If there is a second referendum ...

kabayiri

andrewf75 wrote: »

I see risks in the EU as almost everyone does, but my long term view tells me we should stay and help solve those challenges rather than run away. I personally couldn't give a monkeys about the short term implications of Brexit, IMO we're headed for recession anyway and many things need a big shake up. Its very much the long term which made my decision which way to vote. The world faces many difficult challenges and each country looking after number one is a recipe for disaster IMO.

The bolded suggest we have core influence.

It was diminishing before the Brexit vote (IMO), and it will be shot to bits now.

Let's be honest. If we Remain, we do so as a bit part player with marginal influence.

The EU core will push for greater integration, centred around the Euro states, and we will be pushed out to the margin.

We could save money in such a situation by shrinking parliament to the role of a local regional council I suppose

andrewf75

kabayiri wrote: »

The bolded suggest we have core influence.

It was diminishing before the Brexit vote (IMO), and it will be shot to bits now.

Let's be honest. If we Remain, we do so as a bit part player with marginal influence.

The EU core will push for greater integration, centred around the Euro states, and we will be pushed out to the margin.

We could save money in such a situation by shrinking parliament to the role of a local regional council I suppose

I meant my reasons for voting remain. I agree our influence would be greatly reduced if we ended up staying now. I don't think we can go back now. My long term vision now would be to end up something like Switzerland or Norway in a generations time. A close relationship but outside the political project.

kabayiri

andrewf75 wrote: »

I meant my reasons for voting remain. I agree our influence would be greatly reduced if we ended up staying now. I don't think we can go back now. My long term vision now would be to end up something like Switzerland or Norway in a generations time. A close relationship but outside the political project.

But, if you listen to pro-Remain media (take LBC/O Brien), then the People's vote->Remain option is being sold as akin to returning a faulty kettle to the shop. No harm done.

Personally, I found the last Brexit referendum campaign disingenuous on many fronts, and I think we are destined to repeat it.

I think there is a good chance that the politicians will put it back to the people. Politically, it absolves them of the blame for the current farce.

MobileSaver

kabayiri wrote: »

It is incredibly blinkered (to use your phrasing) to focus on short term, as Remain people usually do, and not consider long term where the big challenges for this EU sit.

So your position is to jump ship now, knowing we'll definitely be worse off short term, because at some unspecified point in the long term the EU might have bigger problems which might mean that overall the UK would long term be worse off?

This approach ignores two key points:

1. If the situation with the EU materially changes in the future then we would always have the option to revisit Leaving again.
2. If the EU does get into real trouble in say ten years time then the UK is going to be negatively affected whether or not we are still a member.

All in all your doom and gloom over what might happen in the long term future seem to be a pretty feeble reason for Leaving now.

cogito

andrewf75 wrote: »

I see risks in the EU as almost everyone does, but my long term view tells me we should stay and help solve those challenges rather than run away. I personally couldn't give a monkeys about the short term implications of Brexit, IMO we're headed for recession anyway

Take Europe’s three biggest economies and list them in order of the likelihood of being in recession in the second half of 2018. Chances are Brexit-bound Britain would come first followed by France after its gilets jaunes protests. Germany would come last.

In fact, it is the eurozone’s locomotive economy that is at biggest risk of fulfilling the technical definition of recession – two consecutive quarters of falling output. After contracting by 0.2% in the third quarter, the latest news from Germany suggests it may have struggled to grow in the fourth quarter as well.

News that German industrial production fell by 1.9% in November came as a nasty shock. The stock response to the contraction in the third quarter was that it was due to the tightening up of European vehicle emission standards which led to one-off problems for its carmakers that would quickly be overcome.

While the bounce-back has been delayed rather than cancelled, Europe’s biggest economy faces significant headwinds. The growth spurt generated by monetary stimulus from the European Central Bank has run its course.

The European commission’s economic sentiment indicator fell in every single month of 2018 and in December declines in all four of the eurozone’s big four economies – Germany, France, Italy and Spain. As Andrew Kenningham of Capital Economics noted, the weakness cannot be put down to country-specific issues such as the gilets jaunes in France or sector-specific issues such as the disruption of the automotive sector.

To make matters worse for Germany, the global economy is also slowing, making it harder for companies to pick up new export orders. Protectionism is not helping either. Donald Trump sees China as his No1 trade target, but Germany – with its colossal current account surplus – comes a close second.

