EU Referendum | UK residents vote today.

[Rozay]

If the likelihood of a Remain vote stays as it is now then the pound should gradually strengthen as we approach the date, in anticipation of Remain, with a final slight rise when the result is announced. I would hang on for now.

Hmm, thanks, I think I'll delay it then.

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

What did people think of that Soraya person in the EU debate with Cameron?

People seemed to love her but I thought she was the cringiest thing I had ever seen on TV. The tingly buttery smugness frothing throughout her entire body emanating so clearly on her face as she delivered that pre-conceived "waffling" line...

She was lucky to avoid a controller going straight for her.

Cameron deserved to be called out on his campaign and past record, wouldn't you feel a tad smug in her place?

That's the problem, you referenced it. Let's see some plans. Put forward some actual ideas. How are we going to be better off?

You've been following this thread since the middle of month, and presumably the winder debate, yet you still need to ask?

Amazing attack from John Major on Gove and Johnson this morning.

The sheer nerve of the man was rather amazing.

 

[Zarlak]

You've been following this thread since the middle of month, and presumably the winder debate, yet you still need to ask?

I flit in and out of the thread, I'm not really following it in any capacity. Rather than search through 73 pages I presume if you have plans it would be fairly easy for you to lay them out, or direct me to the page they're on.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

Sunday politics is saying the PM specifically asked him to do it. Looks like remain are a little rattled. Boris is probably the next Tory candidate for PM and John Major is on record calling him a court jester.

 

[Nytram Shakes]

Here's where im at, im not some one who hates the EU, i have no problem with alot of our laws been written from Brussels, to be honest if you look at alot of legislation they have wrtten on human rights, health and saftey worker rights... they have done a far better job then our government has.

I also worry that leaving will cos lots of jobs in the short term at least, as we try to re build new trading arrangments, and find new ways of establishing our coutry outside the EU market.

the issue i have, that no one in the stay campaign seems to have an answer for is net immagration (the amount of extra people who moved into the country after taking into account those who have left) .

Last year Net immigration from the EU was roughtly the population of Wigan, did we build enough schools houses, roads, ... to compensate for that ? No! is thier enough jobs in the country to provide for that increase in people? No!

Now maybe we can get away with having that massive increase in population for a few years, but evenutally its going to tell, we are already at the stage where their isn't enough full time work for every adult in this county who wants to work, whats it going to be like if we keep adding that amount of people every year. and its not like this influx of people shows any signs of slowing, it actually increased this year.

So im voting out just cos i can't see a bigger threat to the long term future of this country then over population.

 

[NinjaFletch]

Here's where im at, im not some one who hates the EU, i have no problem with alot of our laws been written from Brussels, to be honest if you look at alot of legislation they have wrtten on human rights, health and saftey worker rights... they have done a far better job then our government has.

I also worry that leaving will cos lots of jobs in the short term at least, as we try to re build new trading arrangments, and find new ways of establishing our coutry outside the EU market.

the issue i have, that no one in the stay campaign seems to have an answer for is net immagration (the amount of extra people who moved into the country after taking into account those who have left) .

Last year Net immigration from the EU was roughtly the population of Wigan, did we build enough schools houses, roads, ... to compensate for that ? No! is thier enough jobs in the country to provide for that increase in people? No!

Now maybe we can get away with having that massive increase in population for a few years, but evenutally its going to tell, we are already at the stage where their isn't enough full time work for every adult in this county who wants to work, whats it going to be like if we keep adding that amount of people every year. and its not like this influx of people shows any signs of slowing, it actually increased this year.

So im voting out just cos i can't see a bigger threat to the long term future of this country then over population.

Its sad thst this muddled thinking on immigration is going to decided the referendum.

 

[Nytram Shakes]

Its sad thst this muddled thinking on immigration is going to decided the referendum.

why is that muddled?

and it isnt going to decide the referendum, its very obvious that we are going to vote to stay in, becos people are (rightly) scared of losing jobs in the short term, and that is going to be what decides the referendum.

 

[Silva]

Here's where im at, im not some one who hates the EU, i have no problem with alot of our laws been written from Brussels, to be honest if you look at alot of legislation they have wrtten on human rights, health and saftey worker rights... they have done a far better job then our government has.

I also worry that leaving will cos lots of jobs in the short term at least, as we try to re build new trading arrangments, and find new ways of establishing our coutry outside the EU market.

the issue i have, that no one in the stay campaign seems to have an answer for is net immagration (the amount of extra people who moved into the country after taking into account those who have left) .

Last year Net immigration from the EU was roughtly the population of Wigan, did we build enough schools houses, roads, ... to compensate for that ? No! is thier enough jobs in the country to provide for that increase in people? No!

Now maybe we can get away with having that massive increase in population for a few years, but evenutally its going to tell, we are already at the stage where their isn't enough full time work for every adult in this county who wants to work, whats it going to be like if we keep adding that amount of people every year. and its not like this influx of people shows any signs of slowing, it actually increased this year.

So im voting out just cos i can't see a bigger threat to the long term future of this country then over population.

London and the surrounding cities are particularly short of housing, but a little political will would go a long way to fixing it. You're also not accounting for the age of the population, and the dropping birth rate. Fewer people dying, and fewer people being born = too many pensioners not enough workers. Since you can't force people to have babies, you're going to need immigrants to come here, work, and pay taxes. Otherwise the pension pot will be unaffordable and everything will fall apart.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_Kingdom#UK_population_change_over_time

 

[NinjaFletch]

why is that muddled?

and it isnt going to decide the referendum, its very obvious that we are going to vote to stay in, becos people are (rightly) scared of losing jobs in the short term, and that is going to be what decides the referendum.

