The ultimate REFERENDUM thread

[pastafarian]

Mexico has a highly mutually beneficial free trade agreement with the EU. And it's a true and absolute free trade agreement as well, since 2007. It will interesting to see what happens if the UK tries to gain a similar agreement. Would Mexico want it? What would the EU do? Any thoughts?

well it seems in that scenario there are two options

1/ The EU would sign a Free Trade Agreement with the UK
2/ The EU would refuse to sign a Free Trade Agreement with the UK

im going for answer 1

if it is answer 2 i hope good Europeans like yourself will question your EU leaders as to what their reasoning is..........that is if you can find anyone accountable to ask.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

well it seems in that scenario there are two options

1/ The EU would sign a Free Trade Agreement with the UK
2/ The EU would refuse to sign a Free Trade Agreement with the UK

im going for answer 1

if it is answer 2 i hope good Europeans like yourself will question your EU leaders as to what their reasoning is..........that is if you can find anyone accountable to ask.

If it was 2, I'm sure all good Europeans will understand that trade isn't a free-for-all and the EU isn't obliged to sign a deal with the U.K. anymore than the UK is obliged to sign a deal with the EU. Like the Mexico deal, there typically has to be something in it for both sides and something which won't be an issue for existing partners.

i have no idea what will happen, but if the UK decides to go it alone it can't grumble if it doesn't get invited to all the parties.

 

[The Rivet]

If it was 2, I'm sure all good Europeans will understand that trade isn't a free-for-all and the EU isn't obliged to sign a deal with the U.K. anymore than the UK is obliged to sign a deal with the EU. Like the Mexico deal, there typically has to be something in it for both sides and something which won't be an issue for existing partners.
i have no idea what will happen, but if the UK decides to go it alone it can't grumble if it doesn't get invited to all the parties.

Yes it's called earning money, buying, selling being productive. All reasons for there to be something for both sides to deal over.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

The most amusing move Out has made is to argue that Brexit is the "safer choice" - this is patently nonsense, the market jittered on Boris' announcement and would free-fall after a Brexit vote. It would probably lead to a short-term recession and could have long term repercussions for the UK economy. It is not safer in any way it is a total leap into the dark. On the IN side we can also look to the track record of the UK's economy while a member of the EU - it's actually pretty good (www.ft.com/cms/s/0/202a60c0-cfd8-11e5-831d-09f7778e7377.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk#axzz41Jr5KTCp) So we have past experience, a present and existing set of rules, and the stability upon which to base future growth. Brexiters need more than a crystal ball to stack up with the IN arguments.

Based upon the 3 million or so EU citizens living in the UK, and the 2 million or so Brits living in the EU abroad we would need to find a way to accommodate this fact. These people have families and a right to settle etc. The simplest solution is to retain free movement. This is something the EU would push hard for. Two options Brexiters espouse, the Norway or Swiss model, are based upon the principle of free movement. It is the price to pay for access to the internal market.

You disagree with the former head of the Downing street international terrorism team / Joint Intelligence Committee then. "By leaving we will again be able to determine who does and does not enter the UK. Failure to do so significantly increases the terrorist threat here, endangers our people and is a betrayal of this country." There is more to safety and security than just economic arguments.

We have previously discussed how evidence shows how trade agreements signed through the EU have had little benefit for the UK compared with deals done by independent nations. As to your latest/usual source. Is that the same FT who supported UK adoption of the Euro? (Et tu Tu Quoque!)

Yes yes of course after Brexit the sky would fall in,plagues of locusts would descend etc etc There would be undoubted economic turbulence and uncertainty which would mean all countries would have a vested interest in coming to mutually beneficial trade agreements as soon as possible.

Pastafarian has already covered the many flaws in your 'we must agree to free movement' argument. We are not Norway or Switzerland. Adding to that ..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...-expats-have-nothing-to-fear-from-Brexit.html

 

[pastafarian]

If it was 2, I'm sure all good Europeans will understand that trade isn't a free-for-all and the EU isn't obliged to sign a deal with the U.K. anymore than the UK is obliged to sign a deal with the EU. Like the Mexico deal, there typically has to be something in it for both sides and something which won't be an issue for existing partners.

i have no idea what will happen, but if the UK decides to go it alone it can't grumble if it doesn't get invited to all the parties.

I see where you are coming from now.

