The result of the EU referendum:

[Shaker]

I haven't read all the posts but have been reading JeremyP's posts with which I agree. I heard part of QT on FiveLive last night and then some of the phone-ins. I hope fervently that if, as was pointed out, it is the young who are much more in favour of remaining firmly in the EU, that all young voters will take the trouble to vote, in order to counteract the, to me,  ghastly opinions of most of the phoners-in. Thank goodness the vote is on 23rd June because I'm off to Australia for 10 days on the 24th.

I read somewhere yesterday - I can't now remember where I saw it - than while more young people are in favour of remaining in the EU and more older people in favour of leaving, it tends to be more older people who actually go out and vote.

[ProfessorDavey]

I read somewhere yesterday - I can't now remember where I saw it - than while more young people are in favour of remaining in the EU and more older people in favour of leaving, it tends to be more older people who actually go out and vote.

Is always the case and is therefore a worry.

[Shaker]

Well, for the innies, yes.

[ProfessorDavey]

Well, for the innies, yes.

Which is why I am concerned

[Nearly Sane]

An additional issue, not just on the referendum, but all votes going forward is the changes to the registration procedures seems to be reducing the electoral roll.

[Jack Knave]

That is of course an option, but in which case there will be consequences for trade as their will be tariffs imposed if you want to trade with any of the countries in the EEA, which basically includes all of our neighbours.

If they can set tariffs so can we, and get our money back.

You seem to want to have your cake and to eat it - you can't. If you want free trade with the EEA you will have to abide by their rules, which includes free movement of labour. If you don't want to abide with those rules you will not be able to benefit from the free trade without tariff that the EEA countries enjoy when trading with each other.

Wrong again. Australia trades with the EU and are not bound by the free movement thingy.

[Jack Knave]

And are charged trade tariffs for everything they export to the EU, increasing their costs and reducing their competitiveness within the EU market.

If you want to trade without tariffs you have to sign up to the EU/EEA rules.

All the rules of the EU are making them uncompetitive with the rest of the world.

By the way these tariffs are really low these days they aren't going to make much of a difference.

[Jack Knave]

So you are saying that, in situations where the mighty EU cannot get good trade agreements, we would just walk in and sign the dream deal. That doesn't seem likely to me.

Are you saying that the trade deals the EU gets for us are dream deals? Your statements of absolutism for the Leavers is unfounded and are a straw man.

[ProfessorDavey]

If they can set tariffs so can we, and get our money back.
Wrong again. Australia trades with the EU and are not bound by the free movement thingy.

Right again JK - sure Australia trades with the EU, but they are subject to trade tariffs, making their goods more expensive and their businesses less competitive than they would have been in the absence of those tariffs.

If you don't want to pay tariffs to trade with the EU, you can (at least if you are in Europe) by becoming part of the EEA or EFTA but you will have to agree to the EU rules on movement of labour.

So you can have tariff-free trade, but have to have EU labour movement rules, or you can decide on your own immigration rules but have your trade subject to tariffs. You cannot have control over immigration and tariff-free trade. You cannot have you cake and eat it.

And of course if you want to trade with the EU your goods must adhere to EU quality regulations, e.g. C.E. mark regardless of tariff position. So effectively if you want to trade with the EU tariff-free you will have to abide by all their rules. If you are happy to pay tariffs you can make your own rules on certain things but will still have to abide by EU quality regulations.

[ProfessorDavey]

Are you saying that the trade deals the EU gets for us are dream deals? Your statements of absolutism for the Leavers is unfounded and are a straw man.

The EU, the largest economic block on the planet, has a much better chance of driving excellent trade deals than the UK with an economy perhaps a tenth of the size.

And you can see this all over the place - good example being the non-EU, but EAA countries. Effectively to be able to trade they are obliged to do so pretty well 100% on the terms of the EU.

[Jack Knave]

Right again JK - sure Australia trades with the EU, but they are subject to trade tariffs, making their goods more expensive and their businesses less competitive than they would have been in the absence of those tariffs.

If you don't want to pay tariffs to trade with the EU, you can (at least if you are in Europe) by becoming part of the EEA or EFTA but you will have to agree to the EU rules on movement of labour.

So you can have tariff-free trade, but have to have EU labour movement rules, or you can decide on your own immigration rules but have your trade subject to tariffs. You cannot have control over immigration and tariff-free trade. You cannot have you cake and eat it.

And of course if you want to trade with the EU your goods must adhere to EU quality regulations, e.g. C.E. mark regardless of tariff position. So effectively if you want to trade with the EU tariff-free you will have to abide by all their rules. If you are happy to pay tariffs you can make your own rules on certain things but will still have to abide by EU quality regulations.

I've answered all this.

