Brexit

Started by Imconfused, June 22, 2016, 01:58:16 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

VtaGeezer

Quote from: Meatie Pie on June 24, 2016, 01:26:28 PM
Presuming you are American you ought to be able to spot their hypocrisy ... being a product of the special brand of imperialism, a recipient of their high and hard rogerings, that they delivered for 400 years.

But really it's not even that. It's that the sun never sets on the British Empire. They must always be granted some exemption to whatever everyone else is dealing with.
The centuries of Euro imperialism was not a time of saints, but to their credit, the English left a legacy of stable democracy, rule of law, and rights in almost all of their colonies.

JesusJuice

Quote from: TigerLily on June 24, 2016, 09:20:39 AM
Wow. I had no idea Bellgab was so full of people who are so passionate about international political economics.  Just to help with the celebratory mood, I found this fascinating article I'm sure all of you who care so deeply about the ramifications and consequences of Brexit

I would have posted this in the International Ecomics thread but couldn't find it  ??? 

So the following article takes care of the shitty economic things As far as the shitty rules Don't worry all you Political Science junkies.  I found a great article for you too.  I would post it in the European Union Political Policies thread but couldn't find that either :-\ . Must have a different title   Stand By.   :D

And Congratulations on your awesome Win. I'm sure your British brethren would be touched and thrilled by your deep concern for their welfare. Britain First!  :D :D   :D

Abstract
This study suggests UK equivalent variation (EV) gains of â,¬8.9 billion on withdrawal from the EU budget. Factoring in associated trade facilitation costs from the loss of UK access to the single market, annual UK EV losses could be as high as â,¬14.0 billion, with the EU-28 facing a corresponding loss of â,¬40.4 billion. Interestingly, the extrapolated UK gain arising from withdrawal from the ‘CAP’ component of the EU budget exceeds estimated lower and upper bound trade facilitation costs exclusively on EU agrofood trade. Accordingly, the UK should realistically remain as an EU member, although continue to lobby for reductions in the CAP budget.



1 Introduction
In May 2015, the UK Conservative party won a general election and Prime Minister, David Cameron, has pledged a renegotiation of the UK/EU relationship, which is to be put to an ‘inâ€"out’ referendum by the end of 2017. Fuelled by the current sway of UK public opinion,2 the real possibility of a Brexit3 is already under the spotlight (CER, 2014; Swinbank, 2014; Matthews, 2015). For the UK, a Brexit presents a trade-off between reduced single market access in exchange for greater freedom from the regulatory, legal and fiscal obligations which accompany EU membership. In this context, CER (2014) and Matthews (2015) concur that a free trade area (FTA) would be the optimal strategy for the UK government to pursue.4 The loss of single market access associated with an FTA would be accompanied by a rise in trade costs to both partners with the re-introduction of customs controls, border checks and emerging certification and regulatory divergences between EU and UK authorities. Matthews (2015) also maintains that an open economy such as the UK would not favour rises in existing EU common external tariffs (CETs), whilst one can only speculate on the time frame or magnitude of any hypothesised tariff reductions. Interestingly, Matthews (2015) also observes that, ‘Filling (the) gap in the EU budget (from UK withdrawal) would require either expenditure reductions or larger contributions by the remaining member states’.

In the light of the remark about the possible end of the romance between the EU and the UK by the European Commission's President, Claude Juncker,5 we assess quantitatively both the budgetary and macro-economic impacts for EU Member States from the establishment of a UK-EU FTA. Under such uncertainty, the paper does not consider changes to the UK's import tariff structure, although sensitivity analysis is conducted in relation to the expected rise in trade costs.


