Brexit: the referendum

[CapelDodger]

Unmoved? Oh, how hard of heart you must be!

I try. England 25 Wales 21 still feels like a dagger in it, though.

The "sin" being the dissolution of the Union, evidently.

Not terribly evident. "Well, I hope people will think very carefully about the future" is, on the face of it, against people taking the vote lightly. Very Queenly. The fact that Unionists interpreted it as helpful is just evidence about them, frankly. I wouldn't presume a Scot's loyalty to a Hanoverian myself. There's baggage.

 

[CapelDodger]

The oddest thing about the 'Leave' campaign is how many of them campaigned so vehemently against Scottish Independence, but have adopted SNP tactics when it comes to the Brexit.

The current borders of the UK, of slightly less than a century's standing, are, of course, perfect and what God always intended.

Essentially they insist that Britain will be able to negotiate some sort of bilateral treaty to keep the useful bits if we leave the EU and anyone who says otherwise is scaremongering.

Acres of newsprint daily and you have it there in a nutshell.

To my mind the EU will not want to encourager les autres by easing the process, and that's without it being the power-hungry monster Brexiters present it as. If it's actually a tenth of that monster Britain would be in for a torrid time.

I don't think it's going to happen, though. The Brexit campaign is simply too dire to succeed. I think Cameron's taking the right advice : "Never interrupt the enemy when he's making a mistake" (translated from the original French, of course).

 

[Craig B]

The current borders of the UK, of slightly less than a century's standing, are, of course, perfect and what God always intended.

God always intended the Partition of Ireland? To judge by subsequent events, that undertaking was performed by beings who were not quite up to Godly standards in the qualities of Omniscience, Omnipotence ... or Omnibenevolence.

 

[Garrison]

The current borders of the UK, of slightly less than a century's standing, are, of course, perfect and what God always intended.

Acres of newsprint daily and you have it there in a nutshell.

To my mind the EU will not want to encourager les autres by easing the process, and that's without it being the power-hungry monster Brexiters present it as. If it's actually a tenth of that monster Britain would be in for a torrid time.

I don't think it's going to happen, though. The Brexit campaign is simply too dire to succeed. I think Cameron's taking the right advice : "Never interrupt the enemy when he's making a mistake" (translated from the original French, of course).

Its taken Canada seven years to create a bilateral deal, and that doesn't cover financial services. Of course there is the small point that any such deal will require Britain to follow EU rules, without having any power to influence them.

 

[MikeG]

Its taken Canada seven years to create a bilateral deal, and that doesn't cover financial services. Of course there is the small point that any such deal will require Britain to follow EU rules, without having any power to influence them.

You forgot to mention that the EU would have to follow the UK's rules, too, and without having any power to influence them. You also forgot to mention that Britain is a more important trading partner to the rest of Europe than the rest of Europe is to the UK, so there may actually be some incentive for the EU to do a prompt (ie 2 years, as set out by Treaty) deal. Why would anyone leave out such salient points from any sort of balanced comment on EU exit negotiations?

 

[CapelDodger]

You forgot to mention that the EU would have to follow the UK's rules, too, and without having any power to influence them. You also forgot to mention that Britain is a more important trading partner to the rest of Europe than the rest of Europe is to the UK, so there may actually be some incentive for the EU to do a prompt (ie 2 years, as set out by Treaty) deal. Why would anyone leave out such salient points from any sort of balanced comment on EU exit negotiations?

When you make these points do you always include the point I made about the powerful disincentive to make exit leaving painless? Of course, you may not think it salient.

It's true that business in the EU will have another set of rules to deal with in the UK, which will be in constant flux for years as the government replaces EU rules with its preferred versions. That's a disincentive to trade, and they'll want to recover the costs through pricing when they do.

And all for ... what? What improvements are we actually going to make to EU regulations in our specially crafted ones? I can't see any of it as other than a pain in the arse to business in general.

Which leaves us, for the sake of balance, with the free movement of labour issue. That's very salient, to my mind.

 

[Lothian]

You also forgot to mention that Britain is a more important trading partner to the rest of Europe than the rest of Europe is to the UK, so there may actually be some incentive for the EU to do a prompt (ie 2 years, as set out by Treaty) deal. Why would anyone leave out such salient points from any sort of balanced comment on EU exit negotiations?

