The result of the EU referendum:

[jakswan]

Why are you so scared - let's have the official line on what a post-exit UK would be like in terms of its relationships with the remaining EU etc etc. But you won't do, because you can't.

We will negotiate a free trade deal, we won't have political union, its really not that complex.

[ProfessorDavey]

We will negotiate a free trade deal, we won't have political union, its really not that complex.

Nope nothing like good enough, because as we are absolutely clear abiding by EU regulations is linked to free trade and contribution to the EU - on a spectrum - so the freer the trade the more the regulations that will need to be adhered to and the greater the contribution required.

So where on the spectrum will we be - will we be Norway - free trade but one of the largest net contributors to the EU and also has to abide with effectively all the EU rules.

Or if we want not to accept EU regulations, and payments what level of tariff are we prepared to accept.

We really need to know - because none of us have a clue (and nor do the Brexit leadership) and if you don't know what 'leave' looks like, how on earth can you vote leave.

[~TW~]

Nope nothing like good enough, because as we are absolutely clear abiding by EU regulations is linked to free trade and contribution to the EU - on a spectrum - so the freer the trade the more the regulations that will need to be adhered to and the greater the contribution required.

So where on the spectrum will we be - will we be Norway - free trade but one of the largest net contributors to the EU and also has to abide with effectively all the EU rules.

Or if we want not to accept EU regulations, and payments what level of tariff are we prepared to accept.

We really need to know - because none of us have a clue (and nor do the Brexit leadership) and if you don't know what 'leave' looks like, how on earth can you vote leave.

 Could you forget other countries for the time being.This is a two way street,them and us can you understand that.

               ~TW~

[ProfessorDavey]

Given we import more than we export you could argue this the other way, a free trade agreement is mutually beneficial to EU and the new free independent UK.

Classic muddled thinking - it doesn't matter that we import more than we export, the issue is what proportion of our trade is with the other 27 and what proportion of the other 27 is with us. So trade with the EU is proportionately far, far more significant to us, than trade from (for example) Germany is with us.

Try it this way - image I am a small company with a turnover of £1M and 50% of that turnover depends on bilateral trade with Tesco, and they buy more from me than I buy from them. So £500k of their trade is with me, which represents 0.0008% of their turnover. Who is the deal more important to - not rocket science. Now I now this is a more extreme example than UK/rest of EU trade but the principle remains trade from the other 27 with the UK represents a vastly small proportion of their trade or GDP than trade from UK to the other 27 represents for the UK.

So we are screwed if we don't get a deal, for many of the other EU countries it would have very little effect. And for some there is very little trade at all - Bulgaria, for example. And there may be other issues far more important to the Bulgarian government and people than a tiny loss of trade, for example free movement of labour.
But of course Bulgaria has an absolute veto on any deal, so if Bulgaria decides not to play ball unless the UK allows free movement, then the deal is dead and up come the tariffs once the 2 year moratorium is over and there is absolutely nothing the UK can do about it. Indeed this is why there remains no deal in place with Canada, despite Boris (never one to actually understand detail) claiming that was the kind of deal we wanted, i.e. one that isn't in place 8 years after the start of formal process and 12 years after the agreement to sort out a deal. And of course one that even if enacted it doesn't cover services, which just might be a teeny, tiny problem for the UK.

There is also, of course, the politics. There will almost certainly be countries that will want to give the UK a very hard ride if it leaves, on the basis of deterring others from leaving. Now you might think that's pathetic, and silly, but your view is irrelevant - if Portugal for example thinks holding the EU project together is more important than a bit of trade with the UK, then we are in trouble. And of course this is what the UK government did in advance of IndyRef

[ProfessorDavey]

Could you forget other countries for the time being.This is a two way street,them and us can you understand that.

               ~TW~

No it isn't - it is a 28 way street - us and 27 others and every one of the 27 can veto a deal with the UK.

[~TW~]

No it isn't - it is a 28 way street - us and 27 others and every one of the 27 can veto a deal with the UK.

