If we vote for Brexit what happens

setmefree2

World trade, Canada’s included, is beating a direct path to the British market.
Canada has long wanted free trade with the United Kingdom, a fellow G7 country that became the world’s fifth-largest economy in 2014 after overtaking France. According to the Centre for Economics Business and Research, a premier U.K. consultancy, the fast-growing U.K. will overtake Germany over the next two decades to become Europe’s largest economy and the world’s fourth largest.

But until Brexit, Canada was shut off from this economic powerhouse, our only path to profitable U.K. trade wending through the EU bureaucracy in Brussels, which controls trade access to every EU country. And as a frustrated Canada knows only too well from almost a decade of interminable, ongoing jockeying in aid of sealing a Canada-EU trade deal, the EU is the world’s largest closed shop. No one gets to trade with the EU on preferential terms without either joining the union or trading away national sovereignty for the privilege.

Now the world, Canada included, is beating a direct path to the United Kingdom. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, after talks this week with U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May, declared it was imperative that the U.S. move “as fast as possible” to “maximize the economic opportunities” of Brexit. Kerry’s views echoed those of Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull who, after his own discussions with May, stated: “So as Britain leaves the EU, what we will need to do is negotiate direct arrangements with Britain … we need to get moving on that quickly.”

http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/lawrence-solomon-brexit-is-already-proving-to-be-a-huge-victory-for-global-free-trade

setmefree2

The EU, in fact, should be seen as an anti-free-trade zone, in that it impedes trade for its member EU countries and non-EU countries alike. EU member countries such as the U.K., for example, are prohibited from trading with countries such as Canada or the U.S. except on terms dictated by the EU. At the same time, non-EU members such as Norway or Switzerland must surrender some of their sovereignty as well as their cash if they wish preferential access to the EU market. In what’s called the Norway model, Norway must allow EU citizens to live and work anywhere in Norway without restriction while also funding EU social and economic programs, a requirement estimated to cost every Norwegian man, woman and child an average of 107 euros ($154) per year. The EU is, in effect, a political bloc that trades first and foremost in sovereignty — to date, it refuses to allow free trade with nations that haven’t first been made subservient. Brexit is the U.K.’s way of saying it will be subservient no more, and others in Europe may soon follow suit. This is merely more of the continuing Great Unwinding of multinational states.

http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/lawrence-solomon-brexit-was-the-u-k-s-vote-against-a-new-socialist-empire

gfplux

As a number of posters have mentioned immigration and how it has/is effecting society I thought I might add some of my thoughts.
I am an immigrant living in an EU Country so I have travelled out from the the UK.
I have, perhaps because of the above been facinated by why so many immigrants travel through so many EU country's, not stopping but desperately wanting to reach the shores of Britain. Some of those country's they pass through are quite prosperous, Germany, France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Holland etc.
On another forum where this was discussed various reasons were put forward such as language, historical links. However the main one was the system of Health and Social Security in Britain which is resident based and not contribution based. This one fact was considered to be very important.
This could be changed but the British Government have CHOSEN not to do so.

I just wanted to throw this in to the mix.
We (think) we know that Germany wants large numbers of immigrants to go there and settle. We "know" this from the actions of Chancelor Merkel and many news reports saying so (up to 2 million people wanted) with no corresponding denials or rebuttals.
Could Britains position be the same but the Political leaders know this is an unpalatable truth and that is why very little has been done to minimise the flow of people/immigrants/refugees over the channel.
I am not one for conspiracy theories normally but why Germany and not Britain.

posh*spice

Germany has an aging and declining population and is short of people - so it needs immigrants. Of course once refugees get an EU passport they can move anywhere, so the Germans can't know they will hang on to the refugees.

Britain is a deseirable country also as we don't have a gun problem - free movement in Europe means we are starting to witness gun problems on the mainland as there is no gun control. Any loon seems to be able to get their hands on a gun. Bit like the US.

vivatifosi

gfplux wrote: »

On another forum where this was discussed various reasons were put forward such as language, historical links. However the main one was the system of Health and Social Security in Britain which is resident based and not contribution based. This one fact was considered to be very important.

I don't think this point is discussed enough. I heard it mentioned a couple of times in the debate, but not by UK politicians. Even the overseas workers that I work with feel that this is the logical way to address the issue.

Cameron talked about the four year opt-out, but without really addressing why we needed a four year opt out and other countries didn't.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

PaulW1965 wrote: »

Accept it : we can't build enough houses to accommodate a million extra people every three years.

Of course we can.

We managed to build 400,000 house a year in the 1960's and 70's.

The only thing preventing it from happening today is government policy.

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Of course we can.

We managed to build 400,000 house a year in the 1960's and 70's.

The only thing preventing it from happening today is government policy.

How can the government force private companies to build houses? Or are you suggesting the government build houses?

vivatifosi

Slightly off-piste, so apologies. According to Donald Trump, the EU was formed as a consortium to beat the US at making money. He also feels that the US shouldn't support Europe unless they pay more into NATO, and that the WTO and NAFTA are disasters...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/24/donald-trump-eu-was-formed-to-beat-the-us-at-making-money

Crashy_Time

spunko2010 wrote: »

A 0.5pc increase would be a disaster for a lot of debt junkies.

Yep, pips a squeakin` time. Sad really.

gadgetmind

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

How can the government force private companies to build houses? Or are you suggesting the government build houses?

The government could make obtaining planning permission easier and maybe also tweak the rules to require housing on the plots to be completed within a certain period or planning permission would lapse and there would be a (say) 10 year period before it could be applied for again.

This would create more land for building and ensure that building was actually done. Instead they do silly schemes that increase the amount people can borrow without increasing the stock of houses.

However, those areas with the fewest immigrants and the cheapest housing are those that voted overwhelmingly to leave. And those that are the most multi-cultural and have the most expensive housing voted to remain. This may be about immigrants but it doesn't seem to be able the effect of them on house prices.