I dont think its (sadly) that certain.

And its muddled for loads of reasons that I dont want to get into typing on my phone. But in general theres a few issues: its assuming we will have any greater control over allowing in EU citizens post Brexit which is, at best, a tenuous assumption. Its assuming we dont want EU migrants which is downright one of the weirdest things Leave have been able to convince people of and its assuming that we currently do not have control over ROW imigration right now, which we do.

I do get peoples fears on immigration, and theres certainly more the goverment can do on the issue, but the truth is we need immigrants. We have an aging population, a pension crisis, a shortage of workers for key posistions such as doctors and nurses (a problem exasperated by the goverments ham fisted attempts to impose a new contract) and many other issues that the influx of, what is far more often than not, highly skilled, young, professionals from the EU can only help.

Now Leave will tell you we'll be able to get the good immigrants and leave out the bad ones, but if that was true, why have successive governments struggled so much with ROW immigration?

 

[Nytram Shakes]

London and the surrounding cities are particularly short of housing, but a little political will would go a long way to fixing it. You're also not accounting for the age of the population, and the dropping birth rate. Since you can't force people to have babies, you're going to need immigrants to come here, work, and pay taxes. Otherwise the pension pot will be unaffordable and everything will fall apart.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_Kingdom#UK_population_change_over_time

but its falling apart anyway as pensioners are living to long and thier arnt enough jobs for the people who are of working age to fill in the pension pots.

if were talking about population what we atcually need is lees people in every way shape and form, we need less elderly people becos they cost to much, we need less kids cos we ont have enough schools, we need less adults becos thier simply isnt a big a demmand for a fork force as thier once was as so many things are becoming automated....

 

[NinjaFletch]

but its falling apart anyway as pensioners are living to long and thier arnt enough jobs for the people who are of working age to fill in the pension pots.

if were talking about population what we atcually need is lees people in every way shape and form, we need less elderly people becos they cost to much, we need less kids cos we ont have enough schools, we need less adults becos thier simply isnt a big a demmand for a fork force as thier once was as so many things are becoming automated....

Whilst thats true I'm not sure running on a platform of decimating the population is a vote winner.

 

[Zarlak]

Here's where im at, im not some one who hates the EU, i have no problem with alot of our laws been written from Brussels, to be honest if you look at alot of legislation they have wrtten on human rights, health and saftey worker rights... they have done a far better job then our government has.

I also worry that leaving will cos lots of jobs in the short term at least, as we try to re build new trading arrangments, and find new ways of establishing our coutry outside the EU market.

the issue i have, that no one in the stay campaign seems to have an answer for is net immagration (the amount of extra people who moved into the country after taking into account those who have left) .

Last year Net immigration from the EU was roughtly the population of Wigan, did we build enough schools houses, roads, ... to compensate for that ? No! is thier enough jobs in the country to provide for that increase in people? No!

Now maybe we can get away with having that massive increase in population for a few years, but evenutally its going to tell, we are already at the stage where their isn't enough full time work for every adult in this county who wants to work, whats it going to be like if we keep adding that amount of people every year. and its not like this influx of people shows any signs of slowing, it actually increased this year.

So im voting out just cos i can't see a bigger threat to the long term future of this country then over population.

Leaving the EU does not sort out anything to do with immigration. We lose almost half of our trade, we rush to sign agreements with the EU and wham we are once again forced to concede free movement and cannot control our borders. Now we have immigration again but with less control than before. It's conveniently not mentioned often by the leave side. Not to mention that it has been shown that immigrants contribute more to our economy than they cost. Whatever figure people want to mention about how they cost us, they contribute more than that when looking at the big picture. Not to mention people often forget to factor in the shit load of expats that we ship out, that a very large percentage of the immigrants are simply replacing. Of course there is an excess (330k iirc) however as Ninja said, we need them and they contribute to our economy. People often say 'waah waah come here get a huge house with 2 tvs and free cars for all their 10 children do you think if I went to Spain they'd do that for me?' and here is the issue. Spain is in the EU, therefore it doesn't look like an EU issue. It's a UK government issue, not to mention that it doesn't fecking happen anyway, but leaving that aside for the moment, these are UK government issues that people are reducing it down to which are not solved by leaving the EU.

There are some legitimate issues for leaving the EU, though the leave team don't go into them because the truth is nobody really understands them and it's a gamble. Instead it's reduced down to the things that cause emotion in people and anger, and help secure their vote such as immigration.

 

[Silva]

but its falling apart anyway as pensioners are living to long and thier arnt enough jobs for the people who are of working age to fill in the pension pots.

if were talking about population what we atcually need is lees people in every way shape and form, we need less elderly people becos they cost to much, we need less kids cos we ont have enough schools, we need less adults becos thier simply isnt a big a demmand for a fork force as thier once was as so many things are becoming automated....

Fewer of everyone would be really, really catastrophic mate. The system we (and by we, I mean the almost entire planet) have relies on constant growth to pay off the debt everyone and their dog is in. Fewer people means fewer consumers, less money being spent, more businesses going bankrupt and closing. When 100,000 people come to the UK they don't just stand around you know, they rent a house, they buy clothes, they buy food, they buy electronics and so on. It increases the consumer base and gets more money flowing, and that's what keeps everything going, money being spent. And if your goal is to have Britain become some kind of communist paradise where we feck off growth, voting brexit, and therefore am almost permanent shift to the right isn't the way to go about it.

