Brexit

schneckster

antrobus wrote: »

I suspect that your view of Britain's place in the global order is as accurate as your arithemetic.:)

I'm not disagreeing with the rest of your post, but I think Britain's place in the global order is, these days, more about the size of our market than anything else. There we have a massive edge on Norway.

antrobus wrote: »

P.S. Norway has the world's biggest Sovereign Wealth Fund (USD 900 bn or so, and rising) but you seem to regard them as "frankly inferior". That's the kind of inferiority I'd happily embrace.:rotfl:

But here they have a massive edge on us which, like you, I would happily embrace... until the next Labour government does with it what it did with our gold reserves, that is! :eek:

antrobus

schneckster wrote: »

I'm not disagreeing with the rest of your post, but I think Britain's place in the global order is, these days, more about the size of our market than anything else. There we have a massive edge on Norway....

I would not disagree with that either. We are twelve times the size of Norway.

What I would dispute is that "we have the bargaining power and the acumen to come up with a solution that's on our terms". No, we have the bargaining power and the acumen to come up with a solution that would be on mutually agreeable terms; we are not in a position to dicate terms to (say) the EU. Or the US. Or China.

Whatever the value of EU-UK trade, it's a much bigger proportion of the UK's GDP than it is of the EU's GDP. (Obviously.:)) So we have more to lose than they do. Which is the kind of thing that counts when you are negotiating a deal.

schneckster wrote: »

...But here they have a massive edge on us which, like you, I would happily embrace... until the next Labour government does with it what it did with our gold reserves, that is! :eek:

They do have USD 900 bn to burn through. Which is quite a lot really, particularly for a country with a population less than London's. And I think their Labour Party is much more resolutely social democrat that ours dares to be.:)

Bluebirdman_of_Alcathays

antrobus wrote: »

To recap, what I said was



That would be four options, not three.



I suspect that your view of Britain's place in the global order is as accurate as your arithemetic.:)

P.S. Norway has the world's biggest Sovereign Wealth Fund (USD 900 bn or so, and rising) but you seem to regard them as "frankly inferior". That's the kind of inferiority I'd happily embrace.:rotfl:

So, you stand by your assertion that the Swiss, Turks and mighty Norwegians can negotiate a bespoke arrangement with the EU, and we would be unable.

Astounding. :T

ruggedtoast

schneckster wrote: »

Seriously? Wow!
They're nowhere near the same as the Nats. And the list you give below shows that.


Wrong. Who said that? Source please! Leave the EU, we should expect to be on passport control - which we have now in any case, don't we? Inside EU borders, there is still free movement regardless of passport.

Totally wrong. Leaving cancels them. But then it gives the UK the ability to negotiate our own trade agreements with whomever we want - something the UK cannot do whilst an EU member. This is why there is no trade agreement with most of the world, including China and the US. And the EU will want to have a trade agreement with us afterwards - we're their biggest export market!

No, be able to trade with whomever we want - see previous point. I mean, we currently sell millions of pounds of chocolate to the Swiss! Yes, the Swiss! It's like selling ice to the Eskimoes!

That would come under agreements with relevant countries. You don't need to cede sovereignty into full political union to get that.

EU stability? Are you serious?? We would decide what's best for us with no-one to overrule us. We don't have to do anything with the EU that we don't want to, that is the whole point.

Or, control our borders the way we want without being overruled by unelected bureaucrats in a foreign capital?

Or decide to commit to projects anywhere else in the world, something EU membership currently prevents us from doing.

What did we do before the EU came along, eh?

You mean them making us rely on them by ordering the closure of coal fired power stations in the UK, while Germany opens up several new ones? Yes, very reliable. Or how about the EU relying on Russia not to get in the way of EU energy security whilst the EU pokes them with a pointy stick???

So we can't buy food from outside the EU unless we're in the EU, is that it? I better send that Ghanaian coffee back, then... mind you, the EU are looking to ban coffee, it seems!

You really think that would happen? I mean, really? Wouldn't we do the same with their's? Or do you think, perhaps, legal status before the break would be negotiated to continue after (see Lisbon Treaty, Article 50 where a relationship is to be negotiated).


They antagonise us on a daily basis while expecting us to give them "super best friend" staus forever!
Far better to vote ourselves out and reconnect with the rest of the world which is growing more prosperous every day, whilst the EU declines into stagnation and recession, slowly eroding the sovereignty and prosperity of any country that remains.


