The result of the EU referendum:

[ProfessorDavey]

Moderator: quoted content removed.

Are you really suggesting that BMW wouldn't prefer the UK to remain in the EU - if you do then you are completely nuts - of course they do.

[Jack Knave]

I'll pick this example just to show what nonsense you are spouting.

No new member state can join the EU without agreement from all existing member states. So if you don't want Turkey to join that decision is entirely within the power of the UK government. If they say no (even if the other 27 say yes) then it doesn't happen.

And actually if you are concerned about Turkey joining, presumably because you think we will be 'overrun' with Turkish migrants leaving is much more of a threat. While we remain we can veto Turkey joining. If we leave we have no say, the other 27 can allow Turkey in even if we would have opposed. But as it is very likely that a trade deal will be inextricably linked to the free movement of labour from all EU countries even though we wouldn't have wanted them to join, by leaving the EU will will no longer have a say, yet we will be bound by rules allowing free movement from Turkey if it joins.

So to use Norway as an example. If they were in the EU they could prevent Turkey joint and de facto prevent free migration from Turkey. As they aren't a member they cannot prevent Turkey from joining but are bound to allow free migration from Turkey if they join.

What you are saying is crap because when you say we or them in terms of members' governments they are not 'we'. They are being bought off by the EU and so making them pro-EU. We, that is us on this forum, won't be in Brussels declaring our veto. I have no faith in our career politicians or the Westminster bubble as it is now and so Brexit is also a vote to get rid of them or their bias use of power in Brussels.

[Jack Knave]

Nope you'd hold out to ensure that any deal included free movement of labour, which would of course be in the best interests of the people of Bulgaria, and I'm sure you'd expect the primary concern of the Bulgarian government in deciding whether or not to agree to a deal will be what is in the best interests of the people of Bulgaria.

But of course the best scenario would be for the UK to remain within the EU so that the best possible trade deal will remain, plus free movement of labour will also remain and there will be no uncertainty.

But, of course, were the UK to leave it would only take one of the other 27 countries to block a deal, for whatever reason.

Nope, free movement would be off the table and I would wait for the Germans to either bribe the Bulgarian leaders or twist their balls by saying that their EU aid would be cut. That's how Moscow would have done it during the Soviet era.

[Jack Knave]

You can disagree all you like but your opinion is irrelevant, what is relevant are the principles of the EU. The fundamental principles of the EU include complete free trade and complete free movement of labour. They will not accept one without the other - to do so would run coach and horses through the basic principles of the EU and they won't do it on principle and no deal on that basis would be agreed in practice as there is no way all 27 remaining states would ever agree.

"what is relevant are the principles of the EU."

                                                                                                 

  The EU has principles? ? ?  ? ?  ?

[Jack Knave]

Are you really suggesting that BMW wouldn't prefer the UK to remain in the EU - if you do then you are completely nuts - of course they do.

But it is not their choice, so that must be the drugs you're taking talking to think they have a vote in our referendum.

[jakswan]

You can disagree all you like but your opinion is irrelevant, what is relevant are the principles of the EU. The fundamental principles of the EU include complete free trade and complete free movement of labour. They will not accept one without the other - to do so would run coach and horses through the basic principles of the EU and they won't do it on principle and no deal on that basis would be agreed in practice as there is no way all 27 remaining states would ever agree.

I have a vote my opinion isn't irrelevant. Those principles don't apply to many with free trade agreements, e.g. South Korea, or neither will they apply to TTIP or Canada.

[ProfessorDavey]

But it is not their choice, so that must be the drugs you're taking talking to think they have a vote in our referendum.

Nor is it their choice whether Bulgaria (or Estonia, or Cyrpus, or Malta, or Slovenia) chose to ratify a proposed EU/Uk trade deal following Brexit.

