If we vote for Brexit what happens

mrginge

Filo25 wrote: »

So sorry to have bored you, just pointing out that in all previous negotiations that I am aware of the EU has made EEA membership a condition of full access to the Single market, so not sure why their opening offer to us would be any different (assuming we want full access)

Canada?
Is free movement of labour a requirement of TTIP?

With regards to no free movement of Labour, that's certainly the UKIP position, and the position of many voting for Brexit but whether its really the underlying position of many senior Tories, I don't think anyone knows, no matter how much noise they make about disapproving of current immigration levels.

As other Brexit voters have pointed out, we have no idea what the official Brexit position is, because there isn't one.

The Brexit position on immigration is laid out very clearly today. We can all now make an informed decision about whether we want to remain with free movement, uncertain long term economic future inside a declining economic block, less control of our country, less ability to manage our public spending requirements, cheaper flights.

Or we can leave, with a self managed, globally fair and non-racist immigration policy, the scope to develop the long term skills required for businesses and public services from within our current and future generations rather than buying in cheap temporary labour. Alongside some inevitable short term economic uncertainty (mitigated by a two year exit period of course) but with the freedom to develop our long term economy without needing to comply with rules we have not agreed to or benefit us.

mayonnaise

BarleyGB wrote: »

Now we have the OECD predicting global Armageddon if UK leaves the EU. I don't believe it, I thought we were a small and insignificant county unable to make our own way in the world.

What's with this brexiteer tendency of hyperbolising and ridiculing each and every slightly negative post-brexit forecast?
When the OECD forecasts lower growth it's "Armageddon".
When Cameron says stability and security in Europe would be affected, it's "WW3".
Here's the OECD publication: http://www.oecd.org/eco/outlook/economic-forecast-United-Kingdom-June-2016.pdf

The outcome of the referendum is a major risk for the economy. A vote for Brexit
would heighten uncertainty, raise the cost of finance and hamper investment. According to
OECD estimates, GDP growth could be lower by 0.5 percentage point in 2017 and 2018 and
by 1.5 percentage points in 2019.

No mention of Armageddon I'm afraid.

Filo25

Canada doesn't have full access to the single market.

As I said there is a negotiation to be done, to come up with a deal which suits both parties, neither the EU nor the UK will get everything they want, its just finding a compromise that works for both sides.

With regards to immigration I would point out that net immigration from outside the EU is already running at similar levels to immigration from the EU, if the idea is to allow that to continue and restrict EU immigration on the same basis as non-EU immigration is currently controlled (so a lower number but far from zero), then I think we are still a long way from net immigration in the tens of thousands.

A genuine question (not trolling!) would most Brexit voters on here be happy with net immigration in say the 200-250k range per year if they were happy that these were all skilled people who would make a positive contribution to the economy.

TrickyTree83

mayonnaise wrote: »

What's with this brexiteer tendency of hyperbolising and ridiculing each and every slightly negative post-brexit forecast?
When the OECD forecasts lower growth it's "Armageddon".
When Cameron says stability and security in Europe would be affected, it's "WW3".
Here's the OECD publication: http://www.oecd.org/eco/outlook/economic-forecast-United-Kingdom-June-2016.pdf

No mention of Armageddon I'm afraid.

It's a reaction to the outrageous claims made by Remain as to what would happen if we left.

I don't buy into either side of that kind of argument being made. I do however buy into a greater democratic voice for being "less rich", not poorer and that for me is the key. We could sit here arguing that EU migration contributes to downward pressure on wages, and all the other claims and counter-claims.

I prefer to look at the claim from the economists that Remain use to bolster their arguments and ask myself if I would prefer to be richer in my pocket or richer in my democracy. Taking the Treasury's forecast (which is by far the worst as I understand) with house prices falling, being £4,000 less rich by 2030 (but importantly not poorer) I would still trade that in for being able to decide how to govern ourselves.

Rinoa

Very clever people at OECD.

The whole world, governments, IMF, Cameron, Osborne, US presidents, EU leaders. all tell us about the uncertainty if we vote leave. We're told we haven't a plan, that we don't know what deal the EU will give us if any.

A leap in the dark. Uncertainty is the buzzword of the remainers.

And yet, and yet, the OECD are able to tell us, to with 0.1 of a percentage point, precisely what our GDP will be in several years time. Truly amazing.

lisyloo

Rinoa wrote: »

And yet, and yet, the OECD are able to tell us, to with 0.1 of a percentage point, precisely what our GDP will be in several years time.

Did you miss the prominent words forecast and estimate?


Where has anyone claimed this wasn't a forecast?

TrickyTree83

Rinoa wrote: »

Very clever people at OECD.

The whole world, governments, IMF, Cameron, Osborne, US presidents, EU leaders. all tell us about the uncertainty if we vote leave. We're told we haven't a plan, that we don't know what deal the EU will give us if any.

A leap in the dark. Uncertainty is the buzzword of the remainers.

And yet, and yet, the OECD are able to tell us, to with 0.1 of a percentage point, precisely what our GDP will be in several years time. Truly amazing.

People also conveniently forget these institutions have called almost every decision like this that the UK has taken since 81 incorrectly. Yet we're supposed to take their word for it, they are held up as mythical guardians of the undisputed truth and yet they have a track record worse than that of politicians since it was the politicians who eventually made the correct decisions since 81. Bizarre.

mrginge

Filo25 wrote: »

Canada doesn't have full access to the single market.

Why then do you think that the UK would want or need full access?

As I said there is a negotiation to be done, to come up with a deal which suits both parties, neither the EU nor the UK will get everything they want, its just finding a compromise that works for both sides.

So if you believe there is a compromise position, why do you assume that the UK would have to accept free movement?

With regards to immigration I would point out that net immigration from outside the EU is already running at similar levels to immigration from the EU, if the idea is to allow that to continue and restrict EU immigration on the same basis as non-EU immigration is currently controlled (so a lower number but far from zero), then I think we are still a long way from net immigration in the tens of thousands.

Only an idiot would make a blanket, unachievable statement that net migration should be at X.

A sensible person would say 'today net migration should be at X to enable us to address specific labour shortages in these areas'.

David Cameron is not a sensible person so anything the lying slimeball says should be ignored.

A genuine question (not trolling!) would most Brexit voters on here be happy with net immigration in say the 200-250k range per year if they were happy that these were all skilled people who would make a positive contribution to the economy.

I have no issue with net immigration at 1m per year if it is appropriate, managed and controllable.

TrickyTree83

mrginge wrote: »

I have no issue with net immigration at 1m per year if it is appropriate, managed and controllable.

Spot on and exactly what sensible Brexit supporters would say.

It's not about "kick 'em all out" or, "don't want those muslims near me". Of course some of those people exist but they will likely be BNP and BF voters, awful stuff I'm sure most people agree.

We should allow in what we need, and turn away that which we don't. This is not an unreasonable position to take.

Filo25

Not sure what you arguing about here, I clearly said EEA access would be requested by the EU for full access to the single market, and that otherwise we would need to come to a negotiated solution if we could find one that was mutually agreeable.

For economic reasons we would clearly want full access if we could get it, its simple to negotiate so no costly timely delay with negotiating a new deal (with no guarantee of an agreement at the end of it), it would also free up access for areas like financial services where our economy is strong, which as an example the Canadian deal does not fully cover.

If the UK votes for Brexit, it would clearly be in the interests of both parties to come to a deal, but that doesn't always mean one can be done quickly, we have no idea how open to negotiation and compromise either party would be.