EU Referendum Poll - Final Call

[essayer]

sidicks said:

Which seems highly likely, given the adverse consequences of adopting such a policy...

This is what I don't get, we can't just hand wave and say 'free imports for all'. We have obligations to the WTO agreements that we signed as the UK.

We could 'do a Norway' and ask to join the EEA, but then, like Norway, we'll have to accept free movement of people, and continue paying for membership - Vote Leave's two main reasons to leave?

Assuming we go it alone, will we negotiate new import duties on a sector by sector basis? If so, which sectors are entitled to 0% duties and which are not? Or do we just say 0% on all imports from the EU - how do we guarantee the EU will do the same for our exports?

Assuming import duties go hand in hand with export duties, how are we going to avoid a protracted TTIP-style negotiation? I think it's pretty undisputed that the EU is bureaucratic and inefficient. In the meantime (years, potentially) what duties will be applied? WTO rates?

[walm]

essayer said:

sidicks said:

Which seems highly likely, given the adverse consequences of adopting such a policy...

This is what I don't get, we can't just hand wave and say 'free imports for all'. We have obligations to the WTO agreements that we signed as the UK.

We could 'do a Norway' and ask to join the EEA, but then, like Norway, we'll have to accept free movement of people, and continue paying for membership - Vote Leave's two main reasons to leave?

Assuming we go it alone, will we negotiate new import duties on a sector by sector basis? If so, which sectors are entitled to 0% duties and which are not? Or do we just say 0% on all imports from the EU - how do we guarantee the EU will do the same for our exports?

Assuming import duties go hand in hand with export duties, how are we going to avoid a protracted TTIP-style negotiation? I think it's pretty undisputed that the EU is bureaucratic and inefficient. In the meantime (years, potentially) what duties will be applied? WTO rates?

sidicks and you are both right... no one knows the answer.
Although, rather bizarrely Norway does seem the most often touted answer by the more rational Brexiteers, which is very very odd considering your point above.

[sidicks]

essayer said:

This is what I don't get, we can't just hand wave and say 'free imports for all'. We have obligations to the WTO agreements that we signed as the UK.

We could 'do a Norway' and ask to join the EEA, but then, like Norway, we'll have to accept free movement of people, and continue paying for membership - Vote Leave's two main reasons to leave?

Assuming we go it alone, will we negotiate new import duties on a sector by sector basis? If so, which sectors are entitled to 0% duties and which are not? Or do we just say 0% on all imports from the EU - how do we guarantee the EU will do the same for our exports?

Assuming import duties go hand in hand with export duties, how are we going to avoid a protracted TTIP-style negotiation? I think it's pretty undisputed that the EU is bureaucratic and inefficient. In the meantime (years, potentially) what duties will be applied? WTO rates?

Why would they?

[walm]

el stovey said:

FWIW said:

Bradgate said:

I will definitely vote remain, as will my partner.

Given that I work in aviation, this decision is a no- brainier, and I'm sure the vast majority of people who work in the industry will also vote remain.

Can you explain why working in aviation affects your choice of lawmaker?

I work in aviation and most people in my airline appear to be voting leave. I expect it depends who you work for and where you're based. I expect Ryanair, easyjet and Norwegian employees are more likely to want to remain, others are much more mixed.

If you work for an airline the following is reasonably likely to happen post-Brexit.

UK based (or strongly UK exposed e.g. RYA):
- Pound tanks, which makes all your (predominantly dollar - fuel) costs rise.
- Partially offset by your EUR or USD earnings being worth more in GBP.
- High risk of consumer recession, which will restrict travel both for leisure and business.
- Potentially more serious problem as the UK works out what to charge and be charged for airspace and new cross-border agreements.
- Net-net = bad.

RoW based:
- Any GBP earnings will be worth less owing to the drop in the pound.
- Recession risk will hit pax, as above.
- Net-net = bad, but less bad than UK based, since less UK exposure in the mix.

