EU Referendum - How will you vote?

[L00b]

Surely you understand that the existing trade arrangements by default remain in place unless and until either the UK or the EU change them.

The current existing trade arrangements (of the UK with EU member states) by default are according to the UK's current membership of the EU.

 

Once the UK's membership is resiliated, 2 years from the PM depositing the article 50 TFEU declaration (unless the EU consents to an extension of time beyond 2 years - which is doubtful), the existing trade arrangements are likewise resiliated. Whether a deal is signed by that time or not.

 

What then remains as default is the WTO rules, of which the UK is a member independently of the EU. The WTO rules are significantly less friendly to the UK than EU rules. So that situation would automatically give the EU member states a stronger negotiating hand (...whence my belief that an extension of the article 50 TFEU 2 year period is doubtful).

 

Standard operation of contractual law, nothing contentious or misleading about this. It's as basic a cause/effect situation as it comes.

Edited June 23, 2016 by L00b

[dangerousedd]

i think the vote will be for remain, but if they did vote leave it wouldn't make any difference as the uk would never be allowed to decouple itself from the eu.

[Tomjames]

Once we come out (2 years max) we will default to WTO regulation if no other agreement has been reached. This is very complex based on the type of goods but there are default tariffs of between 4 and 10% for most goods although some are much higher (and with it increased paperwork .... otherwise known as red tape......). The head of the WTO says we didn't really ought to default to this and instead should stay in, it is a much better deal.

 

Tariffs contribute to economic depression.

Not to mention the numerous big Businesses and whole industries like 91% of motor and manufacturing who explicitly state there will be realignment of goals, removal of investment and probable job losses.

 

[unbeliever]

The current existing trade arrangements (of the UK with EU member states) by default are according to the UK's current membership of the EU.

 

Once the UK's membership is resiliated, 2 years from the PM depositing the article 50 TFEU declaration (unless the EU consents to an extension of time beyond 2 years - which is doubtful), the existing trade arrangements are likewise resiliated. Whether a deal is signed by that time or not.

 

What then remains as default is the WTO rules, of which the UK is a member independently of the EU. The WTO rules are significantly less friendly to the UK than EU rules. So that situation would automatically give the EU member states a stronger negotiating hand (...whence my belief that an extension of the article 50 TFEU 2 year period is doubtful).

 

Standard operation of contractual law, nothing contentious or misleading about this. It's as basic a cause/effect situation as it comes.

 

 

You still believe that the EU are crazy enough to put up trade barriers which will cost them far more than us?

If so, do you really want to be in a political union with such daft people?

[Anna B]

An exogenous given - what he means is that for some reason the Brits deny that they helped create the EU and feel it is some alien thing. It isn't, Britain had a role in shaping the EU into what it is as much, if not more, as every other EU member-state.

 

And on Germany - the only people who are putting Germany in apparent charge are the British. I never hear this nonsense that Germany is in charge in the Netherlands or other member states. The Greek situation was resolved by Merkel pledging money to bail them out, that gave the Germans some say in what should or should not happen with that money, but it didn't put the Germans in charge of the EU.

 

It is the usual misunderstanding of how the EU works that leads people to believe that sort of thing.

 

 

Thankyou, that's helpful.

[Tomjames]

 

 

I was just thinking about this whole thing and how much it has split the country, and how this will go on for years.

 

Possible outcomes:

1. Leave, things go wrong - all the people who voted out will be demonised

2. Leave, things go well - all the people who voted in will be able to be quiet, and will no doubt claim that things change

3. Stay, things go wrong - (EU collapse - this has been my stance) all the in voters who voted in IN will claim that it is the EU's fault and they didn't see it coming and had nothing to do with any referendum

4. Stay, things stay as they are - the easy vote and will win the referendum, and people will still argue for years that it would have been better if we left.

 

 

Think you maybe right. Hopefully today puts an end to the debate but I doubt it.

[L00b]

You still believe that the EU are crazy enough to put up trade barriers which will cost them far more than us?

If so, do you really want to be in a political union with such daft people?

Remember that the UK will be negotiating with 27 member states, not Brussels on its own.

 

I believe that each of those 27 EU member states will be negotiating towards what is in its own and best self-interest, rather than the UK's. That's what respective sides in any negotiation always do.

 

Trade barriers might or might not come into it, from some, all or none of the EU member states.

 

But if the UK defaults to WTO rules as deals aren't ironed out and signed by then, then WTO tariffs will apply regardless of what the UK and EU member states want.

 

Not applying them would be contrary to WTO rule and make the or each non-compliant state (including the UK) liable to a WTO fine (yes, you see, the UK did surrender such sovereignty to the WTO, but was it you, or Quik, who did not accept the simple truth of it?)

 

Still only standard operation of contractual law, nothing contentious or misleading about this. Still simple cause/effect situations.

 

I've long said that you don't have to feel happy about the UK being so snookered (to be sure, it's no more snookered than all of the other countries that are member of the WTO, whether EU members or not...and which is the world and its dog, basically). But them's the apples, so if you're not happy, you'd better get started on asking for a referendum about the UK's WTO membership as well.

Edited June 23, 2016 by L00b

[unbeliever]

Remember that the UK will be negotiating with 27 member states, not Brussels on its own.

 

I believe that EU member states will be negotiating towards what is in their own and best self-interest, rather than the UK's. That's what respective sides in any negotiation always do.

 

Trade barriers might or might not come into it, from some, all or none of the EU member states.

 

If the UK defaults to WTO rules and deals aren't ironed out and signed by then, then WTO tariffs will apply regardless of what the UK and EU member states want. Not applying them will be contrary to WTO rule and make the or each non-compliant state liable to a WTO fine (yes, you see, the UK did surrender such sovereignty to the WTO, but was it you, or Quik, who did not accept the simple truth of it?)

 

Not applying tariffs is not contrary to WTO rules. That's just not true.

[MobileB]

You still believe that the EU are crazy enough to put up trade barriers which will cost them far more than us?

If so, do you really want to be in a political union with such daft people?

 

I really don't think you understand trade negotiations and how they work. If they let the UK on a simple free trade deal with no restriction on movement of people then Norway, Switzerland and the other 9 European countries that are required to have free movement of people as part of a free trade deal will be asking for the same. It just won't happen. Why do you think these countries accept free movement as part of a trade deal?

[unbeliever]

I really don't think you understand trade negotiations and how they work. If they let the UK on a simple free trade deal with no restriction on movement of people then Norway, Switzerland and the other 9 European countries that are required to have free movement of people as part of a free trade deal will be asking for the same. It just won't happen. Why do you think these countries accept free movement as part of a trade deal?

 

Switzerland have already rejected unlimited free movement in a referendum.

The free movement idea is already in the process of collapsing.

 

It would be absolute madness for the Germans to make it difficult for themselves to sell us cars, or the French food. It would also be politically disastrous for their leaders. If you were the German chancellor, or the French president, what would you do?