If we vote for Brexit what happens

kabayiri

CLAPTON wrote: »

...
I believe it is a massively non optimal organisation for the UK, the southern EU states, East European states and developing agricultural states and is doomed to fail in the long run.
...

I too think it lost it's way when it became a political exercise over an economic zone between comparable countries.

The_Last_Username

wotsthat wrote: »

He just does a Conrad. Things are going to be great because they are. Compelling my !!!!.

If you're looking for your bias to be confirmed try some other articles from the same author

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/authors/patrick-minford/

Show us please which of the linked articles have so far proven to be false?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

kabayiri wrote: »

Any EU fanatics here able to tell me why the Euro or EU is not toast in the long run?.

We're all toast in the long run.

Somewhere around 50 European nation states that existed in the 1700's, 1800's and 1900's no longer exist today...

And I can easily think of a half dozen or so (probably more if I put my mind to it) countries around the world that existed when I was a child that no longer exist today.

Britain alone has gone through around 14 or 15 collections of nation states in the last 2000 years.

The truly insane thing is thinking any country is permanent.

But in the next decade or two we're as likely to see Britain break up as we are the EU...

TrickyTree83

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

We're all toast in the long run.

Somewhere around 50 European nation states that existed in the 1700's, 1800's and 1900's no longer exist today...

And I can easily think of a half dozen or so (probably more if I put my mind to it) countries around the world that existed when I was a child that no longer exist today.

Britain alone has gone through around 14 or 15 collections of nation states in the last 2000 years.

The truly insane thing is thinking any country is permanent.

But in the next decade or two we're as likely to see Britain break up as we are the EU...

Says the person who wants Scottish independence to join the EU. If both fall as you predict, what's the point of your perspective?

CLAPTON

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

We're all toast in the long run.

Somewhere around 50 European nation states that existed in the 1700's, 1800's and 1900's no longer exist today...

And I can easily think of a half dozen or so (probably more if I put my mind to it) countries around the world that existed when I was a child that no longer exist today.

Britain alone has gone through around 14 or 15 collections of nation states in the last 2000 years.

The truly insane thing is thinking any country is permanent.

But in the next decade or two we're as likely to see Britain break up as we are the EU...

indeed so,
so I guess you would see the logic in the EU reforming, so that there is a different arrangement of the land mass and peoples which works better for all the people

kabayiri

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

...
But in the next decade or two we're as likely to see Britain break up as we are the EU...

Only Scotland has made serious noises, and you yourself contemplated supporting the Nationalist cause.

If you accept that there are situations where even an Unionist could consider breaking away, then surely there will be even more situations where Hungarians would consider alternatives (or Latvians; Poles; Irish; Greeks; Danes...etc, etc).

Can the Union itself evolve enough to meet the expectations (or counter the frustrations) of still quite different sets of people?

I think serious reform is seen as weakness by the Eurocrats at the core. They'd rather stick to their red lines no matter what.

Thrugelmir

gfplux wrote: »

How committed is the Government to overcome shortfalls in available energy? Does any one know, does even the Government know?

Not new news, as the concept is some years old.

National Grid Interconnector Holdings Limited, together with our project partners, are in the feasibility stage of developing an interconnector between Great Britain and Iceland*. The project is known as IceLink.

National Grid's project partners are Landsvirkjun, the state owned generator in Iceland, and Landsnet, the Icelandic Transmission System Operator (TSO).

A capacity of 1,000MW is being investigated, with desk studies ongoing to establish feasible converter sites, onshore and offshore High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) cable routes, and landing points. It is expected that the landing points for the cable will be in Northern Scotland and South East Iceland.

The interconnector is expected to be around 1,000km in offshore cable length with an HVDC converter located in each country converting Direct Current (DC) to Alternating Current (AC) (and vice versa). It will connect the Icelandic and Great Britain electricity networks allowing electricity to be traded between the two countries. The cable will enable electricity to flow in both directions.

vivatifosi

kabayiri wrote: »

Why wouldn't the EU fracture along broadly North/South lines?

You've asked this a couple of times recently kab and I've been meaning to respond. I also agree that there is a chance that this could happen.

I read an analysis of Trump's dropping of the Pacific Trade Pact which came to a similar conclusion. Whether it is the EU, NAFTA or the PTP, similar countries should cut trade deals with those most similar to themselves in terms of GDP per capita. That way you don't get the same push/pull dynamic and it is more of a marriage of equals.

It suggested that it is ludicrous to suggest that the US won't have a trade deal with the likes of Canada, Japan, Australia. Of course, there's a trade off here too, in that the US turning it back on the poorer Pacific nations opens up opportunities for China. In the event that the EU fails, we can probably expect greater involvement from Russia in some states, even if that involvement is soft as opposed to moving tanks into Crimea.

I don't think in the current geopolitical environment you can rule anything out.

wotsthat

CLAPTON wrote: »

I don't hate the EU
I believe it is a massively non optimal organisation for the UK, the southern EU states, East European states and developing agricultural states and is doomed to fail in the long run.

The 2 year timescale was written into the EU rules clearly without much thought; sadly like many other of the EU rules.
Given it is an EU rule, they should make ever effort to meet that timescale although we both know they will corruptly delay.

You say the UK and the EU will agree a timescale: if the EU deliberately delay how do we force them to hold sensible negotiations : I'm confident that you will defend the EU however irresponsibly they behave and will attack the UK however reasonably we behave.

Seriously, you're starting to lose perspective.

If, as you suspect, the two year timeframe was poorly thought out and inappropriate then why compound that by trying to achieve what can't be achieved in such a time frame?

It's probably in our own best interests to have a phased withdrawal.

If the EU 'corruptly' delay then we remain a sovereign nation and can walk away and tell them to do one should we so wish.

wotsthat

The_Last_Username wrote: »

Show us please which of the linked articles have so far proven to be false?

Please show us which forecasts in the Autumn statement have so far been proven to be false.

You don't 'compellingly' disprove OBR forecasts by simply making your own based on nothing more detailed than a firmly stated opinion.

The Telegraph are feeding their readers with stories they want to read. The OBR forecasts will be wrong, the treasury forecasts will be wrong and the forecasts from the boss of economists for brexit will be wrong too.