If we vote to Remain what happens?

mrginge

BobQ wrote: »

No. I am saying it would be difficult to do this quickly with 160 countries (that you have not defined). Strictly that would be 160 +27 on Brexit I presume.

I am assuming that the Leave plan is to use WTO tariffs but that would not be free trade. You explain how we would have free trade with the 187 that you refer to in any sensible timescale!

Why do we need to have free trade?
What actually does 'free trade' mean?
There are plenty of internal regulations and quotas in place within the EU that go against the principle of free trade.
How, for example can the CFP be defined as free trade?
Why are WTO rules not acceptable?
WTO tariffs are not a one way street you know.

kabayiri

BobQ wrote: »

Agreed, but now we have a choice based on Cameron's agreement.

Do you think the EU will encourage the UK to join the Euro then?

There might not be a lot of love about amongst the public for the EU, but I suspect there's even less for the Euro.

What's the biggest gain if we join?

gfplux

michaels wrote: »

May be me reading between the lines but it seems pretty clear that the EU is making a concerted effort to 'shut up' in order not to illustrate to the British Voters just where the balance of power lies nowadays. Donald Tusk EU president:



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36314814

The EU has "suffered" since it began because it has almost no Public Relations as such. The thoughts of a "Ministry for Information" or any propaganda has hobbled any attempts to spin the news coming out of "Brussels"
That has been left entirely to individual Governments. In the case of Britain we have often had Ministers who were not entirely behind any positive messages. In fact many have been or are hostile to any positive reinforcement.
Present company excepted over the last 50 years of marketing many can not see or understand any message unless packaged by a slick PR department.

The EU does not have to shut up as it never had a polished voice "on message" Only individual members speaking with their own Agenda.

Malthusian

gfplux wrote: »

The EU has "suffered" since it began because it has almost no Public Relations as such.

Absolute nonsense, the EU spends hundreds of millions a year on public relations. According to one (admittedly partisan) estimate the EU spends more on promoting itself than Coca-Cola. We've all had pro-EU leaflets pushed through our letterboxes (if you don't remember them it's because they went straight in the bin) and if you have children at school they will almost certainly have been on the receiving end of some "educational" material to tell them how great the EU is.

kabayiri

Generali wrote: »

...
Just as if the UK leaves the EU she will lose pretty much all ability to have an effect on EU decisions, the the UK decides to have a semi-detached relationship with the EU, decisions will be made without the UK having a say.

I'd say Germany has had far more effect on EU future policy regards refugees by its' actions, than by German concensus and negotiation with other EU states.

The unilateral invite to hundreds of thousands of assumed Syrian refugees, whether you agree with it or not, acted like a magnet. It was obvious that people would rush to accept the invitation.

The implications for the European states en route was much less clear. It would have been more consistent if the refugee invite was channelled via the EU.

You will always have this conflict between the EU and individual states whilst voters vote for governments in their individual countries. The voters have an expectation, and this might not be in line with EU policy or principles.

Of course if you move government control to an European level you resolve this conflict. I'm not sure how many are in favour of this.

CLAPTON

mrginge wrote: »

Why do we need to have free trade?
What actually does 'free trade' mean?
There are plenty of internal regulations and quotas in place within the EU that go against the principle of free trade.
How, for example can the CFP be defined as free trade?
Why are WTO rules not acceptable?
WTO tariffs are not a one way street you know.

free trade in the EU doesn't mean fee trade

what it means is that trade is heavily regulated such that only the big boys can afford to compete :
regulations and standards (for the good of the consumer) have always been used to try to exclude new entrants and preserving the spoils to a cartel (think the old trades guilds, trade unions, BMC, emissions regulations etc.)

there after all the big boys have equal chances to trade : you can see this working fairly, by noticing what makes of cars government officials drive in the various EU countries.

michaels

Personally I suspect TTIP is probably a good deal although because it has to meet the requirements of 27 nations it is probably not as god a deal as a UK/UK trade agreement would be.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36332415

However the govt is claiming it would not affect the NHS. AS far as I know the NHS procures loads of things, from hip operations to paper clips, from the private sector and all of these procurement exercises would be subject to TTIP and it's dispute resolution process so claiming that the NHS is exempt from TTIP is just blatantly untrue.

michaels

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36323010

Resulting in marginally lower house prices and rents and less pressure on schools and infrastructure. Brickies might also get paid more.

BobQ

CLAPTON wrote: »

so you are saying that germany, france, italy, spain, + the other EU countries have huge problems in setting up trade relationes with aus, n zealand, india, china, brazil, argentina plus the other 160 countries and it will be eqaully difficult to estable trade relationships wiht the UK if we leave
basically we will be as badly off as Indian, China, USA, Canada et etc


oh well that's life.

Please stop putting words into my name I have not written. It is not difficult but the idea that a trade deal can be done just like that is the case as you well know.

Germany has no problems trading with China and is more successful at it that we are. Are they trying to leave the EU?

BobQ

mrginge wrote: »

Why do we need to have free trade?
What actually does 'free trade' mean?
There are plenty of internal regulations and quotas in place within the EU that go against the principle of free trade.
How, for example can the CFP be defined as free trade?
Why are WTO rules not acceptable?
WTO tariffs are not a one way street you know.

I never said we did. Clapton used the term free trade

CLAPTON wrote: »

in what way are failing states in the euro zone 'the best of both worlds'
in what way is our inability to have free trade with 160 countries the ' best of both worlds'?

Free trade as most people understand is trade that does not involve the payment of tariffs and import duties, and which is conducted using agreed non-tariff regulations.

Of course the EU has regulations. They exist to provide a level playing field. Quotas under the CFP are not intended to be discriminatory, they are there to maintain fish stocks. We would need fish quotas if we left since prior to the EU we were prone to over-fish the seas. We would also need to tell the fish which sector they were in.

Never said WTO tariffs were unacceptable. They may give access to lower prices in times of plenty but equally to higher prices when there are shortages.

If the nation votes for Brexit that is what we will have to use (pending the Clapton free trade agreement with the 187 nations, to be concluded the following week? month? year? decade?).

But the consumer will have to get used to a more complicated life as they find buying from other nations becomes complicated, travelling to the EU is just as complicated as entering the US, etc