[Update] The UK votes to leave the EU

[Mr K]

Some of the criticisms against the EU are valid – e.g. bureaucracy. However the benefits of a single market far outweigh them. Better to reform, which is to every countries benefit , than cut our noses off to spite our face. Leaving would hurt us more than the EU – it accounts for half of our exports.

I haven’t heard anything positive form the ‘out’ side about life outside the EU; just negative, jingoistic nonsense, and constant racist guff about immigration. Their campaign, if you can call it that, is doomed.

[techguyone]

Mr K anyone would think there wasn't trade before the EU, we only joined it in 73, do you believe we didn't have trade all over the word prior to that?

[heero_yuy]

The EU will continue to trade with us whether we're in or out. Something the stay-inners are keen to forget in their scaremongering.

Also the total trade figure attributable to the EU also includes the "Rotterdam Effect" so the actual trade figures are lower than that.

“Britain’s trade is overwhelmingly internal, actually. The split is roughly this: 79% internal, 10% EU, 11% the rest of the world.”

Ignore the percentages, which were not intended to be overly accurate – this complaint does have some validity. It can’t be denied that the vast majority of business transactions that UK companies and producers deal with are with other UK-based companies and producers, not with foreign partners.

Source

Originally Posted by Mr K

Some of the criticisms against the EU are valid – e.g. bureaucracy. However the benefits of a single market far outweigh them. Better to reform, which is to every countries benefit , than cut our noses off to spite our face. Leaving would hurt us more than the EU – it accounts for half of our exports.

I haven’t heard anything positive form the ‘out’ side about life outside the EU; just negative, jingoistic nonsense, and constant racist guff about immigration. Their campaign, if you can call it that, is doomed.

If the EU consisted entirely of the single market I might agree with you, but it doesn't.

If access to the single market required full membership of the EU, again, I might agree with you, but it doesn't.

The cost in terms of loss of sovereignty is now manifestly too high. The European project was never about creating a simple trading area, which is what the UK electorate was sold 40 years ago.

We are a massive export market for several European economies (chief among them, Germany) and we are in a very good position to negotiate terms of access that are mutually beneficial to us and the EU. And, once un-shackled from the need to wait for the EU to negotiate trade deals for us, we can get to the important business of dealing with the great emerging economies of the world on our own terms.

And those British businesses that form part of that 79% of trade that occurs entirely within our own borders, would in future only have to contend with market regulation cooked up in Westminster, where there are only 650 MPs, all of them British and familiar with the way we do business, instead of being forced to implement schemes that are actually designed as a protection racket for some inefficient, unreformed industry in the back end of somewhere hot and sunny where nobody does very much for most of the day.

Originally Posted by Chris

We are a massive export market for several European economies (chief among them, Germany) and we are in a very good position to negotiate terms of access that are mutually beneficial to us and the EU. And, once un-shackled from the need to wait for the EU to negotiate trade deals for us, we can get to the important business of dealing with the great emerging economies of the world on our own terms..

Well also their terms. Trade deals aren't symmetrical. Governments put in exemptions, rules and other caveats to protect their interests where they can and so what we can get depends on our strength at the table. For example while a trade deal with America will be in both our interests the disparity between the size of the markets and economies means we need it more. Any agreement is far more likely to be lopsided towards them than towards us.

Negotiating with the EU takes longer but is a stronger entity with a bigger market to offer prospective partners.

The idea we're going to sign great deals in the national interest post-Brexit assumes a far more open world than actually exists.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Chris

If the EU consisted entirely of the single market I might agree with you, but it doesn't.

If access to the single market required full membership of the EU, again, I might agree with you, but it doesn't.

The cost in terms of loss of sovereignty is now manifestly too high. The European project was never about creating a simple trading area, which is what the UK electorate was sold 40 years ago.

We are a massive export market for several European economies (chief among them, Germany) and we are in a very good position to negotiate terms of access that are mutually beneficial to us and the EU. And, once un-shackled from the need to wait for the EU to negotiate trade deals for us, we can get to the important business of dealing with the great emerging economies of the world on our own terms.

And those British businesses that form part of that 79% of trade that occurs entirely within our own borders, would in future only have to contend with market regulation cooked up in Westminster, where there are only 650 MPs, all of them British and familiar with the way we do business, instead of being forced to implement schemes that are actually designed as a protection racket for some inefficient, unreformed industry in the back end of somewhere hot and sunny where nobody does very much for most of the day.

You do realise that's all jingoistic, racist guff don't you...

Originally Posted by Damien

Well also their terms. Trade deals aren't symmetrical. Governments put in exemptions, rules and other caveats to protect their interests where they can and so what we can get depends on our strength at the table. For example while a trade deal with America will be in both our interests the disparity between the size of the markets and economies means we need it more. Any agreement is far more likely to be lopsided towards them than towards us.

Negotiating with the EU takes longer but is a stronger entity with a bigger market to offer prospective partners.

The idea we're going to sign great deals in the national interest post-Brexit assumes a far more open world than actually exists.

And the idea that we're going to somehow flounder in the world requires wilful neglect of the fact that we managed perfectly well on our own in the world for our entire national history, except for the last 40 years.

You make it sound, by the way, as if trade in and out of the USA is somehow impossible or punitively expensive outside of any EU trade deal. That's simply not the case. An open market trade deal, of any nature, is going to be better than none at all, but even with none at all, trade can and does go on.

Originally Posted by Chris

And the idea that we're going to somehow flounder in the world requires wilful neglect of the fact that we managed perfectly well on our own in the world for our entire national history, except for the last 40 years.

The last 40 years have seen some pretty fundamental shifts in the role of globalization and free trade.

You make it sound, by the way, as if trade in and out of the USA is somehow impossible or punitively expensive outside of any EU trade deal. That's simply not the case. An open market trade deal, of any nature, is going to be better than none at all, but even with none at all, trade can and does go on.

I am not saying it's impossible I am saying that any arrangement would be disproportionately beneficial to the Americans because they have a stronger position from which to negotiate. I was simply disputing the idea the deal would be 'on our terms'. The EU incidentally is close to closing the American trade deal and we would have to start from scratch.

I don't think life outside the EU would be a disaster but the Outers are giving a wildly optimistic view of how easy it's going to be.

Originally Posted by Damien

The EU incidentally is close to closing the American trade deal and we would have to start from scratch.

One might wonder whether the UK, acting alone, might have reached some accommodation with the USA rather sooner, had we been able to. Alas, we are compelled to act within the EU, and at the dawn of 2016 that deal is still "close".

What exactly has the EU been doing, all these years?

Originally Posted by Chris

One might wonder whether the UK, acting alone, might have reached some accommodation with the USA rather sooner, had we been able to. Alas, we are compelled to act within the EU, and at the dawn of 2016 that deal is still "close".

What exactly has the EU been doing, all these years?

Putting in all the clauses and amendments and so on in. They start negotiating and then every single business sector weighs in and wants to make changes or ensure their interests are protected. Everything from clothing standards to copyright. This process started in 2013: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transa...nt_Partnership. So three years so far. That isn't too unusual though. The US-Canada-Mexico NAFTA trade deal took about two years and the US and Canada had a pre-existing trade deal.

It's not easy to do despite the Out campaign making it seem like a matter of process. Maybe we could do faster but the would probably mean giving the US every they want.

Again the UK alone will be the weaker party at the table for any deal involving the EU, USA or China.

[pip08456]

Yeh, TTIP is going to be good.

From the same wikipedia link.

"An October 2014 study by Jeronim Capaldo of the Global Development and Environment Institute at Tufts University indicates that there will be losses in terms of net exports, net losses in terms of GDP, loss of labor income, job losses, reduction of the labor share, loss of government revenue and higher financial instability among European countries"

[Ignitionnet]

Don't think this surprises, does it? Bring our more expensive, higher quality, more ethically made products down to the standards of those made in the USA, or allow them to bring their products here without issues and it's bound to be an experience.

Seen the labels of some US 'food'? They use additives in place of the additives they used to use to replace natural ingredients as the first set of additives were too expensive.

The massive delays as various countries try and protect their own vested interests are a welcome side-effect. The evidence seems to suggest that trade deals between the USA and pretty much any country are a complete shitbomb.

I'd be fine with keeping the slight tariffs if in return they agree to keep that crap alongside the toxic gack they use in food production on their side of the Atlantic.

Damien kinda has a point. We'd have a weaker hand with the USA on our own potentially. However the strong or weak hand is probably irrelevant as it looks as though our government look across at the USA's lack of employment security, environmental and other regulations, corrupt politics and extreme inequality with envy and visions of themselves and their circles wallowing even deeper in the muck of avarice.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Osem

If the EU were a government - local or national - they'd have been voted them into oblivion years ago. Sadly, rather like FIFA, the Eurocrats have created themselves a nice cosy environment in which they can propagate their madness and create widespread mayhem unhindered by accountability for any of it. Is it any surprise therefore, that they've become so adept at believing their own rhetoric and perpetuating their own existence? Blatter and his cronies enjoyed years of back patting, lavish indulgence and self congratulation to the point that their indignance at being rumbled, even now, is quite staggering. The EU is really not very different IMHO. Defective, dishonest, incapable of reform and unfit for purpose - who'd want to remain within any such organisation?

That needs re-posting

[jonbxx]

Er, didn't we have elections in May 2014? And also every 5 years previously since the European Parliament was formed since 1979? The people we voted for in those elections are responsible for passing laws along with the Council of the European Union who are directly appointed by the Governments of the union.

I fail to see how people think of this being an undemocratic institution but maybe someone can name a part of the EU that we don't have some kind of say.

[heero_yuy]

The Brussels proposal of an “emergency brake” to trigger a benefits ban is a far cry from an original British demand to halt all newcomers if the UK can’t cope. Under the new plan, the brake could be pulled only by other EU leaders, leaving London without any control.

Mr Cameron begins three days of talks today before meeting EU Council boss Donald Tusk at No10 on Sunday. Mr Tusk will tell the EU on Monday if a deal is close or if it needs to be pushed back, delaying the In/Out vote to September at the earliest.

Arron Banks, of Out campaign Leave EU, said: “People watching the slow-motion disaster overtaking Europe don’t want an emergency brake on immigration, they want control of the steering wheel so we can avoid the car crash.”

Linky

So only a brake if the rest of the EU agree. How likely is that?