Is that the case? I understand that 60% of our exports go to the EU 10% of theirs come here.

Seems to me the power is in their hands.

 

[CapelDodger]

God always intended the Partition of Ireland?

Sorry, I missed off the irony smilie.

I was trying to point out the idiocy of treating national borders as sacrosant when they're obviously contingent. Even Ulster isn't all of Ulster, but people will still kill and die in its name.

Thinking of Northern Ireland, I wonder how Gove will enjoy his new appointment after the vote?

 

[CapelDodger]

Its taken Canada seven years to create a bilateral deal, and that doesn't cover financial services. Of course there is the small point that any such deal will require Britain to follow EU rules, without having any power to influence them.

Boris Johnson has rowed back on that, and Cameron has accused Brexiters of making it up as they go along.

The Brexit campaign is pitiful. The similarity to the Trump campaign when pressed on details is striking : "We'll negotiate that, don't you worry" line. "There will be consequences but all of them good". "Bigger, Better, Greater". Boris Johnson flashing his bum-crack is the iconic image of it so far, but there could well be worse to come. Or better, depending on your perspective.

 

[quadraginta]

Who actually benefits financially from Britain leaving the E.U.?

 

[Craig B]

Sorry, I missed off the irony smilie.

I was trying to point out the idiocy of treating national borders as sacrosant when they're obviously contingent. Even Ulster isn't all of Ulster, but people will still kill and die in its name.

Thinking of Northern Ireland, I wonder how Gove will enjoy his new appointment after the vote?

I more than suspected that you were being ironic, as I was too.

 

[ceptimus]

Who actually benefits financially from Britain leaving the E.U.?

British taxpayers.

 

[Lothian]

Who actually benefits financially from Britain leaving the E.U.?

British taxpayers.

Perhaps not.

The government's outlay will go down as they won't pay towards Brussels. However there will be a large administration cost. We will have to replace the Brussels bureaucrats with our own to replace all the agreements we will be walking away from. This should cost more than it does now as we lose the economy of scale.
However the main factor will be, as it ever is, tax.
Our goods and services will be more expensive for Europeans post Brexit. Despite "we can sort it out claims" no developed country has tarrif free trade with Europe without the free movement of people.
That will hit UK business, well those that choose to remain, which will affect tax receipts and possibly the welfare state should thereby redundancies.

The key, annoyingly. is probably the city of London. If the financial businesses move to Europe we are buggered. If they stay it would be touch and go. There are massive benefits for financial businesses to be in the EU. We may have to give up a lot of money and regulation to keep them here. I guess it comes down to 'Do you think the Government are better negotiators than the banks.'

 

[MikeG]

Is that the case? I understand that 60% of our exports go to the EU 10% of theirs come here.

Seems to me the power is in their hands.

Even if your figures were correct (I'll come to that) 60% of a small thing can be a lot less than 10% of a large thing.

Now, your figures. Could you back them up, please. Because this article with its graph claim that about 42% of our exports go to the EU, and that this figure has been declining for about 15 years (from a high of around 55% [60-63% high in 2000 & 2006 in other studies]).

This study looks at the trade deficit with the EU. We import substantially more from the EU than we export to the EU. Amongst other things, it says that 22% of EU exports come to Britain, contradicting your claim of 10%.

It does, however, say that the balance of power in the discussion over Brexit would lie with the EU, and that may well be the case. However, if you think that the EU wouldn't be concerned with losing trade with one of its largest export markets, then you may have an argument that I haven't yet heard. I'd be interested.

You may not have taken account of a Brexit leaving the EU much reduced. We are one of its largest sources of income, and as an organisation it would have a smaller just-about-everything (not just budget) if we left. It is already in decline. There are serious structural issues with the Eurozone, and my view is that its economy has been stagnant for many years. You may differ. I suggest that if we weren't already a member but were considering joining, these two issues would be top of the agenda. You may think that a weakened and declining EU would hold all the aces during exit negotiations, but I happen to think it rather more marginal than that, as I've explained.

 

[MikeG]

........If the financial businesses move to Europe we are buggered......