Whilst thats true I'm not sure running on a platform of decimating the population is a vote winner.

It's not even true though. It might seem like a nice little reset button, but can you imagine half the population paying the debt that we've all collectively accrued? It might make a little bit of financial sense to have old people walk into the ocean, but can you imagine how emotionally fecked the country would be? It'd be great for the environment if most of us died though.

 

[Nytram Shakes]

I dont think its (sadly) that certain.

And its muddled for loads of reasons that I dont want to get into typing on my phone. But in general theres a few issues: its assuming we will have any greater control over allowing in EU citizens post Brexit which is, at best, a tenuous assumption. Its assuming we dont want EU migrants which is downright one of the weirdest things Leave have been able to convince people of and its assuming that we currently do not have control over ROW imigration right now, which we do.

I do get peoples fears on immigration, and theres certainly more the goverment can do on the issue, but the truth is we need immigrants. We have an aging population, a pension crisis, a shortage of workers for key posistions such as doctors and nurses (a problem exasperated by the goverments ham fisted attempts to impose a new contract) and many other issues that the influx of, what is far more often than not, highly skilled, young, professionals from the EU can only help.

Now Leave will tell you we'll be able to get the good immigrants and leave out the bad ones, but if that was true, why have successive governments struggled so much with ROW immigration?

same way all the other countries in the world do who have closed borders (Australia, New Zealand Canada for example), if you have a set of skills that the country requires, eg, Doctor, Nurse, Engineer..... then you are granted a work permit. workers without skills we need arnt granted a work permit. quite straight forward. works else wear in the world can't see any reason it can't work here as long as the government dosn't balls it up.... which is likly i grant you.

the aging population thing i dont really understand, i get your theory behind it, that with so many old people we need more young workers to provide for the, but in practice it doesn't work like that as their isnt' enough jobs for the young workers, so the state ends up supporting both.

 

[NinjaFletch]

It's not even true though. It might seem like a nice little reset button, but can you imagine half the population paying the debt that we've all collectively accrued? It might make financial sense to have old people walk into the ocean, but can you imagine how emotionally fecked the country would be?

Thats certainly true, we'd need a global reset, burn down all the banks, and then to do it again every 100 years when birth rates have, once again, soared. Not sure its a feasible plan.

 

[Silva]

the aging population thing i dont really understand, i get your theory behind it, that with so many old people we need more young workers to provide for the, but in practice it doesn't work like that as their isnt' enough jobs for the young workers, so the state ends up supporting both.

Jobs come and go as the economy goes up and down. And more consumers helps the economy grow. That's the reason you always need more people, it's an obvious enough flaw but there's little you can do about it. And when those people aren't coming out of your women, they've gotta come from abroad.

 

[Nedved]

Indeed so.

One could also include: the ECJ and the EAW, the External Affairs Service, a flawed currency union, tax harmonisation, billions lost in foreign aid due to corruption/incompetence, a botched migration policy and shabby deals with Turkey. It is also the same greedy people who sought an increase in the EU budget despite the continent being gripped by austerity and hardship.

You, me, the Polish builders who my family hire when we wish to make improvement to a house, we are all incidental to those in Brussels. They are worth neither our support nor our taxes, and we'd be far better off starting over. Trade, consumer protections, human rights, the environment, we don't need the EU of 2016 to serve those aims.

As someone having worked within EU institutions I have first hand knowledge of what the EU does. Yes, it is is a bureaucratic beast which could be somewhat slimmed, but you are really grasping at straws here.

- The ECJ is responsible for some excellent decisions and I trust them more than most national courts in the promotion of a just internal market. I have probably read hundreds of ECJ decisions and they are 1) well written and 2) tend have excellent substance in matters of environmental law, labour law, discrimination, tax law, competition law etc.
- The EEAS has more influence than the individual countries, including the UK, and tends to be a more than adequate promoter of human rights and EU trade abroad.
- Currency union is dysfunctional but optional. Does not bother the UK.
- Tax harmonisation is limited but has the purpose of creating fair internal taxation, in order for individuals to not abuse or be abused by tax regulation.
- Billions lost in foreign aid due to corruption/incompetence happens to every country, moreso before they joined the EU, and has nothing to do with the EU per se.
- The UK has historically been more than capable of entering into shabby deals with totalitarian states, with or without the EU.
- The UK has had an irresponsible asylum policy and not taken the active role they should have in the current refugee crisis, whereas the EU has pleaded the member states to do the opposite.

 

[Nytram Shakes]

Leaving the EU does not sort out anything to do with immigration. We lose almost half of our trade, we rush to sign agreements with the EU and wham we are once again forced to concede free movement and cannot control our borders. Now we have immigration again but with less control than before. It's conveniently not mentioned often by the leave side.

well that assuming thing go as you say.
for example we import far more then we export, and have the 5th largest economy, that puts us in a strong position to negotiate with any country, becos basically we want to buy more of their stuff then then we want to flog of ours. that makes us a very attractive trading partner for anyone.

but no denying that things will go to pot for a few years, and yeah we may completely balls it up, and i 100% completely agree that leave campaign is trying gloss over that fact, like the stay campaign is trying to gloss over the issue immigration over population is going to be in the long run.

so where stuck between a rock an hard place, ideally i'd like to stay in the EU but regain control of our borders, but thats isn't on the table.

