Will Brexit have an impact on F1?

[turbof1]

A further issue is that quite a few countries outside the EU have a free trade agreement with the EU. South Korea for instance. UK will have to negotiate all these things themselves now. Furthermore, the EU is in an advanced stage of negotiating a free trade agreement with the US. Next to the years of setback the UK will suffer negotiating this outside the EU, such an agreement negotiated as a whole of countries is always going to be more favourable then on your own, meaning the UK will have less pressure to negotiate conditions to protect their economy.

It might not be inconceivable that Haas F1 moves its UK headquarters/factory to the mainland once the EU-US free trade agreement is done.

[Vasconia]

If Cameron had won Brexit .. Lord Hill and his cohorts were already in place to move the UK to the Euro and into shengen. UKIP and Tory sceptics would have been silenced. EU full speed ahead.

Dont expect privileges, they come with some obligations.

Obligations.. When I buy a pair of boots from America.. they dont expect their courts to assume jurisdiction over the UKs .. Trade is just trade.
Many see the EU as nothing more that a socialist political mechanism. It can keep its Coudenhove-Kalergi nonsense.

Are you serious? have you any source or its just part of your imagination? I cannot imagine the UK adopting the euro after a (just as an example) a victory with just a 52% of the votes.

I guess you use "socialist" as pejorative concept. Well, I dream with this nonsense where Europe Works a a great nation of nations, being truly democratic, an Europe of the folk, leaving the selfishness behind. It should be more than just trade. But as I have said more than once, Europe is not ready for this.

[henry]

The EU-US trade deal, TTIP, is an interesting example of the dichotomy facing the referendum voters.

The UK government has broadly been in favour of TTIP seeking only to control private sector access to our health service. Many othe EU countries have been more cautious, particularly France, and negotiations are currently stalled. So now the UK has left there is a higher probability of the UK signing up to it alone. A key feature of TTIP is the ceding of sovereignty on trade matters to a court which can take equal cognisance of the rights of nation states and global corporations. The repatriation of sovereignty, "taking our country back", is one of the two highest priority changes those voting for leave wanted.

Sovereignty is a complex and nuanced issue, but the slogan isn't. So people voted for that.

The same sort of thing is happening in F1 regulations. Fans want better racing, and that's what they thought they voted for in the FOM survey. What they will get is much faster cars and, in my opinion, much worse racing. A slogan of "fastest ever cars" trumps "current rules are leading to convergence and just need some tweaking".

As a result of Brexit, F1 may face an uncertain future with a squeeze on finances just as the teams embark on a new round of expensive development, which may, or may not, satisfy the fans and keep them available to the more financially cautious sponsors.

[FoxHound]

How this relates to F1....hmmm.

No race at Silverstone due to year on year economic recession, lack of staff for hospitality and cleaning, and massive security issues from militant socialists decrying the excess on one side, and militant remainers using large sports events to decry the slippery slide of Britain into an ultra nationalist land of xenophobia.

Sorry FH I usually agree with many things you post but the above even if being flippant is just bloody ridiculous.

That was on the spot, tongue in cheek, worst case scenario, flippancy.

I'll take it back, in entirety.

But you have to admit, theres a huge problem..

[Phil]

Given how much of the British economy is dependent on trade within the EU, it seems remarkably short sighted to have 50% of your trade having to deal with European law and bureaucracy while having no power to influence either. It is ironic that of all countries, England want to pursue more isolationist future in our massively globalised world.

...a massively globalized world. Indeed. How so is it possible that in this massively globalized world, everyone is willing, open and keen to do trade with each other, yet without all the political agenda? Why can't there be one without the other when effectively, everyone outside the EU has been doing so, for decades? Even centuries? Just because Britain no longer wants to be part of this political construct does not mean they want an isolationist future. In fact, one could argue that without the restrictions of being an EU member, it could open quite a few opportunities on the global market place.

BTW; the British economy being dependent on the trade with EU... I'd say the reverse is just as true.

[turbof1]

The EU is less dependent. Predictions are each EU country will get a 0.5-1% GDP hit, with Great Britain a 5-10% GDP hit, and up to 25% if Scotland and Ireland declare independency to stay in the EU. The EU gets a hit, but economic wise is more then able to absorb it.

The political agenda is utopian-wise necessary to create perfect free trade (well next to giving up land borders all together). However, I do agree there are many issues associated with it. Being in the EU requires partially giving up your national entity. Given that Europe has had atleast every decade or so a major war for thousands of years, and we have not even reached 100 years without a single war in the current era, countries or too much differentiated still to give up their national entity.

[Vasconia]

The EU-US trade deal, TTIP, is an interesting example of the dichotomy facing the referendum voters.

The UK government has broadly been in favour of TTIP seeking only to control private sector access to our health service. Many othe EU countries have been more cautious, particularly France, and negotiations are currently stalled. So now the UK has left there is a higher probability of the UK signing up to it alone. A key feature of TTIP is the ceding of sovereignty on trade matters to a court which can take equal cognisance of the rights of nation states and global corporations. The repatriation of sovereignty, "taking our country back", is one of the two highest priority changes those voting for leave wanted.

