Nov 2016 - NES outsells PS1 (JP)

Don't Play Stationary 4 ever. Switch!

Around the Network
JRPGfan said:
AsGryffynn said:

Same reason I want the US off the podium: it might be crap at the start, but depending on a single benefactor is never a good sign. I want to be able to say "well, I don't like it! F*** you!" and look for someone else. 

You realise that you cant just always go trade with other people right?
Others might not want the goods you sell, or not value them as much as your current partners do.
Also theres the logistics of it, some goods cant handle going half way around the world, if their processed in the UK, or might spoil on the trip.
This results in productiong moveing away from the UK (loss of jobs) and restructing of what it can trade/produce.

Overall its gonna have a impact, when you transition.

Thats before you have to factor in that in the EU theres alot of protections, that mean everyone that trades, do it on same terms.
In the US the UK will have to compete with lower wages, GMO crops, ect ect.

This will result in less gains pr item traded. (or lowered wages, so UK can compete)

The UK is gonna be alot poorer for its "right to choose, where it goes", because ironically the terms it had in the EU was pretty great.

Also the US had terms, when they proposed a trade deal.
From a position of strength, the US is gonna screw over the UK in any deal they make imo.

The idea was that trade partners would only constitute an small part of trade, so that if one partner was unfavorable, you could just swap them with another one with little effect. In other words, many small partners instead of monolithic trading blocks. 



It was Britain, it is America, tomorrow France and next year, the world... 

Warning: This poster has a very negative opinion of Sony and Nintendo, Idea Factory and companies Tecmo Koei, EA, BioWare, Blizzard, Treyarch, Infinity Ward, Kadokawa and Sega. If you have very positive views of these and a negative view of Microsoft or Bethesda Game Studios, AVOID ENGAGEMENT AT ALL COSTS! 

    AsGryffynn said:
    JRPGfan said:

    Also the US had terms, when they proposed a trade deal.
    From a position of strength, the US is gonna screw over the UK in any deal they make imo.

    The idea was that trade partners would only constitute an small part of trade, so that if one partner was unfavorable, you could just swap them with another one with little effect. In other words, many small partners instead of monolithic trading blocks. 

    The problem is the rest of the world doesnt play by those rules.
    Everyone thats anyone, is in a tradeing block.

    The only ones not in one, are small crappy nations that ll then get bent over, in any trade deals they do.
    The reason the tradeing blocks have members, is because it works to your benefit to be in one.
    You make deals from positions of strength, through unity.



    JRPGfan said:
    AsGryffynn said:

    The idea was that trade partners would only constitute an small part of trade, so that if one partner was unfavorable, you could just swap them with another one with little effect. In other words, many small partners instead of monolithic trading blocks. 

    The problem is the rest of the world doesnt play by those rules.
    Everyone thats anyone, is in a tradeing block.

    The only ones not in one, are small crappy nations that ll then get bent over, in any trade deals they do.
    The reason the tradeing blocks have members, is because it works to your benefit to be in one.
    You make deals from positions of strength, through unity.

    To elaborate on this, just take a look onto this picture:

    Only the countries in gray are not part of a trade bloc, and even then, Western Sahara is technically part of Morocco.

    As you can see, the only countries without the trade blocs are either totally dependent on their neighbors anyway (Mongolia), are under severe sanctions (Iran, North Korea), have no stable government (Somalia), too new (South Sudan), or either have not much to trade for or are too insignificant so they are left alone (what's left). UK will join the gray area when they left the EU and have to deal with those colored blocs for the most part, which united are generally much bigger than the UK and can therefor set the terms of a trade deal.



    Bofferbrauer2 said:

    To elaborate on this, just take a look onto this picture:

    (map)

    Only the countries in gray are not part of a trade bloc, and even then, Western Sahara is technically part of Morocco.

    As you can see, the only countries without the trade blocs are either totally dependent on their neighbors anyway (Mongolia), are under severe sanctions (Iran, North Korea), have no stable government (Somalia), too new (South Sudan), or either have not much to trade for or are too insignificant so they are left alone (what's left). UK will join the gray area when they left the EU and have to deal with those colored blocs for the most part, which united are generally much bigger than the UK and can therefor set the terms of a trade deal.

    I think the most likely result is that the UK will be able to get arrangements similar to Switzerland and Norway who are wealthy states without being EU members.

    The bigger question mark is if the UK will remain the UK or if Scotland breaks free.



    Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

    A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

    Around the Network
    RolStoppable said:
    Bofferbrauer2 said:

    To elaborate on this, just take a look onto this picture:

    (map)

    Only the countries in gray are not part of a trade bloc, and even then, Western Sahara is technically part of Morocco.

    As you can see, the only countries without the trade blocs are either totally dependent on their neighbors anyway (Mongolia), are under severe sanctions (Iran, North Korea), have no stable government (Somalia), too new (South Sudan), or either have not much to trade for or are too insignificant so they are left alone (what's left). UK will join the gray area when they left the EU and have to deal with those colored blocs for the most part, which united are generally much bigger than the UK and can therefor set the terms of a trade deal.

    I think the most likely result is that the UK will be able to get arrangements similar to Switzerland and Norway who are wealthy states without being EU members.

    The bigger question mark is if the UK will remain the UK or if Scotland breaks free.

    Keep in mind that a lot of those agreements that Switzerland and Norway have are from their EFTA Membership, and especially from a time where the EFTA was much bigger than it is today. However, the UK could rejoin the EFTA (UK was part of the EFTA before joining the EU, as did Portugal, Austria, Denmark, Sweden and Finland), as while they do have a trade policy and joint agreements, the EFTA also allows member states to have separate bilateral agreements with other countries/trade blocs.



