable. Singapore has also raised home ownership to an extraordinary rate of 91 per cent. All these are achievements from which the UK could seek to learn. But they also demand difficult political choices and sacrifices.The idea that eliminating tariffs and regulations and slashing taxes will deliver broadly-shared prosperity in post-Brexit Britain is a fantasy. The Singapore example is far more complex and nuanced than that. The two economies and polities are starting from quite different places, with different histories and different possibilities. To believe otherwise is magical thinking. To inflict magical thinking on the lives of real people is an unforgivable political sin.

[seafoid]

https://www.ft.com/content/7a7782c8-2f8f-11e9-ba00-0251022932c8

The Bank of England has cut its forecast for 2019. The slowdown, Philip Hammond, the chancellor, admits, reflects paralysing uncertainty. Business leaders talk privately of a collapse of confidence. The carmaker Nissan's decision to cancel investment is the tip of the iceberg. Executives are told by Whitehall officials that the government is powerless to cushion the impact of a no-deal Brexit. Then they are instructed to keep quiet.The anxieties spread beyond growth and jobs. The police and security services risk losing access to data about terrorists and criminal gangs. Arrangements for the detention and return of criminal suspects face suspension. British residents in the EU27 have no guarantees as to their rights of residence or access to health and welfare services. Those suffering from chronic illnesses fear that supplies of imported medicines will be disrupted. This panic has been designed and manufactured in 10 Downing Street to advance the prime minister's attempt to win support for a settlement with the EU27 already rejected decisively by the House of Commons

[Denn Forever]

Does Ziggy have to plan for his drug now?

[LCohen]

I'm not asking you to cost it. But if haven't costed it and can't point to anyone else who had then don't just make the assumption that it will be ticketyboo

- The A5 is stopped because of court challenges. Its a fair assumption at this point that one or two sums into how much it might cost have been done.
- There was investigations into buying high(er) speed stock for the Dublin-Belfast service. I know they were done. I can only assume that pricing was a part of the work done, hardly unrealistic.
- The York road junction is in court based on challenges to the tender decision. Something that has already been costed.

- I don't know of anything done on the other road links mentioned, but I haven't looked into it. They are not unrealistic, indeed, they are quite logical actions that a government of a UI would look into in the near term future. Can you provide a solid reason why any of the proposed developments would not be undertaken?


[If you are wondering where money would come from - do you really think the EU would not think it in their best interest to invest heavily in uplifting infrastructure here to try and avoid degeneration into violence?]

Come back to me when the total cost has been worked out and available for public scrutiny and you have done the deal with the EU. Though I think they have a lot of eastern priorities

[LCohen]

I don't assume that UK will always fit the bill. I know that there is government research ongoing to see how NI could be weaned off the subvention but it's a very long term play.

But funding NI out of an economy the size of RoI is a different league to doing so from UK. There are certainly negatives in both economies that would give cause for concern over the coming years

If the UK defaults - then the ROI being able to foot 50% of the bill* is better than the UK's 0. Its all relative.

*and that 50% would decrease fast. Who needs thousands of civil servants that sit around doing f**k all... maybe they are busy counting the moon and make some paperwork about how they counted it. The Irish govt would also be more likely to be able to strong arm the educational systems together for savings.

Hinging a lot on UK defaulting. Where does the idea of UK default meaning zero ability to fund NI come from?

Even in a UI scenario you will need a NI civil service to support the executive, stormont, local government etc etc. You will need to more work on the level of efficiency that is feasible

[seafoid]

The arc of the Shinners compared to the Tory vortex

From blanket protests in the Hblocks in 1981
to mid morning ITV in 2019 to talk to the beautiful thin people

No shit.

Thatcherism is in meltdown

https://youtu.be/ay2wRTwkcFE

[RedHand88]

The arc of the Shinners compared to the Tory vortex

From blanket protests in the Hblocks in 1981
to mid morning ITV in 2019 to talk to the beautiful thin people

No shit.

Thatcherism is in meltdown

https://youtu.be/ay2wRTwkcFE

There's no doubt the appointment of Mary Lou has widened the audience of Sinn Fein.
Would Gerry have been invited onto a British morning chat show?

[playwiththewind1st]

Probably too much trouble,  especially having to get an actor to voice his words at 1 stage.

[RadioGAAGAA]

Come back to me when the total cost has been worked out and available for public scrutiny

F88k off you p***k and wise the head.

