Politics, politics, politics

[SpurMeUp]

This would be my ideal solution. Now that we have shown Brexit to be a possibility, the EU should be given a chance to offer us terms again - specifically we should have a veto on anything we don't like, the ability to set our own levels of financial input and complete financial freedom. Anything else I'm not too fussed about.

I think that's it. No one really thought UK Leave was a realistic possibility. Hence the lack of remain campaigning. But suddenly it could happen so the polls say, and late in the day the case is being made to remain. But the problem is, its so complex - you have to have some idea of economics, geopolitics etc - to make an informed choice. So most people just chose on immigration or emotion, 'I like being British'. This is my oversimplification, but in essence why should people know about all this boring gonads? Isn't that what politicians are for? To make these informed complex economic and political decisions for people? If so we should follow our PM.

 

[milo]

Unless Germany massively change their tax laws they won't be getting much banking trade.

It really doesn't matter that we're net exporters, you've both been sold a dummy there. Germany and France both export heavily to us, their industries will not accept tarrifs that reduce that trade - especially in cars from Germany and energy from France. They can bluster all they want about it costing us but they have to answer to their electorate and that will keep our trade tarrif free.

My understanding is that any deal needs the unanimous backing of all member states. I am not saying that what you are suggesting is impossible but in the short term, I think that it is improbable. Market instability would make concluding a deal a priority for us and we do not hold many trump cards.

 

[SpurMeUp]

Unless Germany massively change their tax laws they won't be getting much banking trade.

It really doesn't matter that we're net exporters, you've both been sold a dummy there. Germany and France both export heavily to us, their industries will not accept tarrifs that reduce that trade - especially in cars from Germany and energy from France. They can bluster all they want about it costing us but they have to answer to their electorate and that will keep our trade tarrif free.

So are you really telling me that we can have free trade, be part of the EU single market effectively, without any cost? While all other countries who access the single market have to open their boarders to the free movement of people, and have to pay into the EU coffers. Why oh why would they give us the best deal ever, while they are still burdened with paying for their access to free trade? Will Milo reply before me

 

[milo]

This would be my ideal solution. Now that we have shown Brexit to be a possibility, the EU should be given a chance to offer us terms again - specifically we should have a veto on anything we don't like, the ability to set our own levels of financial input and complete financial freedom. Anything else I'm not too fussed about.

We don't have far off that now. When people complain about EU law, the vast majority of that is to prevent non-tariff barriers which we would want (and follow) whether we are in the EU or not.

 

[Glenda's Legs]

I think that's it. No one really thought UK Leave was a realistic possibility. Hence the lack of remain campaigning. But suddenly it could happen so the polls say, and late in the day the case is being made to remain. But the problem is, its so complex - you have to have some idea of economics, geopolitics etc - to make an informed choice. So most people just chose on immigration or emotion, 'I like being British'. This is my oversimplification, but in essence why should people know about all this boring cobblers? Isn't that what politicians are for? To make these informed complex economic and political decisions for people? If so we should follow our PM.

Yep. Cameron could be hoist by his own petard here. Absolutely no reason to put this to a referendum in the first place.
I don't have the greatest confidence in our elected politicians but compared to Joe Public voting? Better the devil you know.

 

[milo]

So are you really telling me that we can have free trade, be part of a single market effectively, without any cost? While all other countries who access the single market have to have free movement of people, and have to pay into the EU coffers. Why oh why would they give us the best deal ever, while they are still burdened? Will Milo reply before me

I cannot see any non-tariff deal without freedom of movement.

 

[SpurMeUp]

I think that the FT editorial today made a stronger case for staying than the remain campaign has over the last few months:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/3748166e-3151-11e6-ad39-3fee5ffe5b5b.html?siteedition=uk#axzz4BcsIZYDO

Britain’s seat at the table has allowed it to win big arguments in Brussels: on free trade, liberalisation of air travel and telecoms, and EU enlargement to central and eastern Europe. The UK has shaped membership to its needs, securing opt-outs from the euro and the Schengen agreement abolishing border controls. It retains control of income tax and corporate taxation. Education, skills and a skewed housing market hold the UK economy back, not a Brussels bureaucracy the size of Birmingham city council.

We are not in Schengen, so people from outside the EU can't get an EU visa and come to the UK. They need a UK visa. Birmingham city council!

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

Education, skills and a skewed housing market hold the UK economy back, not a Brussels bureaucracy the size of Birmingham city council.

We are not in Schengen, so people from outside the EU can't get an EU visa and come to the UK. They need a UK visa. Birmingham city council!

We need some of the interpreters from Brussels to understand the people on Birmingham City council, an absolutely disgusting accent that one.

At this point I guess I am meant to say no offence to anyone on here from Brum, but I do not care that accent gets right on my nerves.

 

[SpurMeUp]

An aperitif of light refreshment. Thank you DFL

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

An aperitif of light refreshment. Thank you DFL

you want light relief? try shaving your balls and butt crack.

 

[SpurMeUp]

you want light relief? try shaving your balls and butt crack.

What happened to the rolling smiley @scaramanga We are less without it. I don't know what to say about that thread...apart from it deserves classic status...

 

[scaramanga]

We don't have far off that now. When people complain about EU law, the vast majority of that is to prevent non-tariff barriers which we would want (and follow) whether we are in the EU or not.

It's not what we have now that concerns me too much, it's what may happen in the future when we're clearly no longer being listened to (see Cameron's pat on the head)

 

[scaramanga]

So are you really telling me that we can have free trade, be part of the EU single market effectively, without any cost? While all other countries who access the single market have to open their boarders to the free movement of people, and have to pay into the EU coffers. Why oh why would they give us the best deal ever, while they are still burdened with paying for their access to free trade? Will Milo reply before me

As I already said, businesses hate change. Will BMW, Mercedes, Audi allow their government to make their cars uncompetitively expensive? What about Airbus?

