If we vote for Brexit what happens

Crashy_Time

lydriver wrote: »

the worst thing about these threads is the people wanting a crash are just making a joke of the whole situation, seemingly not giving a !!!! is it crews up peoples lives!

why wish doom and gloom on people you have never met/will never know
even IF they are debt junkies or whatever

get a grip!!

People who bet it all on the house at bubble prices screwed up their own lives, it is no one else`s fault, they brought doom and gloom on themselves.

Sapphire

chewmylegoff wrote: »

No one knows how the electorate want Brexit to be effected because they weren't asked. Within the 52% who voted for Brexit there is likely to be widescale disagreement about what Brexit should look like re: immigration with some at one extreme believing we should repatriate all people born overseas and others believing that we should remain in the EEA and remain signed up to the free movement principle. It is quite likely that enough people who voted for Brexit do not consider reducing immigration to be important that when you add those people to Remain votes, the "immigration brexiteers" are actually in the minority (as a percentage of the whole electorate).

I don't know about that. I believe that very many people do want immigration to be controlled (not stopped altogether), and for proper border controls to be established. Indeed, one of the key arguments by the Brexit campaign was that immigration should be controlled, and that an Australian points-style system be introduced. I think that sounds sensible, especially given the circumstances.

Additionally, I think the question of sovereignty is important to many people, and there are others who are genuinely spooked by certain things relevant to the EU…

Samsonite1

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Then you appear somewhat out of touch with the electorate. As many politicians were.

Appear to you maybe. But you are wrong of course. Not all Brexit voters were voting for immigration so to say the electorate were voting for immigration is just projection on your part. Stick to the facts and not what you think everyone was thinking. Cheers.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Sapphire wrote: »

I believe that very many people do want immigration to be controlled

Only 2% of the voters in the referendum need to have voted for Brexit mostly because of other reasons for your 'very many' to become a minority when added to the remain voters.

Actually, hang on, lets stop speculating and just find out what the voters actually want form post-Brexit Britain.....

It is more important for Britain to keep full access to the European single market than to control immigration coming from Europe, voters believe.

48 per cent of voters favoured keeping single market access, compared to 37 per cent who said capping immigration from Europe was more important.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/dont-control-eu-immigration-at-the-expense-of-losing-single-market-access-poll-brexit-europe-7127626.html

Hmmm....

It seems staying in the Single Market even with freedom of movement is more important to voters than ending freedom of movement at the expense of leaving the single market.

Ah well....

Tories know how to read polls so I think we all know how this will end.

iantojones40

mrlegend123 wrote: »

How did you come up with that conclusion??? I am happy with negative equity and I have been de-ramping property prices. Low income families should not be priced out of the housing market.

The market is transitioning from a seller's market to a buyers market, that's good news for FTBs.

You sound like a greedy nimby?

I was answering you but referring to Glasgodan... you're getting a bit confused, stop getting your knickers in a twist!

You actually seem like one of the few sensible FTBers who isn't gullible enough to believe all the buy, buy, BUY! hype from the rampers on here.

iantojones40

lydriver wrote: »

the worst thing about these threads is the people wanting a crash are just making a joke of the whole situation, seemingly not giving a !!!! is it crews up peoples lives!

why wish doom and gloom on people you have never met/will never know
even IF they are debt junkies or whatever

get a grip!!

I'm not expecting any kind of ''crash'' but anyone who has their life ''screwed up'' by maybe a 10% fall in property prices or a 3-4% rise in I.R's gets all they deserved.

Why don't you set up a new charitable cause? You could maybe call it Debt Junkie Relief.

mrginge

oh look, our resident king of spin drags up an article from three weeks ago to try make a point.
Next we'll have one about how the lib dems are flying high in the polls.

mwpt

mrginge wrote: »

oh look, our resident king of spin drags up an article from three weeks ago to try make a point.
Next we'll have one about how the lib dems are flying high in the polls.

How do we debate anything with you? You dismiss anything vaguely science like that doesn't fit your view, so is there any point in trying to debate stuff logically?

mwpt

Sapphire wrote: »

I don't know about that. I believe that very many people do want immigration to be controlled (not stopped altogether), and for proper border controls to be established. Indeed, one of the key arguments by the Brexit campaign was that immigration should be controlled, and that an Australian points-style system be introduced. I think that sounds sensible, especially given the circumstances.

If you think it sounds sensible, then you should vote for a party that promises such a system, as part of our regular democratic elections. There was nothing in the referendum vote that promised it.

Additionally, I think the question of sovereignty is important to many people, and there are others who are genuinely spooked by certain things relevant to the EU…

Yes, there are a number of loons who hate the Germans and believe the whole thing is a German plot to take over Europe by stealth, I agree.

setmefree2

mwpt wrote: »

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/david-davis-muddled-understanding-of-trade-policy/

Thought I'd highlight this from the comments section.

If I’m understanding you correctly bilateral trade deals can remove tariff barriers without impacting your position with partners you trade with under WTO rules, it’s only if you unilaterally lower barriers that you must do so for all. Is that correct? So upon Brexit the UK trades with everyone equally under WTO rules, when it agrees a bilateral agreement with another country then trade with that country is conducted on terms (hopefully) better than the WTO standard terms.
For every other trading partner the game remains unchanged?

Should the UK reach an agreement with the EU wouldn’t that be a bilateral trade agreement?

Even if we do trade with tariffs isn’t that an income stream for HMRC as opposed to paying an EU membership fee that’s a loss to HMRC? I’ve never understood why a membership fee paid from general taxation is preferable over a tariff being paid by the companies that are actually doing the importing. Why is an ordinary person surviving on the minimum wage paying taxes so multinationals can enjoy tariff free trade a good thing?

In 2015 the UK imported £290 billion from the EU and exported £220 billion to it. The UK’s net contribution to the EU (after rebate and EU spending in the UK) was £8.5 billion. I understand from BBC Radio 4 the average WTO tariff is 1.4%, so let’s run with that. HMRC’s income on the UK’s £290 billion of imports from the EU @ 1.4% would be:£290 billion * 0.014 = 4.06 billion

So the UK’s net membership fee is twice as expensive as tariffs would have been, the money’s been taken from ordinary people rather than rich companies and it has gone to Brussels instead of HMRC. Instead of HMRC being up £4.06 billion they were down £8.5 billion, so that’s a deficit to the UK tax payer of £12.56 billion and all for the privilege of a £70 billion trade deficit with the EU.

How hard is it going to be for David Davis to get a better deal than that?