Brexit: the referendum

Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Seems to be, yes.

Though remember the 2 years is the length of time from resignation to exit, not from referendum to exit.
Click to expand...


Yea. I understand that.

There doesn't seem to be any way to determine what the procedure for actually resigning is going to be should the referendum result in a popular support of leaving, since it is non-binding. So I figure that is going to be pure conjecture. Interesting conjecture, perhaps, but it doesn't seem as if anyone actually knows.

Once notice is sent the subsequent steps are defined by treaty, at least as I understand.
 
Last edited:
There is also the possibility, though it has been rubbished and dismissed by the remain side, that the EU would offer some meaningful concessions to get the UK to stay - and that a second referendum would then be required.
 
ceptimus said:
There is also the possibility, though it has been rubbished and dismissed by the remain side, that the EU would offer some meaningful concessions to get the UK to stay - and that a second referendum would then be required.
Click to expand...


One point that the article raised is that once notification has been sent there isn't any formal procedure outlined for withdrawing that notification, so that if a negotiated withdraw wasn't arranged changing their mind and staying in might not be an option for the UK unless there was a unanimous approval by all 27 remaining member states.

That seems like it could be a difficult position for the UK to find itself in.
 
If there are to be any concessions, it's more likely that the EU would offer them before the UK handed over its notice. If the new terms were accepted by the government and by the people in a second referendum, then the notice would never be given.
 
Roofgardener said:
One thought about those "independent and impartial bodes", The Don. Many of them appear to be basing their outcomes on a common (unproven) assumption; that GDP would decline for an extended period post-Brexit. Take this 'article of faith' away, and all of their forecasts simultaneously fail ! So whilst there are many of these reports, they are not - from a strictly scientific perspective - independent.
Click to expand...

Those predictions are based on standard economic models which have been run once staying in the EU and once based on Brexit.

You can argue that the models themselves have been proved time and again that they do not accurately predict the future - and I'd agree with you but they're the least worst models we have. You could also argue that the post-Brexit model has huge uncertainties, and you'd be right IMO but that's a reflection on the situation - we have no idea what the post-Brexit relationship with our single largest trading partner will be like.

The Leave campaigners have constructed a fantasy where all the benefits of EU membership are retained but that magically-smagically we don't have any of the costs or obligations. We'll have the same trading relationship as Switzerland and Norway but we won't have to make a financial contribution and we won't need to allow the free movement of people. We will, at the same time, both keep out Johnny Foreigner (for the Xenophobes) and also allow the movement of labour (for business) whilst retaining our ability to live, travel and work in the EU.

The criticism from independent bodies doesn't just relate to the economic side of things, it also includes an assessment of the geo-political aspects too.
 
That's a little unfair, The Don. The Leave side believe there are drawbacks to EU membership as well as benefits.

The problem with the models (apart from the fact that they always predict the wrong results) is that they don't even take any drawbacks into account - the models accept as input things like trade figures and taxes, but they have no variables for the effects of over-regulation or the feel-good factor of being in control of your own destiny.

The models are all set up and run by the same global elite that has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo where they hold power.

Ex-Tory leader Michael Howard made a good point on TV this morning. Paraphrasing he said that there were only three real facts available to voters: that we send billions to the EU, that we have no control over EU immigration, and that the EU laws have primacy over our own. Everything else is guesswork he said.

When challenged that his own predictions of a rosy future after a Brexit were also guesswork, he acknowledged that was true.

The Leave side can't predict what will happen after a remain vote either. There is still the very real possibility of a Euro-zone collapse with profound implications for the future of the EU, even if the UK does remain a member.
 
roof Gardener

What are the views of young people of your acquaintance? All those I know want us to remain in the EU.
 