2 Methodology and Data
The current paper follows the computable general equilibrium (CGE) methodology and data employed in Boulanger and Philippidis (2015).6 Time series data by Member State are taken from the Clearance Audit Trail System (CATS) database of the European Commission which includes an inventory of all Pillar 1 and 2 agricultural support payments and full coverage of Pillar 2 co-financing rates by Member State. These data are employed to recalibrate version 8.1 of the Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP) dataset benchmarked to 2007 and implement a detailed ‘CAP baseline’ (see next section). To complete the EU budget, historical and projected data on total EU budgetary expenditure (i.e. cohesion policy, fisheries, etc.) by Member State are taken from EC (2015a,b). A perceived advantage of a multi-region CGE representation is that within a theoretically consistent microâ€"macro system, one can fully measure the economy-wide feedback effects resulting from (i) changing net income flows arising from projected expenditures from, and endogenous Member State contributions (or ‘own resources’) to, the EU budget, and (ii) the disruption to gross bilateral trade flows from reduced trade facilitation. To this end, the Modular Agricultural GeNeral Equilibrium Tool (MAGNET) (Woltjer and Kuiper, 2014) is employed, incorporating state-of-the-art modelling for agricultural sectors. This study modifies the accounting equations to differentiate between Pillar 1 (i.e. ‘decoupled’; ‘coupled direct payments’; ‘market measures’; ‘additional direct transfers’; ‘other EAGF payments’; ‘agri-monetary transfers’); Pillar 2 (Axis 1â€"3; Leader; technical assistance) and an aggregate of EU policy (non-CAP) receipts. Furthermore, as noted, further modelling modifications are made to accommodate ‘own resources’, the UK rebate and the ‘rebates on the rebate’.7


3 Aggregation, Closure and Scenario Design
The study disaggregates 10 EU members which constitute 80% of CAP spending (France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Poland, Romania, Spain and the UK) whilst a further five EU members are disaggregated (Austria, Denmark, Netherlands, Sweden and Croatia) to explicitly model the rebate mechanisms and Croatia's accession. The remaining EU members are aggregated, whilst residual trade and production flows are captured within a rest of the world region. The sectorial aggregation focuses on five broad sectors: agriculture (cereals, oilseeds, other crops, livestock, raw sugar and milk); food activities (meat, dairy, processed sugar, other food processing); manufacturing; services and raw materials. Neoclassical model closure equates withdrawals (savings and imports) with injections (investment and exports), whilst in the EU regions this accounting identity is modified to include payments to (i.e. withdrawals), and receipts from (i.e. injections), the EU budget.

A ‘business-as-usual’ (BAU) scenario covers two time periods (2007â€"2013 and 2013â€"2020) which reconcile the multiannual financial framework (MFF) with Croatia's accession to the EU. Furthermore, under article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, upon notifying the EU of an intention to withdraw membership, an exit agreement must be drawn up within a 2-year period. Thus, at the earliest, a Brexit would not occur before 2020 (Matthews, 2015). Following Boulanger and Philippidis (2015), in the first period (2007â€"2013), historical data are employed to calculate shocks to capture changes in real GDP, population, land productivity, EU CAP and non-CAP related receipts, whilst EU tariffs are unilaterally removed under the Everything But Arms (EBA) agreement.8 The second period (2013â€"2020) employs projected data shocks for real GDP, population and land productivities, whilst in accordance with the 2013 political agreement (European Council, 2013), Pillar 1 and 2 payment cuts of 13% and 18% are imposed. Non-CAP payments by Member State for 2020 are based on projected data for the EU-28.9 As a new member of the EU, Croatia's imports are also subject to the EBA agreement; all EU-Croatian tariffs are eliminated, the EU CET is extended to Croatia, and non-EU country tariffs on Croatian exports are targeted to the average applied rates on EU-27 exports.

In addition to the BAU shocks, scenario 1 examines a UK nationalisation of existing agricultural and non-agricultural payments whilst under conditions of a UK-EU FTA, assuming that intra-EU tariffs remain at zero, and that the UK continues to adopt the EU CET on extra-EU trade imports. An additional two scenarios contemplate associated increases in trade costs on all trade. A literature review conducted by Francois et al. (2005) reveals cost savings from trade facilitation within the EU of between 2% and 5% of the value of trade (p. 361). Hornok and Koren (2015) concur, suggesting EU trade facilitation costs of 5%. Accordingly, scenarios 2 and 3 assume trade cost increases of 2% (lower limit) and 5% (upper limit), modelled as ‘iceberg’ costs.10

a final observation, agricultural and rural development related expenditures by 2020 account for approximately one-third of EU budgetary spending, which in money metric terms results in a net gain from ‘CAP budget’ withdrawal of approximately â,¬2.5 billion.17 Compared with a BAU, further simulations (not shown) reveal that by 2020, the EV cost to the UK exclusively associated with the loss of single agrofood market access, is between â,¬589 million (2% trade costs) and â,¬1.437 billion (5% trade costs).