BMW can wish all they want - if Bulgaria (or Estonia, or Cyrpus, or Malta, or Slovenia) decide that maintaining free movement of their people to the UK is more important the tariff free trade on a tiny proportion of their imports and exports then there is absolutely nothing that BMW can do. And of course there is nothing the UK can do if if Bulgaria (or Estonia, or Cyrpus, or Malta, or Slovenia) decide that way and therefore refuse to agree any deal that doesn't include free movement of labour.

Don't forget that the reason the Canada deal is still not ratified is for exactly that reason  - refusal of one EU country to agree due to restrictions on movement of people.

[ProfessorDavey]

I have a vote my opinion isn't irrelevant.

You have a vote in the referendum - you don't have a vote to ratify any future trade deal, and even if you did (which you don't) 27 other countries have a veto.

Those principles don't apply to many with free trade agreements, e.g. South Korea, or neither will they apply to TTIP or Canada.

None of those agreements come close to the liberalisation of free trade the UJK currently enjoys with the rest of the EU. And of course don't forget that the TTIP and Canada deals still aren't ratified despite years and years of negotiation. Remember the Canada 'deal' (i.e. a non deal at present) doesn't include services, which of course are a huge part of our trade with the rest of the EU.

And actually the reason why the Canada deal hasn't been completed is a dispute over movement of people which has been deemed unacceptable to some of the EU states who have therefore refused to ratify the deal.

[Hope]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36120560

I think the whole issue of TTIP is probably more important than whether we stay in the EU or not.  It is tied up with that debate, but I'd be interested to know whether our leaving the EU would remove us from its embrace.

[Rhiannon]

Boris Johnson shows both his own true colours and the contempt that he has for the people who read his column.  Excellent slap didn from
Obama.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36112694

[ProfessorDavey]

Boris Johnson shows both his own true colour's and the contempt that he has for the people who read his count. Excellent slap didn from
Obama.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36112694

Obama really is a class act.

[jakswan]

You can disagree all you like but your opinion is irrelevant, what is relevant are the principles of the EU. The fundamental principles of the EU include complete free trade and complete free movement of labour. They will not accept one without the other - to do so would run coach and horses through the basic principles of the EU and they won't do it on principle and no deal on that basis would be agreed in practice as there is no way all 27 remaining states would ever agree.

If we can't get a deal with the EU we will have to trade with tariffs and get free trade deals elsewhere. Freed from the bureaucracy we should be able to do this quickly over the two year changeover period.

I know your poised to tell us they will be the end of the world but I'll save you the trouble. The treasury report (the most pessimistic so far) shows they we will still be better off then we are now ( by 2030 27% as opposed to 31% with a Canada type deal) and fails to account for the effect of any free trade deals with rest of the World.

[ProfessorDavey]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36120560

I think the whole issue of TTIP is probably more important than whether we stay in the EU or not.  It is tied up with that debate, but I'd be interested to know whether our leaving the EU would remove us from its embrace.

Well Obama has been talking about the prospects of the US/UK deal in terms of time (back of the queue etc) but presumably the content would be pretty similar to the TTIP, although of course the UK would have far, far less influence in negotiations than the EU has so it would likely be more favourable to the US and less favourable to the UK than TTIP.

But the whole issue over TTIP highlights a couple of other points.

First time to get negotiations sorted and ratified. The TTIP negotiations have been ongoing for 5 years already and we haven't actually need approved by anyone yet. It still needs ratification from 29 countries - the USA and the EU 28, and requires all 29 to agree, if just one doesn't it is back to the drawing board. That gives a clear indication of the likely timescale for any USA/UK deal (which Obama indicated yesterday as 5-10 years) and for any EU/UK deal.

The second point is over ratification. The link in Hope's post shows the controversy and opposition in certain places. If this is sufficient to persuade just one EU country to fail to ratify then the TTIP is dead in its current form. There will of course be similar controversy (although perhaps on different aspects, probably free movement of labour) about any UK/EU deal and it is quite possible that after perhaps 6 years of negotiations one or more country in the EU will find aspects of the deal unacceptable and will refuse to ratify. And remember our period of grace on trade (no tariffs) lasts for just 2 years from the point when we announce we are leaving, so after that 2 year period the tariffs automatically come in force.

