Voted Leave: D+1 - whats the Economic Plan

[Mrr T]

don4l said:

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.

What problems?

Seriously.

The absolute worst case scenario is that we trade with the EU under the WTO rules. Currently, 56% of our exports take place under this system. Why on Earth do you fear it so much?

As I have said repeatedly that is very much the worst case. WTO rules means we would lose EU financial services passporting. This would likely mean 400/500k jobs moving from the Uk to the rEU. This is a lot of tax revenue and a lot more unemployment to deal with.



http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/f44e8a6e-2f2a-11e6-bf8d-...

[Murph7355]

Mrr T said:

...
I would argue that the article suggests Osborne's emergency budget with substantial cuts may be needed.

Osborne's "emergency" budget is arguably needed anyway, bearing in mind the deficit we are still running. It's a shame he didn't have the balls to chuck out rhetoric like this as a way of nailing the deficit.

Or indeed mention it right at the start of the campaign.

You have to keep asking yourself, if the disaster that will ensue on us leaving is so definitive and obvious, why did Cameron allow the referendum to take place at all? Surely it would have been worth getting ribbed by UKIP in order to save the country?

[lostkiwi]

don4l said:

lostkiwi said:

Hmmm... let me think.
If we are under WTO rules then tariffs apply.
So everything we export to our largest market gets more expensive to our major trading partner.

That is simply untrue.

The goods that I trade in are duty free under WTO rules. We haven't paid any duty for about 10 years.

This highlights the reason why the Remain campaign has failed.

I don't think that you are deliberately lying, but you don't check your "facts".

The result is that people see you as liars.

If you don't believe me, then this IpsosMORI poll should convince you.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/brexit-pol...

IpsosMORI said:

Only 17 per cent of people believe the Chancellor’s flagship claim that UK households will lose £4,300 and be permanently poorer after a Brexit, despite the analysis carrying the full weight of the Treasury. Some 70 per cent think it is a falsehood.


Mr Cameron’s claim that the peace and stability of Europe would be put at risk by a Brexit was rejected by 59-32.

Neither side is trusted, but the public feel that Remain are telling more porkies.

And the leavers check theirs?

link provided by don4l said:

"Almost half believe Boris Johnson is telling the truth when he says that Britain sends £350 million a week to the EU, even though it has been criticised as misleading by independent experts. The claim is believed by 47 per cent and disbelieved by 39 per cent."

"But the public reject Ukip leader Nigel Farage’s claim that there is a higher risk of sex attacks by migrants from staying in the EU: Just 28 per cent thought it true, 62 per cent said false."

I've lost count of the number of times people have tried to claim the EU is unelected.

Tariffs are applied on some (though not all goods entering the EU.

Look here for example at the EU with respect to agriculture:
https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/tariff_...
Page 77 Section A2 is quite clear about the % of goods in each category that are imported duty free into the EU.

Just because the goods you trade in are duty free under WTO rules doesn't mean they all are.

[mph1977]

talksthetorque said:

ralphrj said:

As has already been pointed out, whilst EU exports to the UK exceed UK exports to the EU, UK exports to the EU make up a significantly larger element of UK total exports and GDP than EU exports to UK make up of the EU total exports and GDP.

People seem to forget that the remaining 27 countries of the EU combined have a much larger economy (5 to 6 times larger) than the UK alone. Although their exports to us exceed our exports to them they are smaller relative to the total size of their economies.

If there was a trade war and all trade between the UK and the rest of the EU stopped the UK would see a bigger fall in GDP than in the rest of the EU. Even Germany as the dominant EU exporter would see a smaller fall than the UK would.

The UK would suffer most in the event of a trade war.

but it won't matter to the EU what happens to the UK GDP. They will only be concerned with what happens to their individual countries' GDP.
and it will make a difference to all of them. Not a cat in hells chance they will block trade.
Can either side afford a trade embargo?
No.

amazing isn;t it thatthe beLeavers can't see the actual impact on the UK instead claiming it;s aobut a 'trade war' that wouldn't happen.

the Arseperationals will still buy their Audis and BMWs and overpriced white goods regardless of tarriff...

[don4l]

lostkiwi said:

don4l said:

lostkiwi said:

Hmmm... let me think.
If we are under WTO rules then tariffs apply.
So everything we export to our largest market gets more expensive to our major trading partner.

That is simply untrue.

The goods that I trade in are duty free under WTO rules. We haven't paid any duty for about 10 years.

This highlights the reason why the Remain campaign has failed.

I don't think that you are deliberately lying, but you don't check your "facts".

The result is that people see you as liars.

If you don't believe me, then this IpsosMORI poll should convince you.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/brexit-pol...

IpsosMORI said:

Only 17 per cent of people believe the Chancellor’s flagship claim that UK households will lose £4,300 and be permanently poorer after a Brexit, despite the analysis carrying the full weight of the Treasury. Some 70 per cent think it is a falsehood.


Mr Cameron’s claim that the peace and stability of Europe would be put at risk by a Brexit was rejected by 59-32.

Neither side is trusted, but the public feel that Remain are telling more porkies.

