If we vote to Remain what happens?

Generali

michaels wrote: »

A lot has been made of the Brexit campaign's inability to paint a picture of what will happen if we vote for Brexit.

Turning the question on its head, can those supporting remain claim 'It ill be just like it is now' or actually will we see a very different EU continue to emerge, perhaps even faster, as a result of a UK Remain vote?

1) The EU is by default expansionist
There are no incentives for those who run the EU to reduce the scope of its activities, only to increase them so from that we can have a pretty good idea of the direction of travel.

Is it? I can't see any clear expansionist incentives either.

CEOs are incentivised to grow companies by the fact that larger companies pay their CEOs more. AFAICS civil servants and politicians pay isn't linked to country size: Australia and Ireland are notably high payers of their politicians but are low population countries.

michaels wrote: »

2) The single market requires tax harmonization
It is also fairly clear form the Tampon tax fiasco that the EU sees differential tax rates between member states as being incompatible with the single market so expect the ability to set corporation, income and other taxes to be centralised with no veto possible as it is part of the 'core single market'.

No it doesn't.

If I work in investment banking then I need to work in London and then after that perhaps Frankfurt, Paris, Milan and Madrid. Stamp duty can be zero or 200% in Warsaw and it doesn't matter a damn.

As a former smoker I can say that I used to buy my cigarettes in the supermarket in London rather than going to Belgium to buy my cigarettes more cheaply.

michaels wrote: »

3) Monetary Union Is a stepping stone towards Fiscal union
And of course monetary union was enacted not with the belief that a common monetary policy could be maintained without a common fiscal authority but because as is self evident that is not the case and thus the common currency was seen by those who signed up for it as simply a stepping stone towards full fiscal integration (even if of course they did not dare tell their populations this). Those outside the Euro who think this will not impact them are in for a rude surprise, EU rules will make their economic life more and more difficult (why not mandate that EUR companies debt can not be traded outside or EUR countries to damage London for example), and when any country outside the EUR runs into a crisis (foreign indebtedness for the UK for example given our rising population induced balance of trade deficit) no doubt the price to be paid for a bailout will be to adopt the Euro.

So what? The UK is outside the Eurozone.

The trade deficit per capita is what matters as assets available to support a trade deficit are linked to population size. The bigger the population the more houses, companies etc.

michaels wrote: »

4) A UK Remain vote will shift the dynamic towards integration
After all don't forget having rejected Brexit our negotiating position will be hugely weaker as we will no longer be able to threaten withdrawal if we get steam-rollered in negotiations.

Rubbish. No it won't.

Seriously, you sound like one of those SNP f...wits. Stop it, you're brighter than that.

mwpt

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

I think it will be a tacit green light for the EU (meaning Germany really) to plough on with unpopular stuff, if the biggest whingers are still there.

Other rulers will certainly be reluctant or strongly discouraged to offer a similar referendum.

The UK's "powerful voice in Europe" (B Obama, 2016) will continue to get us amazing deals at the negotiating table, such as the slight reduction in immigrant benefits (subject to nobody else disagreeing at any point) by respected European statesman, David Cameron.

Borders and Schengen may be reviewed, and I think Merkel is going to be shocked by the resistance of the former Soviet countries. Their experience of and attitude towards colonisation and cultural identity is very different to Western Europe.

There will be an escalation of Mediterranean migrant issues over the summer, and Calais will remain a festering dump (with the French continuing with their indifferent Gallic shrugging over it).

Greece will have to be bailed out again at some point obviously.

If we assume the worst, and the EU troubles are only going to increase, is it the correct thing to do in the wider picture to say "screw you guys, we're off"?

If a lot of ifs are true and it really does make economic sense for the UK to leave (again, all hypothetically), do we not still have some moral duty to remain strong with the nations with which we've helped forge many decades of European peace and relative stability? Or is the imperative to our own people stronger than any wider social consequences?

Or is it simply that people think the EU should be broken up anyway and we risk the devolution back to more intense national conflicts?

I realise that sounds like doom mongering, but I'm really just questioning.

Johnsmith2016

MWPT - i would just like throw into your hypothetical mix

I do indeed think the EU is failing, apart from the big few many are essentially bankcrupt, the same people telling us britain would be doomed if we didnt leave the pound and join the euro are saying we must remain, the same people who didnt predict the recession are predicting what the uk will look like in 2030.

Not everything has a monetary value to make it comparable, my primary reason for out is the EU is undemocratic (see dutch a few weeks ago) and unelected, we are not leaving europe, but the EU, again there isnt a monetary value to social cohesion, our values and way of life that have been fought for by previous generarions - morally, i dont just want this for the uk, i want all europe to be democratic and free to do whats best for their own people and celebrate they are different and do things a bit different and be independant, i still want to be good friends and good neighbours to obviously work together - but you dont have to be married to work together.
So morally i hope the uk leaving triggers the freedom of all our european friends in the process

michaels

Generali wrote: »

Is it? I can't see any clear expansionist incentives either.

