EU Referendum - How will you vote?

[Tomjames]

I know she is right bully. I felt so threatened that I curled up and cried for half the evening when she said "‘You will never get a really good result in negotiations, particularly on very important issues, when you’re not in the room and giving input.’

 

It's the insinuation, not words.

[MobileB]

It's the insinuation, not words.

 

The insuation being that if you are inside a room negotiating, you will get a better deal than being outside the room. Obviously don't use conference calls or WebEx's these EU leaders do they.

[unbeliever]

7 to 8 years.

And there's no legal obligation in Article 50 TFEU for the EU to make a free trade agreement with the UK. At all. Nor that the agreement must be finalised within the 2 year period of Article 50 TFEU (at the expiry of which the UK is automatically out of the EU, overnight, agreement in place or not), only that the agreement must be finalised (sub: 'sometime').

 

Here is Article 50 TFEU again, for reference:

The article does not qualify the agreement as a 'free trade agreement', by any stretches of meaning. It's just a 'withdrawal agreement'.

 

Sub-paragraph 2 is that under which the agreement must be negotiated and concluded, makes no reference to any specific time period, and is not cross-referenced to sub-paragraph 3 (which specifies the 2 year period).

 

Sub-paragraph 3 is that under which the EU Treaties cease to apply to the UK either from the date of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that [de minimis interpretation: if there is no withdrawal agreement by then], two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2 [the date at which the UK formally notifies the European Council of its intention to leave: no doubt no.10 will kick that particular can into the long grass as far and as often as it can, to try and buy itself some negotiating time - that would come with an adverse economical cost].

 

Sub-paragraph 3 is accordingly that under which the UK could well find itself outside the EU after 2 years [if there is no withdrawal agreement agreed by then], still without a finalised agreement, and therefore in a much worse negotiating position overnight [because the European Council is not obliged to extend the 2 year period and could ask for an extra pound of flesh to do so, repeatedly for however long the negotiations go on] and also trading-wise [because automatically transferred to WTO rules].

Not really, have I?

You missed the forest for the tree, I'm afraid.

 

Read it again please, and see what the market pricing of a guilt turns on: BoE interest rate and UK inflation. Not the value of the pound.

 

Guess what tool the BoE uses to shore up the value of the pound and manage the inflation rate? Yup, the base interest rate.

WTO rules. Including the tariffs on goods and non-tariff barriers on services. That's the legal default.

 

I posted and linked a recent interview by the WTO boss in the FT about this not long ago, which was pretty objective/non-partisan (IMHO) and well supported. But as usual Brexiters in here just wavy-handed it away as "scaremongering".

 

Funny how, whenever it's bad news or a contrarian view, it's always "scaremongering", no matter how factual and clearly explained with supporting evidence. I'm pretty sure a shrink would diagnose it as denial, but what do I know

 

The Eurozone has a single base interest rate as it has a central bank.

So if it all comes down to interest rates, why does the 10 year bond yield vary from 0.1% in Germany, through 0.5% in France, to 3% in Portugal and 7% in Greece?

 

The matter of free trade agreements is indeed complicated. The US recently negotiated an agreement with Australia which took 3 years and involved no free movement and none of the nonsense of TTIP.

The EU has been working on a free trade agreement with the US for decades.

There are 3 key points I take away from this.

Negotiating free trade agreements does not have to take forever if you're not the EU, so I don't see why an independent UK can't make such agreements.

The EU does not automatically require free movement for free trade.

The EU is not going to sacrifice their trade surplus with the UK to protect the principle of free movement when they've already shown that they will accept free trade agreements without that provision.

Edited June 3, 2016 by unbeliever

[Dottie1]

How do they know what will happen when its not happened yet

[MobileB]

The Eurozone has a single base interest rate as it has a central bank.

So if it all comes down to interest rates, why does the 10 year bond yield vary from 0.1% in Germany, through 0.5% in France, to 3% in Portugal and 7% in Greece?

 

The matter of free trade agreements is indeed complicated. The US recently negotiated an agreement with Australia which took 3 years and involved no free movement and none of the nonsense of TTIP.

The EU has been working on a free trade agreement with the US for decades.

There are 3 key points I take away from this.

Negotiating free trade agreements does not have to take forever if you're not the EU, so I don't see why an independent UK can't make such agreements.

The EU does not automatically require free movement for free trade.

The EU is not going to sacrifice their trade surplus with the UK to protect the principle of free movement when they've already shown that they will accept free trade agreements without that provision.

 

You miss the bit about none of the other trade agreements you mention being with countries that effectively border the EU. The bordering countries that do have such agreements - Norway, Iceland, Switzerland - are also required to have free movement. Bit of an important point.

[unbeliever]

You miss the bit about none of the other trade agreements you mention being with countries that effectively border the EU. The bordering countries that do have such agreements - Norway, Iceland, Switzerland - are also required to have free movement. Bit of an important point.

 

The the EU supposedly requires free movement for nearby countries but not for distant ones. Makes no sense at all.

[L00b]

The Eurozone has a single base interest rate as it has a central bank.

So if it all comes down to interest rates, why does the 10 year bond yield vary from 0.1% in Germany, through 0.5% in France, to 3% in Portugal and 7% in Greece?

It does not come down to interest rates alone, inflation is also highly relevant, and of course -as with any traded instrument- supply and demand.

 

If you're even moderately aware of the respective state and prospects of the national economy and spending commitments of each of these, and relative to one another, can you not derive the relationship even casually?

The matter of free trade agreements is indeed complicated. The US recently negotiated an agreement with Australia which took 3 years and involved no free movement and none of the nonsense of TTIP.

Both Labour and the Tories have been pushing TTIP at the a55 ever since the US started with it. So you're onto a loser with that one I'm afraid.

 

I could perfectly well see Gove, Johnson & Co. rushing the UK onto the TTIP once in power, as an expedient shortcut to more meaningful negotiations in the UK's best interest.

The EU has been working on a free trade agreement with the US for decades.

Can you not guess why it's taking that long?

 

The EU and the US don't exactly see eye to eye in socio-economic matters and the associated regulation (in terms of labour rights, environmental requirements and more). Fundamentally so in many respects.

 

To many baby-eating capitalists in the US, the EU is but a hair's breadth away from being seen as a Commie body, the EUSSR

There are 3 key points I take away from this.

Negotiating free trade agreements does not have to take forever if you're not the EU, so I don't see why an independent UK can't make such agreements.

Nobody's suggested that they would take forever. Just a matter of years, more or less years depending on how busy each party is, and how tortious or straightforward the points of issue are. No-one can estimate reliably how many years precisely, even based on precedent.

The EU does not automatically require free movement for free trade.

If not formally, it certainly does in practice, and gradually so if it has to. Whence multiple bilateral agreements (outra-EU country with individual EU member states) get rolled into new(er) agreements, such as the CETA. See also Switzerland, which we've already discussed.

The EU is not going to sacrifice their trade surplus with the UK to protect the principle of free movement when they've already shown that they will accept free trade agreements without that provision.

So you hope.

 

We've been over this before, time and again. Again there's been no suggestion that the EU is going to sacrifice all of its trade with the UK, no more than the UK would sacrifice all of its trade with the EU, around the question of the free movement of people or another.

 

The matter boils down to negotiation parity (...or the lack thereof indeed), i.e. who can dictate more terms to the other at the negotiation table.

 

With the EU, The UK is looking at 45% of its total export market.

 

With the UK, The EU is looking at 16% of its total export market.

 

The EU has more elbow room at the negotiating table than the UK. It has a lot more ammunition to expend than the UK when negotiations pivot around the free movement principle, and you should really not underestimate the significant political dimension associated with the fairly fundamental difference between a Brexiting UK and foreign countries such as the US, Canada, China, <etc.> who have never been in the EU: there will be another 27 countries left in, and it will be in the best interest of the most influential and invested ones (France, Germany and Italy, not to name them) to ensure that any other EU member state who is thinking of emulating the UK with renegotiation or exiting, gets to see the price tag loud and clear.

Edited June 3, 2016 by L00b

[unbeliever]

These are getting long, but here goes.

 

If you're even moderately aware of the respective state and prospects of the national economy and spending commitments of each of these, and relative to one another, can you not derive the relationship even casually?

 

Absolutely. The confidence of bond investors in the economy in question is a much larger factor than anticipation of small interest rate changes. This is all I was trying to establish and runs against what you originally said.

As I was trying to say, if the cost of borrowing had risen rather than fallen, there would be no end of "experts" telling us that it was because of fears over Brexit.

 

Both Labour and the Tories have been pushing TTIP at the a55 ever since the US started with it. So you're onto a loser with that one I'm afraid.

 

I could perfectly well see Gove, Johnson & Co. rushing the UK onto the TTIP once in power, as an expedient shortcut to more meaningful negotiations in the UK's best interest.

 

Can you not guess why it's taking that long?

 

The EU and the US don't exactly see eye to eye in socio-economic matters and the associated regulation (in terms of labour rights, environmental requirements and more). Fundamentally so in many respects.

 

To many baby-eating capitalists in the US, the EU is but a hair's breadth away from being seen as a Commie body, the EUSSR

 

 

Why are matters of workers' rights and general socio-economic policy relevant to a free trade agreement.

 

Nobody's suggested that they would take forever. Just a matter of years, more or less years depending on how busy each party is, and how tortious or straightforward the points of issue are. No-one can estimate reliably how many years precisely, even based on precedent.

If not formally, it certainly does in practice, and gradually so if it has to. Whence multiple bilateral agreements (outra-EU country with individual EU member states) get rolled into new(er) agreements, such as the CETA. See also Switzerland, which we've already discussed.

So you hope.

 

We've been over this before, time and again.

 

With the EU, The UK is looking at 45% of its total export market.

£25bn/month.

With the UK, The EU is looking at 16% of its total export market.

£40bn/month.

 

The EU has more elbow room at the negotiating table than the UK. It has a lot more ammunition to expend than the UK when negotiations pivot around the free movement principle, and you should really not underestimate the significant political dimension associated with the fairly fundamental difference between a Brexiting UK and foreign countries such as the US, Canada, China, <etc.> who have never been in the EU: there will be another 27 countries left in, and it will be in the best interest of the most influential and invested ones (France, Germany and Italy, not to name them) to ensure that any other EU member state who is thinking of emulating the UK with renegotiation or exiting, gets to see the price tag loud and clear.

 

Highly doubtful. Germany is not going to do anything so pointlessly damaging to its economy.

[L00b]

Absolutely. The confidence of bond investors in the economy in question is a much larger factor than anticipation of small interest rate changes. This is all I was trying to establish and runs against what you originally said.

As I was trying to say, if the cost of borrowing had risen rather than fallen, there would be no end of "experts" telling us that it was because of fears over Brexit.

Have you read the FT links I posted? The above suggests 'not'.

Why are matters of workers' rights and general socio-economic policy relevant to a free trade agreement.

Simplistic example to facilitate comprehension: because when the average Chinese worker wage to make a widget if €1/day and the average EU worker wage to make that same widget is €100/day, the Chinese widget hits the EU market with a 99% price advantage and the EU widget never makes it off the EU factory floor. Hence, tariffs.

 

So, if you want a "free trade" agreement, i.e. remove the tariffs, then there needs to be at least a semblance of wage parity.

 

Now, expand the principle to encompass all that is required to trade freely between the EU and China. Rinse-repeat for the US and the EU. Then again for Brazil. Then again for <etc.>

 

That's what the Brexited UK can look forward to, btw. And why it takes so long. Unless you think the UK should do away with all that of course, and just race downwards to match India's and China's working conditions? That's the direct competition, once we're out of the EU.

£25bn/month

out of £55bn/month.

£40bn/month

out of £250bn/month.

 

I thought you were a scientist, surely you understand numbers and differentials?

Highly doubtful. Germany is not going to do anything so pointlessly damaging to its economy.

Germany has ever-so-slightly much more to lose on the back of a Brexit than a few Beemers and Mercs sold in the UK: it underwrites much of the € zone

 

I hear BMW and Mercs sales are surging again in the US and China, after stagnating awhile (stagnation at a level comparable to the UK market size).

Edited June 3, 2016 by L00b

[unbeliever]

Have you read the FT links I posted? The above suggests 'not'.

Simplistic example to facilitate comprehension: because when the average Chinese worker wage to make a widget if €1/day and the average EU worker wage to make that same widget is €100/day, the Chinese widget hits the EU market with a 99% price advantage and the EU widget never makes it off the EU factory floor. Hence, tariffs.

 

So, if you want a "free trade" agreement, i.e. remove the tariffs, then there needs to be at least a semblance of wage parity.

 

Now, expand the principle to encompass all that is required to trade freely between the EU and China. Rinse-repeat for the US and the EU. Then again for Brazil. Then again for <etc.>

 

That's what the Brexited UK can look forward to, btw. And why it takes so long.

out of £55bn/month.

out of £250bn/month.

 

I thought you were a scientist, surely you understand numbers and differentials?

Germany has ever-so-slightly much more to lose on the back of a Brexit than a few Beemers and Mercs sold in the UK: it underwrites much of the € zone.

 

There's no wage parity between Romania and Germany.

There's no need for wage parity if you accept that not everybody will be making the same things or providing the same services.

How does a 10% tariff compensate for a 10000% difference in wages.