All of which brings a slightly different perspective to Britain’s debate about Brexit, which currently seems to be based on three key propositions: that continental Europe is thriving; that Europe’s politicians will come under no pressure to cut a deal from their big companies; and that Britain is well adrift at the bottom of Europe’s economic league table. All three are false.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jan/08/its-not-brexit-britain-most-likely-to-suffer-recession-its-germany

andrewf75

kabayiri wrote: »

But, if you listen to pro-Remain media (take LBC/O Brien), then the People's vote->Remain option is being sold as akin to returning a faulty kettle to the shop. No harm done.

I know, I am as frustrated by elements of "my side" as I am by the other side.

I don't want a peoples vote/remain. The vote has to be respected in my view.

Herzlos

kabayiri wrote: »

Will the EU be better off or worse off if we leave on default terms? (the complete break scenario)

In the short term? It'll definitely be worse off. Longer term, without us a reluctant member? I think it'll do better.


But maybe the better question is: will the EU be better off letting us leave on default terms, or by giving us what we want? I think it's the former.

It seems to me that if you vote for Remain then you are backing the future EU to deliver prosperity.

Indeed, and it's got reasonable form for it. By backing Leave you're betting on something, somehow either giving us prosperity or freedom. If there was anything specific plan Leave would have a lot more backers.

On a risk basis, I have had serious concerns about the ability of the EU. It has certainly lost a big chunk of world trade over recent decades. The Euro has not exactly delivered on the promises. Youth unemployment in the Eurozone is worryingly high in a number of states, and there doesn't seem to be any ambitious plans to fix this.

Has trade dropped in absolute terms? I was under the impression (I haven't checked) that trade was still growing, but elsewhere was growing faster thus making the EU's share shrink. I'm perfectly OK with that, especially since the EU is much further forward with trade deals to the faster growing parts of the globe and will get better deals than we can independently.

What I do know is, if the EU suffers financially and we are part of it, then we get asked to pay more. Cameron had to foot an extra couple of billion only a few years ago.

The contributions are derived from a formula featuring our economic output, our economy did better than expected so the EU re-ran the calculation and asked us to contribute what we agreed to. Cameron pushed back on it and lost, but I don't see there being anything underhand in sticking to the rules.

We continue to carry excess burden in the EU, whilst hundreds of billions are ploughed into the Eastern European states. This *isn't* a level playing field as pro-EU advocates like to proclaim.

Just like London does for the North. The idea (and I don't see it being disproven) is that the investment in East Europe brings them up to our position and benefits us in the long run. Would you rather have rich or poor trading partners?


Sure, we pay money into the EU and some gets spent on other countries, but we get value from that money anyway. If we were concerned about the EU mis-spending it, we have plenty of routes to take to address it whilst we're at the table. If we pay the EU for access as a 3rd party, we get no say where it goes.

movilogo

Will the EU be better off or worse off if we leave on default terms?

Depends on the country.

Germany will be worse off as they have to fund more from their own pocket (with their economy not doing great)

Greece will be worse off whether it rains today or not.

Italy may turn anti-EU. So will Hungary and Poland.

Central European and some East European countries will have little effect.
So does Scandinavia.

France can't figure out what being better or worse off means.

Spain will make exceptional rules for British tourists.

Ireland will be totally screwed.

I don't think EU (in its current form) will last more than 10 years if UK finally leaves.

BobQ

kabayiri wrote: »

The bolded suggest we have core influence.

It was diminishing before the Brexit vote (IMO), and it will be shot to bits now.

Let's be honest. If we Remain, we do so as a bit part player with marginal influence.

The EU core will push for greater integration, centred around the Euro states, and we will be pushed out to the margin.

)

This could well be the case. But we are not the only member who disliked more integration. The obvious out come would be that those members moved to an expanded EFTA-type arrangement which would be more powerful/influential the bigger it became.

At present we are getting the prospect of leaving on the worst terms possible.

While I do not want us to leave the EU, if we have to leave it ought to be based on a sensible deal and friendly terms. Given the referendum result, it would be far better if we we had joined EFTA for an extended period and then reviewed what UK wanted in slower time. But that required political leadership rather the two main parties using selfish infighting in a vain attempt to unite their parties.

BobQ

movilogo wrote: »

Ireland will be totally screwed.

I don't think EU (in its current form) will last more than 10 years if UK finally leaves.

The result may well be Scottish independence and a re-united Ireland, that is the end of UK.

The latter may well be the case. But that is the stupidity of our position. EFTA has the benefits of being in the EEA but at a cost. EFTA with the UK and some other EU27 nations would be a different proposition and could negotiate a better relationship with the EU within the EEA.