They simply won't allow their governments to start damaging their business models over petty squabbling. Equally, they won't want to pay more for UK products than they already do - the idea is madness.

It's all just threats and bluster. When it comes down to it, tarrifs where they don't already exist don't make sense for anyone.

@milo , I know any deal would need assent from the majority, but when have Germany ever not got their way in the EU? If they want it, it will happen. Especially as the countries most likely to object need a strong, trading EU in order to keep being bailed out financially.

 

[milo]

It's not what we have now that concerns me too much, it's what may happen in the future when we're clearly no longer being listened to (see Cameron's pat on the head)

There are plenty of EU countries with similar views to us. What we need to do, and this government has been particular poor at, is build alliances with them.

There is essentially a north south split in Europe. The south protectionist, the north more interested in free trade. Europe will still be our major trading partner even if we leave and we will still have to follow EU directives. What we will have succeeded in doing is swinging the balance against the countries who think similar to us.

 

[milo]

@milo , I know any deal would need assent from the majority, but when have Germany ever not got their way in the EU?

I honestly don't know and think that you would have a hard time finding out from the British media. I will see if I can find out.

 

[Glenda's Legs]

I honestly don't know and think that you would have a hard time finding out from the British media. I will see if I can find out.

Some info here on voting patterns and how often countries have voted against (or abstained from) the majority view - i.e how often a country is on the "losing" side in a policy vote. Written from a UK perspective but figures for Germany are also discussed.

http://ukandeu.ac.uk/explainers/does-the-uk-win-or-lose-in-the-council-of-ministers/
(I have only skim-read about half of the article thus far so I don't know whether any conclusions drawn are reasonable or not).

The article does point out that most policy decisions are reached by consensus before going to a vote. So a country could be on the "winning" side, despite having had to dilute its original or preferred position. Nor do the stats themselves tell who the leading proponents were for any particular legislation or vote.
It is all rather opaque really and the stats, such as they are, unlikely to shed too much true light on the question of how often Germany does not get its way.

 

[P.D.]

Stats may be over quoted, 87.65% made up etc. But one struck me today: of all the top listed UK businesses, only 1% said they favoured leave. Maybe the BBC made this up. But if they didn't, why would these companies so emphatically want to remain?

It's so simple, because its likely we will all - businesses and people - be less affluent. Maybe we will be happier though, as we walk around feeling great sovereignty and independence.

But it's not purely an economic vote, its based on political, legal and social reasons as well.

 

[parklane1]

Stats may be over quoted, 87.65% made up etc. But one struck me today: of all the top listed UK businesses, only 1% said they favoured leave. Maybe the BBC made this up. But if they didn't, why would these companies so emphatically want to remain?

It's so simple, because its likely we will all - businesses and people - be less affluent. Maybe we will be happier though, as we walk around feeling great sovereignty and independence.

Maybe your right.

 

[scaramanga]

I cannot see any non-tariff deal without freedom of movement.

I've just done an interesting calculation (admittedly very preliminary and needs much more work).

We pay the EU £8.5B a year if you accept that wasteful spending on nonsense like farmers would continue. Or we spend £13B if you don't.

That means with EU exports of £230B, we're essentially paying a tariff of either 3.7% or 5.7% depending on your view of what the state should do with its money.

As far as I can tell, the vast majority of our surplus items are subject to a tariff below 3% and many of our larger surpluses are on items at a fraction of 1% (researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06730/SN06730.pdf)

So even ignoring any reciprocal tariff we may place on imports from the EU, aren't we better off?

 

[tynesidespur]

I think that's it. No one really thought UK Leave was a realistic possibility. Hence the lack of remain campaigning. But suddenly it could happen so the polls say, and late in the day the case is being made to remain. But the problem is, its so complex - you have to have some idea of economics, geopolitics etc - to make an informed choice. So most people just chose on immigration or emotion, 'I like being British'. This is my oversimplification, but in essence why should people know about all this boring cobblers? Isn't that what politicians are for? To make these informed complex economic and political decisions for people? If so we should follow our PM.

Yep. Cameron could be hoist by his own petard here. Absolutely no reason to put this to a referendum in the first place.
I don't have the greatest confidence in our elected politicians but compared to Joe Public voting? Better the devil you know.

The reason we are having a referendum is because there are a significant number of people (i.e. millions) who want to leave the EU. Successive governments and major party manifestos have not offered a different option or referendum discuss the situation until the Tories at the last election. These people have the right to have their voices heard in a democratic manner. Squashing them down, refusing to listen or hear different views on immigration, sovereignty etc only makes the problem worse. The current debate has still not been great - plenty of scare-mongering on both sides but once we have a decisive outcome we'll all be the better for it. Its healthier to discuss these views in public than to allow resentment to fester.

There is enough information in the public domain for Joe Public to consider and make a balanced decision.

I personally have read this book: which has given me a better understanding of how the EU machine works and also to cut through some of the BS coming out from both sides.

At the moment I'm a very borderline Remain. I don't think the Leave campaign have given a compelling story on what sort of relationship they want to establish with the EU post-Brexit. I wouldn't want to follow the Norweigian model - all of the cost with none of the benefits. The Swiss model is more attractive but I wish we had waited another 12 months to see the outcome of their decision to impose quotas on freedom of movement.

My criticism of the Remain side would be the condescending manner in which they have spoken out about Leave - labelling anyone who want to leave because of immigration concerns as "Racist" or simply that if you want to Leave you don't have the intelligence to come to the "logical" conclusion to vote Remain.