If we vote for Brexit what happens

Generali

antrobus wrote: »

I think it's about 10% higher Aus, making it closer to Sweden than the UK, but it's in the same 'developed world' ballpark.



GDP is a measure of economic activity. Knocking it for failing to take account of things that aren't economic activity sort of misses the point by a country mile.

Well indeed. Apparently it makes a point in favour of Brexit. Don't see it myself.

Generali

CLAPTON wrote: »

then we agree that per capita GDP fails to measure many important aspects of life that are specifically relevant to BREXIT.

Probably. It depends what you deem to be important really.

GDP per capita fails to measure lots of things. I'd be pretty loathe to state that the failure of GDP measures to capture a lark on the wing is a glowing support of Brexit.

Brexit would mean utter chaos both economic and political. I simply don't see the vast non-economic gains that would accrue could be worth the utter cluster-whatsit that a Brexit would bring.

CLAPTON

Generali wrote: »

Probably. It depends what you deem to be important really.

GDP per capita fails to measure lots of things. I'd be pretty loathe to state that the failure of GDP measures to capture a lark on the wing is a glowing support of Brexit.

Brexit would mean utter chaos both economic and political. I simply don't see the vast non-economic gains that would accrue could be worth the utter cluster-whatsit that a Brexit would bring.

just an opinion like any other.

what political chaos is this : countries join the EU without chaos but apparently leaving causes chaos : really ?
is there political and economic chaos in Aus because you aren't members of the EU? Of course not.

the vast non-economic gains are that people under 40 in London and the SE could afford a family sized house : just like in most parts of the world plus a reasonable expectation that NHS won't get worse, transport delays will at least stabilise

Generali

CLAPTON wrote: »

just an opinion like any other.

what political chaos is this : countries join the EU without chaos but apparently leaving causes chaos : really ?
is there political and economic chaos in Aus because you aren't members of the EU? Of course not.

Yes. Have you any idea what it would be like trying to unwind rules governing tens of billions of pounds-worth of trade alone?

Then there are the students and workers all over the world governed by EU treaties (not just across the EU), trade with non-EU countries, treaties the EU has signed with foreign governments that the UK is a party to. It would be almost as difficult and complex as Scotland leaving the UK.

CLAPTON

Generali wrote: »

Yes. Have you any idea what it would be like trying to unwind rules governing tens of billions of pounds-worth of trade alone?

Then there are the students and workers all over the world governed by EU treaties (not just across the EU), trade with non-EU countries, treaties the EU has signed with foreign governments that the UK is a party to. It would be almost as difficult and complex as Scotland leaving the UK.

no
it's just a technical problem
so e.g. an existing contract could simply be rolled forward.

it seems irrational to assume that
-not being a member of the EU doesn't cause Armageddon (I'm sure China, USA, Aus etc are grateful)
-joining the EU doesn't cause Armageddon
-being part of the EU doesn't cause Armageddon (like in Greece, Ireland etc)

but leaving : well chaos

Scotland could leave the UK and prosper: yes it would be a very rude awaking as they are net beneficiaries of the union but the UK is not a net beneficiary of the EU.
I know you don't believe in Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage and hence are not a believer in free trade : but who knows what might happen

antrobus

CLAPTON wrote: »

no
it's just a technical problem
so e.g. an existing contract could simply be rolled forward.
.....

Rolling the existing contract forward would mean nothing would change. Isn't the whole point of the exercise to get a different contract?

You appear to want immigration to be reduced. You need to change the contract to achieve that.

antrobus

The good ole DT is reporting that Mr C has done a deal with that fellow Tusk, and that a June referendum is on the way.

Goodness knows if it's anything more than idle speculation.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12133100/David-Cameron-wins-new-EU-offer-on-migrant-benefits.html

Generali

antrobus wrote: »

Rolling the existing contract forward would mean nothing would change. Isn't the whole point of the exercise to get a different contract?

You appear to want immigration to be reduced. You need to change the contract to achieve that.

It does seem a bit odd. Leaving the EU so that everything can stay the same.

Anyhoo, I might leave you lot to it on this one for a bit. C Ya!

CLAPTON

antrobus wrote: »

Rolling the existing contract forward would mean nothing would change. Isn't the whole point of the exercise to get a different contract?

You appear to want immigration to be reduced. You need to change the contract to achieve that.

the context was trade

so many existing trade contracts could continue
new ones would be negotiated under new rules

freedom of movement could be stopped almost immediately
NATO could continue largely unchanged

I realise it's difficult to grasp but some thing can largely stay the same and some things can change
some things can change immediately and some can take an extended period of time.

antrobus

CLAPTON wrote: »

the context was trade

so many existing trade contracts could continue
new ones would be negotiated under new rules

freedom of movement could be stopped almost immediately
NATO could continue largely unchanged

I realise it's difficult to grasp but some thing can largely stay the same and some things can change
some things can change immediately and some can take an extended period of time.

Trade in what? Goods, services, capital, or labour? They all count as trade, and they are all allowed to move freely within the EEA, which is the trade contract that we have with Europe. Either the whole thing goes, or the whole thing stays, or you try and negotiate something to replace it.

A contract is a contract; you can't pick and choose which bits of a contract you like, and then dispense with the bits that you don't like, without the other party's consent.