BREXIT - Why?

mrginge

Reaper wrote: »

I suppose I ought to do a proper post too...

There is a lot of nonsense being spouted from both sides which makes it hard to make rational decisions but a couple of points worth mentioning.

TTIP being forced on us by Europe - not true. Cameron has been an enthusiastic supporter, it is only the EU which has opposed it.

Cameron is not negotiating TTIP, the EU is. If Cameron decides he wants to accept whatever TTIP eventually looks like, then he can be removed if the electorate do not agree.

Similarly, if the UK agrees with and accepts the final version of TTIP the government/electorate of Poland can decide to veto it on our behalf.

Immigration will be stopped if we leave Europe - I think people would be surprised. The UK will still be under pressure to accept a share of the many refugees from outside Europe. Perhaps more.

Refugees and economic migrants are completely different groups.
We currently have control over how many refugees are accepted by this country. Some people may say it is too few, others may say too many. The U.K. Government decides on this.
We currently have control over how many economic migrants come into the country from outside the EU. Again, the U.K. Government decides on this.
We have no control over the number of economic migrants that come from the EU. We don't know who they will be, which countries they will come from, what skills they possess, how long they will stay for, what infrastructure demands they will have, where they will live, what languages they will speak. Because of those unknowns we are less able to plan or budget with certainty.

....We would be locked out of trading with Europe if we left unless a trade agreement is done to replace.

Do you actually believe this?
Am I typing this on my imaginary iPad that I could not buy because we don't currently have a trade deal with the USA?
How is possible for China to dump all that steel into the EU when they don't have a trade deal?

Why do you think we 'need' a trade deal at all?

Linton

mrginge wrote: »

Cameron is not negotiating TTIP, the EU is. If Cameron decides he wants to accept whatever TTIP eventually looks like, then he can be removed if the electorate do not agree.

Similarly, if the UK agrees with and accepts the final version of TTIP the government/electorate of Poland can decide to veto it on our behalf.

Or vice versa - the UK can veto it if they want as much as Poland can. The whole advantage of negotiating such agreements within the EU is that the US can say "take it or leave it" if they were negotiating with individual countries. It isnt something that they would want to do with the EU as whole. Poland's or the UK's position is much stronger as part of the EU.

mrginge

Linton wrote: »

Re level of savings protection...
What costs? The protection has never been called upon. The realised benefit is that people are happy to keep more in individual bank accounts which adds to efficiency.

Erm, the cost of underwriting that level of protection?
It's an overblown insurance policy.
Just like you pay £X to insure your car against the risk of an event that costs £10x. The more you insure for, the higher the premium.

As for your benefit.... Well we'd need to know how many people have over £50k in the bank, and how many of those also have over £85k.
Plus of course it is per bank so if you had £100k you would need full protection by splitting it in two, regardless of the limit being 50k or 85k.
Oh, and the limit is tied to the EUR, not the £. Hence why the level is decreasing to 75k. So the EU has decided to impose a directive on us using their own currency as a benchmark. So, despite not being in the euro, we are inherently linked to it.

Linton

mrginge wrote: »

Am I typing this on my imaginary iPad that I could not buy because we don't currently have a trade deal with the USA?
How is possible for China to dump all that steel into the EU when they don't have a trade deal?

Why do you think we 'need' a trade deal at all?

You are using an IPAD despite it being more expensive than some other tablet because you have been convinced that it is not like other tablets. So you are prepared to pay any extra costs. If we were talking about generic tablets the absence of a trade deal would mean that US tablets could well be subject to import duties or non-financial barriers which would make them unsaleable in the EU, and vice versa.

Dird

cloud_dog wrote: »

For the record, my DD is 'doing' this at school so I have asked her to let me know which way she would vote and I will vote that way. After all, this decision is likely to have more of an effect of the next generation than myself.

Do you ask her how you should spend your spare money also? when is the pony arriving

mrginge

Linton wrote: »

Or vice versa - the UK can veto it if they want as much as Poland can.

Ok so you are happy for one country to be able to dictate policy across the continent based on their own local political situation. That's good to know.

The whole advantage of negotiating such agreements within the EU is that the US can say "take it or leave it" if they were negotiating with individual countries.
It isnt something that they would want to do with the EU as whole.
Poland's or the UK's position is much stronger as part of the EU.

That's a generic position that doesn't take account of the comparative strengths and weaknesses of member states.
Anyway, the idea of a 'take it or leave it' scenario is laughable. The US is a supplier, if they wish to impose rubbish terms, then we go and negotiate a better deal with China, or Japan, or Mozambique. Whoever can supply the stuff...

..or heaven forbid, we just carry on as we do today, by trading with US under WTO rules (just like the EU does)

mrginge

Linton wrote: »

If we were talking about generic tablets the absence of a trade deal would mean that US tablets could well be subject to import duties or non-financial barriers which would make them unsaleable in the EU, and vice versa.

Why do you not understand this?

Today the EU trades with the US under WTO rules.
If the UK left the EU then the *worst* scenario is that the UK would trade with the US under the very same WTO rules.

Neither the US or the UK cannot suddenly start chucking import tariffs around. It is not allowed.
And even if they could....do you believe that Apple US would be happy for their products to become unsaleable in the worlds fifth biggest economy?

cloud_dog

Dird wrote: »

Do you ask her how you should spend your spare money also? when is the pony arriving

No, because only an immature numpty would ask such a thing...oh wait a minute... :rotfl:

Linton

mrginge wrote: »

Why do you not understand this?

Today the EU trades with the US under WTO rules.
If the UK left the EU then the *worst* scenario is that the UK would trade with the US under the very same WTO rules.

Neither the US or the UK cannot suddenly start chucking import tariffs around. It is not allowed.
And even if they could....do you believe that Apple US would be happy for their products to become unsaleable in the worlds fifth biggest economy?

A possible worse one is if the EU gets advantages in selling goods to the US that are not available to the UK. You seem focussed on importing foreign goods - that's easy. The problem for the UK is selling its goods abroad and is much to do with non-tariff barriers, perhaps the most important purpose of the EU. Removal of non-tariff barriers implies a loss of sovereignty.

EdGasket

Boris backed by Nigel and supported by Donald; .....I don't think so; sounds a complete nightmare scenario.