The ultimate REFERENDUM thread

[Lincoln Imp]

5ways described the difficulties of option 4 - a UK-tailored deal. It may be worth adding to the points he mentioned that any trade deal agreed would have to be signed by all EU countries, including those that have a small or non-existent trade surplus with the UK. It is claimed that Germany would be in a hurry to agree such a deal. Even if it was, other countries might not be.

 

[Seagull on the wing]

Where is this so called plenty of evidence you speak of ? All I,ve heard from the IN camp about leaving is...COULD,POSSIBLY,MAYBE,they have stated in their brochure that "Nobody knows what the future would be like with Brexit",they then go on to say that leaving would be a disaster...er just a minute,You said nobody knows.We all know that the main concern is immigration and the EU has shown they cannot control the crisis which they started. Just look at all the young men from not just Syria but from African countries...(Nigeria ? Why ? ).,the fighting between them,the attacks on our lorries,as these the sort of people you want here ? Crime has risen in all EU countries.
Solution,we can send ships to stop them crossing,not executive thinking...we actually help them by taking them to an EU country. OK,so Turkey have stated that they can be sent back to them on condition of one in,one out and at a cost of 6 billion Euros,free visas for Turkish citizens,.
All the rest of the refugees sent back will take up Turkish citizenship...then by magic,Turkey will become a member the EU giving all the refugees the right to get here anyway.
Forgetting that immigration is a good thing if it is controlled and registered like the Aussie points plan.
I tried the points test online,you get asked questions and if you get past that you get an interview to check out your answers and about any crimminal passt. I knew I'd fail because of my age and duly got back a message saying, " Sorry you failed"..So didn't even get to the interview.

 

[Triggaaar]

So what? Firstly this would take a long time to negotiate leaving UK businesses in limbo for years.

You were trying to make the argument that needing to create new deals would mean we can't get a good deal, which is not true.

Secondly the terms we would secure to access this market would be inferior.

That's just nonsense, there is no evidence to suggest we wouldn't get a good deal yet you pretend it's a fact that we wouldn't. You're wrong, it's not a fact.

Here are the alternatives:

Obviously a new deal would be specific to the UK. You say the EU don't like giving us concessions - we wouldn't be after a better deal than we'd be offering the EU. And you ask why they'd give us a good deal - because Germany and France would be in a terrible economic mess if the UK stopped importing their goods. They can choose between giving us a fair deal, and things carrying on as they are, or having a recession like they've never seen. You ask why they'd give us a good deal if we were no longer contributing to the EU budget - it's likely we would still contribute, we would just have control over our own laws.

There is every reason to accept that we would not get terms as good.

There isn't, and your war game is irrelevant. You could do that with a few guys in the pub and have as accurate results.

The Economist: The starkest warning came from Leszek Balcerowicz, a former deputy prime minister representing Poland. He said the priority would be to deter populists in other countries who wanted to copy Brexit. For this reason Britain would be punished by its partners even if that seemed to be against their interests.

So to deter populists in other countries from copying Brexit, they'd send those countries into recession. Great plan.

The people conducting the experiment were biased, they generally don't want the UK to leave, so they want to make out it's a bad idea.

 

[Triggaaar]

I think that you are right that a non-EU member UK could get a decent trade deal (including membership of the single market), but the question is at what trade off? I've yet to see any evidence whatsoever that the EU would not demand freedom of movement

I think we would have to agree to some freedom of movement, as Switzerland has.

Historically the EU has also demanded payment (see Switzerland, Norway), and of course those countries wishing to export to the EU would have to meet all of the regulations and standards that are imposed upon Member States.

And I think we'd have to make a payment (although not as much as we pay now), and yes, many regulations would have to be met.

But there are a lot of EU laws we'd no longer have to follow. We'd also be better protected from the huge problems the Eurozone still face.

 

[Triggaaar]

5ways described the difficulties of option 4 - a UK-tailored deal. It may be worth adding to the points he mentioned that any trade deal agreed would have to be signed by all EU countries, including those that have a small or non-existent trade surplus with the UK. It is claimed that Germany would be in a hurry to agree such a deal. Even if it was, other countries might not be.

