I'm still waiting for you to start yours.
(It's 9.30 where you are?you don't live in the UK remember)
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Politics] Brexit
- Thread starter KingstonSeagull
- Start date
I'm still waiting for you to start yours.
(It's 9.30 where you are?you don't live in the UK remember)
It's amazing how such important things are overlooked and hardly mentioned.Here we are all banging on about trade deals,on the TV in the papers,online.Talking about how the UK would be frozen out and also back of the U.S queue however anyone who should be mentioning the lack of a EU/U.S deal,the remain camp,is not doing so.
I'm not sure anyone has stated trade will cease. It should, equally by both sides, be remembered that the day after a vote, should it be to leave, we won't actually have exited the EU. We will still need to negotiate the exit terms which could be up to two years.
Trufflehound
Re-enfranchised
A "minimum of two years" is the widely quoted figure, not "up to two years".
I stand corrected.
Two Professors
Two Mad Professors
What bullsh*t.... and the Brexit tossers are elderly, bitter, crusty old invalids who are shortly about to snuff it, then.
Oh dear,did us nasty Hobbitses steal your Precious again?
Two Professors
Two Mad Professors
That Theresa May is a bit of a loose cannon,managed to turn Dave's carefully orchestrated campaign into a bit of a shambles over uncontrolled immigration and the ECHR.Doesn't he read his minions speeches?Can just imagine the clown giving his troops a warning-'any more of this slacking and you'll be sent to Matron for a thrashing'.
- Jan 18, 2009
- 4,891
What bullsh*t.... and the Brexit tossers are elderly, bitter, crusty old invalids who are shortly about to snuff it, then.
That will be the generation that stood alone against German and other European facism in order to preserve this country's independence. At that time there were politicians and other experts that said resistance was futile (Lord Halifax) but they endured and fought on.
They also got a vote on the EEC and have seen what it became, a consequence that was never considered in 1974.
Far from abusing them, we should listen to their wisdom and experience, otherwise the zealots like you control the discourse.
Although I suspect such an offensive outburst would result in a ban from the thread...
Two Professors
Two Mad Professors
Ah,but they do it so well-compulsive viewing in America,apparently
Whilst GB has had some very odd posts, to be fair to him I think his comment was merely a rebuttal of someone else suggesting those for Remain are 18 year old cowards!!!
So just to clarify your thinking, you believe that all negotiations around what may happen should take place BEFORE any vote. Despite these negotiations possibly taking 2 - 10 years ( depending upon who you believe ) ?
So the UK government must assign resources to this process and the EU must assign resources to this process despite there being a possibility that the vote will be a remain vote ? YOU are suggesting that is a sensible use of resources ?? That the cost should be borne regardless ?
Alternatively, if you don't agree that is a sensible use of resources you are by default suggesting that we, the British voters, should NEVER have a vote on the membership of the EU despite us never actually voting for the EU in it's current form ? Sounds like you would prefer a dictatorship to me. Stuff that 40%+ who don't agree with the EU - their voice isn't worth listening to !!!!!
With economic thinking like that you truly belong to the REMAIN campaign.
Not strictly true .... he was posting in reply suggesting the young were scared of the unknown. Slightly different to GBs unintelligent insulting response.
Two Professors
Two Mad Professors
Well that's ok then.Nothing wrong with telling people they're invalids who are going to die soon.Are you a relative,or another of his on-line personae?
sir albion
New member
Very much so and its these people who made this country what it is only for the younger socialist nobs turning a blind eye to our great history because they don't like our past...They read about our history and become anti British,shame we can't ship these out the country
I'm not suggesting everyone should read this, but there's a good article in today's FT (see below), by Martin Wolf. I've read his columns regularly over the years, and he's always seemed a pretty balanced guy to me. Just to be clear, I'm a "Bremainer", so I'm obviously biased - but it's articles like this that convince me I'm right!
If the UK voted to leave the EU, it would almost certainly be outside the arrangement organising the life of our neighbours and principal economic partners forever. Given this, the question is whether the option to leave should be exercised now. My answer is: absolutely not. To see why, let us examine popular arguments in favour of departure.
First, membership has brought few benefits. This is false. The Centre for European Reform estimates that it has raised trade with EU members by 55 per cent, increasing productivity and output. Trade creation within the EU has far exceeded diversion of trade from elsewhere. Europe has also brought a strong competition policy and control of state aid. These are important gains.
