Voted Leave: D+1 - whats the Economic Plan

[s2art]

hornet said:

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?

Because we are much, much bigger than Switzerland and we run a huge trade deficit with the EU.

[RobDickinson]

You vote to remain you will be frankogerman biatches for ever.

You vote to leave (and if its a big majority) the politicians better fking leave. You will though at that point have new leaders because the old ones really cant stay in the jobs.

[s2art]

RobDickinson said:

You vote to remain you will be frankogerman biatches for ever.

You vote to leave (and if its a big majority) the politicians better fking leave. You will though at that point have new leaders because the old ones really cant stay in the jobs.

WE saw Osborns resignation letter today with that scarey threat for a Brexit budget. (when Brexit is still years away even if we vote out)

[robm3]

JNW1 said:

Mr_B said:

It sure would be interesting to see the EU punish the UK by taking a hit to their own exports. Even the most prosperous one ( Germany ) won't have that many pro EU businessmen wanting to take a hit once the UK has taken the decision to leave.
I wonder how much Spain, Italy and Greece will like to be dragged into efforts designed more to punish the UK at a cost to themselves , by the like of French and German embittered politicians ? It doesn't look like they can suffer any more, or that their people are the ones looking for a fight.

In the event of Brexit I think the reality is both sides would have to be pragmatic and arrive at a sensible solution that would be in the interests of both parties. A trade war between Britain and the EU would benefit neither and I don't believe it would be allowed to come that (not that I think it will as despite what the polls suggest I still can't see the vote being in favour of Brexit anyway!).

I think nearly everyone is falling into the trap of assuming the EU will want stability as quickly as possible. However if you consider the political issues in the EU itself from a Leave vote I strongly believe the EU will want to see the UK derailed as quickly as possible.
Why?
Because the EU concept is already hanging by a thread in most member states and by them pointing at a failed UK they (they faceless EU leaders) can say:
"We told you so"
And thus rush through more legislation and control to 'cement' their postions.

So again, it's my belief that the EU will conduct a trade war and perhaps even more than that, purposely undermine UK's interests globally where possible.
It's going to be a rough ride, far longer than 3 years!

[Ridgemont]

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?".

!

Richard North thinks otherwise on Freedom of Movement and EEA;
http://eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86104

Turns out article 112 of the EEA agreement allows for safeguard procedures to break immigration and has been used by Liechtenstein.

[B'stard Child]

robm3 said:

I think nearly everyone is falling into the trap of assuming the EU will want stability as quickly as possible. However if you consider the political issues in the EU itself from a Leave vote I strongly believe the EU will want to see the UK derailed as quickly as possible.
Why?
Because the EU concept is already hanging by a thread in most member states and by them pointing at a failed UK they (they faceless EU leaders) can say:
"We told you so"
And thus rush through more legislation and control to 'cement' their postions.

So again, it's my belief that the EU will conduct a trade war and perhaps even more than that, purposely undermine UK's interests globally where possible.
It's going to be a rough ride, far longer than 3 years!

And if we stay - the odds of any meaningful reform to the rotten core is impossible

I'll take the rough ride because I believe that the EU is going to fall apart or have to change radically and rapidly.

[s2art]

robm3 said:

So again, it's my belief that the EU will conduct a trade war and perhaps even more than that, purposely undermine UK's interests globally where possible.
It's going to be a rough ride, far longer than 3 years!

The EU is not in any position to wage a trade war. Italy and France are on the brink today.

[RobDickinson]

s2art said:

robm3 said:

So again, it's my belief that the EU will conduct a trade war and perhaps even more than that, purposely undermine UK's interests globally where possible.
It's going to be a rough ride, far longer than 3 years!

The EU is not in any position to wage a trade war. Italy and France are on the brink today.

If UK leaves its Eu's job to compete against us, thats business. you wont be in their club. But International trade doesnt work like that and they will have to come to some trade agreement as UK is an important trading partner for Europe.

What would German, French, Italian industry say if EU suddenly caused trouble for their biggest single export market?

[robm3]

s2art said:

robm3 said:

So again, it's my belief that the EU will conduct a trade war and perhaps even more than that, purposely undermine UK's interests globally where possible.
It's going to be a rough ride, far longer than 3 years!

The EU is not in any position to wage a trade war. Italy and France are on the brink today.

I disagree, it may not be in a traditional trade war eg fought via tariffs but a more covert undermining of UK exports and deals, and not with the EU but globally.

Example. U.K. Company is bidding for a contract in Middle East. EU Company undermines UK bid to such an extent it that it can only have some form of state support eg. EU export grant or the like or perhaps even more covert support.

Or Argentina suddenly gets a lot more global support over the Falklands etc etc...

I truly believe there will be almost vindictive lobbying against the UK.

It really won't be business as usual nor plain sailing!

[s2art]

robm3 said:

s2art said:

robm3 said:

So again, it's my belief that the EU will conduct a trade war and perhaps even more than that, purposely undermine UK's interests globally where possible.
It's going to be a rough ride, far longer than 3 years!

The EU is not in any position to wage a trade war. Italy and France are on the brink today.

I disagree, it may not be in a traditional trade war eg fought via tariffs but a more covert undermining of UK exports and deals, and not with the EU but globally.

Example. U.K. Company is bidding for a contract in Middle East. EU Company undermines UK bid to such an extent it that it can only have some form of state support eg. EU export grant or the like or perhaps even more covert support.

Or Argentina suddenly gets a lot more global support over the Falklands etc etc...

I truly believe there will be almost vindictive lobbying against the UK.

It really won't be business as usual nor plain sailing!

Cant see it. They are already up their armpits in alligators. They will have bigger fish to fry. Not only that, the commission may be pissed off, but individual countries will be acting in their own best interests.

[SeeFive]

robm3 said:

I disagree, it may not be in a traditional trade war eg fought via tariffs but a more covert undermining of UK exports and deals, and not with the EU but globally.

Example. U.K. Company is bidding for a contract in Middle East. EU Company undermines UK bid to such an extent it that it can only have some form of state support eg. EU export grant or the like or perhaps even more covert support.

Or Argentina suddenly gets a lot more global support over the Falklands etc etc...

I truly believe there will be almost vindictive lobbying against the UK.

It really won't be business as usual nor plain sailing!

No real change then.

CMD was gonna be vetoed by Greece when trying to push his last reforms. Greece ffs!!!

Bids are always competitive and can be scuppered deliberately by a multitude of reasons. Methodologies exist to help detect that early and measure your ability to win.

And I could be wrong but I don't remember anyone else running down to the south Atlantic with us in the 80's, not the EU or our mates in the "special relationship".

Bring it on!

[mph1977]

SeeFive said:

<snip>

And I could be wrong but I don't remember anyone else running down to the south Atlantic with us in the 80's, not the EU or our mates in the "special relationship".

Bring it on!

I think you need to do a little reading then ...

I don't think the UK had placed the fuel bunkered on Ascension there ... then there's the matter of the level of co-operation from MBDA / Nord with regard to what exactly they had sold to the argentinians... or the re-jig of NATO commitments to free UK vessels

[Pan Pan Pan]

robm3 said:

JNW1 said:

Mr_B said:

It sure would be interesting to see the EU punish the UK by taking a hit to their own exports. Even the most prosperous one ( Germany ) won't have that many pro EU businessmen wanting to take a hit once the UK has taken the decision to leave.
I wonder how much Spain, Italy and Greece will like to be dragged into efforts designed more to punish the UK at a cost to themselves , by the like of French and German embittered politicians ? It doesn't look like they can suffer any more, or that their people are the ones looking for a fight.

In the event of Brexit I think the reality is both sides would have to be pragmatic and arrive at a sensible solution that would be in the interests of both parties. A trade war between Britain and the EU would benefit neither and I don't believe it would be allowed to come that (not that I think it will as despite what the polls suggest I still can't see the vote being in favour of Brexit anyway!).

I think nearly everyone is falling into the trap of assuming the EU will want stability as quickly as possible. However if you consider the political issues in the EU itself from a Leave vote I strongly believe the EU will want to see the UK derailed as quickly as possible.
Why?
Because the EU concept is already hanging by a thread in most member states and by them pointing at a failed UK they (they faceless EU leaders) can say:
"We told you so"
And thus rush through more legislation and control to 'cement' their postions.

So again, it's my belief that the EU will conduct a trade war and perhaps even more than that, purposely undermine UK's interests globally where possible.
It's going to be a rough ride, far longer than 3 years!

And these are the `friends' the remainers want us to stay and do business with?
With friends like that who needs enemies?
The EU sells more to the UK than the UK sells into the EU. so if `they' place restrictions on trade with the UK it will hurt their businesses far more than it hurts the UK.

Edited by Pan Pan Pan on Thursday 16th June 01:30

[SeeFive]

mph1977 said:

I think you need to do a little reading then ...

I don't think the UK had placed the fuel bunkered on Ascension there ... then there's the matter of the level of co-operation from MBDA / Nord with regard to what exactly they had sold to the argentinians... or the re-jig of NATO commitments to free UK vessels

As I said, I could be wrong. It is a long time ago. Certainly the military kit and staff down there was UK. Even with the bunkers at Wideawake, some of the sorties were almost out of fuel looking for tankers.

AFAIR, Wideawake was sited in a UK territory and leased to the US at the time. I don't know the terms of that lease. MDBA / Nord are companies who essentially produced product sales figures. And the NATO release, yup, NATO is a good place to be, quite fair and reciprocal, unlike the EU.