CEOs are incentivised to grow companies by the fact that larger companies pay their CEOs more. AFAICS civil servants and politicians pay isn't linked to country size: Australia and Ireland are notably high payers of their politicians but are low population countries.



No it doesn't.

If I work in investment banking then I need to work in London and then after that perhaps Frankfurt, Paris, Milan and Madrid. Stamp duty can be zero or 200% in Warsaw and it doesn't matter a damn.

As a former smoker I can say that I used to buy my cigarettes in the supermarket in London rather than going to Belgium to buy my cigarettes more cheaply.



So what? The UK is outside the Eurozone.

The trade deficit per capita is what matters as assets available to support a trade deficit are linked to population size. The bigger the population the more houses, companies etc.



Rubbish. No it won't.

Seriously, you sound like one of those SNP f...wits. Stop it, you're brighter than that.

I think we will have to agree to differ as I don't feel you have substantiated any of your arguments (I partially agree on 2 there need not be full tax harmonization but there is growing pressure for example over VAT rates and corporation tax).

However I am sure you are spot on about my being a F***wit.

Generali

michaels wrote: »

I think we will have to agree to differ as I don't feel you have substantiated any of your arguments (I partially agree on 2 there need not be full tax harmonization but there is growing pressure for example over VAT rates and corporation tax).

However I am sure you are spot on about my being a F***wit.

You're not a f...wit and that's what bothers me.

I gave substantiation in reply to your first three assertions.

mwpt

Johnsmith2016 wrote: »

Not everything has a monetary value to make it comparable, my primary reason for out is the EU is undemocratic (see dutch a few weeks ago) and unelected

Thanks for the response. Would you be able to clarify, and by that I mean pretend I'm stupid and uninformed, and explain what you mean by the "undemocratic" issue with regards the Dutch - Ukraine issue.

i want all europe to be democratic and free to do whats best for their own people and celebrate they are different and do things a bit different and be independant, i still want to be good friends and good neighbours to obviously work together - but you dont have to be married to work together.
So morally i hope the uk leaving triggers the freedom of all our european friends in the process

Is this a recent thing or have you always felt this way about the EU?

I don't feel constrained by the EU. I don't feel like we can't determine our future. I feel that we have some EU regulations and laws which harmonise certain things with regards trade laws and such. There isn't anything I particularly want changed by leaving the EU, and so I feel that currently, inside the EU, we have enough freedom to make the decisions we need to.

The issue of benefits is largely an unknown to me. From what I gather, many people are upset that EU citizens are overloading our benefits system. However, EU immigrants pay more tax into the system than they take out in the form of welfare and such. So, that argument seems like a dead end. Even if it were true, it points to our own internal issues, being hamstrung to reform our benefits system to something a little fairer and more practical (contribution based) due to the incredibly vocal left wing element in the UK. This isn't an EU issue.

CLAPTON

mwpt wrote: »

If we assume the worst, and the EU troubles are only going to increase, is it the correct thing to do in the wider picture to say "screw you guys, we're off"?

If a lot of ifs are true and it really does make economic sense for the UK to leave (again, all hypothetically), do we not still have some moral duty to remain strong with the nations with which we've helped forge many decades of European peace and relative stability? Or is the imperative to our own people stronger than any wider social consequences?

Or is it simply that people think the EU should be broken up anyway and we risk the devolution back to more intense national conflicts?

I realise that sounds like doom mongering, but I'm really just questioning.

the only significant europe post WW2 conflict was the yugoslav conflict : not a case of better together.

NATO, trade and prosperity and common values will continue to make war unlikely although it does seem that all the 'stay' group are as one in thinking the EU27 would be vindictive and seek to break trade ties in the event of brexit.

Conrad

mwpt wrote: »

I don't feel constrained by the EU. I don't feel like we can't determine our future.

What would you most hate about us being in full control of how we spend our taxes, the laws we make, and us having our own full seat at all the international bodies such as the WTO, representing our interests?

Conrad

CLAPTON wrote: »

the only significant europe post WW1 conflict was the yugoslav conflict :

The UN sorted that conflict whilst the EU bickered about what to do.


It's another hilarious claim that the EU gave post 1945 Europe security, when NATO, The UN and others have done that job.

michaels

Day 3 of Obama reading the script - I think they may have overplayed that one.

However whatever the situation re a UK/US trade deal if we stay we will go from no EU/US deal to one based on the bery popular TTIP:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36120560

Thousands of people have marched in the German city of Hannover against a proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) deal.
They say the deal would drive down wages, and weaken environmental protection and labour rights.

So pretty clear that voting to stay in is again not just the low risk 'status quo'.


What is funny is that TTIP is just the sort of thing that Jeremy Corbyn is against on principle, his support of Remain continues to demonstrate just what a 'man of principle' he really is despite the carefully crafted media persona.