So it comes down what people personally think is gonna be the bigger problem, me i think the short term security of staying in the EU doesn't out weigh the long term threat that over saturation of the job market, over population, and general lack of infrastructure to cope with that will cause in the long term.

but other people feel different, and our scared for their jobs now, which is rightly so, because jobs these days are becoming like gold dust, and those of us lucky enough to be employed in full time work. want to stay that way!

so personally i don't think their is any right vote, just which you think personally is the least bad one. and for me thats out.

 

[NinjaFletch]

so personally i don't think their is any right vote, just which you think personally is the least bad one. and for me thats out.

But thats the crux of it isn't it? By voting to leave the EU you're effectively gambling on Gove, Johnson and Farage being right in the face of virtually everyone telling you that they've got it wrong.

Hardly the soundest judgement.

 

[Zarlak]

well that assuming thing go as you say.
for example we import far more then we export, and have the 5th largest economy, that puts us in a strong position to negotiate with any country, becos basically we want to buy more of their stuff then then we want to flog of ours. that makes us a very attractive trading partner for anyone.

but no denying that things will go to pot for a few years, and yeah we may completely balls it up, and i 100% completely agree that leave campaign is trying gloss over that fact, like the stay campaign is trying to gloss over the issue immigration over population is going to be in the long run.

so where stuck between a rock an hard place, ideally i'd like to stay in the EU but regain control of our borders, but thats isn't on the table.

So it comes down what people personally think is gonna be the bigger problem, me i think the short term security of staying in the EU doesn't out weigh the long term threat that over saturation of the job market, over population, and general lack of infrastructure to cope with that will cause in the long term.

but other people feel different, and our scared for their jobs now, which is rightly so, because jobs these days are becoming like gold dust, and those of us lucky enough to be employed in full time work. want to stay that way!

so personally i don't think their is any right vote, just which you think personally is the least bad one. and for me thats out.

If you can find evidence to say they won't go that way then I'm all ears, but as it happens all of the available evidence shows that it will go that way. Including the countries it has happened to already.

The crux of it is is this notion of 'controlling our borders'. It's a fallacy, a silly thought that cannot be done. You cannot stop EU migration unless you want to feck the country up economically by leaving the free market and having no agreement with the EU whatsoever. That's a ridiculously stupid idea. People want us to leave and are confident that we will negotiate an FTA with the EU, which is fair enough. That is fine. But that will include free movement, payments to Brussels and passively having to follow their regulations. I.e, the very things the leave campaign are using to emotionally knee jerk people into voting leave. We will end up with the very things we're trying to get away from, only we will have sacrificed so much to get what we already have and potentially gone through economic hurt first to get there. It sounds completely mental. Our country is in worse shape economically than the Swiss ever were when they tried to negotiate with the EU, the people who believe we're so amazing that the EU will just bend to whatever we ask are deluding themselves, there is literally no reason to believe that we will get away with what happens to everyone else. With regards to your import/export, 45% of our exports go to the EU. In terms of imports, individual countries in the EU that have to agree to trade deals export less than 10% to us. It's insignificant to them compared to the significance it has to us. We are the ones who need it more. Deals can be veto'd by individual countries who do not like the fact that we try to negotiate deals with no free movement, and they don't care as their exports to us are so low. Here it is summed up by the Swiss guy explaining just how this happened to them.

"Contrary to popular myth, the Swiss are not just producing cuckoo clocks. Contrary to the UK, Switzerland has a proper export industry with high end machinery, pharmaceuticals and luxury products. Switzerland is according to world economic forum the number 1 most competitive economy in the world. It has a massive trade surplus, the UK has a massive trade deficit. Switzerland has an efficient government which delivers better service for half the tax collected than the UK. It has low debt, the UK has very high debt both private and public. Switzerland has almost double the GDP per head than the UK. So yes, Switzerland plays in a different league than the UK. Don't get me wrong, I love the UK, I love its people, it's why I live here. But economically you are in a much weaker position than we ever were. So you will certainly not do better outside the single market, if any different, you will do worse."


"OK, of course being an EU member, you lose some sovereignity. But it's in areas that don't really matter that much. It's not like the EU is forcing you to speak French. The EU regulates dull stuff like safety features of toasters and required chemical composition of bedsheets. There is hardly anything in EU regulation, that the average voter ever cared about. Most Brexiters can't name a single EU regulation which really harms them. And yes, there is red tape. But you know what's worse than red tape? 28 different red tapes. And that's what we would get if the EU and the single market wouldn't exist. 28 different product rules, making it a pain to ever export anything because each time you export to a new country you first have to understand their rules and adapt your product to them. This is why the single market is so important and that's why nobody survives outside of it in Europe. It's because once you have understood EU regulations, you can export to 500 mio consumers. If these were split up by 28 different regulations, we would have less trade, less competition, higher prices and worse products as a result. But it doesn't really matter because after 10 years of pain outside the single market you will want to go back in and then are back at accepting all the EU regulations. And the funny thing is to me as a foreigner, that you always portray the UK as an ultra liberal country. It's not. It's a high tax (horribly high tax) and high regulation country. You Brits love regulation! Lots of it! Look at your own planning laws which are probably the most complicated in Europe and make it near impossible to build anything. Or your tax laws, which I spent years studying and are 20 times more complex (I've lost count of the number of ISA products alone) than those in Switzerland. Brexiters always fantasise that the UK will become some kind of free market Hongkong but it won't because the political mainstream is closer to France than to Hongkong or even Switzerland."


It's one of the major problems of this entire fiasco, it's dreams and hopeful optimism, with very little fact or evidence to back it up and the very things that we are supposedly trying to get rid, all evidence points to us ending up with them again once we negotiate a deal with the EU.