Yes, but countries like Germany and France would put pressure on the others, and point out that not only do they lose our trade, they also lose the money we pay into the EU budget, so these smaller countries would suffer if they said no.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Where is this so called plenty of evidence you speak of ? All I,ve heard from the IN camp about leaving is...COULD,POSSIBLY,MAYBE,they have stated in their brochure that "Nobody knows what the future would be like with Brexit",they then go on to say that leaving would be a disaster...er just a minute,You said nobody knows..

The 'evidence' appears to be repeatedly selecting particular sections of reports and comments and suggesting this is fact rather than just another highly speculative often biased opinion.

Perhaps they keep peddling this disinformation because they think the economic case is the most likely argument to persuade floating voters? I think I will keep re posting this ....

Various studies have attempted to quantify the benefit or cost to the UK of its membership of the EU. This is a very difficult exercise and depends on a wide range of assumptions. Estimates vary significantly For example, a 2005 study by the Institute for Economic Affairs found a cost of between 3% and 4% of GDP while a 2013 study by the CBI found a net benefit of between 4% and 5% of GDP. A 2015 study by Open Europe found that the cost of the 100 most burdensome EU regulations was £33.3 billion a year

There is no definitive study of the economic impact of the UK’s EU membership or the costs and benefits of withdrawal. Framing the aggregate impact in terms of a single number, or even irrefutably demonstrating that the net effects are positive or negative, is a formidably difficult exercise.This is because many of the costs and benefits are subjective or intangible. It is also because a host of assumptions must be made to reach an estimate. If the UK were to leave the EU, assumptions must be made about the terms on which this would be done and how Government would fill the policy vacuum left in areas where the EU currently has competence. If the UK were to remain in the EU, assumptions would need to be made about how policy in the EU would develop. Estimates of the costs and benefits of EU membership are likely to be highly sensitive to such assumptions.

http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN06091.pdf

.... as a health warning every time they suggest a few cobbled together links from mainly pro EU sources show we are either definitely better off economically remaining within the EU / Brexit will definitely be worse economically for the UK.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Yes, but countries like Germany and France would put pressure on the others, and point out that not only do they lose our trade, they also lose the money we pay into the EU budget, so these smaller countries would suffer if they said no.

I see where you're coming from but it seems to me the EU will be in the box seat for negotiations. The UK needs to trade with the EU....and the EU will know this.

 

[Triggaaar]

The UK needs to trade with the EU....and the EU will know this.

And the EU needs to trade with the UK... and the UK will know this.


If I was doing the negotiating for the UK, I would point out that the trade needs to be fair, as it has been in the past, and that the EU can either choose to send the UK, Germany, France, and the rest of Europe into a terrible recession, or it can accept what is a fair deal, where things carry on as they are. They can take it or leave it. If they say no, it would be awful for everyone, so I doubt they'd say no.

 

[pastafarian]

He said the priority would be to deter populists in other countries who wanted to copy Brexit. For this reason Britain would be punished by its partners even if that seemed to be against their interests. Mr Cameron’s negotiations may be hard, but they are a picnic compared with what he would face were he to lose his referendum.

Can you keep repeating this please.
Preferably every few posts.

Sums up The EU very nicely, always furious if it doesn’t get its way, unwilling to contemplate change and vindictive.
I am more OUT than I was yesterday.Why on earth would you want to be a part of that.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

And the EU needs to trade with the UK... and the UK will know this.

True, but I feel the UK will need the EU more than reverse. The U.K. will be dealing with all 20 plus countries and it will put the small countries in a powerful position as nothing can be agreed without their co-operation. All the talk of Germany losing car sales is a red-herring to me. What will really matter is what the lesser nations think and want. This, after all, is the essence of trading blocks.

 

[pastafarian]

I think we would have to agree to some freedom of movement, as Switzerland has.

Has agreed to previously
Very much "watch this space" with Switzerland and free movement.

This last Friday
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/switzerland-presents-unilateral-limits-on-immigration-from-eu/42001914

 

[Triggaaar]

True, but I feel the UK will need the EU more than reverse.

I agree, but I don't think it would be wise for the EU to cut of its nose to spite its face.

The U.K. will be dealing with all 20 plus countries and it will put the small countries in a powerful position

I don't think the small countries have the power you assume, they get told what to do, otherwise there would never be universal agreement on anything in Europe.