[lostkiwi]

essayer said:

sidicks said:

Which seems highly likely, given the adverse consequences of adopting such a policy...

This is what I don't get, we can't just hand wave and say 'free imports for all'. We have obligations to the WTO agreements that we signed as the UK.

We could 'do a Norway' and ask to join the EEA, but then, like Norway, we'll have to accept free movement of people, and continue paying for membership - Vote Leave's two main reasons to leave?

Assuming we go it alone, will we negotiate new import duties on a sector by sector basis? If so, which sectors are entitled to 0% duties and which are not? Or do we just say 0% on all imports from the EU - how do we guarantee the EU will do the same for our exports?

Assuming import duties go hand in hand with export duties, how are we going to avoid a protracted TTIP-style negotiation? I think it's pretty undisputed that the EU is bureaucratic and inefficient. In the meantime (years, potentially) what duties will be applied? WTO rates?

The way I understand it from what the head of WTO Richard Avezedo said we don't have any status in the WTO in our own right - we have status through the EU. As such we would need to negotiate our position within the WTO and with all those countries we wish to trade with.
If this is correct I can see it keeping negotiators, international lawyers and politicians busy for quite some time!

Edited by lostkiwi on Tuesday 21st June 09:12

[John145]

sidicks said:

Why would they?

Self interest. It's what the EU is best at.

[John145]

John145 said:

sidicks said:

Why would they?

Self interest. It's what the EU is best at.

Oh wait, I'm wrong.

The EU would put tariffs on goods that are easily accessible from the RoW costing us relatively little but putting 10's of 1000's of people out of work on the continent to be seen to make it difficult for people to leave the club.

It's job destruction that the EU is best at. Then looking after its own interests (EU Government, not EU member states).

[walm]

lostkiwi said:

The way I understand it from what the head of WTO Richard Avezedo said we don't have any status in the WTO in our own right - we have status through the EU. As such we would need to negotiate our position within the WTO and with all those countries we wish to trade with.
If this is correct I can see it keeping negotiators, international lawyers and politicians busy for quite some time!

I think that the WTO agreements are the default.
If you don't have anything else to go on, you resort to WTO rules in the interim.
Hence the "W".

[walm]

John145 said:

The EU would put tariffs on goods that are easily accessible from the RoW costing us relatively little but putting 10's of 1000's of people out of work on the continent to be seen to make it difficult for people to leave the club.

Why would the EU tariffs put people out of work on the continent?

Totally agree on the "can't leave the club" suggestion though!

[essayer]

walm said:

I think that the WTO agreements are the default.
If you don't have anything else to go on, you resort to WTO rules in the interim.
Hence the "W".

I think what he said was that a number of trade terms are negotiated directly with the EU, and can't be just copied over to apply to the UK instead. Not sure what he means by 'defined terms' - maybe sector classification codes?

WTO Director-General said:

In addition, the UK would also need to re-establish its terms of trade within the WTO. The UK, as an individual country, would of course remain a WTO member, but it would not have defined terms in the WTO for its trade in goods and services. It only has these commitments as an EU member. Key aspects of the EU’s terms of trade could not simply be cut and pasted for the UK. Therefore important elements would need to be negotiated.

https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/spra_e/spra126_e.htm

[lostkiwi]

essayer said:

walm said:

I think that the WTO agreements are the default.
If you don't have anything else to go on, you resort to WTO rules in the interim.
Hence the "W".

I think what he said was that a number of trade terms are negotiated directly with the EU, and can't be just copied over to apply to the UK instead. Not sure what he means by 'defined terms' - maybe sector classification codes?

WTO Director-General said:

In addition, the UK would also need to re-establish its terms of trade within the WTO. The UK, as an individual country, would of course remain a WTO member, but it would not have defined terms in the WTO for its trade in goods and services. It only has these commitments as an EU member. Key aspects of the EU’s terms of trade could not simply be cut and pasted for the UK. Therefore important elements would need to be negotiated.

https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/spra_e/spra126_e.htm

That was exactly what I was referring to. Thanks for that.