Sovereignty is a complex and nuanced issue, but the slogan isn't. So people voted for that.

This is very interesting Henri. The TTIP is a key element to analize. And as you have said I guess that the UK will have less problems to sign it
while other countries are more cautious. With the Little information I have I can say that I dont like the TTIP and I hope it wont be signed.

Moreover, its even more worrying all the efforts that the negotiators are making to keep secret the key aspects of the deal. Something smells bad...

[FoxHound]

The EU is less dependent. Predictions are each EU country will get a 0.5-1% GDP hit, with Great Britain a 5-10% GDP hit, and up to 25% if Scotland and Ireland declare independency to stay in the EU. The EU gets a hit, but economic wise is more then able to absorb it.

The political agenda is utopian-wise necessary to create perfect free trade (well next to giving up land borders all together). However, I do agree there are many issues associated with it. Being in the EU requires partially giving up your national entity. Given that Europe has had atleast every decade or so a major war for thousands of years, and we have not even reached 100 years without a single war in the current era, countries or too much differentiated still to give up their national entity.

Both Northern Ireland and Scotland will not be given the option of splitting from Britain.
Both would be required under British law, to leave the EU, depite the fact both favoured to remain.

The massive irony here is Unionists are likely to have voted to leave the EU, to "make Britain stronger", when their actions could actually lead to Britain becoming england and wales only.

[FoxHound]

Cant edit that last post, but expect both Northern Ireland and Scotland to get referendums on remaining in the uk.

[turbof1]

Both Northern Ireland and Scotland will not be given the option of splitting from Britain.

If a referendum is being held, they can in principle. Timing is key though about if and when article 50 is activated. Even when article 50 is activated, the UK is still in the EU as long as negotiations have not been finished. Essentially Ireland and Scotland will have to be independent within 2 years. From there it can be as easy as just passing a few laws to take over the EU label.

Of course, it means those referenda will have to end in exits from the UK.

[FoxHound]

It was debated last night on BBC, and will be again tonight.
They cant leave Britain until Britain has left the EU.
Then a referendum can be set, and if they chose to split the union, they need to reapply to join the EU. Juncker said something along those lines yesterday too.

[Phil]

The EU is less dependent. Predictions are each EU country will get a 0.5-1% GDP hit, with Great Britain a 5-10% GDP hit.

Maybe if you take the average of all EU countries. I'm also less sure on what to think of these predictions. These predictions often are simply a fairy tale lookout to what would happen under 'normal circumstances', taking the benchmark of the past few decades and can not possibly factor in what cost there will be as a direct result of the Syrian crisis, the mass scale immigration, Greece and the other nations that are up the creek financially, a more likely chain reaction of other nations wanting either out or big change as the political landscape is shifting in just about most countries throughout the EU (as a direct result of the politics in Brussels).

As I said, the EU is anything but a stable, so all predictions are likely pretty much guesstimates out of thin air and IMO not much in the realm of reality.

[turbof1]

The EU is less dependent. Predictions are each EU country will get a 0.5-1% GDP hit, with Great Britain a 5-10% GDP hit.

Maybe if you take the average of all EU countries. I'm also less sure on what to think of these predictions. These predictions often are simply a fairy tale lookout to what would happen under 'normal circumstances', taking the benchmark of the past few decades and can not possibly factor in what cost there will be as a direct result of the Syrian crisis, the mass scale immigration, Greece and the other nations that are up the creek financially, a more likely chain reaction of other nations wanting either out or big change as the political landscape is shifting in just about most countries throughout the EU (as a direct result of the politics in Brussels).

As I said, the EU is anything but a stable, so all predictions are likely pretty much guesstimates out of thin air and IMO not much in the realm of reality.

I can give 1000 reasons why this is rubbish, but I'll give one: immigration is around 0.2% of GDP cost, but brings longer term as much as 0.8% GDP benefit (yes, on average).

The EU is not going to fall just because the nation with the biggest middle finger said "I couldn't possibly" towards the EU.

[R_Redding]

Well, I dream with this nonsense where Europe Works a a great nation of nations, being truly democratic

Well I'm sorry to tell you that democracy in the EU will remain a dream.

Jean Claude Junckers is on record as having said........

"There can be no democratic choice agiast the treaty!".

[Andres125sx]

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” ~ Isaac Asimov

That quote is brilliant! =D>

It's too often frustratingly poignant.

All the same, I still tend to believe that the citizens of democratic countries get the governance they deserve.

If the only thing a voter knows about any given issue is what they've learned from politicians, and if there are enough of those ill-informed voters to turn the tide of an election because everyone else failed to coherently articulate alternatives, then I think it's entirely appropriate for all of them to be represented by politicians who embody the same intellectual apathy.

Fully agree