I don't assume that at all, in fact I've been very clear in that I understand that. I don't think you understand that the two years we will still be in the EU for has nothing to do with thrashing out trade negotiations. You don't seem to understand that those two years is soley to negotiate our release from the EU and nothing to do with our future. It's possible that we could do both simultaneously, but you don't seem to accept that trade agreements do not get set up in 2 years. It's unheard of. It's far too large an undertaking. I don't think you understand that previous experience of these agreements being set up has it completed in around 10 years. This is the point that is being hammered home constantly.
EU Referendum | UK residents vote today.
- Thread starter 711
- Start date
- Status
I don't assume that at all, in fact I've been very clear in that I understand that. I don't think you understand that the two years we will still be in the EU for has nothing to do with thrashing out trade negotiations. You don't seem to understand that those two years is soley to negotiate our release from the EU and nothing to do with our future. It's possible that we could do both simultaneously, but you don't seem to accept that trade agreements do not get set up in 2 years. It's unheard of. It's far too large an undertaking. I don't think you understand that previous experience of these agreements being set up has it completed in around 10 years. This is the point that is being hammered home constantly.
At least it would leave a leadership campaign that would revolve around the options available.
I think they'd be without a sufficient mandate and with so many years to go they'd have to call another general election in 2017/2018. That to me puts the decision back a couple of years and Labour may even fight on a position of another referendum.
I think I'm speaking from a position of hope there more than anything but I just can't see it being a quick and seamless process. These type of referendums have never been quick and easy.
I really can't believe how close this has got... it should be a no contest. Pretty much ever single Brexit argument is threadbare at best, and more often then not, completely pie in the sky.
I suggest you watch that professor Michael dougan video on YouTube
I can't believe that anyone thinks that voting 'Leave' will be a good thing for the UK
You are mistaken
The first 2 years are to negotiate the 'divorce' agreement. What happens to the legal rights, work rights, social rights etc of the EU immigrants currently in the country, and on the flip side what happens to the 2 million UK citizens living/working in other EU countries. And other such things. The first 2 years are not to negotiate new trade, it's to specify how to breakup.
There is a different process then to negotiate new trade deals etc (if EU want), which typically on average takes more than 10 years. Our government capacity on average is negotiating 2 per year btw..
If you honestly think that there won't be a negative financial impact to everyone upon leaving then you are seriously taken in by the lies and half truths that brexit are peddling. I urge you to watch that video posted earlier (professor dougan)
No, when you're gone, you're gone - no turning back - exactly what I was saying earlier, the UK can't pick and chose what you want about the EU - In or Out - that's the choice.
The negative short term impact would be when the markets have lost all confidence in the Uk and the pound devalues and the stock market goes down and foreign investors dry up and companies start moving from the Uk into other EU countries and jobs start disappearing, that's the short term impact.
I'm not sure where you get 10 years from. Britain is a friendly nation, and very flexible to deal with. It is also a very important business partner to Europe. A trade deal between Australia and the USA took ten months (2003 - 2004).
It's shown that half of the U.K. can't think for themselves, sucked in by flag waving
10 years is the average, as most economists will tell you. Stop arguing from an uninformed level. Watch the bloody videos from people who know what they're talking about
Where are you getting this from?
Becks on one side, "but I'm Sol Campbell" on the other.
Tough one!
Tough one!
I gave you an example of a trade agreement between the USA and Australia taking 10 months. Give me an example of a friendly European country having to wait 10 years for a trade agreement.
Boris: "out is out"
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35675348
Shauble:
"Out is out"
http://www.theguardian.com/politics...ss-for-uk-after-brexit-wolfgang-schauble-says
Might want to read up on that trade deal before holding it up as a particularly great example of what Britain could achieve:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austr...rade_Agreement#Australian_attitudes_to_the_FTA
It started in 2001, agreed in 2004 and implemented in 2005.
A lot of people suggest Canada is a model. Canada's deal with the EU started with preliminary talks in 2004, before negotiations started in 2009, and an agreement in principle was obtained in 2013. It's still not ratified yet. And that deal was focused on goods - our dealings with the EU are around services, which are significantly harder to negotiate.
As is the case with all things, the longer the negotiations, the better the deal. So we could definitely do a "shotgun" trade deal if we wanted, but it's not going to be a very good one if we did. Such a trade deal would likely be biased towards the larger countries thanks to geopolitics, too - and the UK is smaller than the US and the EU.
Which bit
The first bit is - a vote to be in or out - simple -not whether we'll keep the cheap flights within Europe or cheap telephone calls or we don't have to pay import duty on Sauerkraut from Germany or Champagne from France but we don't want all the nasty things like immigrants
The second part is experts opinion and also imo common sense
You are aware that other countries have set up trade agreements with the EU before, right? That's exactly where the 10 years is coming from. This is not a new thing, this is a standard. How friendly we are is irrelevant. Your argument is laughable. As if EU member states will say 'yeah guys, come on the Brits are friendly, let's make this one quick'. This argument is a joke, there's no education or academic application to it. It's another general vague statement devoid of context. If you're going to make a claim, back it up with something. How exactly does Britain being friendly and flexible mean that a complicated process that other friendly and flexible countries see take many many years suddenly mean we'll do it inside 2 whilst at the same time carrying out a comprehensive review of our entire legal system and negotiating our release from the EU?
Last edited:
Watch the bloody video
As an aside, I find the idea of the EU thinking 'the Brits are friendly' to be one of the most amusing things I've read in this whole debate.
It didn't start in 2001. It was in 2001 that America expressed a desire to trade with Australia. Negotiations began in April 2003, and we're signed off in January 2004.
Much of the trade dynamics are already in place, and the UK is a major buyer and customer. The EU also needs us to trade.
There will be two years to set up agreements, but it's this aspect of our leaving that is most uncertain.
Britain is a friendly nation. There are situations that can affect trade relations, particularly where issues like ITAR regulations are involved etc...
I'm sorry but you're misunderstanding fundamentals. We are not a major EU buyer. We do not buy from the EU. The EU does not need us to trade. We do not ship boxes with 'The EU' written as the recipient on the label. We ship to individual countries within the EU. We ship to some, we do not ship to others. The countries that we do purchase from, it comes to about 10% of that countries exports. If we leave the EU, 'the EU' does not need to make back any trade. Country A needs to make back 10% of its exports. Country B needs to make back 10% of its exports. Countries C, D and E could not give less of a shit as they do not trade with us at all. Country F needs to make back 10% of its exports. Etc. Understanding this is key. Meanwhile we have to replace 45% of our current exports. Can you see who is the more desperate party here? Your insistence that we are a major party to the EU who cannot survive without is is simply false. We lose more by leaving than EU countries lose by us leaving.
When it comes to negotiating a trade deal, countries A, B, C, D, E and F all need to agree to the deal before it can come into place. Countries C, D and E do not trade with us and must be given an incentive to sign a deal that gives us favourable treatment. They can reject any deal they see fit. They couldn't care less about us, we have no impact on them. We have much, much, much more to replace if we leave than the EU does. This gives them the stronger hand and the power in the discussion which means we accept unfavourable terms to get a quick deal or we reject deal after deal like Switzerland did, suffering economically in the meantime for years until we're forced to take back the things we left to give up in the first place.
And all these agreements will become void for the UK aswell if the Brexit happens. That is something people arguing in favour of the Brexit also often don´t consider. They cite the two years severence period from the EU as enough time to negotiate a new trade deal. This is not only unrealistic in case of the potential EU-UK agreement, but also ignores there will be many more treaties to sign which they formerly used under the banner of the EU.
Some people seem to not realise how much work will be coming towards UK polititians and bureaucrats here and how much money that will cost.
Yup. It's laughable. All the people sat there saying 'what, are you telling me that if we leave this, this and this is going to happen?
' and the response is literally 'YES. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT EU MEMBERSHIP MEANS.'Started talking EU referendum at work. Older lady got angry when I said I didn't feel like Europe controled my life, she snapped back that we were only allowed energy efficient light bulbs. I guess shes right but this is the level of many Brexiters thinking
From an EU perspective the UK has been anything but friendly. I mean you only have to look at the collection of issues where we get special treatment already to realise we're one of the biggest sources of internal opposition within the EU. Moreover, we're talking about a situation where the UK voters have literally turned around and told the EU can they go shove their union up their arse. Making the argument (probably wrongly) that we'd quickly form trade deals out of good economic sense is one thing, but to argue we'd do it because of Britain's so called friendliness is an entirely different one.
We can't all keep repeating the same thing over and over again - the agreements in place now mean nothing , the uk has to agree a free trade deal with 27 other countries not one - the Uk is a nett importer so it needs the Eu more thn the EU needs the UK - it will be so weak when negotaiting and the EU will not do it any favours - it will take a long long time to sort this mess out.
I'm 60 and I get angry when young people want to destroy their lives and their family's by leaving
Alot of trade deals are not of the fully all encompassing nature that is the EU's. We will get trade deals if we exit, but nothing so comprehensive
Of course. Trade negotiations with all the countries would have to be thrashed out. This goes without saying, but we are talking about how it affects nations in the EU.
But who the feck cares about light bulbs. Anyone that cares more about what light bulbs we can have than whether themselves or their kids will be forced to endure a recession for many years is a fecking idiot. I can never believe when people bring up bananas or light bulbs as a reason to feck ourselves over economically.
Should we end up leaving I'm kind of looking forward to Cameron and Osbourne doing a 180 on their rhetoric. We know they're comfortable doing so, they're masters at it but it'll be interested to see how quick their tone changes.
Or pillows
There will be countries in the EU eager to trade with us as they have been. This will put pressure on the EU to make sure the trade dynamics are in place. But once again, this area is extremely vague and uncertain.
You're forgetting hoovers. Can't even hoover up dirt any more due to these piss poor EU vacuums, no wonder this country is a mess
Cite evidence for this or it's once again a vague statement devoid of context. And address the other points I raised, ignoring them doesn't make them go away. This area is not vague and uncertain at all, again the fact that you keep saying that doesn't make it true. The positives are uncertain, the negatives are very well known possibilities.
The state of the media in this country when 'David Beckham backs Remain' is fecking front page news on the BBC.
- Status