On the one hand you are saying its vital The UK remains in The EU as our trade with each other is crucially important to the wellbeing of the UK economy.

On the other hand you are saying if there was a Brexit and a Free Trade Agreement appeared on the table at a later date its possible The EU might not want it anyway as mutual trading might not be that beneficial after all.

Project fear is strong in you

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I see where you are coming from now.

On the one hand you are saying its vital The UK remains in The EU as our trade with each other is crucially important to the wellbeing of the UK economy.

On the other hand you are saying if there was a Brexit and a Free Trade Agreement appeared on the table at a later date its possible The EU might not want it anyway as mutual trading might not be that beneficial after all.

Project fear is strong in you

im just pointing out the blindingly obvious. You listed the EU Mexico free-trade deal. Do you know why this came about? It wasn't charity.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Much to my astonishment, absolutely stunning performance by Iain Duncan Smith on the Andrew Marr programme.

 

[brighton fella]

can anyone seriously imagine companies such as BMW AUDI MERCEDES ect ect telling Britain to go f*ck themselves if Britain decides brexit, it is laughable to suggest such ludicrous shite..

it must be a joke not once from the pro side have i heard a single positive argument for remaining in all i keep hearing from them are scare stories if we pull out ....and the joke is so many Brits keep falling for it

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I take it all back about Iain Duncan Smith: now he's FLIRTING with Angela Eagle, the dirty old sod

 

[5ways]

You disagree with the former head of the Downing street international terrorism team / Joint Intelligence Committee then. "By leaving we will again be able to determine who does and does not enter the UK. Failure to do so significantly increases the terrorist threat here, endangers our people and is a betrayal of this country." There is more to safety and security than just economic arguments.

We have previously discussed how evidence shows how trade agreements signed through the EU have had little benefit for the UK compared with deals done by independent nations. As to your latest/usual source. Is that the same FT who supported UK adoption of the Euro? (Et tu Tu Quoque!)

Yes yes of course after Brexit the sky would fall in,plagues of locusts would descend etc etc There would be undoubted economic turbulence and uncertainty which would mean all countries would have a vested interest in coming to mutually beneficial trade agreements as soon as possible.

Pastafarian has already covered the many flaws in your 'we must agree to free movement' argument. We are not Norway or Switzerland. Adding to that ..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...-expats-have-nothing-to-fear-from-Brexit.html

The argument Pastafarian makes is rather than a Norway or Swiss model a WTO model. There is a reason that Norway and Switzerland didn't follow this model themselves. WTO is not free trade.

The second implication is that the growing dominance of regional platform deals doesn’t just reflect the fading out of the spaghetti bowl approach but also the inability of the WTO to function as a global rule maker, as the stalled Doha round shows. Anyway, it’s unlikely that, among 160 members, the UK could have more influence than the EU, as the WTO itself has said.

As for WTO most-favoured-nation status, its rules would mean that the UK’s trade with the EU would face tariffs on 90% of exports by value, including tariffs of, for example, 32% on wine imports and 9.8% on car imports. The MFN format does not mean free trade, which is why countries create FTAs rather than simply trading within the generic WTO framework.

http://www.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/n...LSE-report-on-UKs-options-outside-the-EU.aspx

Moreover:

Fourth, Britain would have to develop trade with the rest of the world. EU agreements on goods or services (such as financial services) cover about 60 countries and 35 per cent of world trade. These would no longer apply to the UK. Britain would benefit from the WTO’s market access rules — but these are modest, especially on services, which account for a significant chunk of UK exports. Britain would thus need to negotiate agreements from scratch, yet it has employed no trade negotiators since 1973. Reaching deals that are as beneficial for the UK as those that exist for the EU would be hard because the union is the world’s biggest exporter and importer of goods and services and so enjoys huge bargaining power.

Less trade and throwing our trading relationship with our most important partner to a sclerotic trade organisation. https://next.ft.com/content/9cb1ab9e-a7e2-11e5-955c-1e1d6de94879

Can you link the 'EU deals not good for UK thing'? I must have missed it. Also as I pointed out above the UK economy has done very well while inside the EU.

https://next.ft.com/content/ee4825f2-b91f-11e5-b151-8e15c9a029fb

see http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/brexit01.pdf for a table of pros and cons.

