If we vote for Brexit what happens

Moby

CLAPTON wrote: »

Surely the matter of whether big blocks get better deals that smaller blocks or countries or not etc must be a matter of fact.
Surely there is objective evidence (tariff levels, scope of products included etc. ) and not just a 'general consensus'.

Everything I have read or seen would indicate big blocs trade more efficiently.
A briefing paper from lawyers specialising in trade law is more convincing to me than the bigotry of Brexiteer blerts, (do you like my alliteration Clappers):-

The EU consists of 28 Member States with a combined GDP of £11.3 trillion (the world’s largest) and population of 505 million (the world’s third largest).[6] The negotiating power of the EU Member States acting together is stronger than the UK alone, whose population is just 64 million and GDP £1.8 trillion.[7] We believe that the UK has more influence by participating fully in the EU than it does outside.
In certain areas, the EU institutions and Member States have a “shared competence” to take international action.[8] In such cases, the EU institutions benefit from greater negotiating power than any one Member State acting alone, while the UK (like any other Member State) retains the ability to advance its views independently.
In other areas, the EU institutions have an exclusive competence[9] to represent the EU Member States. Although the UK cannot act alone in these areas, the EU institutions and Member States generally negotiate and conclude these agreements together.[10] Again, the UK benefits from the negotiating power of the EU institutions, while retaining its own voice in those negotiations.
Since the early 1990s, and with the support of successive UK governments, the EU has participated in negotiations or concluded market opening agreements with the US, Canada, South Korea, Japan, ASEAN, GCC and Mercosur.[11] Leaving the EU would mean the UK would lose the benefits of these deals and would be excluded from the ambitious programme of future negotiations.[12] Indeed, the UK would be forced to renegotiate over 50 EU trade agreements – a lengthy and complex process.

cogito

Moby wrote: »

Utter nonsense...... It is the biggest trading bloc in the world and we are choosing to leave it because of little Englander attitudes swamping our judgement! I prefer economies of scale......its a more valid theory.

The biggest protectionist organisation in the world, I think you meant.

cogito

Moby wrote: »

Utter nonsense...... It is the biggest trading bloc in the world and we are choosing to leave it because of little Englander attitudes swamping our judgement! I prefer economies of scale......its a more valid theory.

No it isn't.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_European_Union

And when the UK finally leaves it will be further behind the US, China and possibly India. In terms of GDP per capita, it's miles behind the US.

mwpt

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Amazing, I called you out for being a bigot and you've still refused to engage in any introspection to stop being a bigot. .

I'm told that calling people bigots doesn't work to explain your views and just leads them to vote for things like brexit.

Oh, I see your plan.

Herzlos

CLAPTON wrote: »

if a significant employer in an area of ethnic diversity was perceived to have a policy of only employing people of his own ethnicity then you would

a. think it wrong if the government gathered data on the matter
b. if so should they make it available to the public or keep it secret
even if no actual proof of discrimination or wrong doing had been proved

c. what if the issue was pay equality between men and women
-should such data be made available even if no actaul conviction had been obtained

d. there seems to be some demand for companies clearly show in annual reports, how many women work in senior positions : should this be allowed unless criminal wrong doing has been proven.

e. what about poor but not illegal working practices : should such info be made public?

If an employer was breaking the law by discriminating, then I'd expect the law to be enforced and any court conviction published via the usual means.

It would be utterly unacceptable to put a name & shame list into the public domain for the Daily Mail to do another "ENEMIES OF THE STATE"

Tromking

cogito wrote: »

The biggest protectionist organisation in the world, I think you meant.

Nah!
It's biggest economically moribund trading block in the world surely?

cogito

Tromking wrote: »

Nah!
It's biggest economically moribund trading block in the world surely?

And going backwards.

Herzlos

mrginge wrote: »

Tricky it's quite simple.

1. When companies move out of the UK it's bad.
2. When companies move into the UK it's not good.

When companies move into the UK to avoid tax, it's not a sign of a growing economy. I maybe shouldn't have called it bad.

TrickyTree83

mwpt wrote: »

I'm told that calling people bigots doesn't work to explain your views and just leads them to vote for things like brexit.

Oh, I see your plan.

There is a distinct difference between calling a group of people xenophobic, which is a bigoted statement if you don't know yourself if that group of people are genuinely xenophobic, and calling a particular individual a bigot because they indulged in the aforementioned.

CLAPTON

Herzlos wrote: »

If an employer was breaking the law by discriminating, then I'd expect the law to be enforced and any court conviction published via the usual means.

It would be utterly unacceptable to put a name & shame list into the public domain for the Daily Mail to do another "ENEMIES OF THE STATE"

Information is power and is often a more powerful weapon than a difficult to enforce law.
Sometimes the only way of knowing a law is being broken is by gathering data and publishing it.
But I respect your views, which seems to me to be that ONLY illegal activities should be publicly commented on and ONLY when the case is proven.
No more stats about gender inequality, no more stats about ethic employment, no exposes about unpleasant but not illegal working practices.