Brexit

[Scuffers]

Mrr T said:

Scuffers said:

wolves_wanderer said:

Happy to be convinced either way as I am completely on the fence. I don't particularly believe claims that we would be signing free trade deals with all and sundry in the first week after exit but neither do I believe that we are doomed if we exit.

there is a view that running with no trade deal could actually be the better outcome....

I would agree however we would need a lot of agreements on mutual standard setting.

The problem of that option is of cause the financial service industry where every UK financial service company would need to create a regulated entity within the EU to continue to do business within the EU. I would estimate 20K-50K UK jobs would be lost.

based on what?

EU has been trying to get it's mitts on the city for years without success, what makes you think Brexit will make it any more likely?

At the end of the day, business will do whatever works best for it, not what the EU want.

[CaptainSlow]

Scuffers said:

based on what?

EU has been trying to get it's mitts on the city for years without success, what makes you think Brexit will make it any more likely?

At the end of the day, business will do whatever works best for it, not what the EU want.

Quite, staying in the EU will kill off the UK FS industry sooner or later.

[Bluebarge]

Rovinghawk said:

And when the MEPs ignore everyone, what happens then?

They are as responsive as your MP.

What were you proposing to replace Westminster, because I'm not aware that the EU referendum is contemplating wholesale changes to the way our Parliament works?

[steveT350C]

Mrr T said:

Scuffers said:

wolves_wanderer said:

Happy to be convinced either way as I am completely on the fence. I don't particularly believe claims that we would be signing free trade deals with all and sundry in the first week after exit but neither do I believe that we are doomed if we exit.

there is a view that running with no trade deal could actually be the better outcome....

I would agree however we would need a lot of agreements on mutual standard setting.

The problem of that option is of cause the financial service industry where every UK financial service company would need to create a regulated entity within the EU to continue to do business within the EU. I would estimate 20K-50K UK jobs would be lost.

Creating a regulatory entity would create jobs surely?

[Alex]

Rovinghawk said:

Bluebarge said:

If you don't like those agreements you can..........(b) put pressure on your MEP.

Seriously? How?

MEPs have very little power.

[Bluebarge]

dudleybloke said:

Remember the windfall tax that CMD said he wasn't going to pay? How did that go?

UK had agreed to pay a proportion of GDP per annum. The UK's own figures showed GDP in the relevant period being higher than previously stated so the money payable was more under the deal the UK had previously agreed to. This is no different from paying income tax for the self-employed where you estimate the current year's earnings and there is then a later adjustment. CMD paid up because he didn't have a leg to stand on - UK Govt had agreed the principles and procedure for making the payment so were bang to rights.

However, you can attribute it to a dark European conspiracy if it makes you happy.

[Bluebarge]

Esseesse said:

Weren't they voting on this kind of thing just the other day?

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20151126...

Yes. Voting against. It's not going to happen.

[Esseesse]

Bluebarge said:

Esseesse said:

Weren't they voting on this kind of thing just the other day?

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20151126...

Yes. Voting against. It's not going to happen.

Am I missing something? I believe that the Maltese MEP's, UKIP and some other voted against, however...

"The report received 508 votes in favour, 108 against and 85 abstentions."

[Bluebarge]

CaptainSlow said:

And no plans for an EU army?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/e...

From that article
"Under the treaty, Britain could not be forced to join a joint army, but it cannot veto its creation."
So not a reason to vote for Brexit - we still have the power to do what we want. Besides, I can't see the interventionist French being tied down by a very cautious Germany. there may be a joint brigade or two (there already is a Franco-German brigade I believe) but the bulk of French forces will still do what the French want them to do, and most French weapons procurement will still go to French companies.

[markh1973]

PugwasHDJ80 said:

KrissKross said:

The day we leave the EU we will be at least 8% better off.

This video from Professor Patrick Minford is a clear insight into the ignorance of the politicians even when presented with facts about leaving the EU, its a bit long but worth viewing:

https://youtu.be/leKEUT1TiLU

Unfortunately you wont see this guy on QT any time soon.

Edited by KrissKross on Monday 30th November 13:06

He used to be my economics lecturer at Cardiff- a very bright guy

He wasn't much of a lecturer though

Lectured me at Liverpool when he could be bothered to turn up. Wasn't very good at it.

He is an economist so it is his version of the facts - other economists will have a different interpretation of the same facts.

Once offered me a job in a year before going to university and signing on - wanted me to keep signing on while working. Turned the unpaid job down not wishing to commit fraud.

[Moominho]

Alex said:

Moominho said:

So for me, those reasons don't bother me. It's not a lack of patriotism, or apathy. I just don't feel that our independence etc is affected by being in the EU. It's the economic argument that will steer me.

Our independence is not affected? Everything from border control to the tampon tax is beyond the control of our own parliament while we remain a member of the EU. And they haven't even got started. The EU wants its own army and to unify tax rates. If that happens, general elections will be even more pointless than they are now.

This is where it starts getting a bit conspiracy theory for me. The whole we'll no longer be the UK and have any armed forces argument is false and scaremongering.

[steveT350C]

Esseesse said:

Bluebarge said:

Esseesse said:

Weren't they voting on this kind of thing just the other day?

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20151126...

Yes. Voting against. It's not going to happen.