And the leavers check theirs?

link provided by don4l said:

"Almost half believe Boris Johnson is telling the truth when he says that Britain sends £350 million a week to the EU, even though it has been criticised as misleading by independent experts. The claim is believed by 47 per cent and disbelieved by 39 per cent."

"But the public reject Ukip leader Nigel Farage’s claim that there is a higher risk of sex attacks by migrants from staying in the EU: Just 28 per cent thought it true, 62 per cent said false."

I've lost count of the number of times people have tried to claim the EU is unelected.

Tariffs are applied on some (though not all goods entering the EU.

Look here for example at the EU with respect to agriculture:
https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/tariff_...
Page 77 Section A2 is quite clear about the % of goods in each category that are imported duty free into the EU.

Just because the goods you trade in are duty free under WTO rules doesn't mean they all are.

Thank you for agreeing with everything that I wrote - even if you thought that you were disagreeing with me.

[lostkiwi]

don4l said:

Thank you for agreeing with everything that I wrote - even if you thought that you were disagreeing with me.

So ok - I'll qualify my original statement.


Replace 'everything' with 'some things'.

Doesn't alter the issue with costs rising as everything from the EU is currently 0% but after Brexit if we have a WTO agreement then that will no longer be true and many things will rise n price.

[BigMacDaddy]

Jockman said:

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.

Or: if a group of your "mates" had been gang-banging your missus for a couple of decades, why would you still want to keep hanging around with them and buying their drinks?

Meant only in jest, but it's about as sensible/ludicrous a statement as yours....

[Dr Jekyll]

lostkiwi said:

So ok - I'll qualify my original statement.


Replace 'everything' with 'some things'.

Doesn't alter the issue with costs rising as everything from the EU is currently 0% but after Brexit if we have a WTO agreement then that will no longer be true and many things will rise n price.

Not necessarily, we don't have to charge tariffs on imports and IMO there is a lot to be said for not charging. We could also allow tariff free imports from countries outside the EU, countries where the EU insists on tariffs to protect French farmers.

[mph1977]

Dr Jekyll said:

Not necessarily, we don't have to charge tariffs on imports and IMO there is a lot to be said for not charging. We could also allow tariff free imports from countries outside the EU, countries where the EU insists on tariffs to protect EU farmers.

EFA ,

the original untruths being the typical BeLeaver misrepresentation.

[Dr Jekyll]

mph1977 said:

Dr Jekyll said:

Not necessarily, we don't have to charge tariffs on imports and IMO there is a lot to be said for not charging. We could also allow tariff free imports from countries outside the EU, countries where the EU insists on tariffs to protect EU farmers.

EFA ,

the original untruths being the typical BeLeaver misrepresentation.

The entire EU was largely set up to protect French farmers, but even if the tariffs are there for all EU farmers it doesn't affect the argument.

[kurt535]

Murph7355 said:

Mrr T said:

...
I would argue that the article suggests Osborne's emergency budget with substantial cuts may be needed.

Osborne's "emergency" budget is arguably needed anyway, bearing in mind the deficit we are still running. It's a shame he didn't have the balls to chuck out rhetoric like this as a way of nailing the deficit.

Or indeed mention it right at the start of the campaign.

You have to keep asking yourself, if the disaster that will ensue on us leaving is so definitive and obvious, why did Cameron allow the referendum to take place at all? Surely it would have been worth getting ribbed by UKIP in order to save the country?

I think he may have hoped for a stronger global economy. Right now the vote is taking places in the middle of gathering global financial storm clouds!

[kurt535]

Dr Jekyll said:

mph1977 said:

Dr Jekyll said:

Not necessarily, we don't have to charge tariffs on imports and IMO there is a lot to be said for not charging. We could also allow tariff free imports from countries outside the EU, countries where the EU insists on tariffs to protect EU farmers.

EFA ,

the original untruths being the typical BeLeaver misrepresentation.

The entire EU was largely set up to protect French farmers, but even if the tariffs are there for all EU farmers it doesn't affect the argument.

EU's roots were in end of WW2 as a way to promote peace through economic and cultural barriers coming down so war became a more crazy idea.

Overall, the central leave message is we will stop immigration - economy, whatever.Except how does that happen?? Front page of Daily Fail today had pix of people clambering off back of lorry. How will that be stopped please? Do you send them straight back to wherever they came from? I suspect mechanics of this are going to be so messy...

[kurt535]

Dr Jekyll said:

Murph7355 said:

"Uncertainty" does not always mean doom and gloom. It can just as readily mean a move to more positive situations results. We have to quit looking at our shoes, shuffling round and mumbling that we can't do it, and grasp the nettle and get ourselves moving like historically we've proven we can. And in doing so we need to work with our neighbours and global partners - cooperation is the only way everyone succeeds. But that does not have to entail handing over the reins.

+1

Any referendum, any election, any negotiation, causes uncertainty. That's kinda the point.

Rhetoric works when you can trust the companies and workforce.