5 Conclusions
In 2015, the EU is still feeling the economic effects of the financial crisis, which has also transformed the political landscape fuelling anti-austerity politics (e.g. Greece, Spain) and even anti-EU sentiment (e.g. UK, France). Under the conditions of a UK-EU FTA scenario, the UK could, at best, make a small real income gain, although this quickly disappears under conditions of higher assumed trade facilitation costs arising from the loss of single market access, with the UK recording an upper bound loss of 0.67% of UK per capita real income. All experiments show that economic consequences will be felt in the remaining EU-27 Member States. A similar result is obtained in a CGE study of Brexit by Ottaviano et al. (2014), where UK welfare losses range between 1.13% (‘optimistic scenario’) and 3.09% (‘pessimistic scenario’).18 The relatively large UK loss reported in their ‘pessimistic’ experiment is, at least in part, explained by the imposition of Most Favoured Nation tariffs on UK/EU trade, which is not contemplated in our scenarios.

Interestingly, narrowing our results to only encompass the agri-food trade and (extrapolated) CAP budgetary implications, reveals that this element of Brexit would be unequivocally beneficial to the UK (i.e. net gains from ‘CAP’ budget withdrawal exceed even the upper bound losses arising from trade facilitation costs on agrofood single market access).

It should be noted that with such uncertainty surrounding Brexit, one must employ reasonable scenario assumptions. Entertaining the many possible deviations from existing assumptions (e.g. UK trade policy, UK expenditure on support programmes hitherto under the auspices of the EU), or even adjacent events (i.e. TTIP, Grexit), gives rise to numerous hypothetical outcomes, which go beyond the scope of this study. Notwithstanding, in macro-economic terms, the consensus seems to favour continued membership of the EU, although the stance traditionally taken by the UK government for a smaller CAP budget, appears to be justified.

End of a Romance? A Note on the Quantitative Impacts of a ‘Brexit’ from the EU

Pierre Boulanger andGeorge Philippidis†
Version of Record online: 18 AUG 2015

DOI: 10.1111/1477-9552.12120

© 2015 The Agricultural Economics Society


tl;dr  :-*

Quote from: TigerLily on June 24, 2016, 09:20:39 AM
Wow. I had no idea Bellgab was so full of people who are so passionate about international political economics. 

I'm gonna have to read a few more tweets before I declare myself an expert on this EU and Brexit thing.

ItsOver

Quote from: MV on June 24, 2016, 01:29:14 PM
i actually like texas in a lot of ways, but the state sucks when it comes to personal liberties ...
For sure.  Take Montrose, for example.


Lilith

Quote from: TigerLily on June 24, 2016, 01:46:07 PM
Don't forget Arizona.  Por Favor. California should remain. I need gardening and housecleaning done

Nice!  How much are you paying?  I have quite a few younger, hard working friends who are looking for a good living wage, and willing to relocate.

Dateline

Is this good or bad and why?

I fear an increased Muslim presence in British politics and this is at odds with many of our beliefs and outlooks.  Just last week or two, I read that the newly elected Muslim official in London official held a meeting or public speech, and all of the women were ordered to the back. 

With uncertainty on the future of Briton it could go either way. 

Have our British voices of reason fed into this on this thread and what their thoughts are on this?

chefist

Quote from: TigerLily on June 24, 2016, 01:46:07 PM
Don't forget Arizona.  Por Favor. California should remain. I need gardening and housecleaning done

I live in Arizona...I would be happy to be in a completely different country than people like you.

Imconfused

Quote from: bateman on June 24, 2016, 12:58:06 PM
http://youtu.be/Ia4UXNq0RLk

Not fit to survive.  I hope she doesn't have children.  Wow how can anybody be this brainwashed. 

chefist

Quote from: Imconfused on June 24, 2016, 03:49:12 PM
Not fit to survive.  I hope she doesn't have children.  Wow how can anybody be this brainwashed.

Imagine this pathetic wimp in WWII...she would have been rightfully ostracized by the population of England...glad they left the EU...

