If we vote for Brexit what happens

Generali

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

What you are suggesting is breaking treaties and using economic and possibly military force to ensure our supremacy. Is that going to be acceptable to the rest of the world?

That's what being a sovereign means.

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Generally it's safer to leave a treaty than to break it.

Leaving a treaty unilaterally is breaking it.

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

By leaving we would no longer be on the hook for reserves held by the BoE from the EIB and possibly although slightly more opaquely the ECB. By abiding by the treaties we have signed we would not be in a position to say no to a request for money from the EIB in particular unless as you suggest we do it by force.

Why? Why would leaving the EU remove the UK's treaty obligation to the EIB? The UK has obligations to the EIB that were agreed while a member of the EU but, AFAICS don't simply dissolve on leaving the EU.

Linton

Brexit is rather more than sovereignty (whatever that means in a globalised economy) and immigration...

It seems the EU has trade agreements with 53 countries that we would need to renegotiate or lose. Also, one estimate was that there are around 80,000 pages of EU law and regulations that could need to be explicitly enacted, presumably after detailed Parliamentary review, into UK law. All this needs to be done within 2 years. mmmmm

There was a recent case where the German courts threw out Kraftwerk's copyright claim against a rapper who used 2 seconds of their music. This will be passed for review to the EU Court of Justice which will probably lead to the German interpretation of EU harmonised copyright law being regarded as definitive and incorporated into national laws. After Brexit will we continue keeping our copyright law harmonised with the EUs with loss of sovereignty? Or will they drift apart leading to potential chaos?

There are a vast number of industry/business standards covering operational and design details, trading standards and safety etc that are standardised across the EU. Will we continue to adhere to them or go our own sovereign way? If the former presumably we will pay the EU for their support and development.

Rinoa

What I can't understand is this.

The £/Euro rate fluctuates alarmingly from one year to the next. In the last 5 years it's been as low as 1.13 and as high as 1.45.

During 2013 the £/euro rate was around 1.15. During 2015 it averaged 1.40, a 20% increase. Today it's around 1.30.

This doesn't appear to be a problem for UK exporters. The 20% increase from 2013 to 2015 didn't slash our exports. There weren't millions laid off in our factories, we didn't witness delegations from the CBI to government demanding to know what they were doing about the situation. No, it was business as usual.

As I understand it WTO tariffs average around 4/5%. Some goods more, some less. Both the UK and EU are members of the WTO and we would presumably use these if agreement couldn't be reached after Brexit.

But that 4/5% is significantly less than periodic exchange rate fluctuations as high as 20% which don't appear to a problem.

So why do we need a trade deal with the EU?

TrickyTree83

Rinoa wrote: »

So why do we need a trade deal with the EU?

It's simple, we don't.

TrickyTree83

Linton wrote: »

It seems the EU has trade agreements with 53 countries that we would need to renegotiate or lose.

We wouldn't need to do that at all.

That is a downright lie from the Remain campaign. I've posted on that topic previously in this tread (I was shocked to read it).

TrickyTree83

Generali wrote: »

That's what being a sovereign means.



Leaving a treaty unilaterally is breaking it.




Why? Why would leaving the EU remove the UK's treaty obligation to the EIB? The UK has obligations to the EIB that were agreed while a member of the EU but, AFAICS don't simply dissolve on leaving the EU.

Invoking article 50 of a treaty is not unilaterally stopping payment to the EU, ceasing all agreements and placing destroyers in the North Sea to stop EU fishing fleets from using your regained territorial waters. It's a negotiated exit.

Another example would be the Budapest Memorandum. Ukraine dearmed it's entire nuclear arsenal on the understanding that the signatories would guarantee it's territorial sovereignty. Russia was a signatory and has broken that treaty, they did not leave it and then annex Crimea.

The UK has de facto obligations to the EIB purely by being a member of the EU. Once that membership ends so do the de facto obligations. They would cease to have a charge over bullion and currency reserves held by the UK. What's not to understand about that?

TrickyTree83

Rinoa wrote: »

What I can't understand is this.

The £/Euro rate fluctuates alarmingly from one year to the next. In the last 5 years it's been as low as 1.13 and as high as 1.45.

During 2013 the £/euro rate was around 1.15. During 2015 it averaged 1.40, a 20% increase. Today it's around 1.30.

This doesn't appear to be a problem for UK exporters. The 20% increase from 2013 to 2015 didn't slash our exports. There weren't millions laid off in our factories, we didn't witness delegations from the CBI to government demanding to know what they were doing about the situation. No, it was business as usual.

As I understand it WTO tariffs average around 4/5%. Some goods more, some less. Both the UK and EU are members of the WTO and we would presumably use these if agreement couldn't be reached after Brexit.

But that 4/5% is significantly less than periodic exchange rate fluctuations as high as 20% which don't appear to a problem.

So why do we need a trade deal with the EU?

I wanted to expand on what you posted rather than simply saying "we don't".

There's a fellow called Patrick Minford who always appears to go against the grain of the big economist institutions on big issues like this, and always appears to come out on the correct side of the argument at the time. Such as joining the single market in 81, the ERM pull out, joining the Euro.

He states that the state of WTO rules and tariffs around the world and the price of goods and services on the world market is such that after leaving the EU we would no longer be applying the Common External Tariff to the rest of the world so they all become cheaper as a result, he has modeled this and the outcome would be an 8% drop in living costs.

There would be upheaval in those industries protected by the EU, farming, some manufacturing (cars for example) where the only reason these industries survive in this country is because we are in the EU. His argument is that industries in which we excel such as law, finance, big-pharma would experience a boom outside of the EU if we adopted a unilateral free trade stance and applied no tariffs to anyone, obviously this is a utopian view and might not fully come to fruition but we could go some way to achieving it, particularly in those industries where we excel.

So far from driving off the edge of a cliff into oblivion as Remain suggests it would as Patrick thinks (and he has a good track record on these issues compared to the other "think tanks") be a leap into true free trade, dynamism, increased living standards and increased wages (according also to Stuart Rose head of Britain Stronger In Europe).

Daniel54

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

There's a fellow called Patrick Minford who always appears to go against the grain of the big economist institutions on big issues like this.

Quote from today's typically pro Brexit piece in the Telegraph

"Professor Patrick Minford from Cardiff University was refreshingly candid in proclaiming that his Brexit vision would "eliminate" most of Britain's manufacturing"

An 8% drop in living standards is a huge wrench

I am not particularly keen for our economy to be a lab rat in this experiment

TrickyTree83

Daniel54 wrote: »

Quote from today's typically pro Brexit piece in the Telegraph

"Professor Patrick Minford from Cardiff University was refreshingly candid in proclaiming that his Brexit vision would "eliminate" most of Britain's manufacturing"

An 8% drop in living standards is a huge wrench

I am not particularly keen for our economy to be a lab rat in this experiment

It's quite easy to dismiss because it might be scary or may not sit well in the gut, I can completely understand that, however the guy hasn't been consistently wrong like the IMF, HM Treasury, OECD, IFS in the past.

Also it wasn't an 8% drop in living standards, it was an 8% drop in living costs.

Thrugelmir

Daniel54 wrote: »

I am not particularly keen for our economy to be a lab rat in this experiment

Tata steel obtained the technology it required and has now backed away. The Chinese likewise aren't buying companies as investments. They want the knowledge. So I wouldn't get over excited. The UK is far more interested in property than anything that produces real wealth.