[ProfessorDavey]

If we can't get a deal with the EU we will have to trade with tariffs and get free trade deals elsewhere. Freed from the bureaucracy we should be able to do this quickly over the two year changeover period.

You are living in cloud cuckoo land. There is not a cat in hell's chance that you will be able to develop free trade deals in two years. And don't forget that the 2 year grace period only applies to the EU - the day after exit the deal with South Korea (that you seem so keen on) becomes invalid as is is a deal with the EU and we won't be part of the EU.

So just to get some context as far as I am aware the minimum period for a EU bilateral trade deal to be in place from start of formal negotiations is 4 years, average 7 years maximum 11 years - and that's only for deals that concluded successfully, so doesn't include the 5 years and counting for the TTIP which still isn't in place or the 8 years and counting for the Canada deal which still isn't in place. There is evidence that other deals are similarly very protracted and the two main complicating factors are first number of countries involved and secondly cross regional deals. Problem for the UK is that virtually all of the deals it needs to strike fall into those categories as the 'local' deal will be with the EU and involving 28 countries, and virtually all significant other ones will be cross regional, e.g. with the USA or Japan or South Korea or Brazil for example.

I know your poised to tell us they will be the end of the world but I'll save you the trouble. The treasury report (the most pessimistic so far) shows they we will still be better off then we are now ( by 2030 27% as opposed to 31% with a Canada type deal) and fails to account for the effect of any free trade deals with rest of the World.

And 37% if we remain in the EU - other foot, gun, aim, shoot.

[jakswan]

You are living in cloud cuckoo land. There is not a cat in hell's chance that you will be able to develop free trade deals in two years. And don't forget that the 2 year grace period only applies to the EU - the day after exit the deal with South Korea (that you seem so keen on) becomes invalid as is is a deal with the EU and we won't be part of the EU.

So just to get some context as far as I am aware the minimum period for a EU bilateral trade deal to be in place from start of formal negotiations is 4 years, average 7 years maximum 11 years - and that's only for deals that concluded successfully, so doesn't include the 5 years and counting for the TTIP which still isn't in place or the 8 years and counting for the Canada deal which still isn't in place. There is evidence that other deals are similarly very protracted and the two main complicating factors are first number of countries involved and secondly cross regional deals. Problem for the UK is that virtually all of the deals it needs to strike fall into those categories as the 'local' deal will be with the EU and involving 28 countries, and virtually all significant other ones will be cross regional, e.g. with the USA or Japan or South Korea or Brazil for example.
And 37% if we remain in the EU - other foot, gun, aim, shoot.

Yes an EU trade deal takes an age, if we are a free independent country we can work faster.

According to the report you rely we will be better off than we are now by 2030 even if we leave, far from the disaster that Bremainers claim.

[jeremyp]

wrong the 27 others are 1 Brussels rules.They need us.The majority are facing bankruptcy.

                  ~TW~

Let's assume for a moment that this is true.

Is it a good idea to let the majority of the EU states go bankrupt?

[jeremyp]

In 14 years time things will be much better. See I can do an Osborne. The EU would have crashed and burned and all the EU members would be wishing they had done as we had done.

If that turns out to be true, our economy will crash and burn too because half of our oversees trade will have disappeared. If we are in the EU we can help prevent it, if we are out, all we can do is watch while they go down taking us with them.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes an EU trade deal takes an age, if we are a free independent country we can work faster.

Not when negotiating with the single largest trading block in the world that accounts for abut 50% of our trade, in other words the EU. And it isn't just trade deals involving the EU that take an age, all do and those across regions take longer. And that will account for virtually all the other deals we will need to strike outside of the deal with the EU.

