Off Topic Political Debate

Mate, you don't have a clue. You have an opinion, based ongod knows what, which you laughably call 'fact'. Are you David Brent?

 

You have suggested that somehow there are more people to deal with making it a longer process when an individual country does trade deals around the world as opposed to the EU. This is factually incorrect. If country A does a deal with countries B, C and D and the EU also does deals with B, C and D both country A and the EU have to deal with the same number of countries, however the EU then has to go back to all of the member states and get them to agree to the terms. Is that simple enough for you?

Unless I've totally misread your point (possible, since your quoting has made both of our posts go all over the place!) then you're the one who doesn't have a clue

 

But what happens when countries B,C and D are actually countries in the EU? I think that's where the process would become longer and more cumbersome surely?

 

No because we would have a single deal in place with the EU as a whole. As has been discussed, with the EU economy in its current fragile state there is no chance we won't negotiate a mutually beneficial deal.

 

"mutually benefit" being the key phrase there. Like you said earlier, if we try to agree something it would go back to the EU to deliberate and if some nations feel it isn't mutually beneficial to their interests....

 

Yep it would have to go through the EU, but if they blocked a deal it could well mean the collapse of the eurozone and in turn the EU. It simply won't happen. Imagine Germany being told it will lose the billions of trade with the UK and have to cover the extra billions we are no longer paying into the EU coffers, they would go into meltdown! The economy in the EU is very fragile and couldn't deal with a blow like stopping trade with the U.K.

Getting a deal in place would become the single most important thing for the EU to get done.

 

I'm sure the EU would still trade with the UK so I'm not talking about blocking trade, but I do believe there will be many instances where they will turn around and say "no" bcos they don't feel it's in their instances.

BTW on the point you made about blocking trade (which isn't what I'm arguing) but if the EU can alienate a massive contributor like Russia (news today of them extending sanctions) I don't think we have them over a barrel as you may think.

 

If we left we would be the single largest trade partner of the EU, given the current state of the economy and the methods the ECB are attempting to use they simply won't risk it. We would have a favourable deal in place very quickly, it's in everyone's best interests. They aren't going to cut there nose off to spite there face.

 

If it was that simple there wouldn't be a single person advocating not leaving. I think every deal (after we leave) wil be agreed based on its own merits. Some will go through easily (probably the majority) but others will be far more difficult and may be unachievable.

It's far more realistic and productive imo to consider whether Britons are ok with that. Who knows, the majority of people may very well be. That's a much better debate and one I'd want to weigh up, whereas I find the argument that "everything will be ok" a bit disingenuous tbh.

 

Oh, it'll be a process, this is the EU we are talking about, the most slow moving beurocratic monster in the world lol

But it would be in everyone's interest to come to a deal as quickly as possible and it would be the main issue being dealt with.

I do think in the long term, more than "everything will be ok" we will be in a stronger position in the world, but I wouldn't suggest everything will immediately fall into place.

 

It is also a member of the Schengen agreement and pays a contribution to the EU. I am sure all the pro out camp would love this arrangement...

 

Nope, can't say I've seen anyone saying we want the deal Norway has.

 

couple of interesting stories in the news today.

The scale of EU immigration could be 2.25 million over 5 years, more than double the government's figure of 1 million. True figures will not be revealed until eve of referendum.

Secondly although Melvyn King, the former long serving Chancellor of the Exchequer, has not advised on Brexit he clearly sees lots of problems with the current European set up. He states that 'Germany's dominance has been one of the more damaging consequences of the single currency project'. He also claims 'the UK has always been a global trading and we will continue to be a global trading power'. He added 'flexibility is the key to a future outside the EU'.

He clearly infers that with the dominance of Germany it is impossible for the UK to shape the EU from within.

