If we vote for Brexit what happens

CLAPTON

wotsthat wrote: »

Well you've been going on about the EU being vindictive to the detriment of their people for what seems like ever. I'm not 100% sure but I don't think you're a remainiac.



If someone takes the view that the EU and UK are better together then by definition Brexit negotiations will lead to a sub-optimal results. Hopefully, should it happen, we can make the best of a bad job.

Plus the leave campaign will disintegrate following an out vote and the arguments will commence about what they actually meant by what they said. Taking control of borders, improving democracy, etc. - nice soundbites whilst working together but the players involved will have very different views on what they'll look like in practice.

Plus I'm suspicious of Johnson and Gove's motivations - I worry they are more politically motivated than most players. They might be tempted to negotiate soft to ensure success rather than hard and, potentially, have to be seen to compromise.

Plus the unintended consequences.



Why? How many voters do you think have done more than 3 minutes research on the EU democratic process. I doubt that many, including those who love democracy like they they love their mothers, could tell you the difference between Commission and Parliament.

I can distinguish between my mother and all others.

Kohoutek

Boris Johnson's view on Brexit in 2013 (I promise this not a misquote - link below). Fairly different than his current view!!!

“If we left the EU, we would end this sterile debate, and we would have to recognise that most of our problems are not caused by “Bwussels”, but by chronic British short-termism, inadequate management, sloth, low skills, a culture of easy gratification and underinvestment in both human and physical capital and infrastructure,” the London Mayor says.

“Why are we still, person for person, so much less productive than the Germans? That is now a question more than a century old, and the answer is nothing to do with the EU. In or out of the EU, we must have a clear vision of how we are going to be competitive in a global economy.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10052646/Quitting-the-EU-wont-solve-our-problems-says-Boris-Johnson.html

gfplux

Just to come back to the argument put forward by Brexit supporters that it will be easy to negotiate new trade agreements with all the necessary Country's.
May I ask them who will be negotiating these TRADE treaties. No British civil servant has negotiated a trade treaty since we joined the EU in 1973. That's 43 years ago.
Perhaps the out campaigners should try and identify if ANY British civil servants have taken any part in any of the TRADE treaty negotiations while seconded to the EU.
If there are any, should we be allowed to know how many, if any?

gfplux

"But those plans could all change if the UK votes to leave the EU.
"It's going to probably cause a lot of problems, because Cocoon is a platform bridge between China and Europe."

"It's China and Europe, not China and the UK or China and London.

The above is from an interesting article about Chinese investment in the UK as the bridge to Europe.
Well worth a read by both sides of the argument. I suspect a little spin by the Chinese, but you be the judge.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-36545639

CLAPTON

gfplux wrote: »

Just to come back to the argument put forward by Brexit supporters that it will be easy to negotiate new trade agreements with all the necessary Country's.
May I ask them who will be negotiating these TRADE treaties. No British civil servant has negotiated a trade treaty since we joined the EU in 1973. That's 43 years ago.
Perhaps the out campaigners should try and identify if ANY British civil servants have taken any part in any of the TRADE treaty negotiations while seconded to the EU.
If there are any, should we be allowed to know how many, if any?

we need to distinguish between trading with other countries and something called 'trade deals'.

we already trade with most of the world and most of the world trades with each other.

our requirement is to trade profitably.
there is no clear need for 'deals' that require agreeing holiday entitlements or maternity pay or water quality standards or working hours etc

michaels

Apparently 47% of voters believe the 350m per week figure according to a standard poll. I know I support Brexit but even I know that figure is rubbish - rather like the 4,300 figure cast about by Osborne that only 17% believe....

Rinoa

gfplux wrote: »

Just to come back to the argument put forward by Brexit supporters that it will be easy to negotiate new trade agreements with all the necessary Country's.
May I ask them who will be negotiating these TRADE treaties. No British civil servant has negotiated a trade treaty since we joined the EU in 1973. That's 43 years ago.
Perhaps the out campaigners should try and identify if ANY British civil servants have taken any part in any of the TRADE treaty negotiations while seconded to the EU.
If there are any, should we be allowed to know how many, if any?

Well, the EU are notoriously poor at trade negotiations, basically we haven't got any trade agreements with any country that matters. That's because all 28 EU countries have to agree on everything.

Negotiating for ourselves will be far simpler. Look at Chile, which has a third of our population and a tenth of our economy.

Chile has managed to get trade deals with the biggest economies around the world, including the US, China, India, Japan, Australia, Canada and South Korea.

The EU has trade deals with economies which have a total GDP of just £4.7 trillion. Chile has trade deals with £40 trillion-worth of countries. Almost ten times more.

Not only has Chile got these deals, it has negotiated most of them a hell of a lot faster than the EU.

It took Chile, without all the supposed influence of being a member of the EU, just 10 months to negotiate a deal with China. 10 months.

They took just 9 months to negotiate a deal with Australia, 10 with Canada, 12 months with Japan and 24 months with the US.

Maybe we could employ the Chilean negotiators.

Thrugelmir

Rinoa wrote: »

Well, the EU are notoriously poor at trade negotiations, basically we haven't got any trade agreements with any country that matters. That's because all 28 EU countries have to agree on everything.

Countries will wish to protect their interests. As corresponding imports can be equally as damaging. Not every country can be a net importer either.

CLAPTON

gfplux wrote: »

"But those plans could all change if the UK votes to leave the EU.
"It's going to probably cause a lot of problems, because Cocoon is a platform bridge between China and Europe."

"It's China and Europe, not China and the UK or China and London.

The above is from an interesting article about Chinese investment in the UK as the bridge to Europe.
Well worth a read by both sides of the argument. I suspect a little spin by the Chinese, but you be the judge.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-36545639

why do we want china buying up our businesses: I agree it allows us to live above our means by selling these assets but we will be poorer in the future
a mature country like the UK should be buying assets abroad to ensure a nice income stream in future years and of course have aset tosell if we fall on hard times in the future.

Thrugelmir

CLAPTON wrote: »

why do we want china buying up our businesses:.

China is buying the technology not the business. Far bigger markets at home.