[walm]

essayer said:

walm said:

I think that the WTO agreements are the default.
If you don't have anything else to go on, you resort to WTO rules in the interim.
Hence the "W".

I think what he said was that a number of trade terms are negotiated directly with the EU, and can't be just copied over to apply to the UK instead. Not sure what he means by 'defined terms' - maybe sector classification codes?

WTO Director-General said:

In addition, the UK would also need to re-establish its terms of trade within the WTO. The UK, as an individual country, would of course remain a WTO member, but it would not have defined terms in the WTO for its trade in goods and services. It only has these commitments as an EU member. Key aspects of the EU’s terms of trade could not simply be cut and pasted for the UK. Therefore important elements would need to be negotiated.

https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/spra_e/spra126_e.htm

That's what I meant.
We would follow the default WTO rules (as a WTO member).
NONE of the EU rules would apply any more, for obvious reasons.
As he said, you couldn't cut and paste them, you need to negotiate them independently.

"As a WTO member, the UK’s exports to the EU and other WTO members would be subject
to the importing countries’ MFN tariffs. Compared with EU or EFTA membership, this
would raise the cost of exporting to the EU for UK firms (Ottaviano et al, 2014). The UK’s
services trade would also be subject to WTO rules. Since the WTO has made far less progress
than the EU in liberalising trade in services, this would mean reduced access to EU markets
for UK service producers."

http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/brexit01.pdf

[TroubledSoul]

AJL308 said:

It is.

Either you want UK laws to be made in a foreign country, by foreigners who owe no allegiance to the UK, or you don't.

If you don't then you can't vote remain.

It really isn't. A unified Europe with a standardised set of underlying laws isn't a bad thing. The problem is when laws really aren't suitable for us/our culture and there's seemingly no way of doing anything about it.

If that could be addressed then the reasons to leave would be diminished somewhat.

[John145]

walm said:

Why would the EU tariffs put people out of work on the continent?

Totally agree on the "can't leave the club" suggestion though!

WTO rules, tariffs must be equal in both directions. Therefore they sell less to us and also things that import from us go up in price.

Their businesses become less competitive, draw less investment and reduce profitability - job losses are required to maintain profitability and keep the rich richer.

Coupled with that the UK would be able to remove tariffs from the RoW reducing prices here and making us more competitive again.

Protectionism only hurts one person and that's who's trying to impose the protections. It's never been more true in this globally trading world.

[TroubledSoul]

Jimboka said:

Why would Cameron want to sort out the mess caused by the Brexit camp? He should quit & lets see how they deliver their impossible promises . Should be a laugh (shame we'll all suffer though!)

It all feels a bit too much like the Scottish referendum. How many on here actively supporting Brexit were calling out the Yes campaign on their ridiculous promises and claims? It all sounds very similar at the moment.....

[anonymous-user]

walm said:

el stovey said:

FWIW said:

Bradgate said:

I will definitely vote remain, as will my partner.

Given that I work in aviation, this decision is a no- brainier, and I'm sure the vast majority of people who work in the industry will also vote remain.

Can you explain why working in aviation affects your choice of lawmaker?

I work in aviation and most people in my airline appear to be voting leave. I expect it depends who you work for and where you're based. I expect Ryanair, easyjet and Norwegian employees are more likely to want to remain, others are much more mixed.

If you work for an airline the following is reasonably likely to happen post-Brexit.

UK based (or strongly UK exposed e.g. RYA):
- Pound tanks, which makes all your (predominantly dollar - fuel) costs rise.
- Partially offset by your EUR or USD earnings being worth more in GBP.
- High risk of consumer recession, which will restrict travel both for leisure and business.
- Potentially more serious problem as the UK works out what to charge and be charged for airspace and new cross-border agreements.
- Net-net = bad.