 

[Nytram Shakes]

Jobs come and go as the economy goes up and down. And more consumers helps the economy grow. That's the reason you always need more people, it's an obvious enough flaw but there's little you can do about it. And when those people aren't coming out of your women, they've gotta come from abroad.

again i disagree, at the moment the one thing this country doesnt need is more workers, as we dont have enough work for the ones who are here!

yes ecconmy's go up and down, but its basically supply and demand, right now we have plenty of supply and no demand. and it has been that way for a decade at least.

thier is also the argument that thier will never be the same demand for for work that thier has been before, look at the debate thats been happening in Switzerland about the minnimum income for an adult. a massive part of the campaign to have it has been because so many jobs are now been replaced by automated systems, so have asked the question if thier isnt enough jobs for people how are people going to provide for themselves? ... and while i don't think its the right thing to do give people hand outs like that as to many people will abuse the system, and i don't quite yet thier as a society yet, this is going to be a debate that comes to the for front more and more over the next few decades, beucause you just have to look at the amount of jobs that 10 years ago took 10 people to do and now is basicly run by a computer. (look at your supermarkets, banking, cinema, call centers, online shopping......)

so thier is a very real deabte that work is going to become more and more scarce of the the next 20 30 years, what was true 30 years ago regarding needing a large work force is changing, becos most business just don't need as many people to run them any more.

 

[Nytram Shakes]

But thats the crux of it isn't it? By voting to leave the EU you're effectively gambling on Gove, Johnson and Farage being right in the face of virtually everyone telling you that they've got it wrong.

Hardly the soundest judgement.

couldnt agree with you more, buti personally feel the Immaration problem in the long term is going to be such a big problem that i have to gamble and vote with those idiots, i can't tell you how much i hate the idea of voting the same as racist scum like farage.... but such is life.

 

[Nytram Shakes]

If you can find evidence to say they won't go that way then I'm all ears, but as it happens all of the available evidence shows that it will go that way. Including the countries it has happened to already.

The crux of it is is this notion of 'controlling our borders'. It's a fallacy, a silly thought that cannot be done. You cannot stop EU migration unless you want to feck the country up economically by leaving the free market and having no agreement with the EU whatsoever. That's a ridiculously stupid idea. People want us to leave and are confident that we will negotiate an FTA with the EU, which is fair enough. That is fine. But that will include free movement, payments to Brussels and passively having to follow their regulations. I.e, the very things the leave campaign are using to emotionally knee jerk people into voting leave. We will end up with the very things we're trying to get away from, only we will have sacrificed so much to get what we already have and potentially gone through economic hurt first to get there. It sounds completely mental. Our country is in worse shape economically than the Swiss ever were when they tried to negotiate with the EU, the people who believe we're so amazing that the EU will just bend to whatever we ask are deluding themselves, there is literally no reason to believe that we will get away with what happens to everyone else.

i disagree, Australian Canada, America ..... all don't have free movement.... you can have trade agreements with contries with out having free movement, saying you can't is nonsense, in fact most of the world doesnt have free movement of people, it isnt a nessacity of trade saying it is is complete B.S.
i'd also agrue we are in a better place to strike deals then any of those countries, as the all have mass export markets, we don't we don't make any think, so while as they want somthing in return for allowing good trade relationships, we dont we just want thier stuff and cheap import prices.... that is very appealing for most countries. and as we buy more stuff from the EU then export, you think they are going to want to lose all that business? course not.

not saying it won't be rocky, it really will be, but their are ways of having good trade without free movement, wether we can pull it off or not i dunno.

 

[Silva]

couldnt agree with you more, buti personally feel the Immaration problem in the long term is going to be such a big problem that i have to gamble and vote with those idiots, i can't tell you how much i hate the idea of voting the same as racist scum like farage.... but such is life.

You also lose the option to emigrate when you. You currently have the right to work anywhere in Europe, it's not a one-way street.

again i disagree, at the moment the one thing this country doesnt need is more workers, as we dont have enough work for the ones who are here!

yes ecconmy's go up and down, but its basically supply and demand, right now we have plenty of supply and no demand. and it has been that way for a decade at least.

thier is also the argument that thier will never be the same demand for for work that thier has been before, look at the debate thats been happening in Switzerland about the minnimum income for an adult. a massive part of the campaign to have it has been because so many jobs are now been replaced by automated systems, so have asked the question if thier isnt enough jobs for people how are people going to provide for themselves? ... and while i don't think its the right thing to do give people hand outs like that as to many people will abuse the system, and i don't quite yet thier as a society yet, this is going to be a debate that comes to the for front more and more over the next few decades, beucause you just have to look at the amount of jobs that 10 years ago took 10 people to do and now is basicly run by a computer. (look at your supermarkets, banking, cinema, call centers, online shopping......)

so thier is a very real deabte that work is going to become more and more scarce of the the next 20 30 years, what was true 30 years ago regarding needing a large work force is changing, becos most business just don't need as many people to run them any more.

Sure, but that's going to be compounded in the short term mayhem of Brexit. Automation happens at an increased paced during economic downturns, and uncertainty is a big contributing factor to economic downturns. Coupled with a shift to the right, and a further shrinking of the government you'll see a massive decrease in jobs and growth in the UK.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

Is this correct

MAP of EU EEZ

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=e...m=isch&q=eez+map+europe&imgrc=ENZaOJ13HQXLnM:


Map of UK EEZ post Brexit


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:British_isles_eezs.PNG

 

[Zarlak]

i disagree, Australian Canada, America ..... all don't have free movement.... you can have trade agreements with contries with out having free movement, saying you can't is nonsense, in fact most of the world doesnt have free movement of people, it isnt a nessacity of trade saying it is is complete B.S.
i'd also agrue we are in a better place to strike deals then any of those countries, as the all have mass export markets, we don't we don't make any think, so while as they want somthing in return for allowing good trade relationships, we dont we just want thier stuff and cheap import prices.... that is very appealing for most countries.

