[Update] The UK votes to leave the EU

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Big Brian

Maybe in the EU but we sure don't want it in the UK.

That cannot be denied and must be resisted. It's a one-way street and only benefits US Conglomerates.

Canada has already been stung with it.

http://canadians.org/transatlantic-trade-deals

More specific EU readfing here.

http://www.euractiv.com/section/scie...mpaigners-say/

https://stop-ttip.org/what-is-the-problem-ttip-ceta/

Try explaining this to the "IN" campaigners.

[Gavin78]

Since the UK has decided to have a vote on leaving how many outside forces have interfered with threats of consequences if we leave?

Originally Posted by Gavin78

Since the UK has decided to have a vote on leaving how many outside forces have interfered with threats of consequences if we leave?

I think you may be confusing 'their views/impact assessments' with 'threats of consequences'.

I think you wouldn't be complaining if these people made statements in support of Brexit....

[Gavin78]

Originally Posted by Hugh

I think you may be confusing 'their views/impact assessments' with 'threats of consequences'.

I think you wouldn't be complaining if these people made statements in support of Brexit....

I would prefer it if outsiders just kept out of it. there is having an opinion and out right saying if you leave these are the consequences of it which in Obamas case he did.

I know there are pro's and con's for leaving and staying in the EU but the Brexit campaign isn't using fear techniques to scare people into voting.

Originally Posted by martyh

You may well be correct ,after all we are often told by our chancellor that the economic forecast is uncertain ,i just don't see how ,as Damien suggested, that, that uncertainty would be increased by us leaving when all the major institutions are linked ,if one crashes they all crash whether in the EU or not

I am not talking of a 2008 style crash but slower economic growth as companies stall their investment because of increased costs to one of our biggest markets and less flexible movement of people and services which are important for those companies which operate across Europe. That's not to stay they can't operate like this, of course they can as they do elsewhere, but that their costs increase and it may be more competitive then to put more investment in places like Germany where they'll still have that access.

The response to this is that people still trade with nations that they do have deals with but to suddenly have even minor tariffs is a hit to companies and deal in bulk. To longer to be able to sell services to many nations as if it were your own is a hit.

The boss of Siemens (or former boss) had a good article about it here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/1...s-UK-boss.html

I also linked to this FT article a while back but it's worth seeing again as it's relatively measured and fair. It looks at the different scenario and largely concludes there would be an impact from leaving: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/70d0bfd8-d...#axzz46ly9CC4x

---------- Post added at 20:17 ---------- Previous post was at 20:10 ----------

Originally Posted by Gavin78

I would prefer it if outsiders just kept out of it. there is having an opinion and out right saying if you leave these are the consequences of it which in Obamas case he did.

I know there are pro's and con's for leaving and staying in the EU but the Brexit campaign isn't using fear techniques to scare people into voting.

The SNP did this as well though. Any time anyone said there would be a cost to Scotland leaving the Union they shouted scaremongering, any time we said you can't have a Currency Union they said it was bulling and any time people dismissed their notion of unicorns and rainbows in a Independent Scotland skeptics were dismissed as Project Fear.

When your campaign is based on the idea that the status-quo is better than the given alternative then all you have is to argue what you would lose. This isn't the most inspiring message but it's what there is, sometimes the choice isn't great and you can't sell it as anything other than the best of an imperfect situation.

Remain are entitled to argue that there would well be a nasty economic hit if we withdraw from the a large single market without much of any idea of what we will replace it with.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Damien

I am not talking of a 2008 style crash but slower economic growth as companies stall their investment because of increased costs to one of our biggest markets and less flexible movement of people and services which are important for those companies which operate across Europe. That's not to stay they can't operate like this, of course they can as they do elsewhere, but that their costs increase and it may be more competitive then to put more investment in places like Germany where they'll still have that access.

The response to this is that people still trade with nations that they do have deals with but to suddenly have even minor tariffs is a hit to companies and deal in bulk. To longer to be able to sell services to many nations as if it were your own is a hit.

The boss of Siemens (or former boss) had a good article about it here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/1...s-UK-boss.html

I also linked to this FT article a while back but it's worth seeing again as it's relatively measured and fair. It looks at the different scenario and largely concludes there would be an impact from leaving: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/70d0bfd8-d...#axzz46ly9CC4x

---------- Post added at 20:17 ---------- Previous post was at 20:10 ----------



The SNP did this as well though. Any time anyone said there would be a cost to Scotland leaving the Union they shouted scaremongering, any time we said you can't have a Currency Union they said it was bulling and any time people dismissed their notion of unicorns and rainbows in a Independent Scotland skeptics were dismissed as Project Fear.

When your campaign is based on the idea that the status-quo is better than the given alternative then all you have is to argue what you would lose. This isn't the most inspiring message but it's what there is, sometimes the choice isn't great and you can't sell it as anything other than the best of an imperfect situation.

Remain are entitled to argue that there would well be a nasty economic hit if we withdraw from the a large single market without much of any idea of what we will replace it with.

The "Independant(ish)" Bank of England stated they would not guarantee monitary union if Scotland exited the UK.

No matter what the result of the referendum there will be uncertainty in the money markets and the stock markets, no doubt due to futures buying/selling when no-one knew what the future would be.

The FT did an (imho) even handed article on Brexit in February, with some scenarios.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/70d0bfd8-d...#axzz46mPRJPBo

Here, the FT looks at the case for three very different economic futures for a UK outside the EU: a Booming Britain, a Troubled Transition and a Disastrous Decision. The first envisages a vibrant economy unconstrained by Brussels red tape; the second foreshadows a period of turmoil and financial instability before the UK finds its way; the third portends an economy that suffers long-term damage...

Booming Britain
FT verdict
Today’s campaigns to leave the EU make for a striking contrast with the groups that opposed the common market in Britain’s 1975 referendum. In the 1970s the bloc’s opponents were fundamentally protectionist. In 2016, their rallying cry is freer trade outside the EU.

But assertions that Britain will be better able to foster trade with third countries once it has left the EU are not yet very credible. Nor is it likely that the country can maintain the same access to the European single market while cutting down on regulation and budgetary transfers.

Troubled Transition
FT verdict
The contention that trade is only one element in the long-run performance of economies is well-founded. But such an argument can easily be exaggerated, since trade is clearly an important element of prosperity. A difficult transition out of the EU would jeopardise Britain’s living standards.

Disastrous Decision
FT verdict
With clear and easily specified economic risks in the short and medium- term, Brexit does not easily pass any cost-benefit analysis. But supporters of the EU should be wary of making overconfident claims, since trade is only one driver of growth and prosperity.

[pip08456]

So is the "Disastrous Decision" the supporters of the EU making overconfident claims????

[papa smurf]

REVEALED: EU members draw up plans for United States of Europe behind Britain’s back

PLANS for a United States of Europe have been drawn up in a bid to give Brussels bureaucrats an iron grip over the continent, it has been revealed.

In a direct challenge to David Cameron’s claims of British sovereignty, Germany, France, Italy and Luxembourg signed a document last September in Rome calling for the creation of a “general union of states”, which has only now come to light.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/663...-States-Europe

[Big Brian]

Originally Posted by Gavin78

I would prefer it if outsiders just kept out of it. there is having an opinion and out right saying if you leave these are the consequences of it which in Obamas case he did.

I know there are pro's and con's for leaving and staying in the EU but the Brexit campaign isn't using fear techniques to scare people into voting.

Indeed. Those Countries in the EU have a right to their opinions on what the UK does as it will directly effect them. Those outside do not as we already have trade agreements with some of them. America getting involved, if the voter really thinks about it, is just them flexing their muscles. Leaving will not directly effect them.

On an other note: If we remain in the EU, and this is not denied by Remain, there will be over 3 million more migrants by 2030. If this is the case then coming out should dramatically cut that number. They reckon there are 8 million non-Brits living here already. I dispute that. What they mean surely is between London, Birmingham, Wolverhampton, Manchester, Leeds and Bradford there are probably 8 million non-Brits. I think the number is more and I think 3 million by 2030 is an underestimation.

---------- Post added at 07:48 ---------- Previous post was at 07:37 ----------

Plans have been drawn up for a full-blown 'United States of Europe' and Britain will have little say, warns top Tory minister
Commons leader Chris Grayling said EU figures were already signed up
The documents speaks of 'concrete' plans to 'deepen integration'
It talks about 'more, not less Europe' was needed to meet challenges

By James Slack Political Editor For The Daily Mail

Published: 15:00, 24 April 2016 | Updated: 17:39, 24 April 2016


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz46onywhiI
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Originally Posted by pip08456

So is the "Disastrous Decision" the supporters of the EU making overconfident claims????

From the link...

The scenario

Britain’s economy suffers after Brexit. The negotiations to leave the EU are fraught with difficulty and the trading relationship with Europe is worse than before, without offsetting benefits elsewhere. Britain’s economy once again begins to fall behind the country’s European partners.

The assumptions
After acrimonious negotiations, which drain confidence from the British economy, Britain secures a looser trading relationship with the EU. Free movement of people is curtailed, but the price is weaker access to the EU market for goods and particularly services. Britain finds it difficult to sign beneficial trade deals with other countries, receives less inward foreign direct investment, has fewer immigrants and does not improve the regulation of the economy.

[Big Brian]

Originally Posted by Damien

I am not talking of a 2008 style crash but slower economic growth as companies stall their investment because of increased costs to one of our biggest markets and less flexible movement of people and services which are important for those companies which operate across Europe. That's not to stay they can't operate like this, of course they can as they do elsewhere, but that their costs increase and it may be more competitive then to put more investment in places like Germany where they'll still have that access.

The response to this is that people still trade with nations that they do have deals with but to suddenly have even minor tariffs is a hit to companies and deal in bulk. To longer to be able to sell services to many nations as if it were your own is a hit.

The boss of Siemens (or former boss) had a good article about it here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/1...s-UK-boss.html

I also linked to this FT article a while back but it's worth seeing again as it's relatively measured and fair. It looks at the different scenario and largely concludes there would be an impact from leaving: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/70d0bfd8-d...#axzz46ly9CC4x

---------- Post added at 20:17 ---------- Previous post was at 20:10 ----------



The SNP did this as well though. Any time anyone said there would be a cost to Scotland leaving the Union they shouted scaremongering, any time we said you can't have a Currency Union they said it was bulling and any time people dismissed their notion of unicorns and rainbows in a Independent Scotland skeptics were dismissed as Project Fear.

When your campaign is based on the idea that the status-quo is better than the given alternative then all you have is to argue what you would lose. This isn't the most inspiring message but it's what there is, sometimes the choice isn't great and you can't sell it as anything other than the best of an imperfect situation.

Remain are entitled to argue that there would well be a nasty economic hit if we withdraw from the a large single market without much of any idea of what we will replace it with.

You can have a currency union of sorts. Take the Dollar for example. How many other Countries use it linked to the US Economy. I know this doesn't give you full economic autonomy but it does work in some cases. This was not made clear by the Independence Campaign. In Fact, I think they thought all they had to do was hold the referendum and it was won. I was for independence but looking at it in the same way I look at leaving the EU. That would have worked though admittedly it would have been hard at first as will leaving the latter. In the end, I believe the price is well worth paying.

---------- Post added at 09:02 ---------- Previous post was at 08:59 ----------

Originally Posted by pip08456

The "Independant(ish)" Bank of England stated they would not guarantee monitary union if Scotland exited the UK.

No matter what the result of the referendum there will be uncertainty in the money markets and the stock markets, no doubt due to futures buying/selling when no-one knew what the future would be.

Perhaps they should follow the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition. LOL!

Originally Posted by Big Brian

You can have a currency union of sorts. Take the Dollar for example. How many other Countries use it linked to the US Economy. I know this doesn't give you full economic autonomy but it does work in some cases. This was not made clear by the Independence Campaign. In Fact, I think they thought all they had to do was hold the referendum and it was won. I was for independence but looking at it in the same way I look at leaving the EU. That would have worked though admittedly it would have been hard at first as will leaving the latter. In the end, I believe the price is well worth paying.

---------- Post added at 09:02 ---------- Previous post was at 08:59 ----------



Perhaps they should follow the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition. LOL!

Not to take this too far off topic, but Dollarisation (which, it now turns out, is what Salmond would have done in the event of Yes), can work in some limited circumstances, if you intend to surrender all but a fig leaf-sized chunk of your independence - it works in Panama, where a very large chunk of that country's national income comes from the canal, and is therefore paid in Dollars anyway. They're never going to run out. It didn't work in Argentina, where they pegged their currency to USD until it became impossible to sustain. The country is still paying the economic cost of that folly.

The currency issue is still the trump card in any argument over Scottish independence. Almost all of Scotland's economic activity outside Scotland is in England - vastly more than with the EU. To create a currency barrier, whether with the Euro or by resurrecting Pound Scots, would be crippling. To use Sterling, whether directly or via a currency peg, would result in independence in name only. I can't believe anyone who truly wishes for Scotland to be a fully independent, self-determining nation state would be stupid enough to believe that's what they would get in currency union with England.

And be in no doubt - if Scotland applies to join the EU independently of the U.K., it will first be compelled to set up its own central bank, and then to adopt the Euro. As a Euro-leaver, I trust you already understand the negative implications of that.

EDIT
I should also ask, rhetorically, why anyone would be stupid enough to entrust the task of nation-building to a gang of amateurs who clearly never gave a moment's thought to the currency issue while writing their so-called "white paper".

[Big Brian]

Originally Posted by Chris

Not to take this too far off topic, but Dollarisation (which, it now turns out, is what Salmond would have done in the event of Yes), can work in some limited circumstances, if you intend to surrender all but a fig leaf-sized chunk of your independence - it works in Panama, where a very large chunk of that country's national income comes from the canal, and is therefore paid in Dollars anyway. They're never going to run out. It didn't work in Argentina, where they pegged their currency to USD until it became impossible to sustain. The country is still paying the economic cost of that folly.

The currency issue is still the trump card in any argument over Scottish independence. Almost all of Scotland's economic activity outside Scotland is in England - vastly more than with the EU. To create a currency barrier, whether with the Euro or by resurrecting Pound Scots, would be crippling. To use Sterling, whether directly or via a currency peg, would result in independence in name only. I can't believe anyone who truly wishes for Scotland to be a fully independent, self-determining nation state would be stupid enough to believe that's what they would get in currency union with England.

And be in no doubt - if Scotland applies to join the EU independently of the U.K., it will first be compelled to set up its own central bank, and then to adopt the Euro. As a Euro-leaver, I trust you already understand the negative implications of that.

EDIT
I should also ask, rhetorically, why anyone would be stupid enough to entrust the task of nation-building to a gang of amateurs who clearly never gave a moment's thought to the currency issue while writing their so-called "white paper".

I agree 100% the SNP made a right arse o the referendum. It came too early and did not do all they should have to ensure Scotland would be able to survive after independence like solving the currency and central bank issues. However in the case of the EU referendum it's a different kettle of fish as the Bank of England is known and trusted throughout the world. Their credit is good and there is no need to suppose things will be as gloomy as remain claim.

---------- Post added at 12:49 ---------- Previous post was at 12:37 ----------

So we, the Leave Campaign, are proven right again and there are plans afoot for a European Super State? Is this what we really want? You think you have no Sovereignty and control now, just wait and see how much you'll have when the inevitable happens.

I urge you remainers to think very seriously of the implications of a European Super State and come and join the Leave side.

---------- Post added at 14:04 ---------- Previous post was at 12:49 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

From the link...

And you still want a United States of Europe? Remain and that's what you'll get.

Erm, I have said previously that I am undecided at this time.

And that was the third of three options,mooing from best case to worst...