 

The dominance of Germany has only been created by the absolute inability of Britain and France to work together. All of the 'Brexit' campaigners are basing their arguments on what 'might be', what 'could be' or what they think 'should be'. Without any concrete evidence either way. Even the SNP had a more concrete plan for a possible period after independence. What is missing from the debate is just this. If Britain votes for 'Brexit' there is no plan to deal with the transition period of exit from all EU treaties and the replacing of them with possible new ones - a period which could take years and will certainly create uncertainty. We do not know if the UK. will stay together (If it doesn`t then all treaties would need to be negotiated from zero) - we do not know if Cameron will stay in office (despite his claims I do not think that he could). We do not know.....period. The only thing which we do know is that Britain would be alone having alienated itself from its closest neighbours.

 

The U.K. Will stay together regardless. Wales won't go at it alone and Scottish independence focused its economic plan heavily on oil staying at a high and stable price. With the current volatility in the oil market and low prices the economics of a Scottish exit simply wouldn't work.

The idea that we would all of a sudden be on our own is nonsense as well, we are the 5th/6th largest economy in the world, we are important to EU trade and have close links with the common wealth and would be free to pursue deals with other emerging markets. Uncertainty over exactly how things will play out isn't a good reason to stick with an out of date beurocracy that has shifted towards a monetary policy designed to prop up the eurozone above all else.

 

You cant say any of this with certainty...... This is the whole problem with BREXPERTS... it is all supposition.

 

Far too early to be getting into this. I suggest always having breakfast before brexpert.

 

As to the possible break up of the UK. we have a scenario where Scotland, Wales, Ulster, NE. England appear to be in favour of staying - together with the youth of Britain (many of whom feel European). Would these places want to stay in a right wing Britain which would, presumably, want to move closer to becoming the largest US. aircraft carrier in the World, want to move ahead with TTIP and all the environmental disasters that would bring ? Maybe you should ask why Britain is the 5th/6th biggest economy in the World - is it because they have free access to the largest single market in the World ? (Or in spite of it). Of the top ten export destinations of British goods 8 are EU. members and of the top 10 countries from which Britain imports 7 are EU. members, with Germany on top of the second group. When people say that the EU. needs Britain more than the other way around they forget that only Germany and the Netherlands export more to Britain than they import - all of the others are net consumers of British goods.

 

Yes it would appear that in the non-English areas of the UK there is a wish to remain in the EU, mainly due to the EU investment in those areas. Should we pull out I would expect a deal to be done to guarantee the current projects are fully funded by the UK and X amount of future investment. This wouldn't be an issue to fund as we pay far more to the EU than we get back.

In the case of Scotland they simply cannot afford to go at it alone with the current oil situation, there bid for independence relied heavily on a stable oil market with high prices which is the total opposite of what we currently have. The economics of a Scottish exit don't work anymore unless there is a serious shift in the global oil situation.

As for the youth wanting to stay, I'd consider myself part of the youth and there is a mixture of feeling about the EU though I agree there is a slant towards remaining in the EU. This is mainly because people think it's the left wing position to stay in and a right wing position to leave and the youth of today are more left leaning. When they all realise Corbyn wants to pull out we might see a shift in thinking

In terms of why we are the 5th/6th largest economy, no it isn't because of the EU, prior to the EU we were still one of the largest economies in the world. Though yes we do a lot of trade with the EU, in fact if we left we would be the EUs single largest trade partner. It would be madness to put up barriers to trade, particularly given the very fragile state of the eurozone economies. A deal would be done that ensures the level of trade remains the same or as close to the same as possible. It's in everyone's best interest. Large businesses are already preparing for the situation, the merger talks announcement of the LSE and Deutsche Borse shows that businesses will take steps to keep there operations running as normal.

I'm not suggesting we don't need the EU trade, it's in our interest and there's for trade to continue as normal but we are currently in a great position to negotiate that deal given the unstable situation in Europe.

 

I can say with certainty that if the Scottish people didn't vote for independence when the figures might have worked that they won't vote to exit when the figures don't work. Money makes the world go round.