If we vote for Brexit what happens

Herzlos

Conrad wrote: »

You do realise that every time the currency falls, so do our debt obligations right?

How does that work then? Any debt we have in $ would go up if the £ weakens. If our debts are all in £ then we're not really better off anyway, but whoever outwith the UK that owns the debt will do worse.

Herzlos

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

That kind of is the point Conrad was making.

In that if the £ falls every time she opens her mouth as you say, and also the European markets tumble when she suggests that there would be no single market access it should give an indication to all that business (and therefore jobs) demand that trade continue as it is currently on the continent as much as here in the UK. If TM and the UK government stick firmly to the cessation of FoM that puts the EU in a quandary.

The uncertainty is on both sides though, and sure it shows that the EU is vulnerable to a UK-EU trade deal. We know that.

That traders feel that the £ is worth less whenever May speaks strikes me as a lack of confidence in the UK.

But back to the point. Why are we assuming that this is some Machiavellian move from May, which it's more likely to be explained by incompetence, which she's already shown plenty of form for?

Conrad

Herzlos wrote: »

But back to the point. Why are we assuming that this is some Machiavellian move from May, which it's more likely to be explained by incompetence, which she's already shown plenty of form for?

You do have a fair point, as borne out by evidence such as her pontificating over immigration at every Tory conference that delivered nothing meaningful.


I am giving her the benefit of the doubt, but I will admit I am concerned she could be a ditherer and lack resolve and bottle.


My instinct still says she's very well switched onto Brexit and will surprise us with hopefully some breath taking moves, we'll see

wotsthat

mrginge wrote: »

No i can't.

I can imagine asking a team of people to go off and investigate a project, analyse the problem, determine resource requirements, come up with a strategy, a timescale and contingencies. And I would like them to report back to me on their proposal by X date.

Surely on June 24th you anticipated date 'X' would be before 10th January 2017?

You can't really be suggesting you're not in the least bit concerned that it's taken so long and there's been no feedback on the proposal whatsoever.

mrginge wrote: »

It is if you've asked them to go and do something and all you want to do is stick your neb in every five minutes so you can complain that they're not doing it the way you wanted.
Still, I guess in an age where we devolve power and responsibility there's still a few 1970s dinosaurs out there.

I think we're now at a place where the lack of proposal looks unreasonable and inept.

You might want to make out I'm a dinosaur wanting to stick my oar in every 5 minutes for an update as that suits your remoaner narrative. The reality is there haven't been any updates since June 24th let alone every 5 minutes. When Davis said he wasn't going to provide a running commentary he wasn't joking!

A_Medium_Size_Jock

wotsthat wrote: »

1 Surely on June 24th you anticipated date 'X' would be before 10th January 2017?

2 You can't really be suggesting you're not in the least bit concerned that it's taken so long and there's been no feedback on the proposal whatsoever.



3 I think we're now at a place where the lack of proposal looks unreasonable and inept.

4 You might want to make out I'm a dinosaur wanting to stick my oar in every 5 minutes for an update as that suits your remoaner narrative. The reality is there haven't been any updates since June 24th let alone every 5 minutes. When Davis said he wasn't going to provide a running commentary he wasn't joking!

1 : No. Earlier would maybe have been good but conversely maybe not. If you realy want to blame someone, blame Cameron since he ran away and left no plan. After all, he had long enough to prepare one.

2: No. Why should I be concerned when I have been told WHEN we will invoke Article 50 and that we will not get a running comentary. Seems fair enough, given no business would tell competitors what they are planning as has been said many times before on here.

3: No. As in #2 above, why the heck would you want to give your competitors advance notice of your plans? Plain daft idea TBH. Wait until March.
The "lack of a proposal" is your interpretation only ........ unless you are suggesting insider knowledge?

4: Absolutely correct. You will get updated when Article 50 is invoked and not before.
After all, we wouldn't want to risk anyone running and telling tales now would we?

As for it suiting some narrative or other well, what a load of cobblers.
It is common sense and no more.
Unless of course for some strange reason you think that we SHOULD pre-warn the EU of our intent, in which case kindly tell us why that should be so?

A_Medium_Size_Jock

Are Germany's AFD trying a moderate approach in an attempt to win votes like Le Pen is in France?
Their co-leader Georg Methuen is suggesting that the Eurozone split in two - which is a change from AFD's usual anti-EU stance.