GlennB said:
Well, let's just say we'd like to know how that figure was calculated. If it's the net profit from trade with other EU countries then it would have to be adjusted in light of trade with the EU that would still happen after Brexit.
Click to expand...
It is the calculated net profit, which obviously could be offset by some extra non-EU post-Brexit trade. It does not seem plausible that the latter could fully replace it and certainly not significantly exceed it. Business are not stupid. If there were greater profits to be made selling outside the EU, then they would already be doing it. It is also notable that although Brexiters dispute the £48 billion figure, they have not offered any alternative one.
 
ceptimus said:
The figure 350 million per week is the amount of money we don't control.

I think the rebate may be deducted before we even send the money, but the rebate might be reduced or eliminated in the future if we vote to remain.
Click to expand...
Why do you keep using the "£350 million" when it's demonstrably false? Even if you want to obfuscate by talking about "money we don't control," it's £250 million per week, not £350 million.

And then of the remaining money after the rebate, we get some of that back too in the form of subsidies for farmers and various other organisations.
Click to expand...
It's not "some," it's most of it, and it accounts for around 50% of farmers' incomes. What would you spend that money on post-Brxit? Doing exactly the same, or reducing or cutting farming subsidies entirely?

But we only get about half of the money back in total - the rest goes off to fund things happening in other EU countries.
Click to expand...

You're totally overlooking the profit of actually being in the EU, which totally wipes out the relatively small amount you begrudge because some of it "goes off to fund things happening in other EU countries."

It's like handing over a hundred pounds to someone, and then they give you fifty pounds back but tell you how you have to spend that fifty.
Click to expand...

No, it's more like handing over 100, getting 35 back for stuff you would have spent it on, anway, and then getting 370 profit back against the remaining 65.
 
Last edited:
I didn't hand wave it away.

I posted that, in total, we get about half of the money we contribute back.

Do you accept that?

I know the Remain side also like to claim other nebulous benefits of remaining a member of the EU, but we're just discussing the accountable flows of money here.
 
Oh, and I assume that the difference between the £350 million and £250 million per week is the rebate which is deducted before we pay. But the rebate could be reduced or abolished in the future.

Why are the Remain side so hung up about the whether the Gross or Net figure should be used? Do they really believe that the majority of the British public really care which of those two figures is used? Both of the sums are too large to be comprehensible to normal voters - and either number is just converted inside their heads to, "A vast amount of money."
 
ceptimus said:
I know the Remain side also like to claim other nebulous benefits of remaining a member of the EU, but we're just discussing the accountable flows of money here.
Click to expand...

You don't think there is a economic benefit to the trade deals the UK enjoy as a EU member?
 
ceptimus said:
Oh, and I assume that the difference between the £350 million and £250 million per week is the rebate which is deducted before we pay. But the rebate could be reduced or abolished in the future.

Why are the Remain side so hung up about the whether the Gross or Net figure should be used? Do they really believe that the majority of the British public really care which of those two figures is used? Both of the sums are too large to be comprehensible to normal voters - and either number is just converted inside their heads to, "A vast amount of money."
Click to expand...

Why don't the "Leave" side simply say "a gazillion Pounds a week" then?
 
uke2se said:
You don't think there is a economic benefit to the trade deals the UK enjoy as a EU member?
Click to expand...
Yes, I think there is an economic benefit. But it's also an economic benefit to the EU countries we trade with, and I believe we will keep all or most of those deals in place after a Brexit.
 
uke2se said:
Why don't the "Leave" side simply say "a gazillion Pounds a week" then?
Click to expand...

I assume it's the same reason that Osborne said that each British family would be £4,300 pounds per year worse off after a Brexit.

When politicians make a guesswork claim, they like to use precise-sounding figures - they must think that a precise number sounds more plausible to voters than just saying, "a lot".
 
ceptimus said:
Yes, I think there is an economic benefit. But it's also an economic benefit to the EU countries we trade with, and I believe we will keep all or most of those deals in place after a Brexit.
Click to expand...

You won't. Not at the start, anyway. You will be forced to negotiate terms, and you can bet that the EU will demand concessions in return, such as free mobility of workers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom