If we vote for Brexit what happens

mayonnaise

Conrad wrote: »

Some of those wanting an independent Britain;

• 
  
• Anne McElvoy – senior editor The Economist
• Former Chancellor – Lord Lamont
• Former Chancellor – Nigel Lawson
• Angela Leadsom
• James Dellingpole
• Steve Hilton – Camerons former adviser
• Mark Littlewood
• Frank Field
• Theresa Villiers
• Jacob Reese-Mogg
• Crispin Blunt – Foreign Affairs Committee head
• Armed Forces Minister – Penny Mordaunt
• Justice Minister – Dominic Raub
• Lord Owen
• Clair Fox – The Institute Of ideas
• Boris
• Dr Liam Fox
• Toby Young
• Pritti Patel
• Professor Patrick Minford
• Owner of Wetherspoons
• Gerard Lyons, former chief economist at Standard Chartered
• Daniel Hannan – leader of Conservatives in EU
• Giesla Stewart
• Kate Hoey
• Luke Johnson (head of Risk Capital)
• David Davis
• Peter Lilly
• Isabel Oakshott
• Former Bundesbank boss Axel Weber "The UK would get a very favourable deal with the EU”

You forgot Vladimir Putin, Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, Marine Le Pen and Clapton.

Filo25

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

I don't think anyone seriously looking into the brexit argument will say that there won't be an initial shock, investors hate uncertainty, rightly so I would too if I was parting with my money. I'd say that up to the vote there will be volatility in the markets. If the result is a brexit vote then there may be some continued volatility during the negotiation. I would not use market movements to indicate whether investors want you to leave or remain, it's the uncertainty they hate.

I'm going to shock you as an evil Remainer and agree that the uncertainty is a big part of the problem for the market on this.

The only thing I would add, is that it is unclear how long those negotiations would continue, and what the UK's eventual deal would look like, and while that uncertainty continues it also impacts the real economy in terms of restricting business investment etc.

If the eventual deal was EEA membership I don't think the markets would be too concerned in the long run, but that is looking less likely as the campaign continues.

mrginge

Filo25 wrote: »

You see my concern here is on the one hand you say nobody is assuming the UK holds the whip hand in the negotiation.

Followed by shortly afterwards basically saying that the EU have no choice but to give us the deal which we want with no concessions from our side.

There is a contradiction here.

Not saying it won't happen, but I don't think its the most likely scenario in the world, and if we have the attitude that its that deal or nothing (and I'm not saying that will be our attitude) with no compromise on our side then it may well end up being nothing.

Agree that trade can continue in the absence of a deal, as I have said many times before, but tariff and non-tariff barriers clearly would have a negative impact.

So you agree that free movement of labour is not a pre-determined condition of access to the free market then, as all options are open to negotiation and compromise.

Very refreshing to hear that from someone on the remain side.

Filo25

mrginge wrote: »

So you agree that free movement of labour is not a pre-determined condition of access to the free market then, as all options are open to negotiation and compromise.

Very refreshing to hear that from someone on the remain side.

Well I haven't said that but don't let that stop the praise

Only the EU know if that is the case or not, as they will ultimately get to decide whether that is a redline to them or not, up to now they have been pretty steadfast that full access to the single market requires free movement of Labour, which is a point of contention with Switzerland at present, who want to restrict Labour movement.

If we aren't going for EEA then a deal will have to be negotiated, I was merely suggesting that a deal with full access to the single market, with no financial contribution to the EU and no free movement of Labour might look amazing to the UK but is not going to be acceptable to the EU. Just because we think its a great deal doesn't mean the other side will accept it, in fact it usually means the opposite.

If the EU (and post Brexit government) stay true to their position with regards to free movement of Labour, then some kind of Canadian style deal to give us a more limited trade deal would seem the most likely scenario, although such deals can obviously be time consuming to agree.

TrickyTree83

Filo25 wrote: »

I'm going to shock you as an evil Remainer and agree that the uncertainty is a big part of the problem for the market on this.

The only thing I would add, is that it is unclear how long those negotiations would continue, and what the UK's eventual deal would look like, and while that uncertainty continues it also impacts the real economy in terms of restricting business investment etc.

If the eventual deal was EEA membership I don't think the markets would be too concerned in the long run, but that is looking less likely as the campaign continues.

I don't think that remainers are evil, I hate that it's become so polarised. I wish we could have a proper debate from our political leaders instead of all this scare story rubbish from both sides.

Discuss the issue, work out the pro's and con's on both sides, be honest about it and admit when the other side is correct in the hope the other side will admit when you are correct.

Filo25

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

I don't think that remainers are evil, I hate that it's become so polarised. I wish we could have a proper debate from our political leaders instead of all this scare story rubbish from both sides.

Discuss the issue, work out the pro's and con's on both sides, be honest about it and admit when the other side is correct in the hope the other side will admit when you are correct.

Agreed, to be honest it makes this place a lot more boring when everyone starts posting soundbites from one campaign or the other with no actual debate, just strawman argument

I actually enjoy reading a lot of the more reasoned Brexit posts a great deal on here and feel they make a lot of reasonable well argued points.