The tariffs aren't that high and well worth paying to avoid all those unnecessary migrants which are now swarming into the EU, and will get worse - 130,000 so far this year. And we can charge our own tariffs on the EU, and no doubt buy some of those goods elsewhere for less.

And as I said anyone who trades with the EU have to abide by their quality requirements.

[ProfessorDavey]

The tariffs aren't that high and well worth paying to avoid all those unnecessary migrants which are now swarming into the EU, and will get worse - 130,000 so far this year. And we can charge our own tariffs on the EU, and no doubt buy some of those goods elsewhere for less.

And as I said anyone who trades with the EU have to abide by their quality requirements.

So everyone ends up paying more, companies lose business and with it jobs are lost etc etc.

And who are you to say that it is a 'price worth paying' - I certainly don't agree and I suspect most companies won't as that additional cost will affect competitiveness, profitability, ability to invest etc etc. I don't want to saddle UK companies with additional costs to allow them to trade with our nearest neighbours, and the largest economic block on the planet.

And do you think that Toyota would think so - to access 90+% of the EU market with their cars made in Derbyshire they'd end up paying tariffs and the whole reason they set up that plant was to benefit from the free trade zone. Do you think they'll stay put. Of course they won't - maybe not straight away but they'll be setting up a plant in Spain, or maybe Poland etc before you know it. Loss of jobs in the UK.

And what about all the small component manufacturers etc who currently supply that plant - well suddenly they'll be charged tariffs to provide their components to Toyota making them more expensive. So guess what Toyota will do, find a new source - result, more job losses etc etc.

And just so we are clear I think the free movement of labour in the EU is a thoroughly good thing on principle regardless of economic costs of getting rid of it.

[ProfessorDavey]

... all those unnecessary migrants which are now swarming into the EU

Migration into the EU isn't affected by the free movement of labour requirements. The UK (or any other EU country) can set whatever immigration rules it likes for migrants from outside the EU and always could. Leaving the EU wouldn't change that one iota.

[Jack Knave]

The EU, the largest economic block on the planet, has a much better chance of driving excellent trade deals than the UK with an economy perhaps a tenth of the size.

And you can see this all over the place - good example being the non-EU, but EAA countries. Effectively to be able to trade they are obliged to do so pretty well 100% on the terms of the EU.

Well lets look at the facts on the ground. Many of the Euro countries have unemployment at 25% with youth unemployment at around 50%. Not many of those are going to be good for trade, that is, buying stuff. Millions of migrants entering the EU many of which are young men looking to find jobs -  what jobs?

The EU year on year is losing % of world trade and still falling. Greece is about to hit another financial crisis and the Euro is on the verge of falling into the mire.

Germany and the richer northern members are going to want to do trade with the UK who buys £50 billion more each year from the EU than they do off us.

All in all I think we have a strong hand. And free movement is pretty much dead now that Schengen has collapsed and there is a bottle neck on the Greek-Macedonia border......and it looks that the EU won't be able to get a deal with Turkey to stop the flow. What a huge incompetent mess, who would want to be part of all that?!!?......and Putin is very obligingly creating havoc in Syria so that those migrants will keep streaming in - what a guy!!! And why? Ukraine and those sanctions possibly??

[Jack Knave]

So everyone ends up paying more, companies lose business and with it jobs are lost etc etc.

And who are you to say that it is a 'price worth paying' - I certainly don't agree and I suspect most companies won't as that additional cost will affect competitiveness, profitability, ability to invest etc etc. I don't want to saddle UK companies with additional costs to allow them to trade with our nearest neighbours, and the largest economic block on the planet.

And do you think that Toyota would think so - to access 90+% of the EU market with their cars made in Derbyshire they'd end up paying tariffs and the whole reason they set up that plant was to benefit from the free trade zone. Do you think they'll stay put. Of course they won't - maybe not straight away but they'll be setting up a plant in Spain, or maybe Poland etc before you know it. Loss of jobs in the UK.

And what about all the small component manufacturers etc who currently supply that plant - well suddenly they'll be charged tariffs to provide their components to Toyota making them more expensive. So guess what Toyota will do, find a new source - result, more job losses etc etc.

And just so we are clear I think the free movement of labour in the EU is a thoroughly good thing on principle regardless of economic costs of getting rid of it.

You can't read can you! We can charge tariffs and there will be saving on all that pointless red tape which we can reduce down to just the useful stuff.

And you said you had no flag to wave. Yeah, right!!!

[Jack Knave]

Migration into the EU isn't affected by the free movement of labour requirements. The UK (or any other EU country) can set whatever immigration rules it likes for migrants from outside the EU and always could. Leaving the EU wouldn't change that one iota.

They want jobs in the EU and will eventually get citizenship. And there is a market in forging EU passports so these migrants won't be migrants for long.

And if, though it is a big if, Turkey and the EU agree an arrangement to halt the flow of migrants then one of the conditions that Turkey wants is to have automatic visas for its people so they can go and work in the EU with no hinderance that the migrants would have to endure. That's 80 million people, a factor that could affect the referendum, on top of all the migrant influx. Not looking good!!!

And as for your last point I have already said we would use a points system for all migrants thereby controlling the numbers.

[ProfessorDavey]

And there is a market in forging EU passports so these migrants won't be migrants for long.

...

And as for your last point I have already said we would use a points system for all migrants thereby controlling the numbers.

But what you are describing there is illegal immigration - which is currently illegal and would remain illegal. A points based system isn't going to change that one iota. If someone can get a forged EU passport (which is a non-sense statement in itself as there is no such things as an EU passport) then they can just as easily get a forged UK passport and get into the UK illegally anyhow.

[jakswan]

Yes you keep going on about these migrants. Apparently, you think it's OK to make them destitute as long as they come from outside the UK. I don't.

No I don't think that another straw man.

If we are in the EFTA that will not be allowed.

So you know the terms of a future deal, got a crystal ball have we?

What are those limitations?

Any company can invoice from any country in the EU, as far I'm aware the UK government would not be able to introduce a law preventing this.

[jakswan]

I haven't read all the posts but have been reading JeremyP's posts with which I agree. I heard part of QT on FiveLive last night and then some of the phone-ins. I hope fervently that if, as was pointed out, it is the young who are much more in favour of remaining firmly in the EU, that all young voters will take the trouble to vote, in order to counteract the, to me,  ghastly opinions of most of the phoners-in. Thank goodness the vote is on 23rd June because I'm off to Australia for 10 days on the 24th.

Inidividual reads only those opinions of whom she agrees and doesn't change her view shocker!

[ProfessorDavey]

So you know the terms of a future deal, got a crystal ball have we?

But isn't that part of the problem - we have no idea what 'Leave' means - to some people it means further renegotiation with a second referendum to allow the UK to stay in - to others, at the other extreme, it means an isolationist approach with the UK not only out of the EU, but also EEA/EFTA etc.

'Leave' need to clearly set out what it means - it simply isn't good enough to be completely in the dark as to what happens if there is a Leave vote in June.

Frankly I'm struggling to see how anyone can sensibly vote Leave as no-one knows what Leave actually means.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Prof,

Frankly I'm struggling to see how anyone can sensibly vote Leave as no-one knows what Leave actually means.

Exactly, lets leave and we sort the details out later, no thanks, I want the details now.

Gonnagle.

[jakswan]

But isn't that part of the problem - we have no idea what 'Leave' means - to some people it means further renegotiation with a second referendum to allow the UK to stay in - to others, at the other extreme, it means an isolationist approach with the UK not only out of the EU, but also EEA/EFTA etc.

'Leave' need to clearly set out what it means - it simply isn't good enough to be completely in the dark as to what happens if there is a Leave vote in June.

Frankly I'm struggling to see how anyone can sensibly vote Leave as no-one knows what Leave actually means.

We have no idea what stay means, well there be a new treaty with Cameron's deal, will Turkey join, what is the long term immigration policy going to be as the Schengen Agreement falls apart. Will the Euro last what new laws will be passed in Brussels over the next ten years.

Frankly I'm struggling to see how anyone can sensibly vote Stay as no-one knows what Stay actually means.

[jakswan]

Exactly, lets leave and we sort the details out later, no thanks, I want the details now.

did you say that about No voters in the Scottish referendum?

[ProfessorDavey]

did you say that about No voters in the Scottish referendum?

That isn't a comparable situation is it.

If you voted NO in the Scottish referendum you knew you were going to stay in the UK, with at least the same powers as before the referendum. Vote Leave and you aren't even sure that will result in leaving the EU, let alone what type of arrangement there will be were the UK to leave.

The levels of uncertainty aligned with a Leave vote are massively greater than that for a No vote in the Scottish referendum. Actually it is more appropriate to compare the uncertainty of a Leave vote with a Yes vote in the Scottish referendum, where there was likewise a huge uncertainty. But even then it was pretty certain that a Yes vote would have meant Scottish independence, and there weren't Yes supporters claiming that Yes meant No, in the way there are for some extremely high profile Leave supporters who are saying that Leave means Stay!!

[Jack Knave]

But what you are describing there is illegal immigration - which is currently illegal and would remain illegal. A points based system isn't going to change that one iota. If someone can get a forged EU passport (which is a non-sense statement in itself as there is no such things as an EU passport) then they can just as easily get a forged UK passport and get into the UK illegally anyhow.

Forged citizenship proof then, or a member state passport. In fact with Schengen they can move freely anyway, once they are in; and yes I know we aren't in Schengen, but many are just waved through. And that's my point once we are in charge we'll be rigorous in guarding our borders; or that's the plan of UKIP.