[Politics] Brexit

[Bold Seagull]

that's an amusingly loaded question. Sounds a bit like something out of '1984'. If the supply of labour is reduced then incomes will rise not fall. For balance, perhaps people could also be asked how much of the percentage share of future rises in GDP would they be willing to lose in maintaining current levels of immigration.

Future rises in GDP with reduced population growth - good luck with that.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

If we leave and the economy tanks, as it is expected to do so, incomes will fall. There is no economic upside to Brexit. Shrinking the supply of labour damages the economy.

eh?

What about all the massive international markets that are chomping at the bit to sign up to all the new trade deals, massively favourable to the UK, the moment we are 'free'?

How have you overlooked those?

 

[larus]

Only if, like Norway, we agree to STILL pay in to the EU (but get nothing back in grants).

We can still trade with Europe after Brexit (America does, China does, Australia does, etc.). If we don't have any agreements, there will be some small tariffs averaging just 2.4%. Wow - that's gonna kill us. But, we can then negotiate trade agreements with anywhere else in the world. All these scare stories are really pathetic, and are alienating huge swathes of the population. I work in different parts of the country as a consultant, and lots of people are now saying they will be voting Brexit as they don't believe the remainers, not their 'chums' from big business/elites who benefit from this structure.

These are people ranging from directors to receptionists to office workers. A range of people who have had enough of the high levels of immigration and the lack of control of our own country.

 

[Bold Seagull]

eh?

What about all the massive international markets that are chomping at the bit to sign up to all the new trade deals, massively favourable to the UK, the moment we are 'free'?

How have you overlooked those?

We'd like effectively the same deal we were getting while we were in the EU please.

 

[5ways]

eh?

What about all the massive international markets that are chomping at the bit to sign up to all the new trade deals, massively favourable to the UK, the moment we are 'free'?

How have you overlooked those?

Unfortunately these agreements take years to hammer out. The Canada-EU deal took 7, for example. Moreover we are not that interesting to big players. As Obama said he has bigger fish to fry, such as an actual deal with the EU. We also lose the advantage of size. Switzerland has a free trade deal with China, but it is on Chinese terms. For example China has total access to the Swiss market, but there remains a tariff on Swiss watches into China in perpetuity. An EU-China deal would be on more equal terms.

What you may realise is actually we are less free if we quit. Brexit gives the illusion of sovereignty, technically we will be able to do what we want. In reality our bargaining position is weakened to such an extent that we are not powerful enough to set the terms of our own agreements. We go from rule maker to rule taker. In the end we are more sovereign, more free, when we are richer and have greater influence inside the EU.

 

[Brovion]

Genuine question here, from someone who favours Remain - how would you do it better? Specifically, how would you do it better without removing power from the (genuinely) democratically elected leaders of the Member States?

I agree that there is a democractic deficit in the EU. I just don't see how you can fix it short of complete political union (which would then open up the possibility of a more House of Commons-style system of accountability). At the moment the leaders of the Member States appoint the Commissioners and set the overall agenda of the EU (as well as voting on key issues, most of which are settled by unanimity), giving them a role in shaping the direction which is then handed to the Commissioners and the Commission to deal with to the best of their abilities, and then the MEPs (which, unfortunately, nobody seems to elect on the basis of any serious issues) and Member State leaders are able to vote on and agree/disagree. How do you improve that system without removing national level oversight? Or is it simply an all-or-nothing offer? Either complete political union or no union at all?

How would I do it better? By having it as a 'proper' parliament as I said and not just as a chamber to effectively rubber-stamp the legislation given to it. Currently it's there to just act as a fig-leaf, to convince the very stupid that the EU is in some sense 'democratic'. ("Look! We've got a parliament that you vote for!"). If it were a proper legislative assembly instead of just a talking shop it wouild mean that all the rules and regulations that come from 'Brussels' would have a degree of legitamacy. Your first point is moot - we've already removed power from the genuinely elected leaders of the member states. That's one of the complaints of the 'Leavers!'

PS - I shall probably be abstaining.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Unfortunately these agreements take years to hammer out. The Canada-EU deal took 7, for example. Moreover we are not that interesting to big players. As Obama said he has bigger fish to fry, such as an actual deal with the EU. We also lose the advantage of size. Switzerland has a free trade deal with China, but it is on Chinese terms. For example China has total access to the Swiss market, but there remains a tariff on Swiss watches into China in perpetuity. An EU-China deal would be on more equal terms.