In terms of the references for my sources, yes I'll go with the most widely respected and quality paper I can.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

The argument Pastafarian makes is rather than a Norway or Swiss model a WTO model. There is a reason that Norway and Switzerland didn't follow this model themselves. WTO is not free trade.

http://www.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/n...LSE-report-on-UKs-options-outside-the-EU.aspx

Moreover:

Less trade and throwing our trading relationship with our most important partner to a sclerotic trade organisation. https://next.ft.com/content/9cb1ab9e-a7e2-11e5-955c-1e1d6de94879

The argument that Pastafarian makes showed why your insistence we will have to agree to free movement of people is untrue.

Can you link the 'EU deals not good for UK thing'? I must have missed it. Also as I pointed out above the UK economy has done very well while inside the EU.

https://next.ft.com/content/ee4825f2-b91f-11e5-b151-8e15c9a029fb

see http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/brexit01.pdf for a table of pros and cons.

http://nortr3nixy.nimpr.uk/showthread.php?332756-Europe-In-or-Out/page23 Can you please differentiate what part of our doing well is down to domestic government policy and UK innovation and what part is entirely due to being in the EU? How has the ongoing Euro crisis effected the wider European economy and what knock on effect has it had on ours?

Speaking of the Euro crisis ... a large part of your criticism of the case for Brexit is a leap into the dark/economic uncertainty. What is the biggest internal threat to the future of European economic security? (Already given you a clue) Can you guarantee the ongoing Euro crisis will not continue to cause severe difficulties for numerous European countries suppressing growth exacerbating unemployment and possibly causing some members to leave monetary union? We have no influence on resolving this crisis in or out but pay the price none the less.

In terms of the references for my sources, yes I'll go with the most widely respected and quality paper I can.

You'll go with a source that supports your view and would have seen us in the centre of the Eurozone debacle.

I prefer a more balanced source that gives both sides of the argument and cites other surveys including your worst case scenario ones.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32793642

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

Just out of curiosity, because I don't seem to have seen the answer to these questions anywhere in the "out" campaign and I'm not reading 40 pages on here to see if anyone's answered my questions, but what is the out campaign actually after?

Is it leaving the EU? Is it leaving the EEA? Is it leaving both? Do they want to be a part of the EFTA? Or are they hoping to set up separate FTAs with the members of the EEA?

No one I speak to seems to have an answer to any of this. Some want sovereignty back, some want to stop immigration, some want to do it because they believe the country will be in a better economic position because of potential FTAs with big economies like the Chinese...

More to the point, what are the left's plans if we leave the EU? In terms of immigration, in particular, how will they control that if we leave?

Lots of questions, but as a layman I just don't seem to be able to find any answers, at all, from either side (there's lots of theory, mind)...

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Just out of curiosity, because I don't seem to have seen the answer to these questions anywhere in the "out" campaign and I'm not reading 40 pages on here to see if anyone's answered my questions, but what is the out campaign actually after?

Is it leaving the EU? Is it leaving the EEA? Is it leaving both? Do they want to be a part of the EFTA? Or are they hoping to set up separate FTAs with the members of the EEA?

No one I speak to seems to have an answer to any of this. Some want sovereignty back, some want to stop immigration, some want to do it because they believe the country will be in a better economic position because of potential FTAs with big economies like the Chinese...

More to the point, what are the left's plans if we leave the EU? In terms of immigration, in particular, how will they control that if we leave?

Lots of questions, but as a layman I just don't seem to be able to find any answers, at all, from either side (there's lots of theory, mind)...

It's difficult to say much about the out campaign as it's an incredibly incoherent argument to date. Even in the last 24 hours they've back-tracked on the idea there could be a second refendum on increased reforms. And every trade model from Norway to Peru is being cited as the way forward. I would actually like them to come out with a few consistent and singular ideas on how things will look instead of the seemingly random sound bites they're currently blurting out.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

can anyone seriously imagine companies such as BMW AUDI MERCEDES ect ect telling Britain to go f*ck themselves if Britain decides brexit, it is laughable to suggest such ludicrous shite..

it must be a joke not once from the pro side have i heard a single positive argument for remaining in all i keep hearing from them are scare stories if we pull out ....and the joke is so many Brits keep falling for it

It is also a joke, albeit a predictable one, that you think it is this simple. It is not up to BMW, Audi and Mercedes whether the EU agrees to a bilateral trade agreement with the UK. Whilst many EU countries - Germany for example, and the Benelux states - have large and increasing trade surpluses with the UK that would colour their desire for such an agreement, others do not. A bilateral trade agreement with the EU would have to be agreed by every last member nation and those with small (or even non-existent) surpluses would have no reason to sign in any sort of hurry.