Like there is gonna be hundreds of thousands of pounds spent on scoping out jobs for you on an internet forum.

[RadioGAAGAA]

Hinging a lot on UK defaulting.

Would be extremely likely (>95%) when there would be a run on the pound coupled with GDP dropping off a cliff.

Where does the idea of UK default meaning zero ability to fund NI come from?

Not zero, but compared to the money pit it is, cutbacks will be the stuff of nightmares for the CI.

Even in a UI scenario you will need a NI civil service to support the executive, stormont, local government etc etc. You will need to more work on the level of efficiency that is feasible

Why would there still be an executive* and stormont** and even local government?

*sure as hell, no one would argue if they immediately stopping funding the current non-sitting one.
**ditto

It'd all pulled under the same structure as the Irish civil service. Hopefully many of the non-front line wasters would have to re-apply for roles.


Anyway, enough of me trying to justify common sense to you. You go prove how NI would be better under the UK govt than a Dublin govt in the event of no-deal.

[LCohen]

Come back to me when the total cost has been worked out and available for public scrutiny

F88k off you p***k and wise the head.

Like there is gonna be hundreds of thousands of pounds spent on scoping out jobs for you on an internet forum.

Who has even asked you or anybody else to spend a cent for this forum?

All I ask is that if someone says there is an economic argument for a UI that they make it or point to it? Likewise if there is an economic argument that makes it more likely or more viable due to Brexit

If there is no serious analysis to point to then what are the arguments based upon?

[LCohen]

Hinging a lot on UK defaulting.

Would be extremely likely (>95%) when there would be a run on the pound coupled with GDP dropping off a cliff.

Where does the idea of UK default meaning zero ability to fund NI come from?

Not zero, but compared to the money pit it is, cutbacks will be the stuff of nightmares for the CI.

Even in a UI scenario you will need a NI civil service to support the executive, stormont, local government etc etc. You will need to more work on the level of efficiency that is feasible

Why would there still be an executive* and stormont** and even local government?

*sure as hell, no one would argue if they immediately stopping funding the current non-sitting one.
**ditto

It'd all pulled under the same structure as the Irish civil service. Hopefully many of the non-front line wasters would have to re-apply for roles.


Anyway, enough of me trying to justify common sense to you. You go prove how NI would be better under the UK govt than a Dublin govt in the event of no-deal.

Likelihood of UK default running >95%. Show me the workings on that one?

Some serious questions need to be asked as to why international media are not covering this impending doom

The zero funding for NI was your figure. I quote it back to you and you disown it.

There would be an executive and a stormont because the GB government would never agree to their removal in a UI scenario

Anyway I don't need to prove anything today. The burden of proof lies with those trying to change the status quo. Though I do agree that if a serious argument was made that a UI was economically viable then that would be a game changer (a UI would be close to inevitable in those circumstances) and anyone arguing for something other than UI would then see the burden of proof transfer to them.

Still plenty of room for civilised debate in the meantime eh??

[armaghniac]

All I ask is that if someone says there is an economic argument for a UI that they make it or point to it? Likewise if there is an economic argument that makes it more likely or more viable due to Brexit

The economic case for a UI is that the 6 counties falls further behind the rest of the island each year. That case is improved by Brexit because Brexit will damage the NI economy and likely reduce transfer payments also as it will damage the whole UK.

Really, these facts are not in dispute by anyone other than the DUP. The only useful debate is about the significant problems that exist getting from here to there.

[seafoid]

UK  default is based on

1 current account deficit = buying groceries on the credit card
2 No deals
3 counties lining up to shaft the U.K. in negotiations
4 the EU can shut down the U.K. if it wants .

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/07/no-deal-brexit-medieval-siege-eu-britain-industries
If they go ahead with Brexit it is over

[LCohen]

UK  default is based on

1 current account deficit = buying groceries on the credit card
2 No deals
3 counties lining up to shaft the U.K. in negotiations
4 the EU can shut down the U.K. if it wants .

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/07/no-deal-brexit-medieval-siege-eu-britain-industries
If they go ahead with Brexit it is over

As an ardent remainer I find the article chilling. For me it sets out a series of risks that no sane person would willingly subject their economy to. That said it's an article that projects a series of worst case scenario events and says they will all happen in combination. It's intent (quite reasonably) is to scare the life out of anyone with the power to prevent a no deal Brexit. It's intent is not to present an evidenced impact analysis hence the lack of numbers