EU Referendum - How will you vote?

[El Cid]

And for those who say Brexit will not damage the economy - stand by because everything is about to cost you more.

 

I think that the economy is doing poorly at the moment, I put it down to poor Government policies. Growth is poor.

 

UK manufacturing activity contracted in April for the first time in three years, a survey has indicated, adding to fears over the economy's strength.

Edited June 10, 2016 by El Cid

[Anna B]

Lunchtime news: Germany is now threatening Brexit with total exclusion from European trading.(I think?)

 

They say we won't be able to have the same deal Scandinavian countries have got, because we won't belong to their gang.

 

Empty threats, sour grapes, or a real problem? You tell me...

[L00b]

I read this quite some time ago, but then forgot about it.

http://openeurope.org.uk/intelligence/britain-and-the-eu/what-if-there-were-a-brexit/

Open Europe have updated it a tad since March 2015.

 

Not for the better, I regret to tell you.

 

For a Eurosceptic group, they're quote upfront:

Box 1 – the under discussed impact of leaving the customs union

 

One point which we think continues to be missed by people on both sides of the debate is the impact of leaving the EU’s customs union and imposing a customs border between the UK and the rest of the EU. Some studies noted above do capture this impact but it remains under-discussed. As we noted in our previous Brexit report, this forms the bulk of the costs in all scenarios. These come in the form of the imposition of new time and out-of-pocket costs on cross-border trade, for example time spent at customs and the administrative cost of getting through customs. Importantly, this is a cost which will occur no matter what is negotiated between the UK and the EU and it is a dead weight cost for the economy (not a transfer as with tariffs). This goes someway to explaining why there is always likely to be a small negative cost to leaving the EU in the long run.

 

<...>

 

Box 2: UK steel controversy shows challenges of opening up to free trade with emerging markets

 

The recent controversy over the potential closure of some UK steel plants is a prime example of the potential challenges to striking trade agreements with some of these countries – particularly China.20 While deals with markets such as China potentially offer the largest gains they also offer the potential for the largest disruption. While this may on net prove beneficial for the UK economy (lower costs for consumers and producers) and generate growth, as our figures above suggest, it will come at the expense of vested interests and potentially short term unemployment as industries adjust. Politicians may well balk at such a trade-off, especially if there is significant domestic pressure as with the steel plants. This could manifest itself in a number of ways from torpedoing agreements entirely to reducing their speed or limiting their scope or even limiting the coverage to only more developed market economies.

Happy reading

Empty threats, sour grapes, or a real problem? You tell me...

There's certainly the potential for it to be a real problem.

 

Germany is a larger economy than the UK and doing just fine, and the UK getting out would give it significantly more influence at the EU level than it currently enjoys, so I'm not really sure how much sour grapes there could be.

 

As regards empty threats, how many times have I told you already, that what Germany would be immediately after in case of a Brexit, is to hijack the EU passporting financial services from the City? From that platform, they can then piggyback onto global markets. Just like the City did in the late 80s/early 90s.

 

Need I remind you (and I know this will unfortunately irk you no end, Anna) that it's the UK's golden goose, past, present and (if Remain) future.

 

Merkel will be acutely aware that anything sounding like "the Huns blackmailing the Brits" is going to help the Brexit side. This her starting to play for keeps IMHO.

Edited June 10, 2016 by L00b

[High Greener]

Eddy izzard, lol, voting out

[unbeliever]

Open Europe have updated it a tad since March 2015.

 

Not for the better, I regret to tell you.

 

For a Eurosceptic group, they're quote upfront:

Happy reading

 

 

For me a "likely small small negative cost" is a small price to pay to restore our sovereignty.

If this very slightly reduced GDP is spread over fewer people due to a reduction in net migration, then individually we could all be better off.

I really wish these things were expressed in GDP/capita, rather than total. When net migration is likely to be affected, looking at total GDP just won't do.

 

Yes I know. You'll want to jump up and down and get all excited about the fact that I just admitted total GDP is not the whole game. I'm not the official Brexit campaign and I don't speak to them.

Everybody voting will I suppose have to decide if being better off by an estimated 0%-1% less over 14 years is something they would notice and whether self-determination is worth that much to them.

[altus]

Lunchtime news: Germany is now threatening Brexit with total exclusion from European trading.(I think?)

 

They say we won't be able to have the same deal Scandinavian countries have got, because we won't belong to their gang.

 

Empty threats, sour grapes, or a real problem? You tell me...

I'm sure they'll give us the same deal as Scandinavian countries if we accept the same conditions - i.e. free movement of people. But Brexiters don't want that.

 

You're complaining they won't let us have our cake and eat it.

[L00b]

You're complaining they won't let us have our cake and eat it.

Precisely.

 

Which, as it happens, is exactly what German and French politicians are currently saying a lot in interviews, i.e. the UK can't expect to have its cake and eating it in case of a Brexit.

[unbeliever]

Precisely.

 

Which, as it happens, is exactly what German and French politicians are currently saying a lot in interviews, i.e. the UK can't expect to have its cake and eating it in case of a Brexit.

 

Attempting to bully us is likely to have the reverse effect that they hope for.

 

If they would really sacrifice their trade surplus with us to make a point, I don't think we want to be in collective government with such silly people.

[L00b]

Attempting to bully us is likely to have the reverse effect that they hope for.

Read my post again. I'm expecting that their attempt to "bully" you is reverse psychology to favour a Brexit which is in their self-interest.

 

Just like the tone and spirit of your post, and you're falling right for it.

If they would really sacrifice their trade surplus with us to make a point, I don't think we want to be in collective government with such silly people.

You're missing the forest for the tree, unbeliever.

 

The bulk of our trading surplus with Europe is services, in particular financial services.

 

That's the easiest trading to impede with non-tariff barriers (read that Open Europe pdf) and there's nothing amongst those which they can't do themselves, with increased capacity. Deutsche Boerse bought over half of the LSE the other month for God's sake, open your eyes already!

 

It's not about "making a point", it's about grabbing economical activity from the UK to bootstrap more growth in the EU and gain a larger tax base. I'm quietly confident Merkel is very happy at the price for it, of selling a few less Beemers and Mercs a year into the UK. It'd still be a steal at twice the price!

Edited June 10, 2016 by L00b

[tinfoilhat]

For me a "likely small small negative cost" is a small price to pay to restore our sovereignty.

If this very slightly reduced GDP is spread over fewer people due to a reduction in net migration, then individually we could all be better off.

I really wish these things were expressed in GDP/capita, rather than total. When net migration is likely to be affected, looking at total GDP just won't do.

 

Yes I know. You'll want to jump up and down and get all excited about the fact that I just admitted total GDP is not the whole game. I'm not the official Brexit campaign and I don't speak to them.

Everybody voting will I suppose have to decide if being better off by an estimated 0%-1% less over 14 years is something they would notice and whether self-determination is worth that much to them.

 

If youre at the bottom of the food chain "a small negative cost" is going to hurt a lot, just for a change of overlords.

 

And it wont be a small negative cost in my (and others) opinion and will be an absolutely massive one.