All the talk of Germany losing car sales is a red-herring to me.

Er, what? If the EU don't agree a trade deal with the UK, we won't be buying the cars, just as the EU won't be buying our services etc.

 

[ditchy]

Norway's $830 billion wealth fund to invest in UK regardless of Brexit

12 mins ago
3/9/2016, 1:38:33 PM
Says will continue to invest in Britain, probably increase
Has not, and will not, sell assets like other SWFs have
Says no impact on long-term goals from first net withdrawal
Recasts with comments on Brexit, market turmoil and first net withdrawal

By Gwladys Fouche and Joachim Dagenborg

OSLO, March 9 (Reuters) - Norway's $830 billion sovereign wealth fund, the world's biggest, does not see the prospect of Britain leaving the European Union as a significant risk to its investments, its chief executive told Reuters on Wednesday.

The comments came as the fund reported an overall fourth-quarter gain but said it may need to support government spending to the tune of 80 billion crowns ($9.34 billion) this year.

Britain is the fund's second-largest country holding after the United States, representing 10.2 percent of its total value at end-2015. It made its first-ever property deal by buying a stake in London's Regent Street in 2011.

"We will continue to be a significant investor in the UK at about the same level as we are today and probably even increasing our investments there going forward no matter what happens," Yngve Slyngstad said in an interview.

Britain is voting in June on whether to stay in the EU. Norway is not a member.

"All changes entail some risk but we would not categorise it as a significant risk," Slyngstad said.

In 2015 several sovereign wealth funds sold $46.4 billion of assets after the oil price crash triggered fund redemptions and selling of foreign currency reserves by producers. (Full Story) (Full Story)

Norway was not one of them. "We have not participated in the selling and we don't foresee that we will," Slyngstad told a news conference held earlier on Wednesday to present the fund's annual report.

Incoming revenues, worth 191 billion crowns last year, would be more than enough to fund the withdrawal that is planned from the Ministry of Finance as of this year, he said.

"So we are in a privileged position that the fund is very large and the cash we generate is quite significant while the budget financing needs are limited," he said.

As a long-term investor, the fund has often said it likes to take countercyclical positions, by buying when markets fall. Asked whether the current market turmoil was such an opportunity, he said: "Yes, of course."

"We would like to be in a position where we can be countercyclical and we will see what will happen with the market. However, we still need quite significant price movements in the market before we actually go into a rebalancing mode."


ECONOMY SUPPORT

The rainy-day fund, built up over two decades from Norway's vast oil revenues, holds about $160,000 for each of Norway's 5.2 million people.

In January, the government made its first net withdrawal from the fund to support public spending and an economy hit by falling oil industry investments. (Full Story)

On Wednesday, Slyngstad said the 6.8 billion crown withdrawal in the month could mean an expansion to 80 billion crowns over the year. That would not affect the fund's long-term goals, he said. (Full Story)

In the fourth quarter, a rebound in stock markets helped the fund make a positive return in the fourth quarter following two consecutive periods of losses.

It had earned a return of 3.56 percent in October-December, slightly outperforming its benchmark of 3.51 percent. For 2015, the return of the fund was 2.7 percent, 0.5 percentage points above its annual benchmark.

This is a big plus for the No vote . watch them reel this one out

 

[5ways]

You were trying to make the argument that needing to create new deals would mean we can't get a good deal, which is not true.
That's just nonsense, there is no evidence to suggest we wouldn't get a good deal yet you pretend it's a fact that we wouldn't. You're wrong, it's not a fact.

Obviously a new deal would be specific to the UK. You say the EU don't like giving us concessions - we wouldn't be after a better deal than we'd be offering the EU. And you ask why they'd give us a good deal - because Germany and France would be in a terrible economic mess if the UK stopped importing their goods. They can choose between giving us a fair deal, and things carrying on as they are, or having a recession like they've never seen. You ask why they'd give us a good deal if we were no longer contributing to the EU budget - it's likely we would still contribute, we would just have control over our own laws, not more.

There isn't, and your war game is irrelevant. You could do that with a few guys in the pub and have as accurate results.

So to deter populists in other countries from copying Brexit, they'd send those countries into recession. Great plan.

The people conducting the experiment were biased, they generally don't want the UK to leave, so they want to make out it's a bad idea.

The deal will be inferior. The options laid out clearly demonstrate this. We still have to pay, we still have to accept free movement, we still are subject to EU regulation but on each of these matters we ourselves have to swallow them without influencing them. We would have less control over much of our law.

Like I said there is evidence suggesting the new deal would be inferior - see alternative models of membership to the free trade area. These war games aren't biased; Open Europe is quite critical of the EU. They don't have to 'make out' it's a bad idea - it is a bad idea. I've seen no evidence we will get a better deal, your negotiating strategy rests of brinkmanship. When it comes to a contest of who will blink first we've got one set of eye-lids, they've got 26. They won't all jump at once to sign a new deal, they've got other problems demanding their attention.

 

[LlcoolJ]

What's that got to do with anything other than pointing out that Norway is swimming in oil cash?

 

[Triggaaar]

The deal will be inferior. The options laid out clearly demonstrate this.

Stop talking shit. Just stop it. There are no 'options laid out'. We'd negotiate a deal, there is nothing to currently go on.

Someone asked earlier for some facts that could help them decide, and you posted a link to the biased LSE website. You tried to deny that it was biased and when asked for an example of someone from LSE who supported Brexit you posted a link that supported the Stay IN campaign. You then excused this by saying the LSE don't give opinions, which I quickly proved isn't the case.

You've expressed which side you're on and that's fine, but stop pretending that your opinion is a fact, no one's buying it.

 

[ditchy]

What's that got to do with anything other than pointing out that Norway is swimming in oil cash?

It points out that yes they may have cash , but they dont give two hoots if UK is in or out of Europe as they will still invest in our economy

 

[5ways]

Stop talking shit. Just stop it. There are no 'options laid out'. We'd negotiate a deal, there is nothing to currently go on.

Someone asked earlier for some facts that could help them decide, and you posted a link to the biased LSE website. You tried to deny that it was biased and when asked for an example of someone from LSE who supported Brexit you posted a link that supported the Stay IN campaign. You then excused this by saying the LSE don't give opinions, which I quickly proved isn't the case.

You've expressed which side you're on and that's fine, but stop pretending that your opinion is a fact, no one's buying it.

I see no options from the Out campaign. The options laid out are the main alternatives to full membership, none of them offer the same benefits that full membership does. I can say then that in the case of Brexit these are the possible outcomes. The government published a report that also said that no alternative models is as beneficial to the UK as full membership.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...possible_models_for_the_UK_outside_the_EU.pdf

This is not conjecture this is government analysis. The final paragraph states

"Whatever alternative to membership the UK seeks following a decision to leave the EU,
we will lose influence over EU decisions that will still directly affect us. We need to weigh the
benefits of access to the EU and global markets against the obligations and costs incurred
in return. It is the assessment of the UK Government that no existing model outside the EU
comes close to providing the same balance of advantages and influence that we get from the
UK’s current special status inside the EU." https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...possible_models_for_the_UK_outside_the_EU.pdf

This conclusion is based on an objective reading of the post-Brexit scenario. It is not a positive one. I've see nothing from Outers which argues otherwise - only the suggestion that we will negotiate a deal, and the deal will be good.

 

[pastafarian]

The deal will be inferior. The options laid out clearly demonstrate this. We still have to pay, we still have to accept free movement, we still are subject to EU regulation but on each of these matters we ourselves have to swallow them without influencing them. We would have less control over much of our law.
.

I asked you before which countries outside of the EU who have a Free Trade Agreement(FTA) with the EU have accepted free movement? you didnt bother to answer instead you went off on a tangent.
so ill ask again...........

 

[GT49er]

The deal will be inferior. The options laid out clearly demonstrate this. We still have to pay, we still have to accept free movement, we still are subject to EU regulation but on each of these matters we ourselves have to swallow them without influencing them. We would have less control over much of our law.

If you're a member of an organisation, you have to abide by its rules (or regulations in the case of the EU). If you're not a member, then you're under no obligation to comply with regulations to which the members have to comply. That's the whole point of leaving. Shouldn't be that difficult to understand, really.