Am I missing something? I believe that the Maltese MEP's, UKIP and some other voted against, however...

"The report received 508 votes in favour, 108 against and 85 abstentions."

UK loses more votes than any other EU member Nation. EU not in the interest of UK, therefore Brexit, or Flexcit, the only option if you put UK interests first.

[otolith]

Bluebarge said:

From that article
"Under the treaty, Britain could not be forced to join a joint army, but it cannot veto its creation."
So not a reason to vote for Brexit - we still have the power to do what we want. Besides, I can't see the interventionist French being tied down by a very cautious Germany. there may be a joint brigade or two (there already is a Franco-German brigade I believe) but the bulk of French forces will still do what the French want them to do, and most French weapons procurement will still go to French companies.

The direction is clear, and the eventual outcome is obvious. It's one thing to say that you are fine with that, quite another to suggest that because it's being delayed it won't happen.

[Moominho]

KrissKross said:

Moominho said:

[b]..It's a bit like the Scottish Independence referendum where anyone wanting to stay in the UK was branded a traitor and someone who doesn't love their country.

How can you find facts unlikely?

Also most of the people who want out of the EU are also the ones who passionately want Scotland to remain part of the UK!

My point was that some of the Scottish independence voters were the ones that were the ones that weren't being rational in the same way that some of the Brexit ones aren't. Whereas the people who want to stay in have a more reasoned argument, it doesn't tend to be due to their love of Europe, but more what they believe is better for the country.

[Bluebarge]

Esseesse said:

Am I missing something? I believe that the Maltese MEP's, UKIP and some other voted against, however...

"The report received 508 votes in favour, 108 against and 85 abstentions."

No, the maltese may be happy but UK, Eire, Luxembourg and most of the smaller countries in the EU are opposed. You are presenting a Commission proposal as an inevitability when the Commission comes up with proposals all the time which get buried, as this one was buried in 2011 and will be again.

[Einion Yrth]

Bluebarge said:

Commission comes up with proposals all the time which get buried, as this one was buried in 2011 and will be again.

It wasn't buried terribly deep if it managed to claw its way, like some kind of demon revenant, back in to the spotlight in a mere four years. How long do you suppose it will ever stay buried? Stakes appear to be in somewhat short supply.

[Bluebarge]

otolith said:

The direction is clear, and the eventual outcome is obvious. It's one thing to say that you are fine with that, quite another to suggest that because it's being delayed it won't happen.

No it's not inevitable. You simply cannot claim that. It is just as likely that the Eurozone will break up and the European project of the arch-federalists will remain a pipe-dream. If you watch how the polls are going in a number of European countries it is the anti-federalists who represent the "direction of travel".

You are presenting your nightmares as fact to justify an exit.

[otolith]

Bluebarge said:

otolith said:

The direction is clear, and the eventual outcome is obvious. It's one thing to say that you are fine with that, quite another to suggest that because it's being delayed it won't happen.

No it's not inevitable. You simply cannot claim that. It is just as likely that the Eurozone will break up and the European project of the arch-federalists will remain a pipe-dream. If you watch how the polls are going in a number of European countries it is the anti-federalists who represent the "direction of travel".

You are presenting your nightmares as fact to justify an exit.

No, I'm saying that "ever closer union" is a ratchet. If the EU survives we will reach the federalist end point eventually, it is inevitable. It may take a long time.

[Bluebarge]

Rovinghawk said:

Turnover, gross profit, net profit, unprofitable?

There's a lot of unknowns regarding would we be better or worse off- your link doesn't (can't) quantify what will be different following a Brexit.

I'm willing to be persuaded but only by facts & figures (or potential for them) rather than by dogma.

But there are no facts and figures for what will happen following a Brexit - only conjecture, because we cannot know what trade deals the UK could negotiate with its partners other than that they are likely to be less favourable than now because we would have less bargaining power as a smaller market. However, the "mood music" as they say is negative, just as it was for the Scots if they went independent.

[Mrr T]

Scuffers said:

Mrr T said:

Scuffers said:

wolves_wanderer said:

Happy to be convinced either way as I am completely on the fence. I don't particularly believe claims that we would be signing free trade deals with all and sundry in the first week after exit but neither do I believe that we are doomed if we exit.

there is a view that running with no trade deal could actually be the better outcome....

I would agree however we would need a lot of agreements on mutual standard setting.

The problem of that option is of cause the financial service industry where every UK financial service company would need to create a regulated entity within the EU to continue to do business within the EU. I would estimate 20K-50K UK jobs would be lost.

based on what?

EU has been trying to get it's mitts on the city for years without success, what makes you think Brexit will make it any more likely?

At the end of the day, business will do whatever works best for it, not what the EU want.

Based on my knowledge of the regulation of financial services.

Most countries require financial service companies to be regulated in the country they operate in.

The EU passporting scheme allows a financial services company regulated in any EU, EEA country (and Switzerland) to carry out regulated business across the EU.

Most of the American banks for example operate in the EU via entities regulated in the UK.

Outside the EU, the EEA and without any specific agreement covering financial services all of the UK financial services companies and any other who operate in the EU via a UK regulated entity would need to set one up in the EU or the EEA.

The estimates of job loses in the UK I have seen vary from 20k to 50k.