If we vote for Brexit what happens

CLAPTON

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The UK is far more interested in property than anything that produces real wealth.

very few people work in the 'property sector' : the vast majority work in wealth producing activities
litttle different from other developed countries

buglawton

CLAPTON wrote: »

very few people work in the 'property sector' : the vast majority work in wealth producing activities
litttle different from other developed countries

Current UK thinking is that property is a wealth creatiing industry. Therein lies the fallacy. Building homes now that's another matter.

tommysaver

mwpt wrote: »

I'm glad that posting on here has helped you make up your mind so quickly and that democracy has been key to this.

Perhaps you can sway me, what specifically will look different for you and I in two years time with our new found democracy? I'm less interested in principles, more in specifics.

I don't think anyone has a crystal ball.

So on that basis, nothing will look different. It would however be nice to know we have some input into, our country, no?

Oh and you may be able to get a seat at your local GP surgery..

Perhaps property prices may adjust, perhaps fuel prices will come down, I believe we can flourish with ease. Staying in the EU is a surer way that this won't happen.

The recent motorcycle test EU directive laws are an example of complete !!!!!!!! that has affected me personally.


What are your reasons for staying in? I'm looking at both sides, but the remain camp just leaves a 'meh' feeling to it for me personally.

mwpt

tommysaver wrote: »

I don't think anyone has a crystal ball.

So on that basis, nothing will look different. It would however be nice to know we have some input into, our country, no?

Like I said, I'm not interested in principles, I'm not looking for vague handwaving and untrue statements (we absolutely do already have input into our country), I'm looking for you to convince me why my life will be better with the newfound democracy we'd supposedly have outside the EU. As a neutral, I would have thought you'd be interested in this too.

Oh and you may be able to get a seat at your local GP surgery..

My partner is able to get an appointment easily when she uses our GP. I didn't have any issues when I registered but have not had to use them since.

Perhaps property prices may adjust, perhaps fuel prices will come down, I believe we can flourish with ease. Staying in the EU is a surer way that this won't happen.

The recent motorcycle test EU directive laws are an example of complete !!!!!!!! that has affected me personally.

What are your reasons for staying in? I'm looking at both sides, but the remain camp just leaves a 'meh' feeling to it for me personally.

I don't think you're looking at both sides at all. Your language the ease with which you breezed in claiming to be neutral but very quickly became a brexiteer suggests otherwise.

My reasons for voting in would be as follows:
- The UK has flourished inside the EU. I see no reason to not want to continue flourishing. I also don't see a reason to bail out on our long term partners while they are going through some difficulty. It's a pretty crappy thing to do.

- I like the ability of an economic union which uplifts poorer countries through the various mechanisms and ultimately benefits all by doing so.

- I like the idea of being able to live and work anywhere in this economic union as conditions or lifestyle or desires change. But then, I like that the world is wide with different opportunities, others are less concerned.

- My specific industry, tech, in London is thriving and mostly the thoughts on the ground are that this is because of the EU. Startups, finance, e-commerce, etc. Tech pays pretty well and generates employment opportunities, productivity, products people want, and not least a large amount of tax for our country which pays for your health care, the unfunded pension for the old lady down the street and so forth.

- The EU immigrants here contribute more financially to our economy than they take out.

There are downsides to being in the EU, some that might even be practical rather than theoretical but the upsides, to me specifically, far outweigh any potential downsides.

But I'm glad that in theory you'll have a better life in the future with the newfound democracy which is better than the current democracy but weirdly won't change anything for you.

TrickyTree83

mwpt wrote: »

Like I said, I'm not interested in principles, I'm not looking for vague handwaving and untrue statements (we absolutely do already have input into our country), I'm looking for you to convince me why my life will be better with the newfound democracy we'd supposedly have outside the EU. As a neutral, I would have thought you'd be interested in this too.



My partner is able to get an appointment easily when she uses our GP. I didn't have any issues when I registered but have not had to use them since.



I don't think you're looking at both sides at all. Your language the ease with which you breezed in claiming to be neutral but very quickly became a brexiteer suggests otherwise.

My reasons for voting in would be as follows:
- The UK has flourished inside the EU. I see no reason to not want to continue flourishing. I also don't see a reason to bail out on our long term partners while they are going through some difficulty. It's a pretty crappy thing to do.

