If we vote for Brexit what happens

setmefree2

Barnier

Three Elements

The negotiation process will have the following three elements.
No threats

First, negotiators will create a good faith atmosphere, taking off the table threats “on people, money, and borders.” Neither British pensioners in Spain nor Polish students in Britain should face uncertainty over the rights they currently enjoy, Barnier underscored. Prime Minister May is also bound by a commitment to both Chambers of Parliament that this will be the first item of negotiation.
Divorce Settlement

Secondly, negotiations will take place in full compliance with EU laws and under the jurisdiction of EU courts. In part, that means that Britain must assume current liabilities, with various estimates as to how much the U.K will need to pay in settlement to the tune of €60bn Euros. That will settle pensions for EU staff, projects for people and regions that are already being implemented across the EU, including Britain. On this settlement, the negotiation will focus not on “if” but on “how much.”
It should be noted that earlier this month the British Chancellor of the Exchequer, Philip Hammond, announced the creation of a €70bn (£60bn) emergency fund to deal with the anticipated hurdles of Brexit. Part of this sum is no doubt intended for cushioning the inevitable turmoil to the economy. But, it could also signal that London is taking advantage of a good year in the economy to keep, as Mr. Hammond put it, “reserves in the tank” for an eventual lump sum. “We are a nation which abides by its international obligations. We always have done, we always will do, and everybody can be confident about that,” Hammond told the BBC.
Trade

Last but not least, the negotiators will talk of the future. The future trade relations with the U.K will be the third item on the agenda. These items will not be discussed in parallel, but sequentially. And there will be time pressure to remove the first two items from the agenda, which interest the 27 member states, before focusing on the one item on the agenda that interests Britain. “The sooner we reach a deal on an orderly withdrawal, the sooner we can prepare for the future relationship,” Barnier told DW.
The main principle that will underpin this negotiation is that whatever deal is granted to the U.K, it will be worse than being a member state. And as much as the U.K underscores its demand for a “bespoke deal,” it is clear that Brussels is not willing to undermine relations with Norway and Switzerland that include regular contributions to the EU budget and freedom of movement.
It has been made clear that for Germany at least Britain should not “cherry-pick” privileged access to the Single Market. The only out of tune member of the 27 undermining this common front explicitly has been the Czech Foreign Minister.

https://www.neweurope.eu/article/barnier-outlines-three-key-stages-brexit-negotiations/

setmefree2

Brexit: Single market benefit 'largely imaginary'

The trade benefits of belonging to the European Union have been "largely imaginary", according to the social policy think-tank Civitas.
Its analysis argues that exports from non-EU countries to the single market have grown faster than the UK's, since its creation in 1993.
That lends weight to the argument that no EU deal is better than a bad deal, the author argues.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39356664

The image of the EU’s Single Market as an economically successful project, membership of which is vital to the interests of the UK, has rested on the hopes and repeated assurances of politicians rather than any credible evidence.
No UK government has ever sought to monitor its impact until the rushed analysis, now widely held to be unreliable and untrustworthy, produced by the Treasury just before the referendum. There is, therefore, no authoritative evidence against which to assess the economic consequences of the Government’s decision to leave the Single Market and, potentially, trade with the EU under World Trade Organization rules.
In this new study, Michael Burrage uses seven international databases to assess the benefits of the Single Market for the UK, comparing its performance with that of other EU members, and with non-members who have traded with the EU. The data shows that the Single Market has not delivered the export growth it was expected to.
Michael Burrage also shows how other supposed benefits of the Single Market are largely imaginary. There is no evidence that Single Market membership has had a positive impact on UK GDP or productivity growth. The idea that the Single Market has been good for jobs is belied by the astonishing employment record of its members compared with other developed economies.
The benefits of Single Market membership have been illusory, while its costs are real, onerous, and unacceptable to a majority of the British people. Theresa May’s decision to withdraw the UK from the Single Market has been criticised by some for jeopardising the economy. But, as she and her ministers embark on negotiations over the UK’s future relationship with the EU, Michael Burrage shows that it is quite OK to walk away.

Conrad

setmefree2 wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39356664

Richard Branson is today calling for a further referendum 'of the facts'. Whats the betting his notion of facts is highly selective?


More news in (expert Economists caught off guard once more);


Stronger-than-expected retail sales data helped push sterling to a one-month high against the dollar on Thursday.


