- Joined
- 26 Sep 2016
- Messages
- 728
- Reaction score
- 70
- Country
Something totally unheard of in Brussels and Strasbourg.
place your bets
- Thread starter JohnD
- Start date
Sponsored Links
What is?
Well most of the studies I have read on Brexit are from academic sources, but an economist here predicted the crash (Ann Pettifor), and is sceptical about Brexit:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...chael-fish-austerity-cant-solve-a7513416.html
http://www.primeeconomics.org/articles/brexit-and-its-consequences
There were many economists that predicted the crash. Many didn't of course, but they ignored the debt issue.
Last edited:
Looking through this thread, I see no one can see any tangible benefit. Saying "Yes, it's happening" isn't a benefit.
Sponsored Links
D
Doggit
That's because we've done this one to death so many times. As ususal, JohnD starts them off again hoping that we'll magiacally somehow see his viewpoint is right.
So benefits then:
We will be able to control immigration - eventually, although we'll still need it.
That will slow down the pressure on housing and services - although we still need foreign nurses and doctors becuse we don't train them ourselves.
We won't pay so much wasted money into the EU coffers that will just get wasted, but whether it goee to the NHS is another matter.
We'll be able to make our own trade deals with other countries, and not restricted by the EUs slow laborious everyone has to be satisfied with the deal drawn before they'll agree tp it style of negotiatons.
We won't have to keep deffering to the ECJ, and get told we can't deport criminals becasue it'll contravene their human rights; at least we won't if we can get rid of the useless judges we have, and get a better border security team as well.
Oh, and we get blue passports back.
Negative side; we also get Nigel Farage back when he stops being en MEP, but you can't have everything can you.
Likewise - so stop reiterating the same points that prove your actual reasons for wanting to leave were the fault of the UK Governments and not the EU.
D
Doggit
I was just helping Wobs out.
And don't be so pious when you could have left it at the first 7 words. Carrying on past that stage, makes you as bad as me.
And don't be so pious when you could have left it at the first 7 words. Carrying on past that stage, makes you as bad as me.
He also spoke the truth.
"...............your actual reasons for wanting to leave were the fault of the UK Governments and not the EU."
You could look at it this way: if Brexit happens (and it's a pretty big "if" (other than in name only), IMO), another layer of fallback excuses will be stripped from the lackwit politicians who use them to mask their own ineptitude, or true intentions.
Thank you for coming back to me.
"The essence of trade deals is how much market you have got to offer the other side? So, if Switzerland wants to go and have a trade deal with China, it says, "here’s our market, quite small, your market’s enormous, we need a trade deal with you". And China says, as they’ve done, "fine you can give us completely open entry into your economy, and we will open up for you to trade into ours in 15 years- time" …
"So my point is that for Britain, if everybody in the world believed in a free market as a matter of religious faith, Britain might have a chance, but that’s not how trade negotiations work. Countries say "how big’s your market?" and that’s the deal we’ll do with you. And that’s why Britain as part of a European market of 500m is part of some very successful trade deals with more than 60 other countries. And that’s Britain’s market. Now if Britain wants to try and negotiate those alone there’s two big problems: one it will always be the rule-taker. The big economies will always just dictate the terms. And second, it takes a lot of time, it takes on average 28 months to come up with a trade deal. And the reason that’s important is all these flourishing sectors…they need investment.
"Now when investors decide they want to come to Britain, they want to know two things: they want certainty about what the rules are going to be, and they want a big market share. So, if Britain says "well, we’re not sure what we’re going to have, it’s going to take us a few years to negotiate and we’re not going to have access to the big market", Britain’s got a problem".
http://www.nfda-uk.co.uk/_assets/EU Referendum Report 9 - The Penultimate Chapter.pdf
We will lose out not just because we are a lot smaller than the EU, but we will be less attractive to investors.
Further discussion here:
https://theconversation.com/the-uk-...-of-justice-heres-what-it-means-for-you-71524
Basically, there is no real benefit
We already could, its just we chose not to. But if we want a free trade deal, it has to include free movement. This has so many benefits to the UK. Also, remember that India is looking to for better immigration rights to the UK when looking at the prospect for future trade deals, so even if you get your wish with the EU, other countries could get other access, leading to similar immigration rates.
EU immigration is a net benefit, so we won't feel that benefit. It will mean less tax income to pay for those services, less staff for services (as you say), so we'll be worse off.
We will end up paying to the EU if we want to trade with them under any deal that won't cripple us. Paying into the EU makes economic sense, which is why just about every study on the subject insists we are better off in the EU. A Norway type deal would be one of the less expensive options, but that would still entail paying in and having Free Movement.
Most trade deals take time as they are detailed pieces of work with much to agree on. Here is a key quote by Ngaire Woods (of Oxford University, Dean of the Blavatnik School of Government and Professor of Global Economic Governance) regarding trade negotiations to show why your point is mistaken:
"The essence of trade deals is how much market you have got to offer the other side? So, if Switzerland wants to go and have a trade deal with China, it says, "here’s our market, quite small, your market’s enormous, we need a trade deal with you". And China says, as they’ve done, "fine you can give us completely open entry into your economy, and we will open up for you to trade into ours in 15 years- time" …
"So my point is that for Britain, if everybody in the world believed in a free market as a matter of religious faith, Britain might have a chance, but that’s not how trade negotiations work. Countries say "how big’s your market?" and that’s the deal we’ll do with you. And that’s why Britain as part of a European market of 500m is part of some very successful trade deals with more than 60 other countries. And that’s Britain’s market. Now if Britain wants to try and negotiate those alone there’s two big problems: one it will always be the rule-taker. The big economies will always just dictate the terms. And second, it takes a lot of time, it takes on average 28 months to come up with a trade deal. And the reason that’s important is all these flourishing sectors…they need investment.
"Now when investors decide they want to come to Britain, they want to know two things: they want certainty about what the rules are going to be, and they want a big market share. So, if Britain says "well, we’re not sure what we’re going to have, it’s going to take us a few years to negotiate and we’re not going to have access to the big market", Britain’s got a problem".
http://www.nfda-uk.co.uk/_assets/EU Referendum Report 9 - The Penultimate Chapter.pdf
We will lose out not just because we are a lot smaller than the EU, but we will be less attractive to investors.
This is largely ideological (or nationalist, depending on how charitable one wants to be). The ECJ is not a supreme court of Europe, but a way of interpreting European law.
Further discussion here:
https://theconversation.com/the-uk-...-of-justice-heres-what-it-means-for-you-71524
I'm sure you know the UK could have had that anyway.
Shame we can't deport him to the US.
Basically, there is no real benefit
Animal welfare rights will improve when we are out
The eu insist on live exports to the EU , these animals are treated appallingly , many are exported to some country and slaughtered forl religious reasons
The French farming practices are in some cases a disgrace
Eastern Europe well Jeez us wept.
afai am concerned any Halal slaughter that gos on in the UK would be stopped.
The eu insist on live exports to the EU , these animals are treated appallingly , many are exported to some country and slaughtered forl religious reasons
The French farming practices are in some cases a disgrace
Eastern Europe well Jeez us wept.
afai am concerned any Halal slaughter that gos on in the UK would be stopped.
D
Deleted member 63160
Not entirely true:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42340677
The EU does not insist on live export, but allows it. And we are unlikely to ban it post brexit.
They must provide at least minimum level of space etc for the animals as of 2007. Member states can impose more strict rules.
EU countries must abide by EU standards
Its fine to not approve of Halal slaughter, but leaving the EU is unlikely to change this any time soon.
Any benefit would therefore be minor compared with the overall impact on the UK.
Edit:
RSPCA is in favour of being in the EU, as we can influence future laws on animal rights. The benefits would be far greater than just imposing our own laws in the UK:
https://blogs.rspca.org.uk/insights/2016/04/13/the-eu-referendum-and-animal-welfare/#.WmcZj3m7KM8
(I'm no fan of the RSPCA, but here they have a point.)
Last edited:
Correct
Sponsored Links