Second, membership has imposed huge costs. In fact the net fiscal cost is a mere 0.5 per cent of gross domestic product. Moreover, this could be regained in full only if the UK abandoned altogether its preferential access to the EU market. The UK is also one of the least regulated high-income economies. Its recent labour market performance demonstrates its continuing (and remarkable) flexibility. A study from the Centre for European Policy Studies adds that only “6.8 per cent of UK primary legislation and 14.1 per cent of UK secondary legislation” was passed in order to implement EU law.
Third, an increasingly integrated eurozone will dictate to the UK. Yet a full political union of the eurozone looks quite unlikely. Its members also differ on many points, which opens up opportunities for UK influence.
Fourth, the UK should leave because a eurozone break-up would damage the UK economy. If the eurozone broke up in a disorderly fashion, the damage to its closest partners might be substantial. Yet the EU will remain the UK’s biggest trading partner indefinitely. Thus the UK would be damaged by a eurozone break-up, whether in the EU or not. Arguing that leaving would shield the UK against such a disaster would be like arguing Canada should leave the North American Free Trade Agreement, to avoid a US financial crisis. It makes no sense.
Fifth, the UK should leave because the EU is slow-growing. It is plausible that the UK’s trade with the rest of the world will expand relative to trade with its slow-growing neighbours. But reducing access to EU markets deliberately would make sense only if membership prevented the UK from trading with the rest of the world. Germany’s export performance demonstrates that it does not.
Sixth, membership of the EU prevents the UK from opening up world markets. Yet the EU was a moving force in three successful global trade negotiations: the Kennedy, Tokyo and Uruguay rounds. It has increasingly turned towards preferential trade arrangements. The clout of the EU gives it far greater capacity to open up the markets of, say, China, India or the US than the UK could do on its own.
Seventh, it would be easy to agree on alternatives to EU membership. Yet those recommending leaving have no agreed position. There are three plausible alternatives: full departure with trade regulated by the World Trade Organisation, which would cost the UK its preferential market access to the EU; Swiss-style membership of a trade arrangement in goods, with bilateral deals in other areas, which is complex and would require the UK to retain free movement of people; and Norwegian-style membership of the European Economic Area, giving full access (except for having to abide by rules of origin in trade in goods) but would deprive the UK of a say on regulations. In all, the more sovereignty the UK wishes to regain, the less preferential access it retains. This trade-off cannot be fudged.
Eighth, it will be easy for the UK to obtain whatever it wants from the EU. Sometimes this argument is buttressed by the statement that the rest of the EU runs a trade surplus with the UK, which it will be desperate to keep. This is naive. Divorces are rarely harmonious. Moreover, countries with big surpluses with the UK (notably Germany) would continue to sell their goods to the UK, even if Brexit led to a small rise in the import tariff. The share of UK trade done with the rest of the EU is also far greater than the share of EU trade done with the UK. Thus the idea that a departing UK could dictate terms is a fantasy.
Above, all those promoting departure ignore what the UK’s European partners think about the EU. The political elites, particularly of Germany and France, regard the preservation of an integrated Europe as their highest national interest. They will want to make clear to all that departure carries a heavy price. That price is likely to include attempts to drive euro-related financial markets out of London.
Ninth, it will be easy to reach an agreement on controlling immigration. But if the UK wanted to retain preferential access to EU markets it would be required to retain labour mobility. If, instead, it abandoned attempts to retain preferential access, it might then impose work permits on EU citizens. This would make the UK jobs market more inflexible, particularly for skilled people. As important, the EU would reciprocate. That would adversely affect British people working and living in the EU.
Tenth, the uncertainty associated with leaving the EU would be modest. In fact, the uncertainties would be pervasive: we do not know what the UK government negotiating an exit would want; we do not know what the rest of the EU would offer; we do not know how long negotiations would last; and we do not know what the outcome would be.
Those in favour of leaving offer fantasies of damage done by staying and of opportunity opened by departure. None of these arguments has much merit. The rational thing to do is for the UK to continue to enjoy its unique arrangement, which has brought it the advantages of membership with so few of the disadvantages. As our foreign friends tell us, to do anything else would be mad.
If the UK voted to leave the EU, it would almost certainly be outside the arrangement organising the life of our neighbours and principal economic partners forever. Given this, the question is whether the option to leave should be exercised now. My answer is: absolutely not. To see why, let us examine popular arguments in favour of departure.
First, membership has brought few benefits. This is false. The Centre for European Reform estimates that it has raised trade with EU members by 55 per cent, increasing productivity and output. Trade creation within the EU has far exceeded diversion of trade from elsewhere. Europe has also brought a strong competition policy and control of state aid. These are important gains.