RoW based:
- Any GBP earnings will be worth less owing to the drop in the pound.
- Recession risk will hit pax, as above.
- Net-net = bad, but less bad than UK based, since less UK exposure in the mix.

But if a company has hedged fuel and the pound doesn't tank and the U.K. Isn't plummeted into recession then it will be OK?

As I said before it depends very much on the airline as to how much Brexit will affect it. Ryanair and easyjet will be worse hit than others due to how they employ crews and base them.

[walm]

TroubledSoul said:

AJL308 said:

It is.

Either you want UK laws to be made in a foreign country, by foreigners who owe no allegiance to the UK, or you don't.

If you don't then you can't vote remain.

It really isn't. A unified Europe with a standardised set of underlying laws isn't a bad thing. The problem is when laws really aren't suitable for us/our culture and there's seemingly no way of doing anything about it.

If that could be addressed then the reasons to leave would be diminished somewhat.

AJL308s argument is slightly odd though.

He wants Welshmen and Scots deciding on laws for the English.
Which seems equally as absurd as a Frenchman deciding on English laws.

To argue that localised setting of laws is better you need to show where the line SHOULD be drawn.

I mean, why stop at Westminster, shouldn't it be more local than that? England? Or perhaps by county or by village??
Obviously there is a happy medium somewhere.

I just haven't seen a particularly compelling argument to show that Westminster (with an unelected senior house and fricking veto by a MONARCH) is somehow THE BEST VERSION of democracy!!

In any case, the number of EU laws that actually apply appears to be minimal and closely in proportion to how much of a say we seem to have over there.

Perhaps the argument would have more sway if the EU made ALL our laws. But they very much don't and the mostly leave us to our own devices, which seems OK to me.

[don4l]

walm said:

don4l said:

walm said:

don4l said:

Oceanic said:

Timmy40 said:

Those 6m people who because they are mobile and of working age ( generally those who migrate ) will compete directly with my children for jobs, houses, healthcare and other resources. And I'm sorry but we were here first.

To be fair, your children will also have the prospect of living and working in of the other EU countries, that is a pretty big opportunity in its own right if they want to broaden their horizons and some new experiences.

I read comments like the above and I just despair.

Do people tend to move to rich countries, or do they move to poverty stricken hell holes?

The idea that Britons might want to move to countries like Romania or Bulgaria is simply laughable.

I read comments like the above and I just despair.
The idea that Romania and Bulgaria are the only two countries in the EU is not just laughable but pathetic.

I agree.

Who on Earth could be stupid enough to make such a ridiculous assertion?

Why did you reply to me with that post?

Are you a little... well, simple?
Do you need help understanding the argument.

I could make it more obvious but not very easily.

But I didn't suggest that there were only two countries in the EU.

The way that you could make your point more obvious is to highlight the bit where I said that Bulgaria and Romania were the only two countries in the EU.

I was able to highlight the utter nonsense in your post. If you disagree with something that I wrote then please feel to highlight it.

If you want to disagree with something that I didn't say, then we could be here for a long time.

The possibilities are infinite.

[walm]

el stovey said:

But if a company has hedged fuel and the pound doesn't tank and the U.K. Isn't plummeted into recession then it will be OK?

Hedges are mostly USD-based for fuel.
They may have hedged their GBPEUR and GBPUSD but it is cripplingly expensive to hedge beyond 12 months or so, which means either airlines don't bother hedging FX at all OR they limit it to one year.
Which offers only temporary protection, obviously.

And the GBP WILL tank. Just look at the moves over the last few days. It rises as Remain rises in the polls and vice-versa - there really isn't any debate about that.

[walm]

don4l said:

The idea that Britons might want to move to countries like Romania or Bulgaria is simply laughable.

I see you are still struggling.

Where did ANYONE suggest this "idea"?

Since no one did, we laugh at you for posting such a pathetic straw man argument that even my 6-year-old can see through.