If we vote for Brexit what happens

Conrad

mayonnaise wrote: »

Not sure what stage I'm in - I'll book an individual session when you're free - but I'm not angry.

Disappointed yes, because I don't like seeing this once great country going down the drain.
Anyway, time will tell.
I hope you're ready to come back down a couple of levels on your change curve when reality bites.

Can I ask, what will be your response when this all turns out well?

I'm ready for justifications along the line of 'oh it only worked about because vested interests engineered things', similar to the responses from the perma Bears as we emmerged out of the 2008 crash that gave me huge stick when I was suggesting 2011/12 was the time to be buying property

Rinoa

German Finance Minister:

"British access to single market reasonable Brexit condition"

And so it begins.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/14/germany-states-british-access-to-eu-single-market-reasonable-bre/

Conrad

Rinoa wrote: »

German Finance Minister:

And so it begins.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/14/germany-states-british-access-to-eu-single-market-reasonable-bre/

If you have an account please post this on the Independent which is a hornets nest of denial gloom mongers that posses an acute sense of thier own self importance, sniffly waving away any suggestion we will get concessions

The Germans want the UK economy to thrive so we can carry on being thier second most profitable market, but hey, apparantly Romania won't agree to a UK deal

vivatifosi

Rinoa wrote: »

German Finance Minister:

And so it begins.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/14/germany-states-british-access-to-eu-single-market-reasonable-bre/

It is going to be interesting to see how the EU functions as one going forward. It is clear even this early that Juncker may be able to tell his deputies not to negotiate, or make noises, or arrange meetings; but they cannot control individual countries to anywhere near that extent.

cells

Conrad wrote: »

Hammond has said today we are leaving the SM, so we've kinda faced down the EU already. Free movement will not be an option we will accept but again the SM is vastly over rated and 25 non EU nations export more than us into the EU with no SM access

Care to list these 25 countries? No? it is clearly wrong

cells

Conrad wrote: »

Can I ask, what will be your response when this all turns out well?

I'm ready for justifications along the line of 'oh it only worked about because vested interests engineered things', similar to the responses from the perma Bears as we emmerged out of the 2008 crash that gave me huge stick when I was suggesting 2011/12 was the time to be buying property

If it works out well the only response is fantastic

The problem is you cant know for sure that its a better outcome than sticking with what we had. Even if things go positively (eg GDP grows 10% in 3 years) you cant conclude with certainty that staying would not have been more positive (GDP growing 15% in 3 years.) So while people will beat the drum that GDP grew 10% and everything is fantastic and scold the naysayers the reality might be that its a 5% fall from what we would have had and thus a loss.


Having said all this I am coming over to your side a bit. Its going to be less painful than originally thought and the UK will probably get a reasonable deal. I do hope that for longer term benefit free movement of young people is kept with the EU. Speicially 18-30 year olds who will be very huge positive net contributors. Limiting it to that age group will not see a lot of migration as a lot of that group is still at university in their local countries and others have family and friends who will be outside of that range and thus it will deter them.

Kohoutek

Interesting comment on the FT's comment section:

It would be useful for Brits to examine what happened in Quebec during the decades when the Parti Quebecoise (PQ) held two referendums to separate the province from Canada. After losing the first referendum in 1980, the PQ promised a second creating yet another round of uncertainty. Business acted quickly. Banks and insurance companies moved their operations to Toronto leaving behind token staff. Manufacturing companies reduced their operations or simply moved everything to Ontario or other provinces. In many cases they took their employees with them. One manufacturer of heavy machinery simply closed shop shifting operations to Ontario making it clear to employees that they need not follow. The company refused to hire French Canadians.

Part of the issue was NAFTA, the North American free trade agreement that links the markets of Mexico, the U.S. and Canada. A separate Quebec would have had to negotiate access to it and there was no indication that Canada would have supported its membership. Emotions ran high. Resentment in the rest of Canada was running high. Companies did not want to chance staying in Quebec and be left outside of NAFTA.

Quebec never did separate. The hair's breadth win for the remain side in the second referendum of 1995 scared the hell out of most Quebecers to the point where they took a good hard look at themselves and their future in a globalized world. In the end, Quebecers began to realize that separation was more about the negative emotions of bigotry, racism and anti-English feelings than about a positive desire to build a state for the benefit of everybody. They already had that in Canada. In the last provincial election, Quebecers rejected the bigoted policies of the PQ and gave the party a crushing defeat.

Throughout the referendum decades, Quebec's economy stagnated and has never quite recovered. It is considered a 'have-not' province and the receiver of what Canadians call "equalization payments" from richer provinces.

The UK obviously has a much more powerful and resilient economy than Quebec's. But that does not mean it cannot be seriously harmed by Brexit. It is not immune from the kind of fears and resentments that prevailed in Quebec and Canada during that period.

Thrugelmir

cells wrote: »

The problem is you cant know for sure that its a better outcome than sticking with what we had. Even if things go positively (eg GDP grows 10% in 3 years) you cant conclude with certainty that staying would not have been more positive (GDP growing 15% in 3 years.) So while people will beat the drum that GDP grew 10% and everything is fantastic and scold the naysayers the reality might be that its a 5% fall from what we would have had and thus a loss.

What relevance is GDP? Gets bandied around like a lost Holy Grail. Far better and more accurate measurements to judge the economy on going forward. GDP is what politicians talk about. To the man on the street it's an irrelevance. Makes no difference at all in fact.

Crashy_Time

marksoton wrote: »

You what?

I think you over estimate the importance of Aberdeen.

I was talking about Scotland, not the whole UK, but I`m sure the government will notice the drop in revenue even if the average English person thinks pasties pay more tax than Scotland.

AnotherJoe

Crashy_Time wrote: »

BTW they said rents/prices could never drop in Aberdeen, and look what happened there. Why is Bristol special, my rent in Edinburgh has been flat for well over a decade (with private landlords)

Who are "they"? Since the housing market in Aberdeen is about 99% dependent upon oil jobs, anyone with more than the nervous system of a nematode could see that if / when NSea oil declined so would the town.