Those countries do not trade with the EU that much. Canada trades with the USA, Australia trades with China. 45% of our exports go to the EU. It is simply irrelevant to bring those countries into this debate as it is not comparable and so those who use it are furthering a bogus perspective. The concessions are down to the fact that we need this more than they do. We depend on the EU for our exports, the US, Canada and Australia do not. This is where concessions come from. It is sales 101. If the US depended on the EU for their exports then they would have to consider demands from the EU when signing trade agreements. If the EU put something in there that the US did not like they can simply laugh it off. The UK cannot do that, as we depend so heavily on the EU for our exports that we are the vulnerable ones. They can put things in there that we do not like, and we cannot afford to say no because our export takes such a humongous hit, or we say no out of some stubbornness and suffer as Switzerland did before being forced to go back to the EU and take back the things they wanted to give up despite being in a far superior position to us economically. This is common sense and I really don't understand where the arrogance comes from of some leavers who pretend that this isn't how it works in the real world - or that it does, but that the UK doesn't have to play by those rules.

Your point about Canada/America is further explained by the NAFTA that Canada is a part of, the North American Free Trade Agreement where Canada were made to give up control of their water resources to the US. These concessions are based on what is important to the people making up the deal. Free movement is not important to the US as they do not export heavily to the EU and the EU cannot push for it. That is not the case with the UK.

 

[Nytram Shakes]

You also lose the option to emigrate when you. You currently have the right to work anywhere in Europe, it's not a one-way street.

problem is not enought people are leaving as are coming, so it is like a one way street, if it wasn't it wouldn't be a problem.

Sure, but that's going to be compounded in the short term mayhem of Brexit. Automation happens at an increased paced during economic downturns, and uncertainty is a big contributing factor to economic downturns. Coupled with a shift to the right, and a further shrinking of the government you'll see a massive decrease in jobs and growth in the UK.

i completly agree that in the short term it will be a mess, im not for one second arguing it won't be, and any one who says other wise is an idiot, but personely i belive that if we keep going on the route where going, where we are in a society where the amount of jobs needed to run a society is shrinking while the population is growing at the rate it is then things are going to end up been a far bigger mess in 10 15 years time.

if you think the short term danger is the bigger one, i understand why, just keeping a job in this climate is hard enough without something like us leaving the EU messing things up even more.

 

[Nytram Shakes]

Those countries do not trade with the EU that much. Canada trades with the USA, Australia trades with China. 45% of our exports go to the EU. It is simply irrelevant to bring those countries into this debate as it is not comparable and so those who use it are furthering a bogus perspective. The concessions are down to the fact that we need this more than they do. We depend on the EU for our exports, the US, Canada and Australia do not. This is where concessions come from. It is sales 101. If the US depended on the EU for their exports then they would have to consider demands from the EU when signing trade agreements. If the EU put something in there that the US did not like they can simply laugh it off. The UK cannot do that, as we depend so heavily on the EU for our exports that we are the vulnerable ones. They can put things in there that we do not like, and we cannot afford to say no because our export takes such a humongous hit, or we say no out of some stubbornness and suffer as Switzerland did before being forced to go back to the EU and take back the things they wanted to give up despite being in a far superior position to us economically. This is common sense and I really don't understand where the arrogance comes from of some leavers who pretend that this isn't how it works in the real world - or that it does, but that the UK doesn't have to play by those rules.

its not arrogance most people no things will go to pot for a while if we leave.

and your right we do trade alot with the EU and finding other markets with be difficults, but then we also import alot more from the EU then we export. and the business in the EU arn't going to want to lose business the size of our economy, so while we will take a massive hit, it will affect both sides, and we are a bigger economy the Switzerland by a long way, so will we get as good a deal then we have now? no way! can we arrange something so that we don't lose all our exports and they don't lose all thier imports probably, as it in thier favour to do that to.

it isnt like your portraying it that we vote out and we will cease all trade with the EU, their will be some negotations, but we will take a massive hit! i 100% agree

 

[Zarlak]

its not arrogance most people no things will go to pot for a while if we leave.

and your right we do trade alot with the EU and finding other markets with be difficults, but then we also import alot more from the EU then we export. and the business in the EU arn't going to want to lose business the size of our economy, so while we will take a massive hit, it will affect both sides, and we are a bigger economy the Switzerland by a long way, so will we get as good a deal then we have now? no way! can we arrange something so that we don't lose all our exports and they don't lose all thier imports probably, as it in thier favour to do that to.