- I like the ability of an economic union which uplifts poorer countries through the various mechanisms and ultimately benefits all by doing so.

- I like the idea of being able to live and work anywhere in this economic union as conditions or lifestyle or desires change. But then, I like that the world is wide with different opportunities, others are less concerned.

- My specific industry, tech, in London is thriving and mostly the thoughts on the ground are that this is because of the EU. Startups, finance, e-commerce, etc. Tech pays pretty well and generates employment opportunities, productivity, products people want, and not least a large amount of tax for our country which pays for your health care, the unfunded pension for the old lady down the street and so forth.

- The EU immigrants here contribute more financially to our economy than they take out.

There are downsides to being in the EU, some that might even be practical rather than theoretical but the upsides, to me specifically, far outweigh any potential downsides.

But I'm glad that in theory you'll have a better life in the future with the newfound democracy which is better than the current democracy but weirdly won't change anything for you.

Quite clearly you are not neutral either.

- Not everyone can get GP's appointments, is it just yourself and your partner that matter to you? You other statements would say otherwise so why would you neglect your fellow countrymen and women but not your fellow Europeans? Perhaps there are people in this country who can't get appointments, like in our town you need to wait 3 weeks unless it's an "emergency" appointment.

- We will never fully know if the UK would have been as rich had we never voted to join the EEC. Arguments can be made for either case. Leaving whilst the Eurozone is in crisis might not seem like a nice thing to do, but might be the sensible thing to do. That comes down to whether you believe it to be in the national interest rather than your own personal interest.

- My own personal experience of the EU is that it has destroyed industry in the newly joined Eastern European countries, my wife is Ukrainian and I happen to be friends with many people from Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Bulgaria. The ones I have asked generally say if they were UK citizens they would vote to leave despite their obvious predicament of right to reside because joining the EU made them poorer (Euro), closed down some of their industries and made them uncompetitive. Which in turn caused them to emigrate to the UK.

- I'm also in the tech industry, and it's impact on the EU debate doesn't seem as important as those industries protected by being in the EU (you know, that part where we tariff the rest of the world to save our own industry otherwise it would collapse, consequently inflating prices). I would absolutely dispute that it's thriving because of the EU. The tech sector is generally thriving across the developed world at the moment.

- You state that EU migrants contribute more than they take out. Whilst there's still a question mark over that for myself, lets assume it's the case. However you can't plan your school building program, you can't plan your hospital building program, you can't plan your prison resource, you can't plan your road building program unless you have control over a key policy like immigration so you know the numbers and can plan accordingly. Otherwise you only know 150,000 came in went to live in different places and instantly placed extra demand on the services within those areas. So you react, and that is all you are able to do.

mwpt

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Quite clearly you are not neutral either.

I wasn't the one claiming to be neutral. I'm absolutely not. I will listen to reasoned debates and point out stupid ones.

- I'll have to accept your anecdote about GP appointments. Do you accept mine? So now we have a dataset of two points. I'm sure wait times are up in some areas but that is because we have a budget deficit, spending cuts and people living far longer. It may also be because of the EU but you'll have to find me some conclusive data for that to convince me. Do you expect me to accept your take on the wait time situation implicitly so that I can "care about others"?

- No, we will never know, but we do know that we have done well inside the EU. And the EU in general has done well until the financial crisis of 2008. Why does this come down to national vs personal interest? Again, you're making an argument that requires me to believe you are correct implicitly, or I'm selfish otherwise.

- I can't comment on your anecdotes about industry in Eastern European countries. Perhaps you have some GDP data to show me about these countries since they joined. It may well show your point. I also don't really believe your anecdote about Eastern Europeans suggesting we vote out. I work with many and they mostly definitely don't feel that way.

- Perhaps you dispute our tech industry is doing well because of the EU. And yes, it may do well outside but the common sentiment is it will do less well as some business moves to Europe and we lose access to all the talent across the EU. Let us be clear, one of the core principles of voting out is ceasing EU migration.

- I accept your last point that unpredictable migration leads to lower ability to plan accordingly.

TrickyTree83

mwpt wrote: »

I wasn't the one claiming to be neutral. I'm absolutely not. I will listen to reasoned debates and point out stupid ones.