[tarnished]

mph1977 said:

SeeFive said:

<snip>

And I could be wrong but I don't remember anyone else running down to the south Atlantic with us in the 80's, not the EU or our mates in the "special relationship".

Bring it on!

I think you need to do a little reading then ...

I don't think the UK had placed the fuel bunkered on Ascension there ... then there's the matter of the level of co-operation from MBDA / Nord with regard to what exactly they had sold to the argentinians... or the re-jig of NATO commitments to free UK vessels

Amazing how we can cooperate in ways that fall outside of the EU.

[lostkiwi]

Pan Pan Pan said:

robm3 said:

JNW1 said:

Mr_B said:

It sure would be interesting to see the EU punish the UK by taking a hit to their own exports. Even the most prosperous one ( Germany ) won't have that many pro EU businessmen wanting to take a hit once the UK has taken the decision to leave.
I wonder how much Spain, Italy and Greece will like to be dragged into efforts designed more to punish the UK at a cost to themselves , by the like of French and German embittered politicians ? It doesn't look like they can suffer any more, or that their people are the ones looking for a fight.

In the event of Brexit I think the reality is both sides would have to be pragmatic and arrive at a sensible solution that would be in the interests of both parties. A trade war between Britain and the EU would benefit neither and I don't believe it would be allowed to come that (not that I think it will as despite what the polls suggest I still can't see the vote being in favour of Brexit anyway!).

I think nearly everyone is falling into the trap of assuming the EU will want stability as quickly as possible. However if you consider the political issues in the EU itself from a Leave vote I strongly believe the EU will want to see the UK derailed as quickly as possible.
Why?
Because the EU concept is already hanging by a thread in most member states and by them pointing at a failed UK they (they faceless EU leaders) can say:
"We told you so"
And thus rush through more legislation and control to 'cement' their postions.

So again, it's my belief that the EU will conduct a trade war and perhaps even more than that, purposely undermine UK's interests globally where possible.
It's going to be a rough ride, far longer than 3 years!

And these are the `friends' the remainers want us to stay and do business with?
With friends like that who needs enemies?
The EU sells more to the UK than the UK sells into the EU. so if `they' place restrictions on trade with the UK it will hurt their businesses far more than it hurts the UK.

Edited by Pan Pan Pan on Thursday 16th June 01:30

So if we were mates and I did something you didn't like such as for example shag your wife would we still be friends?

[JNW1]

s2art said:

robm3 said:

s2art said:

robm3 said:

So again, it's my belief that the EU will conduct a trade war and perhaps even more than that, purposely undermine UK's interests globally where possible.
It's going to be a rough ride, far longer than 3 years!

The EU is not in any position to wage a trade war. Italy and France are on the brink today.

I disagree, it may not be in a traditional trade war eg fought via tariffs but a more covert undermining of UK exports and deals, and not with the EU but globally.

Example. U.K. Company is bidding for a contract in Middle East. EU Company undermines UK bid to such an extent it that it can only have some form of state support eg. EU export grant or the like or perhaps even more covert support.

Or Argentina suddenly gets a lot more global support over the Falklands etc etc...

I truly believe there will be almost vindictive lobbying against the UK.

It really won't be business as usual nor plain sailing!

Cant see it. They are already up their armpits in alligators. They will have bigger fish to fry. Not only that, the commission may be pissed off, but individual countries will be acting in their own best interests.

Nor can I; Germany is the largest economic force by far in the EU and their businesses would suffer most as a result of any trade war with Britain. Therefore, in the event of Brexit I suspect German companies would lean heavily on their government to make sure they could continue to sell their BMW's, Audi's, VW's, Mercedes, etc, over here without a problem - the last thing they'd want is a trade war. I don't doubt there would be EU countries keen to give us a bloody nose for daring to leave but the reality is many are teetering on the economic brink already and a trade war isn't where they need to be; in any event, to protect their own businesses I think the Germans would reign-in any notion of an economic conflict with Britain.

[Jockman]

Derek Smith said:

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.

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.

You do realise the most obvious weakness of your point, don't you?

It's so loud that putting your fingers in your ears will not drown it out.

[JNW1]

lostkiwi said:

So if we were mates and I did something you didn't like such as for example shag your wife would we still be friends?

I'm not sure we've ever been friends as such with many of our EU partners; more often than not we've been a lone voice in the wilderness on a number of issues and clearly not in tune with the sentiments of the majority. However, assuming we were friends and had fallen out, you'd make your feelings known but surely wouldn't cut your nose to spite your face? "I'm going to do something that will cost me a lot of money because it will also cost my former friend a lot of money" doesn't seem a terribly sensible or mature attitude to me and I can't see it happening in reality; however, I can't see a vote for Brexit happening either so it's all a bit hypothetical really!

[Jockman]

lostkiwi said:

So if we were mates and I did something you didn't like such as for example shag your wife would we still be friends?

This is getting hilarious.