but

No, no we cannot. It has already been laid out how we are not in the same league as Switzerland economically. We are run terribly compared to them, they are ranked first in economical competitiveness in the world. We have far worse things going for us than they ever did and more reasons for the EU to say 'yes but we hold the power here'. The EU get hurt by it sure and they will be happy and willing to offer us a trade agreement, that is not up for debate. The debate is that we are the ones who are hurt far more than the EU are by losing our exports and so we are the ones who are more likely to agree to concessions because we are the ones suffering the most. Look at how the NAFTA was formed, since you brought the US and Canada into this, have a look at how the US, Canada and Mexico tried negotiating a trade agreement. Concessions are made as part of the agreement and the one with the power comes out with the best deal. That is how any transaction works in the world. The one with the power sets the terms and the one who is more needing of the agreement or product is the one who ends up conceding something. We cannot go to the EU and say 'we want everything we want but none of what you want' and anyone who genuinely believes that is simply an idiot, I would have thought that was fact. So with that said, it begs the question of what the EU force us to take as their side of the bargain, and how desperate we are to agree to those measures to provide growth. Free movement is the one that's put into the FTA's for the countries that really need agreements with the EU. Payments to Brussels and their regulations. Also 'they' do not lose all their imports. Individual countries lose their imports, of which individually actually only account for about 10% each and not as significant to them as it is to us and who can veto a deal that is unfavourable to them. You're right that the EU likely do not want to lose our business, but I'm not understanding how you make the leap to believing that that is more significant to them than 45% is to us. The fact that they lose business is not relevant when setting up a deal, as the fact that we lose so much more that hurts us much more means they are still in a position of power and can refuse to budge from certain concessions because they know that eventually we will have to agree to it in order to gain access to the single market and experience growth.

The arrogance I mentioned is the belief that we are special and that we will be treated differently. It's wishful thinking, there is no evidence for it, and actual evidence for the opposite.

 

[Akshay]

Your point about Canada/America is further explained by the NAFTA that Canada is a part of, the North American Free Trade Agreement where Canada were made to give up control of their water resources to the US. These concessions are based on what is important to the people making up the deal. Free movement is not important to the US as they do not export heavily to the EU and the EU cannot push for it. That is not the case with the UK.

In Canadian public school I was taught that the US steals our water. Only today have I understood what that all was about.

 

[Nytram Shakes]

No, no we cannot. It has already been laid out how we are not in the same league as Switzerland economically. We are run terribly compared to them, they are ranked first in economical competitiveness in the world. We have far worse things going for us than they ever did and more reasons for the EU to say 'yes but we hold the power here'. The EU get hurt by it sure and they will be happy and willing to offer us a trade agreement, that is not up for debate. The debate is that we are the ones who are hurt far more than the EU are by losing our exports and so we are the ones who are more likely to agree to concessions because we are the ones suffering the most. Look at how the NAFTA was formed, since you brought the US and Canada into this, have a look at how the US, Canada and Mexico tried negotiating a trade agreement. Concessions are made as part of the agreement and the one with the power comes out with the best deal. That is how any transaction works in the world. The one with the power sets the terms and the one who is more needing of the agreement or product is the one who ends up conceding something. We cannot go to the EU and say 'we want everything we want but none of what you want' and anyone who genuinely believes that is simply an idiot, I would have thought that was fact. So with that said, it begs the question of what the EU force us to take as their side of the bargain, and how desperate we are to agree to those measures to provide growth. Free movement is the one that's put into the FTA's for the countries that really need agreements with the EU. Payments to Brussels and their regulations. Also 'they' do not lose all their imports. Individual countries lose their imports, of which individually actually only account for about 10% each and not as significant to them as it is to us and who can veto a deal that is unfavourable to them. You're right that the EU likely do not want to lose our business, but I'm not understanding how you make the leap to believing that that is more significant to them than 45% is to us. The fact that they lose business is not relevant when setting up a deal, as the fact that we lose so much more that hurts us much more means they are still in a position of power and can refuse to budge from certain concessions because they know that eventually we will have to agree to it in order to gain access to the single market and experience growth.

I don't think it is MORE significant to them, but it is still significant. and they will still want to come to some kind of deal as the won't want to lose all that business(we are the 5th largest in the world, Switzerland are 20th) and so they will want to deal to. its just the deal will be no way as favourable to us as the deal on trade we have now, and our economy will(like i've repeatedly said) take a hit on that.

Im not acting like it will be fun and daisy's if we leave, i just think that unfortunately is the price we have to pay, but personly i think that is a price that to be paid as we live in a society where the amount of jobs needed to run a society is shrinking while the population is growing. and the only way to even begin to stem this issue is to limmit immigration, other wise int the long run that will be a far bigger problem.

 

[Zarlak]

I don't think it is MORE significant to them, but it is still significant. and they will still want to come to some kind of deal as the won't want to lose all that business(we are the 5th largest in the world, Switzerland are 20th) and so they will want to deal to. its just the deal will be no way as favourable to us as the deal on trade we have now, and our economy will(like i've repeatedly said) take a hit on that.

Im not acting like it will be fun and daisy's if we leave, i just think that unfortunately is the price we have to pay, but personly i think that is a price that to be paid as we live in a society where the amount of jobs needed to run a society is shrinking while the population is growing. and the only way to even begin to stem this issue is to limmit immigration, other wise int the long run that will be a far bigger problem.

They will want to come to a deal, you're right. But you are massively inflating how important we are to them, how big or small an economy is isn't significant. This 5th largest economy stuff is thrown around by the leave side but in reality it doesn't amount to anything. Our economy is run terribly, Switzerland's is the best in the world. They have a trade surplus, we have a massive trade deficit. These things are significant. The reason we are the 5th largest economy in the world is in part down to the fact that we are in the EU. We will not be the 5th largest economy in the world once we leave. We will move down a fair few places. If economic size brought people rushing to the table for trade agreements then there would be one between the two worlds largest economies, China and the US. It's a completely irrelevant point about economic size, that's floated around to make people go 'yeah... YEAH!!! SEE!!! We're fecking amazing we will get whatever we want' when really it's irrelevant. This is conveniently ignored by many on the leave side. At the time of sitting down to sort out an agreement with the EU we are not as powerful as we think we are, we will not be as big of an economy as we think we will and we will be more desparate for a deal than the EU will. This is unfavourable to us. If this means that the price we pay is the reason that we want to leave in the first place, then it is completely pointless. You are going through with economic pain to end up where you started, only with less than when you started. That is lunacy. You are still providing no evidence for this special treatment we are going to receive, only your opinion and optimistic hopes. We cannot make deals that affect our future and our children's future on something as flimsy as that. Especially when actual evidence exists to say that's probably not what is going to happen.

The funniest part is that if we leave the EU, suffer a recession and our economy goes to shit before we swallow our pride and go back to the EU and sign an FTA like Switzerland and Austria had to do, allowing free movement across Europe and contributing 60% of what we currently do to Brussels like Switzerland has to, to immediately notice a boost in growth then the people on the leave side who pushed for this all along despite being told that this is what would happen will not accept responsibility for it and will place the blame elsewhere.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

I think it is more likely that some tariffs are placed on UK exports to the EU and Imports from EU to UK than the UK accepting free movement post a Brexit vote.

The problem the EU has in the negotiation is its post a Brexit vote. So all the threats which lets face it are aimed at keeping the UK in the EU will then be in the EU's hands to carry out and so their actions will then have the consequences which follow whereas the UK will happily agree to zero trade consequences. Its hard to understand this point at the moment because everyone is very focused on maintaining the economic blackmail threat. Post Brexit its publish and be damned.

I suspect the tariffs will be very small and designed to do as little damage to everyone's economy while notionally making a point about access to the free trade area. The pound will adjust down a little and within 5 years everyone will wonder what all the fuss was about.

 

[Zarlak]

I think it is more likely that some tariffs are placed on UK exports to the EU and Imports from EU to UK than the UK accepting free movement post a Brexit vote.

The problem the EU has in the negotiation is its post a Brexit vote. So all the threats which lets face it are aimed at keeping the UK in the EU will then be in the EU's hands to carry out and so their actions will then have the consequences which follow whereas the UK will happily agree to zero trade consequences. Its hard to understand this point at the moment because everyone is very focused on maintaining the economic blackmail threat. Post Brexit its publish and be damned.

I suspect the tariffs will be very small and designed to do as little damage to everyone's economy while notionally making a point about access to the free trade area. The pound will adjust down a little and within 5 years everyone will wonder what all the fuss was about.

You say that, but historically this hasn't happened. I don't understand how people can be so easily persuaded to gamble away our future on a hope or opinion. Even if tariffs are put on our exports, businesses will set up elsewhere to avoid having to pay them on every product that they ship to the EU. These things also have ramifications on our economy, and there's nothing to suggest that we will even get off as lightly as that.

 

[NinjaFletch]

I think it is more likely that some tariffs are placed on UK exports to the EU and Imports from EU to UK than the UK accepting free movement post a Brexit vote.

The problem the EU has in the negotiation is its post a Brexit vote. So all the threats which lets face it are aimed at keeping the UK in the EU will then be in the EU's hands to carry out and so their actions will then have the consequences which follow whereas the UK will happily agree to zero trade consequences. Its hard to understand this point at the moment because everyone is very focused on maintaining the economic blackmail threat. Post Brexit its publish and be damned.

I suspect the tariffs will be very small and designed to do as little damage to everyone's economy while notionally making a point about access to the free trade area. The pound will adjust down a little and within 5 years everyone will wonder what all the fuss was about.

Why would we want tarrifs over eu migrants? Ones good for our economy, the other is bad.

 

[pocco]

I've been following this thread to learn as much as possible about what this means to us as a country (not just me as an individual), and there's no fecking way I'm voting leave.

The majority of people I've spoke to that are voting leave are doing so because of immigration, and what I've read I here has satisfied me that it would be a very bad move for us.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

You say that, but historically this hasn't happened. I don't understand how people can be so easily persuaded to gamble away our future on a hope or opinion. Even if tariffs are put on our exports, businesses will set up elsewhere to avoid having to pay them on every product that they ship to the EU. These things also have ramifications on our economy, and there's nothing to suggest that we will even get off as lightly as that.

Post a Brexit vote the UK will not accept free movement. The rest is up to the EU but the leading players in the EU have a massive vested interest in minimising the economic shock and no leverage on the UK govt which has been mandated by the UK population. The threats might work and twist enough arms in the vote but post Brexit the UK is all in with regards to free movement and whatever tariffs are introduced the UK will match them up. What is there to gain for the EU at that point. Shoot itself in the foot to loose the UK a leg. It probably could do that but it is actually Germany's foot and what is the point as you still don't get free movement and while you laugh at the UK's wooden leg it won't be that funny when you are getting measured for your specially fitted shoe.

The evidence for false threats before negotiation in the EU is every other negotiation with and within the EU.

 

[pocco]

From those that know a bit more about politics and economics, what needs to happen to improve our economy considerably? Or is it a tangled web of multiple issues that just won't get sorted.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

Why would we want tarrifs over eu migrants? Ones good for our economy, the other is bad.

That is a very good point and I think you are right on that but post a Brexit vote I don't see the UK govt being able to make that choice. The political landscape would be deadly to any politician even suggesting it.

 

[NinjaFletch]

That is a very good point and I think you are right on that but post a Brexit vote I don't see the UK govt being able to make that choice. The political landscape would be deadly to any politician even suggesting it.

Theyll just do what they want and blame it on the EU like normal.