The euro zone should be split into two with a strong cluster around Germany and a weak cluster including France, the co-leader of Germany's far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party Joerg Meuthen said.
"The euro is a seed of discord in Europe that has different currency cultures and different competitiveness levels," Meuthen told Reuters

http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-germany-election-afd-euro-idUKKBN14U0V6

Conrad

I forsee an Anglo-sphere trading axis, comprising the can-do grown-up, like minded nations of the USA, Australia, NZ, Canada and ourselves, featuring rapid simple trade deals and co-operation.


This could expand to Singapore et al


The tired old lumbering Brussels rule making machine can carry on limping along

mrginge

wotsthat wrote: »

Surely on June 24th you anticipated date 'X' would be before 10th January 2017?

I would have anticipated that a sensible government would have prepared for a possible leave outcome and done some groundwork so that they weren't dumped in the crap like they were on the 24th.

But since that wasn't the case and since we had to spend the following month getting a new government in place to start from scratch I think six or so months to do things properly given the massive task ahead is a fairly reasonable timeframe.

What I would like is for us to start a negotiation with a very clear and complete view of what is important to the UK and what is not.

Just for starters -
Which key industries we need to defend and which ones we don't.
Which countries we could look to create trade deals with if we are out of the SM
How quickly those deals could be arranged
What sectors they should focus on
What the short,medium and long term prospects are for those deals
What their expected value is and how that would compare to a possible loss of EU exports
What kind of immigration policy we should create
What levels of immigration we should accept and in what areas
What number of trade negotiators we need
What the budget is for all this and where it's coming from
What if any membership fee we would be willing to pay for SM access
What the scenarios are for businesses if we end up on WTO terms
What strategies we should employ regarding possible tariffs
How we will deal with the return of EU legislation to UK
What should any transitional arrangements look like and how long should they last

You see I don't think jumping from one balls up straight into another is a particularly sensible idea.

You can't really be suggesting you're not in the least bit concerned that it's taken so long and there's been no feedback on the proposal whatsoever.

Not in the least. I work on the basis of trusting people to do the jobs they are employed to do, whereas your default position seems to be the complete opposite.
We (including you) elected this govt to run the country, have a referendum and act on the outcome. We gave them five years to do it. We also (as always) asked parliament to hold them to account.
In the referendum I don't remember asking them to leave the EU within nine months, only to leave the EU.
Perhaps you would have preferred them to do so without any thought for the consequences?
It appears that we are getting what we asked for.

I think we're now at a place where the lack of proposal looks unreasonable and inept.

You might want to make out I'm a dinosaur wanting to stick my oar in every 5 minutes for an update as that suits your remoaner narrative. The reality is there haven't been any updates since June 24th let alone every 5 minutes. When Davis said he wasn't going to provide a running commentary he wasn't joking!

Well I guess we'll see in a few weeks what progress has been made and what the govts opening gambit is won't we.

And of course if their response at that point is that they haven't got clue then we can all have a big old moan together. But until that point I'm going to get on with my life and deal with my priorities and let them get on with theirs.

I can 100% guarantee you that when they do announce their strategy then quite a few people will moan and groan and say we won't get X and we have to accept Y ...blah blah blah. Usual story. And we will of course end up in a compromise position that some people will moan and groan about.

There is no prize for rushing article 50, so how about we give them a chance to get things right rather than assuming that everything is going to be wrong.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

Conrad wrote: »

I forsee an Anglo-sphere trading axis, comprising the can-do grown-up, like minded nations of the USA, Australia, NZ, Canada and ourselves, featuring rapid simple trade deals and co-operation.


This could expand to Singapore et al


The tired old lumbering Brussels rule making machine can carry on limping along

I have said before in these forums that the Commonwealth is the way forward, and even the Commonwealth has said that it wants to see this.
Combined with the USA such a trading axis as you suggest is not beyond the realms of possibility.

As you suggest; leave the EU to continue the petty squabbling not only within, but also with it's external trade deals which take far too long and then often never come to fruition.

mayonnaise

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

I have said before in these forums that the Commonwealth is the way forward, and even the Commonwealth has said that it wants to see this.
Combined with the USA such a trading axis as you suggest is not beyond the realms of possibility.

The Commonwealth.

Apart from the UK, only 3 countries in the Commonwealth with any economical clout. Canada, Australia and India.

Exports to these 3 combined (2010 figures) were smaller than our exports to.....Belgium.

Combined with a -probably - increasingly protectionist USA, that's going to be some axis. :rotfl: