LondonMix

I've spoken to two senior people in the financial world who honestly believe that the UK won't leave the EU with a leave vote. That instead the two years will be used to negotiate concessions. I really hope that's not the case as it would be a huge blow for democracy. I am in favor of Remain but I am also in favor of democracy. Apparently in Cameron's speech he said this decision is irreversible, whatever it is.

If its about sovereignty then fair enough but if its about specific bits of legislation that should be reformed then surely it makes more sense to stay and reform it rather than give up all the benefits the EU confers economically. The trade agreements that you believe the UK can very easily replace are not just with the EU but with 50 other countries via the EU. Without the temptation of a 500 person trading block, it is totally unreasonable to think the UK will get as good trade terms with those other 50 countries as it currently enjoys. It certainly won't get a better trade deal than it currently has with the EU (there is nothing better than total free trade). To think so requires a total suspension of reason and experience in favor of a belief in an extraordinary level of British exceptionalism. Is there any institution (including the UK parliament, UN the US government, the BBC, the Met police etc) that is not subject to criticism and is in need of specific reforms? Of course not. Does that mean all of those institutions should be scrapped entirely? Of course not. The question shouldn't be is EU perfect but does the UK get more benefits from membership than not. The answer economically is 100% yes. Again, the sovereignty issue is something else-- if you want sovereignty and you are willing to pay the price for it, then fair play. Rook Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Exactly. Its served us very well as globalisation > has taken hold but its not fit for purpose > anymore. The reality of this is there to see. > Your opinion is clearly that it is however so fair > enough

Louisa, I personally have issues with the CFP. For one, through constant political bartering, caps are not set low enough in Europe. This is the fault of member nations (including the UK) who are constantly fighting for over-fishing rather than setting the caps at their intended appropriate conservation levels. If anything, I think the decision on cap levels should be made entirely by scientists and removed from political influence. With that said, I also think the UK lost more than it gained initially in the 1970s when joining the CFP as it controlled more valuable fishing water than other member nations. However, by then the fishing industry was already in terminal decline. Over fishing for almost a hundred years had already significantly decimated the fishing population. Leaving the EU will not and cannot restore fishing to its former importance in those parts of the country. In fact, without EU subsidies, fishing is no longer a viable industry within Europe generally as most fleets run at a loss (and that's with the caps set too high!). I think this is 100% an area for reform regarding better conservation efforts but the economic value of fishing for the UK doesn't warrant a Leave vote at all. Agriculture, Fishing and Forestry combined only account for 0.07% of UK GDP. That is hundredths of a percent!

Sorry cross posted with you Louisa. The collapse of the fishing stock was not a result of the EU (based on published scientific findings). The fishing stock due to deep sea trawling was in long decline of more than 100 years due to over fishing. The caps that are now in place are to prevent the total collapse of the fishing stock in Europe. What is a fairer point to make is that before 1970, Britain had those waters to themselves. Opening that waters up to international fishing would have been a hit for the local industry.

Sorry, what decision has the EU made that you believe, if it hadn't made would mean that the South West would have a prosperous fishing industry now? From your post, I think that's is what you are claiming.

Louisa-- my in-laws are from the Devon coast so I know more about the area than most. Please explain what about the policies in your view have destroyed the fishing industry rather than just saying they have. Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If you are a young person growing up in one of > these isolated communities, you have no future. > All the traditional industries you relied upon > have now gone thanks to EU regulation, something > we cannot control. Imagine growing up in one of > these places with no future and no job prospects? > Oh but it's ok because the EU is funding a > regeneration project which involves rebuilding the > town square, great. > > Louisa.

Louisa, how have fishing communities been left decimated by the common fisheries policy in your view. Are you blaming that policy for the over 100 year decline in fishing stock? Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Here's a good example root. Fishing, and the > 'common fisheries policy'. Not just in the UK, but > across the EU, localised fishing communities have > been left decimated by undemocratic decisions made > far from home, by people who little to no > understanding of the micro structure of a local > economy and its reliance on one two particular > industries. > > Parts of Cornwall and Devon are the biggest > beneficiaries of EU funding, but despite this they > remain some of the most anti-EU constituents in > the whole UK. They've seen first hand the damage > farming and agricultural decisions made abroad > have marginalised their communities and left > generations out of work. Unlike here in London, > where one door closes and another opens up, these > places do not have those options open to them. And > I think, most would prefer to be in control of > their local economies rather than live off > handouts from the EU. > > Louisa.