What you may realise is actually we are less free if we quit. Brexit gives the illusion of sovereignty, technically we will be able to do what we want. In reality our bargaining position is weakened to such an extent that we are not powerful enough to set the terms of our own agreements. We go from rule maker to rule taker. In the end we are more sovereign, more free, when we are richer and have greater influence inside the EU.

Yes, I know. I was being sarcastic.

Your Switzerland example is a pertinent one, to me. As someone who has worked for a Swiss company for the last 20 years, I don't know whether to laugh or cry, each time I hear a Leaver explaining that we should go it alone to be 'free of bureaucracy and red tape, like Switzerland'.

 

[5ways]

Yes, I know. I was being sarcastic.

Your Switzerland example is a pertinent one, to me. As someone who has worked for a Swiss company for the last 20 years, I don't know whether to laugh or cry, each time I hear a Leaver explaining that we should go it alone to be 'free of bureaucracy and red tape, like Switzerland'.

I know you know Others might not.

 

[sten_super]

Your first point is moot - we've already removed power from the genuinely elected leaders of the member states. That's one of the complaints of the 'Leavers!'

Sorry, I don't follow this. In what sense is my point moot? Our Prime Minister is involved in establishing the priorities of the Commission for a given programme period in his role on the European Council. If you want the agenda for the Commission to be set instead by the Parliament, you would have to remove this direct link between the elected heads of state and the Commission. So you gain democracy within the European institutions, but at a cost of that link to national governments.

I'm not saying that there's a right answer here - I'm just interested in whether the alternative is actually any more palatable to those that want democracy of the EU improved.

 

[Brovion]

Sorry, I don't follow this. In what sense is my point moot? Our Prime Minister is involved in establishing the priorities of the Commission for a given programme period in his role on the European Council. If you want the agenda for the Commission to be set instead by the Parliament, you would have to remove this direct link between the elected heads of state and the Commission. So you gain democracy within the European institutions, but at a cost of that link to national governments.

I'm not saying that there's a right answer here - I'm just interested in whether the alternative is actually any more palatable to those that want democracy of the EU improved.

Are you being serious? It's moot inasmuch as we have already handed over legislative powers to the EU. No amount of talking about 'PM establishes priorities' can escape the fact that we are governed by an unelected elite - government 'of the people, for the people, by the people' it most certainly ain't. So yes, remove the link between the elected heads of state and the Commission, in fact remove the Commission and let the European parliament (with it's current powers) act as a proper elected legislative assembly, which as I said earlier will give it a legitimacy it currently doesn't have. Indeed remove the parliament altogether and return to the days when the EU was a mutually-supportive group of nations as opposed to a proto-superstate.

Blimey, I think I've just talked myself into voting 'Leave'!

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Future rises in GDP with reduced population growth - good luck with that.

sorry to be unclear, I meant the future rises in GDP growth if we Remain, so the question would be with current levels of immigration into the future, how much would people be prepared for inequality to rise (my premise being that capital rather than labour takes most of the rise).

 

[Two Professors]

If we do leave, I wonder what will be left for [MENTION=12825]cunning fergus[/MENTION] to blame absolutely everything on?

Why,are you leaving the UK?

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

If we leave and the economy tanks, as it is expected to do so, incomes will fall. There is no economic upside to Brexit. Shrinking the supply of labour damages the economy.

That is your view, fair enough. It is not mine. The economic upsides to Brexit have been outlined many times as have the economic upsides to Remain. If we leave then there will be new incentives in the economy and the cheap labour model will no longer be relevant.

 

[Bold Seagull]

sorry to be unclear, I meant the future rises in GDP growth if we Remain, so the question would be with current levels of immigration into the future, how much would people be prepared for inequality to rise (my premise being that capital rather than labour takes most of the rise).

To be perfectly honest NB, I don't think immigration will change much whether we Remain or Leave. I think it is a red herring. We haven't changed our immigration controls for decades. The Tories came in in 2010 with a manifesto to tackle immigration, and they haven't, and of course we could have tackled immigration from outside the EU.

Anyone voting Leave thinking that we'll suddenly stop immigration, that these numbers will suddenly start to shrink I believe is mistaken.