K_Dubb

Quote from: Imconfused on June 24, 2016, 03:49:12 PM
Not fit to survive.  I hope she doesn't have children.  Wow how can anybody be this brainwashed.

Much of Europe is this way.  Nationalists, fascists and racists are grouped together on such a small sliver to the far right of the political spectrum that they can't be bothered to discriminate.  You should have seen the national orgy of hand-wringing and self-flagellation in Sweden caused by a right-wing party winning maybe 13% of the vote a couple years ago.

Imconfused

Sweden is a rape capital of Europe,  but not to worry,  Germany will catch up soon.


VtaGeezer

Some say sterling has another 10% to fall.  UK exports are going to take off like a rocket.  Time to book that vacation in England too.

ItsOver

Quote from: chefist on June 24, 2016, 03:53:21 PM
Imagine this pathetic wimp in WWII...she would have been rightfully ostracized by the population of England...glad they left the EU...
Pathetic wimp is right.  Too bad George Patton is long gone.  I'd have paid to see him slap her silly.


K_Dubb

Quote from: Imconfused on June 24, 2016, 04:17:35 PM
Sweden is a rape capital of Europe,  but not to worry,  Germany will catch up soon.

The thing is, the state has done a great job of raising a generation or two of genuinely altruistic humanists, at least among the university-educated city folk.  I can't deny the virtue of it all even while I wonder whether it can survive prolonged contact with cultures closer to man's natural state.

chefist

Quote from: ItsOver on June 24, 2016, 04:23:31 PM
Pathetic wimp is right.  Too bad George Patton is long gone.  I'd have paid to see him slap her silly.



Oh no doubt...when the wolf comes these sheep will lay down and die...I won't...

chefist

Quote from: VtaGeezer on June 24, 2016, 04:22:40 PM
Some say sterling has another 10% to fall.  UK exports are going to take off like a rocket.  Time to book that vacation in England too.

Absolutely! I'm seriously considering buying a ticket and going for a week!

aldousburbank

Quote from: Mind Flayer Monk on June 24, 2016, 02:48:26 PM
I'm gonna have to read a few more tweets before I declare myself an expert on this EU and Brexit thing.

Here lies brilliance.

Quote from: chefist on June 24, 2016, 04:28:57 PM
Oh no doubt...when the wolf comes these sheep will lay down and die...I won't...

I don't get why people would want to be bound to a faceless bureaucracy in Brussels that cannot be held accountable.  I guess some would rather be slaves than be free.

Imconfused

Quote from: K_Dubb on June 24, 2016, 04:27:23 PM
The thing is, the state has done a great job of raising a generation or two of genuinely altruistic humanists, at least among the university-educated city folk.  I can't deny the virtue of it all even while I wonder whether it can survive prolonged contact with cultures closer to man's natural state.

It's pathological altruism and it'll bite us in the ass.

Quote from: 21st Century Man on June 24, 2016, 04:38:45 PM
I don't get why people would want to be bound to a faceless bureaucracy in Brussels that cannot be held accountable.  I guess some would rather be slaves than be free.

Europe has been on this path for decades. Look at the culture that's been cultivated across Europe. It would make the tongue in cheek sex, drugs, and rock n roll glam rockers of the 70s blush. I've talked with and observed many British and Europeans today, and many simply can't imagine having to face difficulty or struggle for themselves or their country. They have been absolutely anesthetized to want the easy option, it's complacency and decadence. This is why the notion of independence, of working and saying bye to socialism and welfare is upsetting to so many of them. This is what happens when people don't work, don't foster their own ambition, don't control the course of their lives. They don't want freedom, they just don't want to be bothered. They don't care the EU is unelected, unaccountable, and building itself into a tyranny. And when it comes crashing down on their heads (see Greece) they blame everyone but themselves. It is a shame but the same mentally is growing here in America too.

Quote from: TheMan WhoFell ToEarth on June 24, 2016, 04:47:34 PM
Europe has been on this path for decades. Look at the culture that's been cultivated across Europe. It would make the tongue in cheek sex, drugs, and rock n roll glam rockers of the 70s blush. I've talked with and observed many British and Europeans today, and many simply can't imagine having to face difficulty or struggle for themselves or their country. They have been absolutely anesthetized to want the easy option, it's complacency and decadence. This is why the notion of independence, of working and saying bye to socialism and welfare is upsetting to so many of them. This is what happens when people don't work, don't foster their own ambition, don't control the course of their lives. They don't want freedom, they just don't want to be bothered. They don't care the EU is unelected, unaccountable, and building itself into a tyranny. And when it comes crashing down on their heads (see Greece) they blame everyone but themselves. It is a shame but the same mentally is growing here in America too.

Well said.  Yes, that mentality is growing here especially among the young.  We need more educators in our public schools and universities who believe in freedom not subservience to the state and income redistribution.

K_Dubb

Quote from: Imconfused on June 24, 2016, 04:43:18 PM
It's pathological altruism and it'll bite us in the ass.
S
Nevertheless, when my Swedish friend opens his home to a refugee family who can't speak a word of Swedish and takes afternoons off so he can shuttle them to social-service appointments, I can't help think that's what Jesus would do.  Though He probably wouldn't post about it on Facebook.

Imconfused

Quote from: K_Dubb on June 24, 2016, 04:54:45 PM
S
Nevertheless, when my Swedish friend opens his home to a refugee family who can't speak a word of Swedish and takes afternoons off so he can shuttle them to social-service appointments, I can't help think that's what Jesus would do.  Though He probably wouldn't post about it on Facebook.

Now that's not even altruism,  that's just plain stupidity.



And being dumb is trendy nowadays.




starrmtn001

Trump just said; ". . . flows across the border like Swiss cheese." 

I know what he actually means, but it came out way too funny to not - LMAO!!! ;D ;D ;D

Quote from: TigerLily on June 24, 2016, 09:20:39 AM
Wow. I had no idea Bellgab was so full of people who are so passionate about international political economics.  Just to help with the celebratory mood, I found this fascinating article I'm sure all of you who care so deeply about the ramifications and consequences of Brexit

I would have posted this in the International Ecomics thread but couldn't find it  ??? 

So the following article takes care of the shitty economic things As far as the shitty rules Don't worry all you Political Science junkies.  I found a great article for you too.  I would post it in the European Union Political Policies thread but couldn't find that either :-\. Must have a different title   Stand By.   :D

And Congratulations on your awesome Win. I'm sure your British brethren would be touched and thrilled by your deep concern for their welfare. Britain First!  :D  :D   :D

Abstract
This study suggests UK equivalent variation (EV) gains of â,¬8.9 billion on withdrawal from the EU budget. Factoring in associated trade facilitation costs from the loss of UK access to the single market, annual UK EV losses could be as high as â,¬14.0 billion, with the EU-28 facing a corresponding loss of â,¬40.4 billion. Interestingly, the extrapolated UK gain arising from withdrawal from the ‘CAP’ component of the EU budget exceeds estimated lower and upper bound trade facilitation costs exclusively on EU agrofood trade. Accordingly, the UK should realistically remain as an EU member, although continue to lobby for reductions in the CAP budget.



1 Introduction
In May 2015, the UK Conservative party won a general election and Prime Minister, David Cameron, has pledged a renegotiation of the UK/EU relationship, which is to be put to an ‘inâ€"out’ referendum by the end of 2017. Fuelled by the current sway of UK public opinion,2 the real possibility of a Brexit3 is already under the spotlight (CER, 2014; Swinbank, 2014; Matthews, 2015). For the UK, a Brexit presents a trade-off between reduced single market access in exchange for greater freedom from the regulatory, legal and fiscal obligations which accompany EU membership. In this context, CER (2014) and Matthews (2015) concur that a free trade area (FTA) would be the optimal strategy for the UK government to pursue.4 The loss of single market access associated with an FTA would be accompanied by a rise in trade costs to both partners with the re-introduction of customs controls, border checks and emerging certification and regulatory divergences between EU and UK authorities. Matthews (2015) also maintains that an open economy such as the UK would not favour rises in existing EU common external tariffs (CETs), whilst one can only speculate on the time frame or magnitude of any hypothesised tariff reductions. Interestingly, Matthews (2015) also observes that, ‘Filling (the) gap in the EU budget (from UK withdrawal) would require either expenditure reductions or larger contributions by the remaining member states’.