I don't think anyone on the planet thinks this will happen. The Euro-based trading would almost certainly go, but I've never heard anyone suggest that there would be wholesale moves to the tighter controls of the European financial markets.

 

[Lothian]

I don't think anyone on the planet thinks this will happen. The Euro-based trading would almost certainly go, but I've never heard anyone suggest that there would be wholesale moves to the tighter controls of the European financial markets.

I guess it depends who you listen to, but I guarantee that there are people on this planet who think banks would shift their current EU staff & resources into the new EU.

Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan chief executive
TheCityUK financial lobby group
Mark Carney Bank of England boss
Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond
Mark Boleat, policy chairman at the City of London Corporation

There are other opinions but Google seems to have more City people supporting my view than yours.

 

[Lothian]

Now, your figures. Could you back them up, please....

I am fairly sure those were the figures quoted on R4 today either yesterday morning or the day before. Can;t remember who quoted them but I don't think the figures themselves are important. The main thing is that the EU is more important to us than we are to them.

It does, however, say that the balance of power in the discussion over Brexit would lie with the EU, and that may well be the case. However, if you think that the EU wouldn't be concerned with losing trade with one of its largest export markets, then you may have an argument that I haven't yet heard. I'd be interested.

I am not downplaying the fact that we are important to each other but as you agree they have the balance of power. There will be a deal, however that deal is likely to benefit them more than us. A) because they are in a better bargaining position and B) because there will be tariffs of some kind. Tariffs restrict the export trade. Their exports to us are less important to them than theirs to us. We will suffer more than they will from the tariff system.

 

[Ian Osborne]

Yeah, the more I read about Brexit, the worse an idea it seems. I reckon I'll be voting to stay in.

 

[Garrison]

Even if your figures were correct (I'll come to that) 60% of a small thing can be a lot less than 10% of a large thing.

Now, your figures. Could you back them up, please. Because this article with its graph claim that about 42% of our exports go to the EU, and that this figure has been declining for about 15 years (from a high of around 55% [60-63% high in 2000 & 2006 in other studies]).

This study looks at the trade deficit with the EU. We import substantially more from the EU than we export to the EU. Amongst other things, it says that 22% of EU exports come to Britain, contradicting your claim of 10%.

It does, however, say that the balance of power in the discussion over Brexit would lie with the EU, and that may well be the case. However, if you think that the EU wouldn't be concerned with losing trade with one of its largest export markets, then you may have an argument that I haven't yet heard. I'd be interested.

You may not have taken account of a Brexit leaving the EU much reduced. We are one of its largest sources of income, and as an organisation it would have a smaller just-about-everything (not just budget) if we left. It is already in decline. There are serious structural issues with the Eurozone, and my view is that its economy has been stagnant for many years. You may differ. I suggest that if we weren't already a member but were considering joining, these two issues would be top of the agenda. You may think that a weakened and declining EU would hold all the aces during exit negotiations, but I happen to think it rather more marginal than that, as I've explained.

Problem is that like some many on the Brexit side you treat the EU as a monolith, rather than the collection of individual states it really is. Sure there will be a few countries eager for a deal but at the same time those countries that benefited primarily from the free movement of labour will be looking for concessions on that front before they will sign off on a treaty. Again it's SNP think, the other side will be so desperate to maintain relations that they will give the leavers everything they want. Gove and co were clear that such thinking was way too much of a gamble for the Scots, but this time it will work because....

 

[Garrison]

I don't think anyone on the planet thinks this will happen. The Euro-based trading would almost certainly go, but I've never heard anyone suggest that there would be wholesale moves to the tighter controls of the European financial markets.

I suppose so it's not like the London Stock Exchange is inextricably linked to it's German or Italian counterparts, oh wait it is:

London Stock Exchange and Deutsche Boerse agree merger

The LSE and Deutsche Boerse have set up a referendum committee to consider what impact a Leave vote in the EU Referendum might have.

At this stage, though both companies say the outcome of the Referendum is not a condition of the merger because they believe the combined group would be "well positioned to serve global customers irrespective of the outcome of the vote".

However, they added: "The outcome of that vote might well affect the volume or nature of the business carried out by the Combined Group. "