In these circumstances the UK would have a choice between (a) sweating it out whilst the negotiations trundle on or (b) joining Norway in the European Economic Area to gain access to the single market. 'B' would involve costs similar to those incurred by Norway. Whether we chose A or B we would have to simultaneously strike bilateral deals with those non-EU countries which we currently have deals with via our membership of the EU.

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

It's difficult to say much about the out campaign as it's an incredibly incoherent argument to date. Even in the last 24 hours they've back-tracked on the idea there could be a second refendum on increased reforms. And every trade model from Norway to Peru is being cited as the way forward. I would actually like them to come out with a few consistent and singular ideas on how things will look instead of the seemingly random sound bites they're currently blurting out.

I'm glad I'm not the only one. I admit I'm a layman, but I'm very educated and understand the theory, yet I'm no closer to understanding what is actually being offered. If I don't know when I understand the concepts, how will the average person in Britain truly understand what they're voting for...

 

[Don Quixote]

It's difficult to say much about the out campaign as it's an incredibly incoherent argument to date. Even in the last 24 hours they've back-tracked on the idea there could be a second refendum on increased reforms. And every trade model from Norway to Peru is being cited as the way forward. I would actually like them to come out with a few consistent and singular ideas on how things will look instead of the seemingly random sound bites they're currently blurting out.

It seems the same from the remain campaign to me. Just scare tactics without any substance.

 

[Surf's Up]

It's difficult to say much about the out campaign as it's an incredibly incoherent argument to date. Even in the last 24 hours they've back-tracked on the idea there could be a second refendum on increased reforms. And every trade model from Norway to Peru is being cited as the way forward. I would actually like them to come out with a few consistent and singular ideas on how things will look instead of the seemingly random sound bites they're currently blurting out.

I agree with this - the OUT campaign seems to be more targeted at the heart of voters rather than their heads. They are finding it, and will continue to find it, very difficult to set out what leaving the EU will mean in reality because they simply don't know - no-one does and thats the point...leaving will represent a massive leap into the unknown.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

It seems the same from the remain campaign to me. Just scare tactics without any substance.

I'm doing me best. If you feel that post 396 above is without substance, please let me know. I confess that it is a bit scary though.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I'm glad I'm not the only one. I admit I'm a layman, but I'm very educated and understand the theory, yet I'm no closer to understanding what is actually being offered. If I don't know when I understand the concepts, how will the average person in Britain truly understand what they're voting for...

The in campaign has its flaws but it benefits from having a single figurehead, Cameron. I feel the out campaign is being hindered by Boris, Farage and Galloway, no strangers to their own voices, battling for aim time and all slightly off message. Whilst I am an inner I actually want the out campaign to present a simple coherent argument otherwise this referendum will be a waste of time, effort and money. There's plenty of time but I wonder if that triumvirate can work as a team.

 

[Horton's halftime iceberg]

The in campaign has its flaws but it benefits from having a single figurehead, Cameron. I feel the out campaign is being hindered by Boris, Farage and Galloway, no strangers to their own voices, battling for aim time and all slightly off message. Whilst I am an inner I actually want the out campaign to present a simple coherent argument otherwise this referendum will be a waste of time, effort and money. There's plenty of time but I wonder if that triumvirate can work as a team.

At the moment the media is only interested in the Torie in fightings, all pals, all went to the same elite college, all their wife's are friends with each other, all now displaying their tiffs and disagreements on the national stage. Figures and facts are being ignored its all about Cameron, Johnson, Osbourne and Gove. The Labour Party destroyed them selves and ended up with the SDP after the last vote in 1975 and that was over 65% voting to stay so a lot less closer.

I think rather than a coherent argument, the right wing will struggle not to splinter. Watched both European and Parliament debates on EU membership this week and both the UKIP MEP's and Conservative MP's were almost crazed or drunk on the giddiness of ANTI EU/Europeon hatred, it will be interesting how they will manage to get some coherent message across to a wider public that want useful facts and figures.