I apparently won't be able to buy my Ghanaian coffee if we left, yet I'm a bit dim?? Politeness prevents me from answering this in the manner it actually deserves! :rotfl:

What a lot of copying and quoting.

If you want to have to apply for a Schengen visa every time you want to go to France then by all means vote yourself out.

We have unfettered access to the largest economic zone on the planet. A bit more important than "having the ability", which would pretty quickly become a desperate necessity, to negotiate hundreds of trade agreements starting with the Andaman Islands and ending with Zambia.

I'm not going to bother responding to the rest of the Daily Mail barmy Brussels EU paranoia you cite. Its total nonsense, but is unfortunately believed by a lot of British people. As you have demonstrated.

TickersPlaysPop

Many thanks for the great debate....

Just to pick up one point already mentioned....

If we left the EU, would the rest left in the EU want to trade with us? Would it ruin our relations? Would the EU still be viable without us?

Can we leave the political union bit but stay in the single market?

Also, yeah we might save lots of money if we left in donations to the EU, but we would have to spend a lot of money to establish trade deals with each individual country? Maybe that is one benefit to the EU, it is an efficient way to set trade laws between countries within the EU and also between the EU and the rest of the world?

Personally, whenever I have dealt with selling outside the EU it is a nightmare, shipping laws and rules and systems are different for each country. The extra costs, taxes and customs clearance costs are also shocking.

Masomnia

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

Can we leave the political union bit but stay in the single market?

If it's a vote to leave that's the most likely outcome imho, which is why I'm a 'Don't know' but erring towards 'No.'

Of course if that option were on the ballot paper most people would jump at it; but it won't be for exactly that reason. You'll notice that the 'Yes' arguments on this thread are pretty much all economic, which is fine, but the economic argument is won. Most people accept the economic benefits of staying in, but we're beyond that. It's a political project, aimed at federalising Europe, but I've yet to see Hamish et al make a case for that.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Masomnia wrote: »

. Most people accept the economic benefits of staying in,

Indeed.

The economic benefits are indisputable.

but we're beyond that.

No, I don't think we are.

It's a political project, aimed at federalising Europe, but I've yet to see Hamish et al make a case for that.

Federalising the Eurozone, yes, that makes perfect sense.

But federalising Europe cannot happen while we maintain the opt-outs we have today.

If and when it makes sense for the UK to join a federal Europe we can do so, but until then, under the current regime we cannot be forced into deeper integration.

We can currently have our cake and eat it.

It would be madness to leave.

BobQ

schneckster wrote: »

The clue was in the first sentence you quoted… “My view…”. Are we not all venturing our views on this forum? And where did I ask for proof?

You should read what you post you asked for a pro-EU article like Hannons.

We apply the standards to products sold to those markets but we do not apply their law to everything at home, do we? So why is the EU any different?

It is our closest international market and it is the largest market in the world.

As for companies relocating if we left, please give me a list – I can think of several saying that. Most said the same if we didn’t change to the euro, but strangely, they’re all still here. And interestingly, most received some financial rewards from the EU, hence my point about propaganda.

I started this thread with two examples. I'm sure you can find your own list but it includes several financial institutions and car manufacturers. In fact any UK based firm that exports more to the EU than it sells in UK is probably considering their position. And not all firms will state this in public.

I agree that facts and figures are not clear on either side of the argument and that is why we are stating our "views". The problem is the decision is fundamental and has major consequences. It really does not matter why a firm relocates (a pure business decision, an EU subsidy etc). If they leave then there will be consequences.

BobQ

schneckster wrote: »

You really think that would happen? I mean, really? Wouldn't we do the same with their's? Or do you think, perhaps, legal status before the break would be negotiated to continue after (see Lisbon Treaty, Article 50 where a relationship is to be negotiated).
:

You keep quoting Article 50 of Lisbon yet when challenged to quote it earlier you failed to do so. All the Treaty states as far as I can see in Article 49A is that when a nation votes to leave the EU, there is a phased withdrawal which is based on an agreement for the transition which expires within 2 years of signing it. There is no guarantee after leaving that we will have an agreement on anything as far as I can see.

BobQ

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

Personally, whenever I have dealt with selling outside the EU it is a nightmare, shipping laws and rules and systems are different for each country. The extra costs, taxes and customs clearance costs are also shocking.

Very true. There are a lot of people in the UK who rightly point out that being under 58 they never had the chance to vote on the EU issue. But this also means that many of them do not remember the complexities of dealing with our closest neighbours.