    RolStoppable said:

    I think the most likely result is that the UK will be able to get arrangements similar to Switzerland and Norway who are wealthy states without being EU members.

    Boris has already said we have no intention of forcing the country to align with EU standards. Given how only ~6% of UK companies export to the continent, this makes complete sense. That means EFTA is off the table. He also made it law that a clean break, World Trade Brexit is back on the table (aka 'No Deal') if there's no agreement with the EU by the end of next year.

    Merkel and Macron seemed to be so concerned by Boris' recent statements that we're being used in the same sentence as China and the US when it comes to economic competitors/rivals to the EU.

    Funny how everyone is now starting to see the trade advantages of Brexit for the UK once we got rid of politicians who only wanted BRINO.

    The bigger question mark is if the UK will remain the UK or if Scotland breaks free.

    'Break free', lol. Concern trolling is fun but the reality is that most Scots don't give a fuck about the EU. Most of England wasn't that concerned either until the ruling class thought it was a good idea to ignore our vote. Ignoring 4 votes where Brexit won was too much to the point that even the North went blue.

    Scotland budgeted it's independence on oil @$120 a barrel and still lost 55.3% to 44.7%. It's currently at $60. A ref held tomorrow would be 60-40 minimum.

    As a member of the EU you should be pleased. England freed from the drag of Northern Ireland and Scotland (and Wales) would be even more competitive.

    Last edited by Pyro as Bill - on 26 December 2019

    Nov 2016 - NES outsells PS1 (JP)

    Don't Play Stationary 4 ever. Switch!

    Pyro as Bill said:
    RolStoppable said:

    I think the most likely result is that the UK will be able to get arrangements similar to Switzerland and Norway who are wealthy states without being EU members.

    Boris has already said we have no intention of forcing the country to align with EU standards. Given how only ~6% of UK companies export to the continent, this makes complete sense. That means EFTA is off the table. He also made it law that a clean break, World Trade Brexit is back on the table (aka 'No Deal') if there's no agreement with the EU by the end of next year.

    Merkel and Macron seemed to be so concerned by Boris' recent statements that we're being used in the same sentence as China and the US when it comes to economic competitors/rivals to the EU.

    Funny how everyone is now starting to see the trade advantages of Brexit for the UK once we got rid of politicians who only wanted BRINO.

    The bigger question mark is if the UK will remain the UK or if Scotland breaks free.

    'Break free', lol. Concern trolling is fun but the reality is that most Scots don't give a fuck about the EU. Most of England wasn't that concerned either until the ruling class thought it was a good idea to ignore our vote. Ignoring 4 votes where Brexit won was too much to the point that even the North went blue.

    Scotland budgeted it's independence on oil @$120 a barrel and still lost 55.3% to 44.7%. It's currently at $60. A ref held tomorrow would be 60-40 minimum.

    As a member of the EU you should be pleased. England freed from the drag of Northern Ireland and Scotland (and Wales) would be even more competitive.

    They lost the referendum because they would also leave the EU if they left the UK at the time, and nobody wanted that. That's the main reason why that referendum failed. But now that the UK is leaving anyway the only thing really in the way of scottish independence is Johnson as he doesn't want to allow a vote.



    Bofferbrauer2 said:
    Pyro as Bill said:

    They lost the referendum because they would also leave the EU if they left the UK at the time, and nobody wanted that. That's the main reason why that referendum failed. But now that the UK is leaving anyway the only thing really in the way of scottish independence is Johnson as he doesn't want to allow a vote.

    This is just more of the same echo chamber nonsense we've heard for the past 3 years. Scotland had a ref 5 years ago and the polls have barely moved since.

    They lost because their economic predictions were a joke, they had no answer to what currency they'd use other than threatening to default on their debt if we don't allow them a seat at the Bank of England so they can print English pounds. Add a hard border and no guaranteed free trade deal and it's virtually a cert that the Scots will stay in the UK.

    If the SNP really wanted independence, all they'd have to do is allow England a vote.



    Nov 2016 - NES outsells PS1 (JP)

    Don't Play Stationary 4 ever. Switch!

    Pyro as Bill said:
    Bofferbrauer2 said:

    They lost the referendum because they would also leave the EU if they left the UK at the time, and nobody wanted that. That's the main reason why that referendum failed. But now that the UK is leaving anyway the only thing really in the way of scottish independence is Johnson as he doesn't want to allow a vote.

    This is just more of the same echo chamber nonsense we've heard for the past 3 years. Scotland had a ref 5 years ago and the polls have barely moved since.

    They lost because their economic predictions were a joke, they had no answer to what currency they'd use other than threatening to default on their debt if we don't allow them a seat at the Bank of England so they can print English pounds. Add a hard border and no guaranteed free trade deal and it's virtually a cert that the Scots will stay in the UK.

    If the SNP really wanted independence, all they'd have to do is allow England a vote.

    Johnson has to allow a vote here, not the SNP. And Johnson has been adamant not to allow a vote on scottish independence. He's too afraid of loosing Scotland.

    Also, I find it funny how you point at a poll while you argued in the past that the polls were false and didn't show the will of the people. If that was true for the brexit polls, then the same is true for the scottish independence polls, too.

    One thing that the polls also reflect is the fact that the way forward had not been clear. There hasn't been a poll since the election - but the ones since Johnson came to power show that the resistance against independence is waning even in the polls, something that your link also acknowledges to a degree. The difference between staying and leaving had been over 10% since May came into power, but after Johnson did so, it shrank down closer to 5%. And I'm very sure than when the Brexit finally actually happens, support will soar way above the 50%.