And of course other countries don't have an infinite supply of trade negotiation experts, so if, for example the South Korean negotiation teams are already up to their eyes in negotiations with a range of other places they aren't going to simply drop those and start on ours just because we want one. We won't even get on to the starting blocks until their capacity is available. And of course that goes for us too - the notion that our limited team of negotiators is going to be able to work on dozens and dozens of deals all at once is naive.

According to the report you rely we will be better off than we are now by 2030 even if we leave, far from the disaster that Bremainers claim.

As you have so ably demonstrated we will be considerably worse of if we leave than if we stay - that's all that matters.  And just because an economy may grow by 30% in the next 14 years doesn't imply that we will actually be better off in real terms as cost of living etc also rises.

[jeremyp]

Nope, free movement would be off the table

We won't get a good deal then.

[jeremyp]

If we can't get a deal with the EU we will have to trade with tariffs and get free trade deals elsewhere. Freed from the bureaucracy we should be able to do this quickly over the two year changeover period.

It's not just a question of having the deals, our companies have also got to sell the stuff.

Unfortunately some of them will have gone out of business. If you lose an important market, it doesn't take two years to go bust.

All of this fantasising, when translated to reality is gambling with real people's livelihoods.

[ProfessorDavey]

We won't get a good deal then.

And the other point on this is that the deal will be with the EU and therefore will have to apply equally to all member states, there cannot be one approach for Ireland and another for Greece. So we will have to have the same migration policy for all current (and future) EU member states.

So try this one as a quite likely scenario in which Scotland becomes independent and becomes a member of the EU and Turkey also joins. Remember we will then, under any deal, be obliged to adopt the same migration policy for people from Scotland and Turkey. So either we have passport control at Gretna Green and no right for people from Dumfries to work in Carlisle, or we relax that and also have to have the same relaxation for people from Turkey.

Bit challenging for those little Englander Brexiters when you given to add some reality to the discussion rather than fantasy.

[Aruntraveller]

All of this fantasising, when translated to reality is gambling with real people's livelihoods.

This to me is the single most important point in the whole debate. The whole lets take a bit of a risk strategy of BREXIT is deeply unsettling to me. But then I'm not a gambling man - gambling being one of the few issues I get foamingly moralistic about.

[jakswan]

Not when negotiating with the single largest trading block in the world that accounts for abut 50% of our trade, in other words the EU. And it isn't just trade deals involving the EU that take an age, all do and those across regions take longer. And that will account for virtually all the other deals we will need to strike outside of the deal with the EU.

And of course other countries don't have an infinite supply of trade negotiation experts, so if, for example the South Korean negotiation teams are already up to their eyes in negotiations with a range of other places they aren't going to simply drop those and start on ours just because we want one. We won't even get on to the starting blocks until their capacity is available. And of course that goes for us too - the notion that our limited team of negotiators is going to be able to work on dozens and dozens of deals all at once is naive.

We can always extend negotiations for Brexit. 

As you have so ably demonstrated we will be considerably worse of if we leave than if we stay - that's all that matters.  And just because an economy may grow by 30% in the next 14 years doesn't imply that we will actually be better off in real terms as cost of living etc also rises.

No according to figures you consider authoritative if we leave we will be better off then we are now.

[jakswan]

This to me is the single most important point in the whole debate. The whole lets take a bit of a risk strategy of BREXIT is deeply unsettling to me. But then I'm not a gambling man - gambling being one of the few issues I get foamingly moralistic about.

Life is a gamble.

[jakswan]

And the other point on this is that the deal will be with the EU and therefore will have to apply equally to all member states, there cannot be one approach for Ireland and another for Greece. So we will have to have the same migration policy for all current (and future) EU member states.

This is a lie, currently we have one policy that applies to people that come from Ireland and another that applies to people coming from Spain.

Bit challenging for those little Englander Brexiters when you given to add some reality to the discussion rather than fantasy.

More hysterical gibberish, I'm not even English.