The UK elects members to the European parliament and the European Parliament does vote on EU laws. The laws are not being imposed without a vote by elected representatives of member states. The analogy is akin to voting for your local MP on an issue that matters to you but then your MP being outvoted on that issue in the House of Commons by a majority of other MPs. Its as democratic as that process is. root Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rook Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > A national government overruling a local > council > > in the same country is democratic > > An institution making laws and decisions > imposed > > on a country that has not voted for those laws > or > > has no ability to vote against them, is not > > Can you give an example of one such law or > decision you feel particularly strongly about?

A dictatorship? Every country in the world imposes trade tariffs on other countries unless they are part of a free trade block / have a free trade agreement. There is nothing unusual or dictatorial about this. Its always been the UK's approach to trade dating back centuries. Castillo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Exactly Rook what's the point in an elected uk > government if they have to impose rulings by an EU > hierarchy we didn't vote for or want > > And let's not forget that the EU is simply a large > group of countries pulled together to be told " we > are now one big country" - that's quite > undemocratic too. Not only that - but if anyone > wants to deal with anyone else within that group > you can only do so by being part of that club , or > we will impose tariffs to inhibit you. That starts > to sound a bit like a dictatorship ? > > I'm pro Europe and pro immigration and all the > other wonderful things it's done for us - but I'm > anti the current EU and I genuinely don't think we > can change it from the inside- that's been proved > with Cameron's negotiations. > > We vote to leave we take back control and a new > system will be negotiated. Look at the rest of > Europe they are all voting against the EU set up. > Elections in Spain then Italy then more > referendums. Totally agree that it's about > ideology versus reality and it's the Reality that > you simply cannot ignore

Why are you still reading it Otta? I'm sure if the vote is Remain the thread will die but if not I imagine there will be loads to discuss about all the future proposals 😀 Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Can you all promise that on Friday this all stops > whatever happens?

I think there are lots of areas that can be improved. I also think that sovereignty for its own sake is a good enough reason to vote to leave as long as one accepts the cost of doing so. Please be specific about which of my statements you believe to be guess work and I will respond specifically to your points.

Robbin-- this is what I do for a living so yes I do know actually. That trade tariffs will be applied following Brexit is the law. The UK will become an independent member of the WTO (right now its membership is via the EU trading block) following the establishment of its own independent terms. As a member, it will legally be required to erect most favored nation tariffs to all countries until it negotiates separate trade agreements with them. The EU by law will have to erect most favored nation tariffs against Britain also. I get that you aren't familiar with all of this which of course is fine but its insane to simply dismiss it as speculation when these are bold face verifiable facts just because they don't dovetail with your world view. This is an important vote. Spend a few hours looking into what I've outlined and if you have any questions I'll try to answer them objectively. The idea that there will only be a small interval between Brexit and the a total free trade agreement is not realistic. The EU has explicitly stated the only access to complete free trade will be under the Norway model which still allows for the free movement of EU citizens between countries. If you believe the UK will accept this, then perhaps but anything else will take years not weeks to negotiate. In the best of times with extremely eager parties, it takes 5 - 10 years to conclude a trade agreement. This is a well established fact, not a guess or speculation. Look up any current trade agreement and see how long they took to agree. Moreover, Britain will need to establish trade agreements not just with the EU but with the 50 other countries its losing access too if Brexit takes place. The EU has a tremendous amount of global trade agreements because of its important as a trading block and the UK would be walking away from all of that. In fact, all the EU trade agreements including those in the pipeline like the one with Canada cover 88% of Britain's trade. That's just the immediate trade impact. We haven't even begun discussing the implications for the financial services sector. robbin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I just don't get all this confident stating of > things as facts when I am suspecting you don't > actually know (not a criticism - I probably don't > either, but it shows the danger of crappy > scaremongering debate from both sides). For > example, you state as if fact - "immigrants pay > taxes (as they have a very high employment rate). > They more than cover the costs of the public > services they use" - Where are the figure for that > please? If it's right its right, but is that even > measured? > > If you are instinctively in favour of remaining, > fine, you are as entitled to your view as anyone > else, but stating facts or presuming things as > facts upon which other inferences are then drawn, > I find rather disconcerting, not to mention > unconvincing. > > On that note, you also say "The second point is > simply the result of how tariffs work Robin. It > has nothing to do with a boycott. When trade > tariffs are applicable, the cost of imported goods > goes up like for like. That's not speculation." > > Well, I agree it is not speculation that when > tariffs are applicable the costs of goods go up. > To be honest that's pretty obvious and I couldn't > argue against it. But, it is another statement of > fact which is not fact. It is (contrary to what > you imply) indeed speculation that there would be > tariffs imposed by UK against EU imports. The > likelihood is that there would NOT be such tariffs > imposed and that we would ultimately do a deal > with our EU allies to facilitate the continuation > of tariff free trade. Free trade is recognised as > in everyone's interests and where we are > neighbours and trading countries it would make no > sense to raise tariffs. This is something I don't > understand about the Remain arguments - our EU > allies would not suddenly become enemies and in a > trade war with us because we vote to leave in a > couple of years time - that's errant nonsense and > Cameron scaremongering. Actually, even he hasn't > openly or directly said tariffs would be imposed > because that's a bonkers suggestion. He just sort > of implies it and leaves the fear to the > imagination of voters. It seems you have bought > into it. I haven't, although the fear tactics are > definitely making me nervous as I'm sure they do > many others.