I have no doubt a lot of companies will relocate out of uk due to higher costs of being other side of the EU fence. Economically, why wouldn't they? Right now, my eldest is being asked how it affects their future. I said look to work abroad...game changer when Leave win next week. If I was younger, I'd happily look at NZ, Oz, Canada...

[kurt535]

Here we go....

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/38af5b86-14f3-11e6-b8d5-...

Article outlining banks hedging against Brexit by reserving the right to raise interest rates...Jesus...

So, just off phone to a buddy who works in commercial section of a merchant bank and he said, yep, they are doing it....

[Mrr T]

kurt535 said:

Murph7355 said:

Mrr T said:

...
I would argue that the article suggests Osborne's emergency budget with substantial cuts may be needed.

Osborne's "emergency" budget is arguably needed anyway, bearing in mind the deficit we are still running. It's a shame he didn't have the balls to chuck out rhetoric like this as a way of nailing the deficit.

Or indeed mention it right at the start of the campaign.

You have to keep asking yourself, if the disaster that will ensue on us leaving is so definitive and obvious, why did Cameron allow the referendum to take place at all? Surely it would have been worth getting ribbed by UKIP in order to save the country?

I think he may have hoped for a stronger global economy. Right now the vote is taking places in the middle of gathering global financial storm clouds!

While I have little time for BG we must recognise the public has little time for cutting the government teat. Look at working family tax credit we all know it distorts the market and is very expensive to maintain but when BG tried to cut it his own party would not support him.

[Dr Jekyll]

kurt535 said:

Rhetoric works when you can trust the companies and workforce.

I have no doubt a lot of companies will relocate out of uk due to higher costs of being other side of the EU fence. Economically, why wouldn't they? Right now, my eldest is being asked how it affects their future. I said look to work abroad...game changer when Leave win next week. If I was younger, I'd happily look at NZ, Oz, Canada...

If you said France Germany or Greece that would at least be consistent. But none of the countries you list are in any rush to joint the EU so what's the advantage?

[kurt535]

Dr Jekyll said:

kurt535 said:

Rhetoric works when you can trust the companies and workforce.

I have no doubt a lot of companies will relocate out of uk due to higher costs of being other side of the EU fence. Economically, why wouldn't they? Right now, my eldest is being asked how it affects their future. I said look to work abroad...game changer when Leave win next week. If I was younger, I'd happily look at NZ, Oz, Canada...

If you said France Germany or Greece that would at least be consistent. But none of the countries you list are in any rush to joint the EU so what's the advantage?

Sorry don't get your point? Its probably me being thick. But, my feeling is cost of borrowing, wages, availability of staff will see companies migrate/close shop. Also just seen this which is kind of inevitable too.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36548460

[Dr Jekyll]

kurt535 said:

Dr Jekyll said:

kurt535 said:

Rhetoric works when you can trust the companies and workforce.

I have no doubt a lot of companies will relocate out of uk due to higher costs of being other side of the EU fence. Economically, why wouldn't they? Right now, my eldest is being asked how it affects their future. I said look to work abroad...game changer when Leave win next week. If I was younger, I'd happily look at NZ, Oz, Canada...

If you said France Germany or Greece that would at least be consistent. But none of the countries you list are in any rush to joint the EU so what's the advantage?

Sorry don't get your point? Its probably me being thick. But, my feeling is cost of borrowing, wages, availability of staff will see companies migrate/close shop. Also just seen this which is kind of inevitable too.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36548460

You think leaving the EU will mean disaster, but you can solve the problem not by moving to a country remaining in the EU, but to a country that isn't in the EU.
Why not move to France if you think the EU is so great?

[lostkiwi]

Dr Jekyll said:

kurt535 said:

Rhetoric works when you can trust the companies and workforce.

I have no doubt a lot of companies will relocate out of uk due to higher costs of being other side of the EU fence. Economically, why wouldn't they? Right now, my eldest is being asked how it affects their future. I said look to work abroad...game changer when Leave win next week. If I was younger, I'd happily look at NZ, Oz, Canada...

If you said France Germany or Greece that would at least be consistent. But none of the countries you list are in any rush to joint the EU so what's the advantage?

All those countries are a long way from the ripples....
They all speak English. Its an easy move.

[lostkiwi]

Dr Jekyll said:

kurt535 said:

Dr Jekyll said:

kurt535 said:

Rhetoric works when you can trust the companies and workforce.

I have no doubt a lot of companies will relocate out of uk due to higher costs of being other side of the EU fence. Economically, why wouldn't they? Right now, my eldest is being asked how it affects their future. I said look to work abroad...game changer when Leave win next week. If I was younger, I'd happily look at NZ, Oz, Canada...

If you said France Germany or Greece that would at least be consistent. But none of the countries you list are in any rush to joint the EU so what's the advantage?

Sorry don't get your point? Its probably me being thick. But, my feeling is cost of borrowing, wages, availability of staff will see companies migrate/close shop. Also just seen this which is kind of inevitable too.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36548460

You think leaving the EU will mean disaster, but you can solve the problem not by moving to a country remaining in the EU, but to a country that isn't in the EU.
Why not move to France if you think the EU is so great?

Funnily enough thats on my radar.