Voted Leave: D+1 - whats the Economic Plan
Discussion
Zod said:
don4l said:
Iceland has a trade deal with China.
When I see someone say that it would be difficult to negotiate deal with the EU, I correct them. We are the fifth-largest economy in the world, with the fourth largest military budget. We are leading members of NATO, the Council of Europe, the Commonwealth and the G7 and G20. We are one of five permanent seat-holders at the UN Security Council. How much bigger do we have to be before we can live under our own laws, on our own terms?
The Remain camp's tactic of belittling their own country has failed to impress the general public.
The fact that you cannot come up with anything demonstrates that your case is vacuous.
The opinion poles reflect that position.
Not sure that Poles are being consulted on this referendum.When I see someone say that it would be difficult to negotiate deal with the EU, I correct them. We are the fifth-largest economy in the world, with the fourth largest military budget. We are leading members of NATO, the Council of Europe, the Commonwealth and the G7 and G20. We are one of five permanent seat-holders at the UN Security Council. How much bigger do we have to be before we can live under our own laws, on our own terms?
The Remain camp's tactic of belittling their own country has failed to impress the general public.
The fact that you cannot come up with anything demonstrates that your case is vacuous.
The opinion poles reflect that position.
Raising the Iceland-China FTA is hilarious. Iceland's exports to China are a sixth of its imports from China. As far as China is concerned, this will have been a project for an intern. In the year that deal was signed, China's exports to Iceland were 0.009% of China's total exports.
Whenever I see someone else do it, it really grates. I should learn to read my posts before clicking submit.
Doh!
If we are so small compared to China, then the same intern can do the job. If we are not that small, then they might think it worth while to find someone more senior.
Zod said:
holly unnecessary uncertainty. That is not the case with a remain vote. Brexit means sudden, unknown change. Remain means change, but gradual and telegraphed in advance.
I doubt it would be sudden. Approx two years of talks for a start. Stuart Rose opined very little would happen for years.ralphrj said:
Derek Smith said:
Good summary. The best we can hope for is the Norwegian way. Someone suggested that it will be a bit cheaper. I wonder how (s)he knows.
It might be cheaper. Norway pays a net contribution per capita of €107.4. We currently pay €139 so there is potential for €2.0bn saving.Zod said:
holly unnecessary uncertainty. That is not the case with a remain vote. Brexit means sudden, unknown change. Remain means change, but gradual and telegraphed in advance.
Not sure that's guaranteed.Brexit's been relatively well telegraphed and has a 2 year buffer zone. The EU could change dramatically within that period due to reasons of economy, immigration or even the war it's supposedly preventing.
don4l said:
Iceland has a trade deal with China.
I don't see the relevance of that. I never claimed that neither Iceland or the UK were unable to negotiate a trade deal.don4l said:
When I see someone say that it would be difficult to negotiate deal with the EU, I correct them. We are the fifth-largest economy in the world, with the fourth largest military budget. We are leading members of NATO, the Council of Europe, the Commonwealth and the G7 and G20. We are one of five permanent seat-holders at the UN Security Council. How much bigger do we have to be before we can live under our own laws, on our own terms?
I haven't suggested that the UK can't negotiate a trade deal with the EU (or any other country). I merely pointed out that the UK will not be in the stronger position in those negotiations as, should the negotiations fail, the UK stands to lose more than the rest of the EU. This will leave the UK in a position of having to compromise more than the EU.don4l said:
The Remain camp's tactic of belittling their own country has failed to impress the general public.
The fact that you cannot come up with anything demonstrates that your case is vacuous.
I haven't belittled my country nor would I ever do so. I have rationally pointed out that being a net importer is not as critical a factor as the size of the exports relative to the country or trade blocs economy.The fact that you cannot come up with anything demonstrates that your case is vacuous.
As for failing to come up with anything and my case being vacuous, I have explained (with examples) why the net trade position is not as important. It is actually you who has failed to offer anything to show why the net trade position is so important or why the size of exports relative to the size of the economy is wrong.
kurt535 said:
s2art said:
Jockman said:
kurt535 said:
Then stand by for diminished returns if vote leave gets in. Ironically, everyone has seen their pensions whacked in the last few years quite badly but there's no doubt they will be hurt more. Again, based off the £/ftse/ govt bonds getting hurt. could be trouble ahead!
Thank you for the heads up. Derek Smith said:
Lots of arguments about the net contribution of per head in Norway. However, it matters not a jot as there is no guarantee that we would pay the same as Norway in any case. There is every possibility that the EU might go for the highest fee they can, unlikely though that is. There is absolutely no reason for us to gain the same benefits as Norway.