It won't automatically. Its far more complicated than that.

Its not guesswork Rook. As part of extricating itself from the EU, Britain will lose access to its current free trade agreement with the EU block as well as over 50 additional global trading partners that the EU has trade agreements with. Once Britain leaves the EU, it loses all of that as well as its rights as a WTO member as which is also under the EU. Equally important, UK banks will lose the ability to carry out business in Europe through the existing passporting arrangements. As a result, international banks will have to reduce jobs in London and increase their presence in either Frankfurt, Paris etc to continue operating. None of this is speculation. The UK will have circa 2 years to extricate itself from the EU-- the referendum is like filing for divorce not actually getting divorced which of course takes much longer. During those two years the EU has publicly stated it will not negotiate a new trade agreement as it doesn't want discussions on the status of current EU citizens living in Britain and British citizens in the EU to be used as a bargaining tool. This is just one of a hundreds of legal issues that will need to be determined including proposed changes to UK law etc. The WTO has already confirmed the UK will need a brand new agreement, which will likely take the entire two year extrication period as its tantamount to a new ascension agreement. The combination of the pending impact on the UK's trade and financial sector will 100% result in a decline in economic activity like for like. There is no way to dispute this. Equally important is investment into the UK will be frozen for a time (12-24 months is most investors estimate) until the uncertainty about the new legal framework (potentially the new government), any impact on Scotland etc is understood. M&A activity is already down 70% like for like this year as a result of the referendum. Vote Leave if you feel its worth it, but people who continue to insist that everything will be fine in a month literally haven't bothered to familiarize themselves with the economic facts. A typical trade agreement between willing parties typically takes 5 years to agree and that's with everyone in a good mood and keen to progress things quickly. The EU are in no such mood and France in particular has said as much. The only thing in question is how large the negative impact on the economy will be (part of that depends on what the new laws and agreements are which of course no one knows nor will they know for a few years) not if the impact will be negative. Also, the UK economy isn't negatively impacted by being part of the EU. Any malaise in the Eurozone will impact the UK whether it is in the EU or not as its the country's largest trading partner. However, EU membership doesn't amplify that in anyway as the UK is not in the Eurozone and is not responsible for Eurozone bailouts.

That seems more plausible.... singalto Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Every house on Pellatt rd received three letters > about it. However a few people on the section I > delivered the letters to had no idea the party was > happening as they hadn't read the letters....

Also, as uncomfortable a truth as it is-- higher earners contribute a huge amount of total tax revenue. When their income falls, the impact on tax revenue (and consequently public services) is dramatic.

Robbin, you do realize that immigrants pay taxes (as they have a very high employment rate). They more than cover the costs of the public services they use. The strain on public services infrastructure has to do with austerity, not a burden posed by immigrants. If all the immigrants left the UK tomorrow (as did their tax contributions), there would be a large financial hole for our public services. This combined with the fact that immigrants provide vital skills missing from the health services is why the head of the NHS is pro-Remain. Anyhow, if you were familiar with those 35 conditions, it would be clear that Turkey is no where near gaining admission. robbin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > robbin Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Cameron has always been staunchly in favour > of > > Turkey joining the EU. > > > > Strangely, so has Boris. > > Indeed. If we stay in - we will be joined by > Turkey. It's what the UK govt wants (although just > now it is painfully difficult to admit) and it is > clearly what EU Commission wants (as they stressed > again just 48 hours ago when they said they were > "accelerating" turkey's application for EU > membership (not the best timing for Cameron > that!). > > Personally I believe we will stay in, so we will > see. Another million or two residents for our NHS > and schools to accommodate.

Hi Robbin, That was a typo. That should have read The UK export business will shrink as the higher cost to customers in the EU market will reduce demand. (I'm at work so writing this out quickly). ETA: This phenomena is the same for the 50 countries outside the EU that the EU has a trade agreement with that Britain currently benefits from but will lose access to following Brexit. The second point is simply the result of how tariffs work Robin. It has nothing to do with a boycott. When trade tariffs are applicable, the cost of imported goods goes up like for like. That's not speculation. Let me know if that's still unclear. robbin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sorry LM, I don't really follow. > > Re (1) I don't see how (as you suggest) the "the > UK export business will shrink as the higher cost > to customers in the UK market will reduce demand". > Firstly, what has demand in the UK market got to > do with our exports? Secondly, why will there be > higher costs to customers in the UK market? > Thirdly, we can still buy from EU - they are > hardly going to refuse to sell their products to > us! Fourthly, I don't see the link between the UK > export business and higher cost to customers in > the UK market (even if there was any - which you > simply presume without saying why). > > Re (2) You postulate "EU imports will also become > more expensive increasing price inflation > domestically." Why? You can't just say that like > it's gospel - why would prices increase? EU > exporters will still want to sell to us and will > want to stay competitive. Are you suggesting some > sort of South African boycott of the UK by the > EU?? We will still be allies and close trading > partners - not sworn enemies. > > Cameron might say the sky will fall in, but that > doesn't make it so. The world won't start turning > the other way on its axis causing tsunamis in the > UK. Trolls with French accents won't really jump > out from under Thames bridges and eat us up. > Those are about the only scare stories I haven't > yet heard from Cameron. But there's still 3 days > to go...

Not strangely-- he is part Turkish and has always been very pro Turkey joining the EU. Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > robbin Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Cameron has always been staunchly in favour of > Turkey joining the EU. > > Strangely, so has Boris.

Sure Robbin. Losing tariff free access has two impacts: 1. The UK export business will shrink as the higher cost to customers in the EU market will reduce demand. 2. EU imports will also become more expensive increasing price inflation domestically. This inflation will leave the average person worse off and less able to purchase goods and services. Its not the net position but rather the fact that the UK will suffer two negative simultaneous impacts as it relies on Europe both as export and import market. If the UK only exported to the EU, the overall impact of Brexit would be less significant. The UK cannot produce these imports for the same cost domestically, otherwise they would do so, so the latter change would be a permanent increase in the cost of a significant amount of goods and services currently enjoyed by UK citizens. Edited for typo

Blah Blah-- I think its a delicate diplomatic matter. While its 100% true that Turkey is no where near gaining entry to the EU, for a leader of a country with veto power over all new entrants (which the UK has) to come out and even intimate that it would be a bad thing if Turkey was close poses certain international diplomacy challenges. I suspect, that is why up until recently Cameron has shied away from making comments that could be construed as anti-Turkey.

Robbin-- what are these greater economic opportunities. Please be specific. The UK will be losing free trade access to the largest trading block in the world as well as losing the trade agreements the EU has struck with 50 other countries globally that the UK currently benefits from. What exactly will the UK free from the EU do to offset these losses? Also, to be clear, being a net-importer from a region absolutely does not mean you are better off without access to that region as a trading partner. Quite the opposite.

The idea that economics of Brexit do not impact anyone but the wealthy simply isn't true. Many industries in the UK will be impacted by the trade tariffs. Even those industries not directly impacted will suffer from the reduction in economic activity, particularly the wider service economy. Because people employed in one sector spend money on goods and services in other sectors, no business is immune from significant turbulence. Even for those that aren't employed another recession will have a negative impact on public services as it will bring about another round of austerity. I do agree though that a vote against the status quo may simply be a protest vote by the disaffected. Many are interpreting the rise of outsiders in the US to a similar phenomena. That's not to say there aren't reasons to vote Leave that might for some people trump these concerns but its not true to that most people will not be impacted economically by Brexit. Burbage Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > titch juicy Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > What more evidence do the leave voters need to > see > > that there will be an almighty shock, a lasting > > shock for our economy, should we vote to leave? > > This may be a poor time to raise this, but the > economic argument is, for most people, broadly > irrelevant. Stock market jitters might be of > interest to wealthy speculators, but they make > little difference to anything real. Sure, the > financial economy dwarfs the productive economy, > and those who've bought financialised savings > products will, once again, get stung. But that's > not unusual or unexpected, and the EU decision > won't make any future jitters go away. And sure, > some real jobs rely on exchange rates and so on, > but what, exactly are Britain's chief exports? > Armaments, bits for nuclear plants, fuel oils and > pearls. Hardly mainstream sources of employment. > And as for the overall health of the economy, > we've been told, for the best part of seven years, > that we're in a surging recovery with rising > employment and a dominant position in the > 'knowledge economy'. For a few, that may be true. > But in reality, the average (mean) income has been > outstripping the average (median) income by three > to one, which means most people have seen no > improvement at all. > > If people want anything, it's a say in how they're > governed. They want to see an end to tax-dodging, > employment conditions that are better than Uber's, > a decent place to live for the forseeable, good > schools and decent healthcare. None of which > should have much to do with Europe. But when even > the mildest attempt of Parliament to rein in > transnational abuses is promptly rejected by both > Treasury and HMRC, it's difficult to see whether > voters have any say at all. This referendum is a > chance to be heard. And that's why it's both > dangerous and unpredictable. > > For the only arguments being debated seem to be > the economic ones. That's understandable if you > understand the interests of the campaign funders. > A major donor to the leave campaign is, for > example, a big importer of cars from the far east; > a major donor to the remain campaign is a large > importer of European cars. Sometimes it's a little > less clear - JCB, for example, competes with > Hitachi and exports to Europe. But then, JCB has > recently been fined for breaching carbon-trading > rules, so it might just be harbouring a grudge. > Either way, we've been left with a debate confined > to the narrow interests of competing businesses, > because that's who are paying the bills, which is > hardly democratic or enlightening. > > And that's the danger. Without a proper debate, > voters may just see this as an opportunity to vote > for change, and vote for that regardless. That's > understandable - if the EU debate has taught us > anything, it's that our leaders aren't fit to > lead, our institutions as corrupt as we suspected > and elections at the mercy of corporate donors and > axe-grinders. > > But what we should be voting for is a world with a > little more peace in it. A bit more cooperation. A > little joined-up thinking. And a little less > competition. All most people want is a decent life > and a future for their children, and that should > be taken for granted. It shouldn't always have to > be a fight. Compare and contrast, though, the > actions of our government, that's slowly turning > the screw on the low-paid, the disabled and > tenants of social housing, and the EU, which has > done more to protect our environment, human > rights, working conditions and privacy, than would > have suited the paymasters of any British > government. That's not because the EU is > particularly efficient or benevolent, but because > it's much more expensive for corporations to bully > the EU, whose politicians at least demand a decent > price. > > There is also the immigration debate, but that > won't trouble the young. Quite the opposite - for > though they can't hope to buy a house in London, > or even most of England, there are 27 other > countries they're allowed to live in, and > immigration can work two ways. It may cost serious > money to learn another language properly (our own > schools and universities aren't great at that), > but the EU makes studying abroad a real > possibility and opportunities are good. It's only > those stuck in a silly housing bubble of their own > making that are trapped, and we can't blame the EU > for that.

I didn't see question time but I do think the electorate are being bamboozled and many are naturally baffled and confused. Whether he should have said that though is a totally different question!

According the polls., Remain has pulled narrowly ahead in most and at worst drawn even. Most of the polling was done before Jo Cox's death so the surge for Remain can only be partly attributable to that. Louisa, what exactly do you think Cameron needed to address about immigration? Immigration is 100% an economic positive for the UK. EU immigrants make up 5% of the country. Loads of Brtis have left for Europe as well so the net population change is only a couple million people. They are in work and contributing tax as well as providing vital skills the country needs to continue growing and providing public services, particularly the NHS in which immigrants play a huge role. Most EU immigrants are in London, where most people are pro-Remain because they are best placed to see the advantages (economic and cultural) of EU migration. The supposedly lower skilled immigrants from Eastern Europe make up less than half of total EU immigrants and are too small a population to have had any widespread impact on most working class people. Continuing to pander to the misinformation and paranoia in my view only legitimizes EU immigration concerns driven by fear rather than reality. The lies about Turkey and Middle Eastern countries joining the EU as a means to stoke bad feeling is for me beyond the pale. The Leave campaign really should focus on articulating the advantages of leaving the EU and why its worth paying the economic price it will entail (I still have no clear vision of this).