If we vote for Brexit what happens

ruggedtoast

Vote Remain! Oppose the insularity and backwardness of Claptonism! Say No to the 1950s! Say No to Xenophobia! Say Yes to Europe!!

michaels

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Vote Remain! Oppose the insularity and backwardness of Claptonism! Say No to the 1950s! Say No to Xenophobia! Say Yes to Europe!!

Say Yes to the whole world not to a predjudiced, racist, inward-looking EU.

Kohoutek

If we do vote to leave, don't expect those trades deals to be negotiated any time soon, not least for the reasons explained in this article by a trade lawyer (Nick Clegg's wife):

Because the European Commission has taken the lead in trade negotiations since the 1970s, the UK simply does not have people with the right technical knowledge.When I was a negotiator at the commission in the late 1990s, handling everything from telecoms to transport, officials from the UK and other member states would sit behind commission negotiators as deals were thrashed out. They were known back then as the “mother-in-law committee”, able to comment but not themselves negotiating — allowing negotiators to speak with the clout of the world’s largest trading bloc and member states to know exactly what is going on.

The outcome is that the UK benefits from 80 or so EU trade bilateral and regional agreements, either already in force or being formalised. Negotiations are under way, too, with more than 15 countries, from the US to Brazil and Japan. The agreements provide EU companies with access to these countries’ markets on more favourable terms than those secured by World Trade Organisation membership. They cover myriad provisions, from origin denominations to phytosanitary rule — all carefully crafted to ensure UK companies face as few obstacles as possible.

It is a long process: given that trade agreements have grown increasingly sophisticated, concluding negotiations in five years is a real achievement. Typically about 20 commission negotiators backed by 25-40 technical experts are involved. That may sound a lot but EU negotiators are known for their quality and manage with fewer people than most nations or trading blocs.

If the UK leaves the EU, the government will need to renegotiate these agreements for itself. Non-EU countries have given UK companies access to their markets in exchange for their companies having access to the 500m customers in the EU. Since the UK market on offer after a Brexit will be only 67m consumers, it is only natural that those nations will want to renegotiate; Brexit would represent a breach of contract.

In addition, the government will need to play catch-up on the negotiations under way between the EU and countries such as the US, India or Brazil. Even if all those countries agree to start from the basis of the current texts rather than from scratch, the UK will need about 500 negotiators working intensely for a decade at least.

The only UK officials with the skills to negotiate trade deals at present are with the commission itself. Even if we repatriated them all, we would struggle to put together a team of more than 25 people with the practical experience needed. Hiring (and then co-ordinating) 475 negotiators of other nationalities will require more than good luck.

https://next.ft.com/content/3c76e90a-270e-11e6-8ba3-cdd781d02d89

CLAPTON

mwpt wrote: »

That isn't an issue for either camp in the referendum. That is an issue for government economic policy, which the Tories aim to solve by increasing business investment, increasing employment and cutting spending on services and welfare. This is the democratic elected government cutting our services, nothing to do with the EU. Without EU immigration, we would be in the same or worse situation.

surprising that you think the demand on housing, NHS, transport, school etcc. etc has nothing to do with immigration.
Virtually every interview with 'real' people mension the pressure on state services due to immigration.

It is a central issue.

It doesn't feel democratic to me.

of course : your idea of democracy is rule by (preferrrably foreign) bureacrats rather than democratically locally elected councillors.

My rational view is that being honest with myself EU laws were never an issue for me until the media started telling me they should be. My guess is the same would apply to 95% of people, even those who now feel very strongly against EU laws.

But being honest with yourself isn't easy when views are held so strongly. This very much applies to me, and most humans.

no surprise that an acolyte sees no problems and believes everyone else agrees with him.

mwpt

CLAPTON wrote: »

surprising that you think the demand on housing, NHS, transport, school etcc. etc has nothing to do with immigration.
Virtually every interview with 'real' people mension the pressure on state services due to immigration.

You're putting words into my mouth.

It is a central issue.

You said you expect the remain camp to come up with a strategy for dealing with our current austerity. This is not an issue for either camp, it is an issue for the elected government.

of course : your idea of democracy is rule by (preferrrably foreign) bureacrats rather than democratically locally elected councillors.

You are putting words in my mouth again, misrepresenting my views. Is your argument lacking that you need to resort to this?

no surprise that an acolyte sees no problems and believes everyone else agrees with him.

And again, more words in my mouth. I am telling you my view which is that I never perceived a problem with EU laws. I will repeat so that it is clear, this is most likely not unique to me. If people are truly honest, several years ago before the media started telling us how to think, my guess is most people never perceived a problem with EU laws. They probably weren't even aware which were UK made or which were EU made. Why was it ok for us then but now that the media are telling us how to think it isn't?

CLAPTON

mwpt wrote: »

If people are truly honest, several years ago before the media started telling us how to think, my guess is most people never perceived a problem with EU laws. They probably weren't even aware which were UK made or which were EU made. Why was it ok for us then but now that the media are telling us how to think it isn't?

what a paronising acolyte

doubtless you'll reply that I'm putting words into your mouth.

ruggedtoast

CLAPTON wrote: »

what a paronising acolyte

doubtless you'll reply that I'm putting words into your mouth.

You're really upset that you aren't going to get your Leave vote and that UKIP will always be irrelevant, aren't you?

CLAPTON

ruggedtoast wrote: »

You're really upset that you aren't going to get your Leave vote and that UKIP will always be irrelevant, aren't you?

my concern is that UKIP may become relevant: although I guess that would better that the IRA supporter Corbyn & gang ever having any power

mwpt

CLAPTON wrote: »

what a paronising acolyte

I am being honest and telling you my reality and my views. Why would you say this is patronising?

I think this is the best thing people could do, ask themselves that very real honest question. If several years ago they knew or cared or felt constricted by EU laws? If they have, if they noted long ago that certain EU laws were impacting their daily life and making things worse for them, then there is good reason to vote out. If however you (in the plural sense) have been caught up by media hype, perhaps that isn't the best reason to vote out. Note the stats, the young of this country, the people who this vote will mostly impact for the future, mostly want to stay in. If they are your concern, maybe best to consider their views.

There is nothing wrong with voting out if you think your life genuinely is worse inside the EU. But please, if you think you are voting to help future generations, consider what they actually want and not what you think they want.

supermario1965

We don't need trade agreements with anybody. We are the 5th biggest economy. If they want our money, they'll have to accept our conditions or tough!