Second, membership has imposed huge costs. In fact the net fiscal cost is a mere 0.5 per cent of gross domestic product. Moreover, this could be regained in full only if the UK abandoned altogether its preferential access to the EU market. The UK is also one of the least regulated high-income economies. Its recent labour market performance demonstrates its continuing (and remarkable) flexibility. A study from the Centre for European Policy Studies adds that only “6.8 per cent of UK primary legislation and 14.1 per cent of UK secondary legislation” was passed in order to implement EU law.
Third, an increasingly integrated eurozone will dictate to the UK. Yet a full political union of the eurozone looks quite unlikely. Its members also differ on many points, which opens up opportunities for UK influence.
Fourth, the UK should leave because a eurozone break-up would damage the UK economy. If the eurozone broke up in a disorderly fashion, the damage to its closest partners might be substantial. Yet the EU will remain the UK’s biggest trading partner indefinitely. Thus the UK would be damaged by a eurozone break-up, whether in the EU or not. Arguing that leaving would shield the UK against such a disaster would be like arguing Canada should leave the North American Free Trade Agreement, to avoid a US financial crisis. It makes no sense.
Fifth, the UK should leave because the EU is slow-growing. It is plausible that the UK’s trade with the rest of the world will expand relative to trade with its slow-growing neighbours. But reducing access to EU markets deliberately would make sense only if membership prevented the UK from trading with the rest of the world. Germany’s export performance demonstrates that it does not.
Sixth, membership of the EU prevents the UK from opening up world markets. Yet the EU was a moving force in three successful global trade negotiations: the Kennedy, Tokyo and Uruguay rounds. It has increasingly turned towards preferential trade arrangements. The clout of the EU gives it far greater capacity to open up the markets of, say, China, India or the US than the UK could do on its own.
Seventh, it would be easy to agree on alternatives to EU membership. Yet those recommending leaving have no agreed position. There are three plausible alternatives: full departure with trade regulated by the World Trade Organisation, which would cost the UK its preferential market access to the EU; Swiss-style membership of a trade arrangement in goods, with bilateral deals in other areas, which is complex and would require the UK to retain free movement of people; and Norwegian-style membership of the European Economic Area, giving full access (except for having to abide by rules of origin in trade in goods) but would deprive the UK of a say on regulations. In all, the more sovereignty the UK wishes to regain, the less preferential access it retains. This trade-off cannot be fudged.
Eighth, it will be easy for the UK to obtain whatever it wants from the EU. Sometimes this argument is buttressed by the statement that the rest of the EU runs a trade surplus with the UK, which it will be desperate to keep. This is naive. Divorces are rarely harmonious. Moreover, countries with big surpluses with the UK (notably Germany) would continue to sell their goods to the UK, even if Brexit led to a small rise in the import tariff. The share of UK trade done with the rest of the EU is also far greater than the share of EU trade done with the UK. Thus the idea that a departing UK could dictate terms is a fantasy.
Above, all those promoting departure ignore what the UK’s European partners think about the EU. The political elites, particularly of Germany and France, regard the preservation of an integrated Europe as their highest national interest. They will want to make clear to all that departure carries a heavy price. That price is likely to include attempts to drive euro-related financial markets out of London.
Ninth, it will be easy to reach an agreement on controlling immigration. But if the UK wanted to retain preferential access to EU markets it would be required to retain labour mobility. If, instead, it abandoned attempts to retain preferential access, it might then impose work permits on EU citizens. This would make the UK jobs market more inflexible, particularly for skilled people. As important, the EU would reciprocate. That would adversely affect British people working and living in the EU.
Tenth, the uncertainty associated with leaving the EU would be modest. In fact, the uncertainties would be pervasive: we do not know what the UK government negotiating an exit would want; we do not know what the rest of the EU would offer; we do not know how long negotiations would last; and we do not know what the outcome would be.
Those in favour of leaving offer fantasies of damage done by staying and of opportunity opened by departure. None of these arguments has much merit. The rational thing to do is for the UK to continue to enjoy its unique arrangement, which has brought it the advantages of membership with so few of the disadvantages. As our foreign friends tell us, to do anything else would be mad.
dejavuatbtn
Well-known member
Yep, all "mights and maybees" innit. If we hadn't been in Europe we may be better or worse off now. If we leave ......
I don't understand the threat that we would have to still allow freedom of labour between countries if we leave if we want to trade. If they want to sell their stuff to us, can't we create our own tariffs and conditions etc to counteract those that the impose? I think a lot of this is about their inability to exist without our market,and are scared s**tless.
I don't understand the threat that we would have to still allow freedom of labour between countries if we leave if we want to trade. If they want to sell their stuff to us, can't we create our own tariffs and conditions etc to counteract those that the impose? I think a lot of this is about their inability to exist without our market,and are scared s**tless.
