If we vote for Brexit what happens

Crashy_Time

Generali wrote: »

EY seem to be taking the position that it would all be a bit of a mess, lots of uncertainty with pretty much no chance of meeting a two year deadline meaning that some sort of transitional arrangements would need to be negotiated and fast. The word 'problematic' crops up a lot. For example:

http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/ey-helping-boards-assess-and-prepare-for-the-uk-referendum-on-eu-membership/$FILE/ey-helping-boards-assess-and-prepare-for-the-uk-referendum-on-eu-membership.pdf



I think it's fair to say they're not fans.

Deloitte have prepared this document:

https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/uk/Documents/consumer-business/deloitte-uk-brexit-report-abta-march-2016.pdf

For the travel industry for example. They make the following 'key findings':



There are quite a few more key findings but they do basically read like the warnings us remainiacs have been giving.

I can't link to broker research but the Aussie brokers (and branches of international broker dealers) have been very negative on short-term prospects for the UK after a Brexit.

If the UK voted Brexit then everything would likely sort itself out in the end. The problem is that it might not and it's very hard to see what genuine benefits accrue to leaving.

All this assumes that the EZ will chug along like the well oiled machine it is, bringing fantastic economic benefits to it`s citizens? Brexit wouldn`t even be on the cards if the EZ was a success story. Brexit or no Brexit all the problems with the EZ are still there.

Rinoa

Generali wrote: »

What about Deloitte and EY? They weren't on your list and they aren't keen on Brexit at all.

There is a very real credibility gap that Brexit really hasn't addressed and I don't think they can.

Brexit supporters have given various alternatives to EU membership. Remainers just don't want want to believe they're possible.

There are many countries around the world who positively thrive without EU style arrangements. There are many countries in the EU suffering financial difficulties, stagnant growth and high unemployment.

BobQ

Rinoa wrote: »

So the WWF say the UK will want to pollute our rivers and increase air pollution. have they seen some secret files?

Don't forget we are currently in the EU and were part responsible for making those laws. At the time we no doubt had a veto, but presumably were happy to agree to all the environmental improvements.

Basically the WWF are saying 'vote for brexit and you'll be living in a toxic wasteland' Why are people so gullible as to believe these idiots.

Do you remember what the UK was like in the 1970s, we complained of acid rain, water quality was poor in major cities, sewerage was washed up on UK beaches from poorly maintained outlets. The EU has helped change this.The 1970s were also a time of overfishing and reducing fish stocks as nations competed with each other to catch as much fish as possible but without concern for the sustainability issues.

The argument that we would have made positive changes anyway is not sustainable. The better question is what would there be to stop the future Governments reducing environmental protection? Brexit supporters advocate that leaving would enable UK to reduce or cancel EU laws. Why not these laws?

We have already seen Cameron take measures to remove subsidies for renewable energy, post Brexit I expect more of the same.

The fact is that we need to tackle these things together, fish, pollution, birds, etc do not have any nationality and migrate between nations.

Thrugelmir

Crashy_Time wrote: »

All this assumes that the EZ will chug along like the well oiled machine it is, bringing fantastic economic benefits to it`s citizens? Brexit wouldn`t even be on the cards if the EZ was a success story. Brexit or no Brexit all the problems with the EZ are still there.

It's not though. Income inequality is growing within the EU. Hence the rise in Nationalism at local levels.

Filo25

Rinoa wrote: »

Brexit supporters have given various alternatives to EU membership. Remainers just don't want want to believe they're possible.

There are many countries around the world who positively thrive without EU style arrangements. There are many countries in the EU suffering financial difficulties, stagnant growth and high unemployment.

From what I've seen so far the reason the Brexit supporters have given various alternatives is that they know full well none of the individual alternatives they have put forward address all of the concerns which others have raised.

I've still seen nothing to put forward a realistic case of how Brexit doesn't cause at the very least short term economic uncertainty and and slower UK growth as a result.

I'm obviously excluding the fairy tales that we will agree favourable trade deals overnight with the rest of the world that seems to be remarkably popular in the Brexit camp, I'd prefer to keep the arguments at least vaguely based in reality.

mwpt

http://www.standard.co.uk/business/brexit-risks-killing-the-golden-goose-of-london-s-tech-sector-entrepreneurs-warn-a3246481.html

Brexit risks killing the “golden goose” of London’s thriving tech sector, entrepreneurs have warned.

The thing about this sort of referendum is it actually sets fellow countrymen against each other. Some may believe their way of life or wages have been negatively impacted while others (such as myself) believe our sector benefits enormously from being in the EU.

CLAPTON

mwpt wrote: »

http://www.standard.co.uk/business/brexit-risks-killing-the-golden-goose-of-london-s-tech-sector-entrepreneurs-warn-a3246481.html



The thing about this sort of referendum is it actually sets fellow countrymen against each other. Some may believe their way of life or wages have been negatively impacted while others (such as myself) believe our sector benefits enormously from being in the EU.

clearly so
the older people of London live in under occupied mortgage free houses worth million(s) whilst the younger people have little chance of even living in a family sized house, let alone owning it.
All due to the huge foreign born popualtion in London.

but it is unfair to say this out loud

Rinoa

BobQ wrote: »

Do you remember what the UK was like in the 1970s, we complained of acid rain, water quality was poor in major cities, sewerage was washed up on UK beaches from poorly maintained outlets. The EU has helped change this.The 1970s were also a time of overfishing and reducing fish stocks as nations competed with each other to catch as much fish as possible but without concern for the sustainability issues.

The argument that we would have made positive changes anyway is not sustainable. The better question is what would there be to stop the future Governments reducing environmental protection? Brexit supporters advocate that leaving would enable UK to reduce or cancel EU laws. Why not these laws?

We have already seen Cameron take measures to remove subsidies for renewable energy, post Brexit I expect more of the same.

The fact is that we need to tackle these things together, fish, pollution, birds, etc do not have any nationality and migrate between nations.

The UK had clean air acts in the 50's and 60's. Clean rivers acts in the 60's, sustainable fish acts in the 60's.

Rinoa

Filo25 wrote: »

From what I've seen so far the reason the Brexit supporters have given various alternatives is that they know full well none of the individual alternatives they have put forward address all of the concerns which others have raised.

I've still seen nothing to put forward a realistic case of how Brexit doesn't cause at the very least short term economic uncertainty and and slower UK growth as a result.

I'm obviously excluding the fairy tales that we will agree favourable trade deals overnight with the rest of the world that seems to be remarkably popular in the Brexit camp, I'd prefer to keep the arguments at least vaguely based in reality.

There will be short term uncertainty. For the rest we are only limited by our imagination. Take a good look at many EU countries. The EU isn't doing them much good is it.

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

clearly so
the older people of London live in under occupied mortgage free houses worth million(s) whilst the younger people have little chance of even living in a family sized house, let alone owning it.
All due to the huge foreign born popualtion in London.

but it is unfair to say this out loud

Given that the median family has 2 kids that means for the median 'younger people' they will inherit one house each.

The idea of buying a house and paying it off is fine but you need to factor in that really only one generation needs do this.

So the tears of oh the local bred kids don't ave a home are misplaced the locals will inherit its the poor immigrant kids that need to try and buy and pay off a home that you should be worrying abooot