In the light of the remark about the possible end of the romance between the EU and the UK by the European Commission's President, Claude Juncker,5 we assess quantitatively both the budgetary and macro-economic impacts for EU Member States from the establishment of a UK-EU FTA. Under such uncertainty, the paper does not consider changes to the UK's import tariff structure, although sensitivity analysis is conducted in relation to the expected rise in trade costs.


2 Methodology and Data
The current paper follows the computable general equilibrium (CGE) methodology and data employed in Boulanger and Philippidis (2015).6 Time series data by Member State are taken from the Clearance Audit Trail System (CATS) database of the European Commission which includes an inventory of all Pillar 1 and 2 agricultural support payments and full coverage of Pillar 2 co-financing rates by Member State. These data are employed to recalibrate version 8.1 of the Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP) dataset benchmarked to 2007 and implement a detailed ‘CAP baseline’ (see next section). To complete the EU budget, historical and projected data on total EU budgetary expenditure (i.e. cohesion policy, fisheries, etc.) by Member State are taken from EC (2015a,b). A perceived advantage of a multi-region CGE representation is that within a theoretically consistent microâ€"macro system, one can fully measure the economy-wide feedback effects resulting from (i) changing net income flows arising from projected expenditures from, and endogenous Member State contributions (or ‘own resources’) to, the EU budget, and (ii) the disruption to gross bilateral trade flows from reduced trade facilitation. To this end, the Modular Agricultural GeNeral Equilibrium Tool (MAGNET) (Woltjer and Kuiper, 2014) is employed, incorporating state-of-the-art modelling for agricultural sectors. This study modifies the accounting equations to differentiate between Pillar 1 (i.e. ‘decoupled’; ‘coupled direct payments’; ‘market measures’; ‘additional direct transfers’; ‘other EAGF payments’; ‘agri-monetary transfers’); Pillar 2 (Axis 1â€"3; Leader; technical assistance) and an aggregate of EU policy (non-CAP) receipts. Furthermore, as noted, further modelling modifications are made to accommodate ‘own resources’, the UK rebate and the ‘rebates on the rebate’.7


3 Aggregation, Closure and Scenario Design
The study disaggregates 10 EU members which constitute 80% of CAP spending (France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Poland, Romania, Spain and the UK) whilst a further five EU members are disaggregated (Austria, Denmark, Netherlands, Sweden and Croatia) to explicitly model the rebate mechanisms and Croatia's accession. The remaining EU members are aggregated, whilst residual trade and production flows are captured within a rest of the world region. The sectorial aggregation focuses on five broad sectors: agriculture (cereals, oilseeds, other crops, livestock, raw sugar and milk); food activities (meat, dairy, processed sugar, other food processing); manufacturing; services and raw materials. Neoclassical model closure equates withdrawals (savings and imports) with injections (investment and exports), whilst in the EU regions this accounting identity is modified to include payments to (i.e. withdrawals), and receipts from (i.e. injections), the EU budget.

A ‘business-as-usual’ (BAU) scenario covers two time periods (2007â€"2013 and 2013â€"2020) which reconcile the multiannual financial framework (MFF) with Croatia's accession to the EU. Furthermore, under article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, upon notifying the EU of an intention to withdraw membership, an exit agreement must be drawn up within a 2-year period. Thus, at the earliest, a Brexit would not occur before 2020 (Matthews, 2015). Following Boulanger and Philippidis (2015), in the first period (2007â€"2013), historical data are employed to calculate shocks to capture changes in real GDP, population, land productivity, EU CAP and non-CAP related receipts, whilst EU tariffs are unilaterally removed under the Everything But Arms (EBA) agreement.8 The second period (2013â€"2020) employs projected data shocks for real GDP, population and land productivities, whilst in accordance with the 2013 political agreement (European Council, 2013), Pillar 1 and 2 payment cuts of 13% and 18% are imposed. Non-CAP payments by Member State for 2020 are based on projected data for the EU-28.9 As a new member of the EU, Croatia's imports are also subject to the EBA agreement; all EU-Croatian tariffs are eliminated, the EU CET is extended to Croatia, and non-EU country tariffs on Croatian exports are targeted to the average applied rates on EU-27 exports.

In addition to the BAU shocks, scenario 1 examines a UK nationalisation of existing agricultural and non-agricultural payments whilst under conditions of a UK-EU FTA, assuming that intra-EU tariffs remain at zero, and that the UK continues to adopt the EU CET on extra-EU trade imports. An additional two scenarios contemplate associated increases in trade costs on all trade. A literature review conducted by Francois et al. (2005) reveals cost savings from trade facilitation within the EU of between 2% and 5% of the value of trade (p. 361). Hornok and Koren (2015) concur, suggesting EU trade facilitation costs of 5%. Accordingly, scenarios 2 and 3 assume trade cost increases of 2% (lower limit) and 5% (upper limit), modelled as ‘iceberg’ costs.10

a final observation, agricultural and rural development related expenditures by 2020 account for approximately one-third of EU budgetary spending, which in money metric terms results in a net gain from ‘CAP budget’ withdrawal of approximately â,¬2.5 billion.17 Compared with a BAU, further simulations (not shown) reveal that by 2020, the EV cost to the UK exclusively associated with the loss of single agrofood market access, is between â,¬589 million (2% trade costs) and â,¬1.437 billion (5% trade costs).


5 Conclusions
In 2015, the EU is still feeling the economic effects of the financial crisis, which has also transformed the political landscape fuelling anti-austerity politics (e.g. Greece, Spain) and even anti-EU sentiment (e.g. UK, France). Under the conditions of a UK-EU FTA scenario, the UK could, at best, make a small real income gain, although this quickly disappears under conditions of higher assumed trade facilitation costs arising from the loss of single market access, with the UK recording an upper bound loss of 0.67% of UK per capita real income. All experiments show that economic consequences will be felt in the remaining EU-27 Member States. A similar result is obtained in a CGE study of Brexit by Ottaviano et al. (2014), where UK welfare losses range between 1.13% (‘optimistic scenario’) and 3.09% (‘pessimistic scenario’).18 The relatively large UK loss reported in their ‘pessimistic’ experiment is, at least in part, explained by the imposition of Most Favoured Nation tariffs on UK/EU trade, which is not contemplated in our scenarios.

Interestingly, narrowing our results to only encompass the agri-food trade and (extrapolated) CAP budgetary implications, reveals that this element of Brexit would be unequivocally beneficial to the UK (i.e. net gains from ‘CAP’ budget withdrawal exceed even the upper bound losses arising from trade facilitation costs on agrofood single market access).

It should be noted that with such uncertainty surrounding Brexit, one must employ reasonable scenario assumptions. Entertaining the many possible deviations from existing assumptions (e.g. UK trade policy, UK expenditure on support programmes hitherto under the auspices of the EU), or even adjacent events (i.e. TTIP, Grexit), gives rise to numerous hypothetical outcomes, which go beyond the scope of this study. Notwithstanding, in macro-economic terms, the consensus seems to favour continued membership of the EU, although the stance traditionally taken by the UK government for a smaller CAP budget, appears to be justified.

End of a Romance? A Note on the Quantitative Impacts of a ‘Brexit’ from the EU

Pierre Boulanger andGeorge Philippidis†
Version of Record online: 18 AUG 2015

DOI: 10.1111/1477-9552.12120

© 2015 The Agricultural Economics Society

Obviously you read every word of this article and not just the first paragraph, otherwise it would have been silly to cite. Please summarize and explain all of it to us and why it's a counter point to what I said.


Imconfused

Quote from: VoteQuimby on June 24, 2016, 05:32:39 PM
Obviously you read every word of this article and not just the first paragraph, otherwise it would have been silly to cite. Please summarize and explain all of it to us and why it's a counter point to what I said.

Please don't.

Thank you.

coaster

Msnbc just reported on lindsey lohan's twitter reaction about brexit. Wtf.

bateman

Quote from: coaster on June 24, 2016, 05:56:44 PM
Msnbc just reported on lindsey lohan's twitter reaction about brexit. Wtf.

She's always happy when the sun is shinning

https://twitter.com/lindsaylohan/status/746413856746934272

Powered by SMFPacks Menu Editor Mod