Unfortunately as you say the tone and level of the overall national debate is embarrassingly poor, what I find even more depressing that it was pretty predictable that this debate would be awful on a political level from the outset, lots of lowest common denominator stuff from both sides.

angrypirate

Conrad wrote: »

Some of those wanting an independent Britain;

• 
  
• Anne McElvoy – senior editor The Economist
• Former Chancellor – Lord Lamont
• Former Chancellor – Nigel Lawson
• Angela Leadsom
• James Dellingpole
• Steve Hilton – Camerons former adviser
• Mark Littlewood
• Frank Field
• Theresa Villiers
• Jacob Reese-Mogg
• Crispin Blunt – Foreign Affairs Committee head
• Armed Forces Minister – Penny Mordaunt
• Justice Minister – Dominic Raub
• Lord Owen
• Clair Fox – The Institute Of ideas
• Boris
• Dr Liam Fox
• Toby Young
• Pritti Patel
• Professor Patrick Minford
• Owner of Wetherspoons
• Gerard Lyons, former chief economist at Standard Chartered
• Daniel Hannan – leader of Conservatives in EU
• Giesla Stewart
• Kate Hoey
• Luke Johnson (head of Risk Capital)
• David Davis
• Peter Lilly
• Isabel Oakshott
• Former Bundesbank boss Axel Weber "The UK would get a very favourable deal with the EU”

Few other big names
Tate & Lyle Senior Vice President Gerald Mason
JCB chairman Lord Bamford
James Dyson

Conrad

Filo25 wrote: »

If we aren't going for EEA then a deal will have to be negotiated, I was merely suggesting that a deal with full access to the single market, with no financial contribution to the EU and no free movement of Labour might look amazing to the UK but is not going to be acceptable to the EU.

This exemplifies that Cleggy / Chuka 'all or nothing' point scoring debating style.


For the millionth time, no one is suggesting we will have it all our way.


There will be a grown-up negotiation that will be a compromise for both parties but will none the less ensure BOTH sides trade unhampered, because BOTH sides will not want economic waves and storms to brew and certainly wont want to put up prices and cause their own unemployment to rise.


We're all adults, we all want the same settled landscape, all this angst and fretting is so petty

TrickyTree83

Conrad wrote: »

This exemplifies that Cleggy / Chuka 'all or nothing' point scoring debating style.


For the millionth time, no one is suggesting we will have it all our way.


There will be a grown-up negotiation that will be a compromise for both parties but will none the less ensure BOTH sides trade unhampered, because BOTH sides will not want economic waves and storms to brew and certainly wont want to put up prices and cause their own unemployment to rise.


We're all adults, we all want the same settled landscape, all this angst and fretting is so petty

I've just come across something rather interesting on this point about existing deals and future deals.

"Speaking at the G7 summit in Japan on Monday, Mr Osborne said: “If we left the EU, we would have a two-year period to negotiate our exit with 27 other countries.

“We would then have to negotiate new arrangements with them and at the same time conclude over 50 trade deals with countries that aren’t even in Europe. That would be extremely difficult to do.”

This was echoed by a Remain spokesman, who said: “The legal position is clear. We’d have to start from scratch, which would take years if not decades, meaning ongoing uncertainty for trade, investment, jobs and livelihoods.”

But this was rejected by the report’s author Martin Howe QC, one of Britain’s leading EU experts, who yesterday confirmed that, far from having to abandon the deals, “Britain would have existing trade deals in place” from the first day after Brexit.

The report says: “Both the EU and the member states are parties to the free trade agreement with the Republic of Korea, concluded in 2011.

“There would be no difficulty in the UK continuing to comply with the obligations of this FTA after Brexit and Korea on a reciprocal basis would have no difficulty continuing to apply these substantive provisions both to the UK and the EU. This step would not require any renegotiation.”

Mr Howe added that there was already a legal precedent for this.

He said: “It was applied when Czechoslovakia became the Czech Republic and Slovakia. That’s a much more extreme example than Brexit. Those people who are saying it is not true are buying into their own mythology without checking legal facts.”

Mr Littlewood added: “What this document asserts is that everything we could need would still be in place on June 24. It is not a reboot on your computer with all the software missing. All the apps will be there.

"This is very important and it needs to be perfectly communicated to the wider electorate.

"The nature of the referendum campaign is in my view a decider by the Remain campaign that there will be total uncertainty, and that we will be leaping into a void if we vote to leave.

“This report clearly and cogently establishes that the opposite is the case. Thanks to our international arrangement with groups other than the EU we would have everything we could wish for in the event of Brexit, and could negotiate from there.

“This could have a decisive impact on how people who are understandably nervous and confused will finally cast their vote on June 23.”"

The very author of the report used by Osborne said he mis-represented the report and actually the opposite is true and that the UK would continue to benefit from free trade arrangements around the world. I'm regretting voting Conservative, even though they gave us the chance to make the choice on the EU.

Edit: Article here

wymondham

I'm interested in the comments of the Dutch PM, saying that if we Brexit and adopt a points based system, they may also

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36419815

This seems to imply the EU can impose points based immigration system, which seems to go against all EU thinking??