- I'll have to accept your anecdote about GP appointments. Do you accept mine? So now we have a dataset of two points. I'm sure wait times are up in some areas but that is because we have a budget deficit, spending cuts and people living far longer. It may also be because of the EU but you'll have to find me some conclusive data for that to convince me. Do you expect me to accept your take on the wait time situation implicitly so that I can "care about others"?

- No, we will never know, but we do know that we have done well inside the EU. And the EU in general has done well until the financial crisis of 2008. Why does this come down to national vs personal interest? Again, you're making an argument that requires me to believe you are correct implicitly, or I'm selfish otherwise.

- I can't comment on your anecdotes about industry in Eastern European countries. Perhaps you have some GDP data to show me about these countries since they joined. It may well show your point. I also don't really believe your anecdote about Eastern Europeans suggesting we vote out. I work with many and they mostly definitely don't feel that way.

- Perhaps you dispute our tech industry is doing well because of the EU. And yes, it may do well outside but the common sentiment is it will do less well as some business moves to Europe and we lose access to all the talent across the EU. Let us be clear, one of the core principles of voting out is ceasing EU migration.

- I accept your last point that unpredictable migration leads to lower ability to plan accordingly.

- I was really just trying to point out that just because your partner is able to get an appointment isn't indicative of there being no issue around over subscription within the health service.

- Yes we have done well within the EU, but is that because of the EU or in spite of it? Many economists point out that it's because of the EU, yet these same economists have been wrong on joining the single market, coming out of the ERM, joining the Eurozone. What evidence is there that we should believe what they are saying this time around?

- I'll admit there's nothing I can do to show you that my friends from the EU think this way short of getting them to come on here and tell you themselves. I would have thought however that the EU citizens you work with, if they work in the capital that they earn pretty well and are therefore skilled migrants. They've come here because it's better to work here which is at a detriment to their home country in the same way if we lose doctors to the EU because of Jeremy Hunt's contract.

- It's my belief that some business is currently in this country purely because we're in the EU as it's a protectionist customs union. If we left, of course we would lose some industry to other EU countries as they'll want to re-locate to remain within that customs union. But those industries we have like big-pharma, legal, insurance, etc.. would be able to trade with the world without the world being subjected to the EU Common External Tariff which hampers our competitiveness around the rest of the world. When 9% of our GDP comes from exports to the EU and 100% of our GDP is subject to EU regulation it would make more sense to me to allow us to thrive trading with the entire world with no/small tariffs and bring costs down across all of our viable industries and for consumers whilst removing regulation for 91% of our generated GDP.

Edit: Having looked into the issue I'm beginning to come around to the idea of EFTA membership being our best option, even with the free movement of people into the bargain. I'm not ideologically set against the free movement of people but EFTA would allow us to achieve beyond what we've been able to within the EU (see Norway and Switzerland). We would only need to apply EU regulation to those 9% GDP of exports into it whilst the 91% of our GDP is unleashed to improve and bringing down consumer costs. It most likely will be the best of both worlds.

Generali

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

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?

No, the UK has actual obligations to the EIB as a result of agreeing to backstop the EIB.

BobQ

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

-
Edit: Having looked into the issue I'm beginning to come around to the idea of EFTA membership being our best option, even with the free movement of people into the bargain. I'm not ideologically set against the free movement of people but EFTA would allow us to achieve beyond what we've been able to within the EU (see Norway and Switzerland). We would only need to apply EU regulation to those 9% GDP of exports into it whilst the 91% of our GDP is unleashed to improve and bringing down consumer costs. It most likely will be the best of both worlds.

Tricky, if you are coming around to joining EFTA and we vote for Brexit, how would you see this happening? You might find that the negotiations just move in the direction of WTA rules and the (new?) Government just focusses on exit? Granted they might also adopt your preference. But what difference do you think it will make which solution is followed?

BobQ

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

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).

These words "upheaval" and "dynamism" are euphemisms for unemployment? Structural changes in the economy will mean these "protected" areas will lose jobs. Great for semi-retired academics and city traders, but for the poor bloody infantry who get "upheavaled" it has rather more consequences. Minford reminds me of the WW1 Generals playing games with infantry divisions they sacrifice in a cavalier way.