If we just do a trade deal there would be no contribution at all. Just payments to any EU or non-EU projects in Europe that we wish to participate in (like ESA, non-EU)
s2art said:
kurt535 said:
s2art said:
Jockman said:
kurt535 said:
Then stand by for diminished returns if vote leave gets in. Ironically, everyone has seen their pensions whacked in the last few years quite badly but there's no doubt they will be hurt more. Again, based off the £/ftse/ govt bonds getting hurt. could be trouble ahead!
Thank you for the heads up. s2art said:
Derek Smith said:
Lots of arguments about the net contribution of per head in Norway. However, it matters not a jot as there is no guarantee that we would pay the same as Norway in any case. There is every possibility that the EU might go for the highest fee they can, unlikely though that is. There is absolutely no reason for us to gain the same benefits as Norway.
If we just do a trade deal there would be no contribution at all. Just payments to any EU or non-EU projects in Europe that we wish to participate in (like ESA, non-EU)s2art said:
Derek Smith said:
Lots of arguments about the net contribution of per head in Norway. However, it matters not a jot as there is no guarantee that we would pay the same as Norway in any case. There is every possibility that the EU might go for the highest fee they can, unlikely though that is. There is absolutely no reason for us to gain the same benefits as Norway.
If we just do a trade deal there would be no contribution at all. Just payments to any EU or non-EU projects in Europe that we wish to participate in (like ESA, non-EU)So there's no problem then.
Apart from the likelihood that we will negotiate a Norwayesque deal of course.
What size of hole? I just dont see it being a big issue.
UK saves billions not being a member and it will still trade as it does with Europe, its in Europs interests not to f
k that up as you are an important export market for them. Far more so than they are for you.
It wont affect Uk's position with anywhere outside of Europe. You will still trade with the rest of the world. Europe will still trade with the UK.
The whole economic an tax thing is the biggest scare tactic of the whole debate. totally baseless too.
UK saves billions not being a member and it will still trade as it does with Europe, its in Europs interests not to f
k that up as you are an important export market for them. Far more so than they are for you.It wont affect Uk's position with anywhere outside of Europe. You will still trade with the rest of the world. Europe will still trade with the UK.
The whole economic an tax thing is the biggest scare tactic of the whole debate. totally baseless too.
RobDickinson said:
What size of hole? I just dont see it being a big issue.
UK saves billions not being a member and it will still trade as it does with Europe, its in Europs interests not to fk that up as you are an important export market for them. Far more so than they are for you.
It wont affect Uk's position with anywhere outside of Europe. You will still trade with the rest of the world. Europe will still trade with the UK.
The whole economic an tax thing is the biggest scare tactic of the whole debate. totally baseless too.
+1UK saves billions not being a member and it will still trade as it does with Europe, its in Europs interests not to f
k that up as you are an important export market for them. Far more so than they are for you.It wont affect Uk's position with anywhere outside of Europe. You will still trade with the rest of the world. Europe will still trade with the UK.
The whole economic an tax thing is the biggest scare tactic of the whole debate. totally baseless too.
Unless of course the pound plummets in which case exporters would have a bonanza.
kurt535 said:
Assuming a popular 'Leave' win, whats the economic plan the next morning given FTSE and £ will be potentially practising skydiving?
Does the BoE cut or raise rates and start Quant Easing again?
What happens to Government Gilts?
Is our credit rating lowered?
Does the housing market stop?
Does the Prime Minister suffer a Commons Vote of No Confidence - adding to the financial turmoil?
The leave plan is ' we'll wing it'
Cameron will quit, will be funny seeing Boris squirm as he tries to sort out the mess he had caused..
Does the BoE cut or raise rates and start Quant Easing again?
What happens to Government Gilts?
Is our credit rating lowered?
Does the housing market stop?
Does the Prime Minister suffer a Commons Vote of No Confidence - adding to the financial turmoil?
The leave plan is ' we'll wing it'
Cameron will quit, will be funny seeing Boris squirm as he tries to sort out the mess he had caused..
Derek Smith said:
s2art said:
Derek Smith said:
Lots of arguments about the net contribution of per head in Norway. However, it matters not a jot as there is no guarantee that we would pay the same as Norway in any case. There is every possibility that the EU might go for the highest fee they can, unlikely though that is. There is absolutely no reason for us to gain the same benefits as Norway.