 

[Two Professors]

Unfortunately these agreements take years to hammer out. The Canada-EU deal took 7, for example. Moreover we are not that interesting to big players. As Obama said he has bigger fish to fry, such as an actual deal with the EU. We also lose the advantage of size. Switzerland has a free trade deal with China, but it is on Chinese terms. For example China has total access to the Swiss market, but there remains a tariff on Swiss watches into China in perpetuity. An EU-China deal would be on more equal terms.

What you may realise is actually we are less free if we quit. Brexit gives the illusion of sovereignty, technically we will be able to do what we want. In reality our bargaining position is weakened to such an extent that we are not powerful enough to set the terms of our own agreements. We go from rule maker to rule taker. In the end we are more sovereign, more free, when we are richer and have greater influence inside the EU.

You really are a little ray of sunshine,aren't you?Not even a glass half-empty type'.Don't drink,it's not healthy'!

 

[Mo Gosfield]

To be perfectly honest NB, I don't think immigration will change much whether we Remain or Leave. I think it is a red herring. We haven't changed our immigration controls for decades. The Tories came in in 2010 with a manifesto to tackle immigration, and they haven't, and of course we could have tackled immigration from outside the EU.

Anyone voting Leave thinking that we'll suddenly stop immigration, that these numbers will suddenly start to shrink I believe is mistaken.

Sadly, true.
The horse has long since bolted and the damage done. We have all been sold on the idea that an ever rising population is good for us and for the economy. It doesn't matter that we have to build a new home every 7 minutes for the next 20 years to keep pace. It doesn't matter that planning permission ( once, almost impossible ) is now granted on every green field site available. It doesn't matter that schools, hospitals, doctors waiting rooms, NHS dentists and prisons are bursting at the seams. Its great for big business. Readily available cheap labour. Thousands being employed on or around the minimum wage.
Keep them coming, in their hundreds of thousands. Its creating this vibrant economy that Mr Darling has just alluded to.

 

[5ways]

I'm not interested in preserving the status quo; I want to overthrow it - Niccolo Machiavelli

Not sure I want to take advice from a man with a Tywin Lannister approach to statecraft.

 

[wellquickwoody]

If we don't have any agreements, there will be some small tariffs averaging just 2.4%. Wow - that's gonna kill us.

One of my biggest problems with the majority of the Leave campaign (not the actual top end as they are just spinning numbers for their own advantage) is the lack of economic common sense. 2.4% on the cost does not equate to 2.4% on the retail, there are numerous multipliers which add far more to the final price than 'just 2.4%'.

 

[5ways]

That is your view, fair enough. It is not mine. The economic upsides to Brexit have been outlined many times as have the economic upsides to Remain. If we leave then there will be new incentives in the economy and the cheap labour model will no longer be relevant.

Sorry what are these economic upsides to Brexit? I know that 90% of economists argue there will be a downside. In fact the Economist Intelligence Unit said today that

"A vote to leave the European Union would trigger economic and political convulsions in the UK, plunging the country back into recession and sending the pound sharply lower, a forecasting group has warned.

The pound would fall 14-15% against the dollar in the course of this year, unemployment would rise and the UK would risk losing its status as a global financial centre.

Analysts at the thinktank claim the UK economy would shrink 1% next year in the event of Britain voting to leave in the 23 June referendum. That would be the first contraction in annual GDP since the depths of the financial crisis in 2009.

By 2020, the economy would be 6%, or £106bn, smaller than it would have been had it stayed in the EU, as the UK grappled with a “highly disruptive period in the country’s history”, the EIU said."

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jun/15/brexit-damage-uk-economy-eiu-vote-eu-recession

Meanwhile you talk about vague notions of 'incentives in the economy'. That is totally meaningless. The only incentive is to pull cash out of the UK and find a safe haven while we wreck the foundations of an economy that has the lowest unemployment in 8 years and is currently on course to be the largest economy in Europe.

 

[cunning fergus]

Is that what this is about for you? You want to give someone a bloody nose?

You do realise that the rich won't be affected half as much as you think. The rich always look after themselves. It'll be the poor that bear the brunt.

It's the rich that want us in.......an endless supply of cheap labour courtesy of EU wide labour market.

As I said, pro EU Labour MPs in particular are only now seeing the light and calling for reform, in short admissions that they got it wrong.......again.

It's not the working class that is the problem........it's the liars that treated them with contempt for the last 20 years.