According to figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS), sales volumes grew by 1.4 per cent in February, well ahead of the 0.4 per cent growth the City consensus had anticipated.

setmefree2

Conrad wrote: »

More news in (expert Economists caught off guard once more);


Stronger-than-expected retail sales data helped push sterling to a one-month high against the dollar on Thursday.


According to figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS), sales volumes grew by 1.4 per cent in February, well ahead of the 0.4 per cent growth the City consensus had anticipated.

Guess how the BBC are reporting that?

Higher fuel prices take toll on retail sales

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39365048

StevieJ

setmefree2 wrote: »

Guess how the BBC are reporting that?



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39365048

Not sure what you mean, the BBC are quoting the same facts as the article Conrad linked to? Just that Conrad missed that bit out because it didn't suit his agenda.

However, over the three months to February the data still showed the biggest slide in sales volumes in almost seven years, with sales down by 1.4 per cent.

StevieJ

Private-sector employers predict they will give pay awards of just 2% over the coming year, according to the latest data from XpertHR.

http://www.personneltoday.com/hr/pay-awards-remain-inflation-year-according-xperthr/

Well CPI heading for 4% and RPI 5% , looks like retail sales are in for a bumper year.

StevieJ

Oh sorry am I being negative again?

gfplux

setmefree2 wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/business/brexit/transition-period-on-trade-deals-is-vital-in-brexit-35554280.html

Although not in favour of a transition period myself, if Britain wants to continue to pay in to the EU past the two years that is for Britain to ask and the EU to agree.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

StevieJ wrote: »

Oh sorry am I being negative again?

Negative?
I couldn't give a wotsit whether the news is positive or negative tbh.
But where is the fact?
The figures?
Can you not grasp the fact that evidence matters?
NOT supposition.

EVIDENCE:
Retail figures rise 1.4% - that is fact supported by an official government figure.
Supposition = the headline: "Higher fuel prices take toll on retail sales." - when the fact remains that sales increased.
Against expectations.

The headline was not this which follows in the same article: ""February's retail sales figures show fairly strong growth...", or " ... the 1.4% rise in retail sales in February was higher than the 0.4% increase expected by economists."
No, that would be too positive wouldn't it?
Can't have positivity, can we.

Explain if you can why one (official government, please note from the ONS) version as posted by Conrad is then twisted into negativity - by the BBC whom you are attempting to call unbiased.

Even with the best will in the world it is not possible to call such reporting and especially such a headline unbiased.
And before you attempt to call the BBC report "balanced", where is the balance from figures which clearly show growth?
Inflation for example - highlighted by this article - has not been mentioned anywhere in UK media in comparison the Germany which is running at 2.2% for the same period.
Where is the balance in not showing that?


You wonder why some dislike negativity?
In my own case it is not the negativity.
It is the very obvious bias and lack of balance.
Which I find frankly disgusting - especially from the BBC.

StevieJ

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Negative?
I couldn't give a wotsit whether the news is positive or negative tbh.
But where is the fact?
The figures?
Can you not grasp the fact that evidence matters?
NOT supposition.

EVIDENCE:
Retail figures rise 1.4% - that is fact supported by an official government figure.
Supposition = the headline: "Higher fuel prices take toll on retail sales." - when the fact remains that sales increased.
Against expectations.

The headline was not this which follows in the same article: ""February's retail sales figures show fairly strong growth...", or " ... the 1.4% rise in retail sales in February was higher than the 0.4% increase expected by economists."
No, that would be too positive wouldn't it?
Can't have positivity, can we.

Explain if you can why one (official government, please note from the ONS) version as posted by Conrad is then twisted into negativity - by the BBC whom you are attempting to call unbiased.

Even with the best will in the world it is not possible to call such reporting and especially such a headline unbiased.
And before you attempt to call the BBC report "balanced", where is the balance from figures which clearly show growth?
Inflation for example - highlighted by this article - has not been mentioned anywhere in UK media in comparison the Germany which is running at 2.2% for the same period.
Where is the balance in not showing that?


You wonder why some dislike negativity?
In my own case it is not the negativity.
It is the very obvious bias and lack of balance.
Which I find frankly disgusting - especially from the BBC.

Looks like a fact to me?

In the three months to February, sales volumes fell by 1.4%, a sharper slide than the 0.5% decline for the three months to January.
That was the biggest three-month fall recorded by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) since March 2010.