If we just do a trade deal there would be no contribution at all. Just payments to any EU or non-EU projects in Europe that we wish to participate in (like ESA, non-EU)So there's no problem then.
Apart from the likelihood that we will negotiate a Norwayesque deal of course.
don4l said:
This is what the "remain" campaign has been reduced to.
We started out with 3.3 million unemployed, war, the loss of the NHS, more terrorism.
Now we are reduced to suggesting that we will have to accept the free movement of people.
Like all the other discredited claims, this one is nonsense.
Nothing at all will be forced on us.
As a net importer from the EU, we will be dictating the terms. if we don't want free movement, then there is nothing that the EU can do about it.
Free movement of people is one of the key principles of the EEA agreement. If we wish to retain access to the single market in a post-Brexit world, I don't see any evidence to suggest we wouldn't have to accept it. Joining EFTA would see control over agriculture and fisheries, but freedom of movement is still required for an EFTA member to participate in the EEA.We started out with 3.3 million unemployed, war, the loss of the NHS, more terrorism.
Now we are reduced to suggesting that we will have to accept the free movement of people.
Like all the other discredited claims, this one is nonsense.
Nothing at all will be forced on us.
As a net importer from the EU, we will be dictating the terms. if we don't want free movement, then there is nothing that the EU can do about it.
If we went the non-EFTA bilateral route, what evidence is there to suggest we wouldn't be subject to the same requirements as Switzerland? Treaties in their two bilateral treaty tranches are deemed mutually dependent and subject to a "guillotine clause". They have no power to pick and choose the terms of their access, and I don't see how using that to infer a likely outcome of possible EU/UK trade deals can be considered either nonsense or discredited? I don't understand where this confidence comes from that we can just rock up to negotiations, pick and choose what we want and expect to get our way without every other signatory saying "um, hang on, why do they get preferential treatment?".
I don't see how any of the above can be considered nonsense or scaremongering, given it's based on precedent (Swiss situation) and the foundational principles of the internal market agreement we're apparently just going to rock up to and partially circumvent without any other member states kicking up a stink?!
talksthetorque said:
So it appears Mr Osborne has said he will whack taxes up if we vote leave.
MP in acting like a petulant child shocker.
I found it more remarkable he admitted there is no plan at all for the opposite outcome, of a binary decision, to the side he favours.MP in acting like a petulant child shocker.
Edited by talksthetorque on Wednesday 15th June 21:15
Some would consider that a case of gross incompetence from him and his department.
hornet said:
Free movement of people is one of the key principles of the EEA agreement. If we wish to retain access to the single market in a post-Brexit world, I don't see any evidence to suggest we wouldn't have to accept it. Joining EFTA would see control over agriculture and fisheries, but freedom of movement is still required for an EFTA member to participate in the EEA.
If we went the non-EFTA bilateral route, what evidence is there to suggest we wouldn't be subject to the same requirements as Switzerland? Treaties in their two bilateral treaty tranches are deemed mutually dependent and subject to a "guillotine clause". They have no power to pick and choose the terms of their access, and I don't see how using that to infer a likely outcome of possible EU/UK trade deals can be considered either nonsense or discredited? I don't understand where this confidence comes from that we can just rock up to negotiations, pick and choose what we want and expect to get our way without every other signatory saying "um, hang on, why do they get preferential treatment?".
I don't see how any of the above can be considered nonsense or scaremongering, given it's based on precedent (Swiss situation) and the foundational principles of the internal market agreement we're apparently just going to rock up to and partially circumvent without any other member states kicking up a stink?!
If you stick your fingers in your ears and hum loudly all these problems will disappear.If we went the non-EFTA bilateral route, what evidence is there to suggest we wouldn't be subject to the same requirements as Switzerland? Treaties in their two bilateral treaty tranches are deemed mutually dependent and subject to a "guillotine clause". They have no power to pick and choose the terms of their access, and I don't see how using that to infer a likely outcome of possible EU/UK trade deals can be considered either nonsense or discredited? I don't understand where this confidence comes from that we can just rock up to negotiations, pick and choose what we want and expect to get our way without every other signatory saying "um, hang on, why do they get preferential treatment?".
I don't see how any of the above can be considered nonsense or scaremongering, given it's based on precedent (Swiss situation) and the foundational principles of the internal market agreement we're apparently just going to rock up to and partially circumvent without any other member states kicking up a stink?!
We will be dictated to. There is a majority in parliament to remain in the EU. If there is an exit then the closest thing to it will have a lot of pressure behind it. The EU will be pushing at an open door.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff