Brexit Referendum Superthread

BoJack Horseman

Michah wrote: »

Britain Elects on Twitter: "EU referendum poll: Remain: 40% (-1) Leave: 47% (+4) (via TNS, online)"

Didn't they hear our glorious president Donald Tusk?
This will end western civilisation!

Well, that or WW3 according to Dave.....

How can the electorate be so reckless with obviously factual consequences!

Bob24

Do people think the recent ISIS attacks in the US and France will have an impact? (I know they are not directly related to Brexit and I am not asking whether posters think they are a valid argument for/against Brexit, but regardless of their actual relevance will they influence public opinion one way or the other?)

I tend to think it will slightly boost Brexit votes as when people feel afraid they tend to close down, but I am not sure to which extent .

oppenheimer1

There's a certain naivety in the leave campaign assertions that the UK will easily be able to get it's own trade deals in super quick time. If these deals are negotiated quickly it will be at Britains cost, not on the other side of the table. Britain will be in a quandary with no trade deals so it will be under pressure to get some concluded quickly. Every country that will deal with them will know this weakness and exploit it in their own national interest.

Britain will get quick deals but bad ones. Fair deals are always relatively lengthy affairs.

Suryavarman

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

There's a certain naivety in the leave campaign assertions that the UK will easily be able to get it's own trade deals in super quick time. If these deals are negotiated quickly it will be at Britains cost, not on the other side of the table. Britain will be in a quandary with no trade deals so it will be under pressure to get some concluded quickly. Every country that will deal with them will know this weakness and exploit it in their own national interest.

Britain will get quick deals but bad ones. Fair deals are always relatively lengthy affairs.

You're giving the leave campaign too much credit. They're not being naive, they're just lying.

whatever_

There is a certain naivety in assuming that bilateral mutually beneficial trade deals cannot be concluded more quickly than those involving 28 States with competing interests (all ostensibly on the same side of the table).

There is also a certain naivety in assuming that to be pro-Brexit is to be anti-Irish, and increasingly I see that some posters on here are adopting a stance that is more to do with their misplaced sense of patriotism than their grasp of the issues involved.

There is also a certain naivety in assuming that if you call somebody a liar that you have done anything other than belittle yourself.

I think that the recent attacks will make little difference to the vote - I think that the behaviour of the England fans and the performance of the England team will have an impact on the vote in England.

Bit cynical

The predictions that there will be a short term economic hit on brexit are probably true. But in the longer term, if Britain can negotiate a reasonable deal with the EU and also reasonable deals with other larger economies then they would benefit hugely.

The problem would be negotiating a good deal with the EU as the EU can only move as fast as its most protectionist member states. This is why the EU as a whole is not great at negotiating deals with the rest of the world and another reason why Britain might be better off out of it.

eire4

Bob24 wrote: »

Do people think the recent ISIS attacks in the US and France will have an impact? (I know they are not directly related to Brexit and I am not asking whether posters think they are a valid argument for/against Brexit, but regardless of their actual relevance will they influence public opinion one way or the other?)

I tend to think it will slightly boost Brexit votes as when people feel afraid they tend to close down, but I am not sure to which extent .

I would agree with you I think they probably help the leave campaign although given they have happened in France and the US not massively.

Suryavarman

whatever_ wrote: »

There is a certain naivety in assuming that bilateral mutually beneficial trade deals cannot be concluded more quickly than those involving 28 States with competing interests (all ostensibly on the same side of the table).

There is also a certain naivety in assuming that to be pro-Brexit is to be anti-Irish, and increasingly I see that some posters on here are adopting a stance that is more to do with their misplaced sense of patriotism than their grasp of the issues involved.

There is also a certain naivety in assuming that if you call somebody a liar that you have done anything other than belittle yourself.

I think that the recent attacks will make little difference to the vote - I think that the behaviour of the England fans and the performance of the England team will have an impact on the vote in England.

There's a certain naivety in assuming that a nation of 60 million people can negotiate a trade deal that's as much in its national interests as an economic bloc of 500 million people could.

There's also a certain naivety in assuming that a 28 nation trading bloc is going to speed up significantly or be very open to doing a trade deal with a certain country after it becomes a 27 nation trading bloc.

Lemming

Bit cynical wrote: »

The predictions that there will be a short term economic hit on brexit are probably true. But in the longer term, if Britain can negotiate a reasonable deal with the EU and also reasonable deals with other larger economies then they would benefit hugely.

The problem would be negotiating a good deal with the EU as the EU can only move as fast as its most protectionist member states. This is why the EU as a whole is not great at negotiating deals with the rest of the world and another reason why Britain might be better off out of it.

And how would the speed of a trade deal with another bloc be any different? Or another country that has a particular industry wiith a strong vested interest and loud domestic voice? You've given out a lot of ifs, coulds, woulds, and maybes; but never asked the pertinent question: why should any other country negotiate a trade deal on someone else's clock if it does not suit them? Remember, that's also a gamble with a 50% trade hole that needs to be plugged ...

Sam Russell

Prior to joining the EEC, Britain's economy was a basket case. They devalued the currency in 1949 ($4=£1 to $2.8=£1) and again in 1967 ($2.4=£1). They were running a serious trade deficit as well, and the slogan Export or Expire summed up the government urgency. Since joining the EEC, their economy has grown significantly. The economy will be better within the EU.

Why would they vote to leave? Oh yes Immigration. But they have more immigrants from outside of the EU than from the EU, and 50% of the EU migrants already have a job so they would come anyway. Immigration from outside the EU is completely inside their own control but is in fact out of control. So how does leaving the EU solve immigration? Well it does not.

So why would they vote to leave? Well the opportunities for trade would be better. Really? Who with? Africa? USA? Australia? Canada?

What will they trade? British cars? Sorry not made any more. British steel? Sorry not made any more. Ships? Textiles? Well you get the picture.

I know - financial services. That is what will save Britain and make it great again. Sell every one on the planet a pension, a mortgage, a payday loan. They will make a fortune.

Charles Babbage

whatever_ wrote: »

There is also a certain naivety in assuming that to be pro-Brexit is to be anti-Irish, and increasingly I see that some posters on here are adopting a stance that is more to do with their misplaced sense of patriotism than their grasp of the issues involved.

Britain reneging on the Good Friday Agreement is anti Irish, consequently anyone proposing Brexit is anti Irish. Not surprisingly many are.

Bit cynical

Lemming wrote: »

And how would the speed of a trade deal with another bloc be any different?

Basically increased flexibility and speed of response I would have thought since on one side only a single government (in this case British) is involved on one side.

Or another country that has a particular industry wiith a strong vested interest and loud domestic voice?

Well yes, but isn't this also the problem with EU negotiations with another country? Plus the EU has to take into consideration the various protections each of the EU member states might want to include.

You've given out a lot of ifs, coulds, woulds, and maybes; but never asked the pertinent question: why should any other country negotiate a trade deal on someone else's clock if it does not suit them? Remember, that's also a gamble with a 50% trade hole that needs to be plugged ...

Sure if you want absolute certainty you would vote Remain and even then you are not guaranteed it. As to your question, there seems to be an assumption behind it that, in general, it won't suit another country to do negotiate a trade deal with Britain. If you hold this assumption, could I ask what is the basis for it?

whatever_

Bit cynical wrote: »

The predictions that there will be a short term economic hit on brexit are probably true. But in the longer term, if Britain can negotiate a reasonable deal with the EU and also reasonable deals with other larger economies then they would benefit hugely.

The problem would be negotiating a good deal with the EU as the EU can only move as fast as its most protectionist member states. This is why the EU as a whole is not great at negotiating deals with the rest of the world and another reason why Britain might be better off out of it.

Yes, but let's just consider what we mean by a short term economic hit. I think we could generally agree that there would be downward pressure on Sterling.

This means British exports would be comparatively more attractive than imports, and this would, of course result in upward pressure on Sterling. So a floating exchange rate tends to find equilibrium, which is why most of the advanced economies in the world are so keen on floating exchange rates, most of the time.

But let's assume that Sterling settles 10% below it's current level, and let's assume that the combined diplomatic skills of Boris Johnson and Denis Skinner has resulted in Britain negotiating trade deals with absolutely nobody - what happens ? Is it the end of civilisation as we know it ? No - GATT tariffs apply, so British businesses can sell their products to more or less anybody, anywhere except that import duties have to be paid. Back in the 70's, this was the nightmare scenario, and one of the reasons why we joined the Common Market. In the 70's GATT tariffs were - well I don't know, but 20%/30% was probably the general level. So in this scenario British factories lay off large numbers of workers and things spiral out of control.

But these days, GATT tariffs are - well, they are generally much lower than 10% anyway. So the net result of Britain's 10% reduction in sterling is a modest increase in exports and jobs. What about imports ? Well they are more expensive, so we buy fewer things and go on fewer holidays. But they are MUCH more expensive, because as well as the 10% devaluation there is the GATT tariff to apply. This creates some inflationary pressure in the UK but more importantly means that German and French factories have to start laying off workers. Not a few, but hundreds of thousands of workers. Why ? Because Britain imports circa 8-10 Billion sterling more than it
exports EVERY MONTH from the EU. German, French and other EU citizens will put their governments under huge pressure to agree a reasonable trade deal with Britain. Yes, Britain will pay for this, but you are mistaken if you believe that the EU holds all the cards or will be in a position to "punish" Britain.

This is why Brexit campaigners across the political spectrum say that there will be a trade deal with the EU. Cameron accepts that Britain can do well outside the EU, he just believes that Britain can do better in the EU. I respect Cameron's position, but there again he does not indulge in the naive doomsday nonsense being peddled on this forum.

Paradoxically, there will be a trade deal with the EU, because Britain doesn't really need one.

Bit cynical

Without going into detail on the above, I would agree that the dangers have been overblown by some of the Remain campaigners and I think this is one of the reasons Leave is currently ahead in the polls.

As you point out, there may well be a drop in Sterling. Some of it is priced in already and will be further priced in during the 2 year transition period. The drop itself therefore is the immediate economic hit and consumers are already hit in the pocket. However it is a short term hit. Balance of trade is improved and over the longer term, money comes into the country and wages rise. Much of this is before the actual exit occurs.

Those who believe there will be economic calamity also assume that there can be no trade deal with the EU. Again, I have not seen much basis for this assumption which makes me believe it is unfounded scaremongering. I think a lot of it also comes from large institutions who are concerned with their day to day share price, are short-term in their thinking and don't like any sort of change or uncertainty even if it benefits them in the longer term. These large organizations also like bureaucracy as it provides a hurdle over which they can jump but smaller competitors can't.

BoJack Horseman

whatever_ wrote: »

I respect Cameron's position, but there again he does not indulge in the naive doomsday nonsense

Right....
Perhaps when he isn't threatening WW3

Superhorse

Here's hoping they vote leave. Will be a hand grenade thrown into the establishment.

oppenheimer1

whatever_ wrote: »

Yes, but let's just consider what we mean by a short term economic hit. I think we could generally agree that there would be downward pressure on Sterling.

This means British exports would be comparatively more attractive than imports, and this would, of course result in upward pressure on Sterling. So a floating exchange rate tends to find equilibrium, which is why most of the advanced economies in the world are so keen on floating exchange rates, most of the time.

But let's assume that Sterling settles 10% below it's current level, and let's assume that the combined diplomatic skills of Boris Johnson and Denis Skinner has resulted in Britain negotiating trade deals with absolutely nobody - what happens ? Is it the end of civilisation as we know it ? No - GATT tariffs apply, so British businesses can sell their products to more or less anybody, anywhere except that import duties have to be paid. Back in the 70's, this was the nightmare scenario, and one of the reasons why we joined the Common Market. In the 70's GATT tariffs were - well I don't know, but 20%/30% was probably the general level. So in this scenario British factories lay off large numbers of workers and things spiral out of control.

But these days, GATT tariffs are - well, they are generally much lower than 10% anyway. So the net result of Britain's 10% reduction in sterling is a modest increase in exports and jobs. What about imports ? Well they are more expensive, so we buy fewer things and go on fewer holidays. But they are MUCH more expensive, because as well as the 10% devaluation there is the GATT tariff to apply. This creates some inflationary pressure in the UK but more importantly means that German and French factories have to start laying off workers. Not a few, but hundreds of thousands of workers. Why ? Because Britain imports circa 8-10 Billion sterling more than it
exports EVERY MONTH from the EU. German, French and other EU citizens will put their governments under huge pressure to agree a reasonable trade deal with Britain. Yes, Britain will pay for this, but you are mistaken if you believe that the EU holds all the cards or will be in a position to "punish" Britain.

This is why Brexit campaigners across the political spectrum say that there will be a trade deal with the EU. Cameron accepts that Britain can do well outside the EU, he just believes that Britain can do better in the EU. I respect Cameron's position, but there again he does not indulge in the naive doomsday nonsense being peddled on this forum.

Paradoxically, there will be a trade deal with the EU, because Britain doesn't really need one.

The above there highlights your total misunderstanding of the fundamentals of trade, bilateral and multilateral agreements. While I agree that the risks of leave have probably been overstated, the idea that it carries little or no risk, or is indeed riskier than remain are totally preposterous. The idea that the EU will bend over backwards to accommodate Britain in order to protect it as a market is daft, the only country to do that will be us.

Most of Britain's imports are not easily replaceable and not mobile, food, fuel, machinery and they do not have the capability to produce them domestically, so in a post exit world they will still need to import them. Purchasing from Europe will be reduced for sure, but not eliminated. That 8bn of British imports from the EU you speak of won't go to zero overnight.

Most of Britain's exports are easily replaceable, since they are services. Financial services relating to the European market would almost certainly decentralise from London over time, perhaps to Paris, Frankfurt or even Dublin. Every country that imports services from Britain will be wanting to replace this import with a domestic equivalent, and will push for this through the EU as it is in the common national interests of the national governments of the EU. Trade will of course continue but British exports will be depressed.

The main problem for Britain is that the EU market is an order of magnitude more important to Britain than the British market is to the rest of the EU.

511

Sam Russell wrote: »

Why would they vote to leave? Oh yes Immigration. But they have more immigrants from outside of the EU than from the EU, and 50% of the EU migrants already have a job so they would come anyway. Immigration from outside the EU is completely inside their own control but is in fact out of control. So how does leaving the EU solve immigration? Well it does not.

Have a watch of the video on this link and it will give you some insight as to why they want out: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/14/brexit-will-hurt-your-city-labour-tells-core-voters-but-no-ones-listening

Leaving the UK will help ease the immigration problem. If they leave, then no more non-Irish people from the EU can live there. People from the other EU countries can come and go as they please, but non-EU folks have a tougher time getting in.

The reason why non-EU immigration is higher was because of Labour, but nowadays the rates of non-EU ve EU immigration is almost the same:



There was a Channel 4 documentary on a few weeks ago and it clearly showed London was full, young people who grew up there can't get home near their families because so many immigrants from turn up looking for a free house and healthcare on the NHS.

Anyway, the point your missing is that, they can control and monitor non-EU immigration, as in, reject the undesirables, but they're forced to take in the other EU member's freeloaders and thugs as per EU law.

Lemming

Bit cynical wrote: »

Basically increased flexibility and speed of response I would have thought since on one side only a single government (in this case British) is involved on one side.

Well yes, but isn't this also the problem with EU negotiations with another country? Plus the EU has to take into consideration the various protections each of the EU member states might want to include. Sure if you want absolute certainty you would vote Remain and even then you are not guaranteed it. As to your question, there seems to be an assumption behind it that, in general, it won't suit another country to do negotiate a trade deal with Britain. If you hold this assumption, could I ask what is the basis for it?

You've missed the entire thrust of my last post. You seem to think that any trade deal negotiated with any other bloc or country would be faster than the EU can do it because there wont be any interfering domestic industries or member nations dragging their heels. In which case there is absolutely NO difference whether it's a trade deal negotiated with the EU or not. Case in point: Australia & the USA; still at it a decade later ... And that's just two countries.

So thinking it'll all be auto-magically better because the EU isn't involved is pie-in-the-sky naive, wishful thinking.

oppenheimer1

511 wrote: »

Have a watch of the video on this link and it will give you some insight as to why they want out: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/14/brexit-will-hurt-your-city-labour-tells-core-voters-but-no-ones-listening

Leaving the UK will help ease the immigration problem. If they leave, then no more non-Irish people from the EU can live there. People from the other EU countries can come and go as they please, but non-EU folks have a tougher time getting in.

The reason why non-EU immigration is higher was because of Labour, but nowadays the rates of non-EU ve EU immigration is almost the same:



There was a Channel 4 documentary on a few weeks ago and it clearly showed London was full, young people who grew up there can't get home near their families because so many immigrants from turn up looking for a free house and healthcare on the NHS.

Anyway, the point your missing is that, they can control and monitor non-EU immigration, as in, reject the undesirables, but they're forced to take in the other EU member's freeloaders and thugs as per EU law.

A post full of so many untruths, so where to start. The UK has full control of the number of non EU migrants it chooses to let in. The country has chosen to do very little in terms of stemming these population flows so it comes to pass that it is India that is the largest source nation for all migrants.

As for your other point that anybody that is Let into the EU can move to the UK, this is simply not true. If it were then why is there encampments in Calais? Schengen visas are not valid for the UK.

The truth is that the UK needs migrants to compensate for its aging and less fertile native population. It's a truth that the political and commentary class have been unwilling to explain honestly to the natives, but have decided to constantly scapegoat the EU for all the UK's ills. If they do leave they will find that immigration pressures will still exist. The EU isn't the actual problem, it's fundamentally the demographics of the UKs population that is.

Bob24

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

A post full of so many untruths, so where to start.

TBH this comment can easily be applied to you post. It's OK to disagree and to correct what others say if untrue, but misrepresenting what they did say or making incorrect statements to call theirs untrue doesn't reflect very well.

Specifically:

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The UK has full control of the number of non EU migrants it chooses to let in.

That is not a correct statement. As specified in this thread before the UK doesn't have full control on that flow as Directive 2004/38/EC dictates how it should handle immigration for certain non EU citizens (those who are extended family members f EU citizens).

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

As for your other point that anybody that is Let into the EU can move to the UK, this is simply not true. If it were then why is there encampments in Calais? Schengen visas are not valid for the UK.

The OP was clearly talking about citizen of other EU states in their post, not illegal migrants in other EU states.

Lemming

Bob24 wrote: »

That is not a correct statement. As specified in this thread before the UK doesn't have full control on that flow as Directive 2004/38/EC dictates how it should handle immigration for certain non EU citizens (those who are extended family members f EU citizens).

I think you'll find that what you are referring to does come with restrictions in fact; so it isn't the free-for-all that you claim it to be. For example, if an 'EU citizen' (be it an immigrant or someone who has ties to non-EU or non-EEA nationals through marriage), and they are living in their home member state but has not worked in another member state than the directive does not apply regards non-EU family members and any movement into the home state is governed by national law.

Further, only non-EU/EAA direct family members (or direct to those of the spouse) are permitted to travel across borders if accompanied by the EU/EAA member, or are travelling to join with said member.

Also, if the EU member is not working in a state to which they have travelled along with non-EU/EAA family members then those may reside for up to 90 days. If the EU member is working or studying, then an extension can be granted. Applications can still be refused on three sets of criteria; public health, public policy, or national security.

Bob24

Lemming wrote: »

I think you'll find that what you are referring to does come with restrictions in fact; so it isn't the free-for-all that you claim it to be.

Where did I claim it was free-for-all? I said you were wrong saying "The UK has full control of the number of non EU migrants it chooses to let in.".

Again misrepresentation.

Also I won't go into the details but I am very familiar with the directive as my partner benefits from it and based on what you posted your understanding is not completely accurate (for example when you say only direct family members can travel to other countries once they have a residence card for family member of an EU citizen is correct, BUT does not mean the UK is not regulated by that directive when it reviewing visa and residence card applications from indirect family members, meaning that again they don't have full control on their immigration policies for these people).

djpbarry

Bob24 wrote: »

Have you read the original post I was replying to when I quoted that table? Can you clarify how what you said matter in that particular context?

The point is that as far as headline figures, and, therefore, Leave campaigners, are concerned, country of birth or citizenship are fairly irrelevant. Regardless of whether immigrants were born in Manchester, Milan, Melbourne or Mumbai, regardless of whether their passports are British, Italian, Australian or Indian, they want to see net immigration, both EU and non-EU, reduced substantially.

djpbarry

whatever_ wrote: »

…increasingly I see that some posters on here are adopting a stance that is more to do with their misplaced sense of patriotism than their grasp of the issues involved.

Surely an accusation to be levelled at Leave campaigners?

djpbarry

Bit cynical wrote: »

But in the longer term, if Britain can negotiate a reasonable deal with the EU and also reasonable deals with other larger economies then they would benefit hugely.

The idea that Britain, on its own, can negotiate a better deal with other “large economies” than the EU can is nothing short of delusional.

Bit cynical wrote: »

Those who believe there will be economic calamity also assume that there can be no trade deal with the EU.

Once again, nobody is arguing that there will be no trade deal between the UK and EU. What is being argued is that any deal post-Brexit cannot possibly be better than the existing arrangement.

djpbarry

Superhorse wrote: »

Here's hoping they vote leave. Will be a hand grenade thrown into the establishment.

Surely the Tories represent the establishment?

Bob24

djpbarry wrote: »

The point is that as far as headline figures, and, therefore, Leave campaigners, are concerned, country of birth or citizenship are fairly irrelevant. Regardless of whether immigrants were born in Manchester, Milan, Melbourne or Mumbai, regardless of whether their passports are British, Italian, Australian or Indian, they want to see net immigration, both EU and non-EU, reduced substantially.

Again, read the post you were replying to in the first place. It was about which people the UK cannot currently restrict, and would be able to restrict of they leave the EU (and the country of birth is absolutely irrelevant there).

If you want to move on to an other subject that's fine, but why did you quote my post then?

Lemming

Bob24 wrote: »

Also I won't go into the details but I am very familiar with the directive as my partner benefits from it and based on what you posted your understanding is not completely accurate (for example when you say only direct family members can travel to other countries once they have a residence card for family member of an EU citizen is correct, BUT does not mean the UK is not regulated by that directive when it reviewing visa and residence card applications from indirect family members, meaning that again they don't have full control on their immigration policies for these people).

And the UK still has the power to refuse entry for immediate family members on specific grounds. Indirect family members are not covered by the directive, only immediate family of the EU member or their spouse, assuming that the marriage has not been deemed to be a fraud.

Bob24

Lemming wrote: »

And the UK still has the power to refuse entry for immediate family members on specific grounds. Indirect family members are not covered by the directive, only immediate family of the EU member or their spouse, assuming that the marriage has not been deemed to be a fraud.

I am sorry but either you haven't understood the directive or we have a different definition of what a direct family member is.

I'll take the Irish example as I know it perfectly but the same directive applies to the UK. You can find here the application forms for a residence card based on directive 2004/38/EC for direct family member and for extended family members.

Between the 2 forms, the following relationships are covered:
- Spouse
- Civil Partner
- Child
- Sibling
- Parent
- Partner (De Facto)
- Dependant Sister/Brother/Aunt/Uncle/Niece/Nephew/Cousin
- Member of household Sister/Brother/Aunt/Uncle/Niece/Nephew/Cousin
- Serious medical grounds Sister/Brother/Aunt/Uncle/Niece/Nephew/Cousin

Also the specific grounds you mention to refuse entry and very limited as they essentially refer to the person being a treat to national security or public order, and the onus is on the member state to prove these grounds are valid. Basically it is only usable if you have serious criminal record, so in must case it doesn't get the member state any power to refuse entry.