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

                  ~TW~

[ProfessorDavey]

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

                  ~TW~

Wrong as ever.

If there is a potential deal on the table between the UK and the EU, once the UK has left that deal must be ratified by all 27 member states - the power rests with each member state not with the EU in Brussels. So if just one rejects it, then there is no deal.

And on your other point, wrong again. The EU isn't bankrupt - I think you will find that it is the UK with the most problematic trade deficit and also has just about the worst deficit as a proportion of GDP in the EU (only Greece and Spain are worse) and the UK's levels at 4.4% are twice that of the EU as a whole at 2.2% (and of course that would be better still without the UK).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So you want to be ruled by and from Brussels.

             ~TW~

Look Pal, Brexit can't tell us anything about what will actually happen when we leave either they don't know or they are afraid to tell us, immigration, Brexit has shifted that from cutting immigration to controlling immigration, why not cutting eh?
Finally Gove and Johnson wish to silence dissenting or advisory voices and are therefore treating us like children.

My advice as usual is vote for your job...not Gove's

[ProfessorDavey]

Look Pal, Brexit can't tell us anything about what will actually happen when we leave either they don't know or they are afraid to tell us, immigration, Brexit has shifted that from cutting immigration to controlling immigration, why not cutting eh?
Finally Gove and Johnson wish to silence dissenting or advisory voices and are therefore treating us like children.

My advice as usual is vote for your job...not Gove's

Although the remain campaign hasn't set the world afire the Brexit campaign so far has been an utter, utter shambles. There seems to be a complete confusion of messages, no leadership and the most appalling evasion I've seen in a campaign for a very, very long time.

Shouting 'your wrong' at every expert, every highly respected senior political figure, every bit of evidence while trumpeting the playground slogan of 'project fear' isn't a campaign.

What they don't seem to have understood is in a referendum where the choice is the status quo or change you have to make the case for change, you have to be clear about why it is better. If you don't people will vote for status quo, because people don't opt for change without a reason.

I think there is a problem that so many of the rabid Brexiters are so entrenched, so dogmatically driven in their views that they simply can't understand that there are millions of people who don't agree with them. They are sort of like the pub bore, going on and on and on about something, blurting out the old 'well its common sense' kind of cliches. And sure for a quiet life we'll nod and go 'of course, yes, absolutely' all the while thinking they are bonkers and trying to find the earliest excuse to politely leave their company. That's the problem with the Brexiters - they think that everyone thinks that the EU is awful, the worst thing ever - but guess what there are plenty of us who think that the EU is a thoroughly good thing on all sorts of levels.

They might rant and froth and be angry all you like, but when we are in the privacy of the polling booth that will cut no ice. And I'm pretty confident that this referendum will be like most others, with a late swing to the status quo particularly from the undecideds - unless Brexit come up with some compelling positive argument to leave (they've come nowhere close yet) why would an undecided vote for the huge uncertainty of massive change - they won't.

[Jack Knave]

We are better off in the EU than out of it, it was a good day when we joined.

We joined the EEC not the EU. That abortion came latter.

[Nearly Sane]

The ridiculous pish about Obama's ancestral heritage and the bust of Churchill, combining dog whistle racism and lying from Johnson and Garage today makes them look inept as well as offensive.

[Jack Knave]

Morning jack,

If you are trying to start up a business venture of some kind, you will need to present a 'Business Plan'  to your backers. Everyone knows that it will be imperfect, but it at least demonstrates that you have thought things out and have considered the risks.

From what they tell us the BREXIT brigade's 'Business Plan' appears to be to fantasise about a Europe wide free trade zone and hope that the rest of the world offer us really generous trade deals.

Your right, the Treasury forecasts won't be spot-on, but they are a million time better than Goves day-dreams.

I was going on about Osborne's track record, which is pretty poor.

Why wouldn't the EU do a nice deal with us? WE hold many of the trump cards.

And once free of the EU's clutches we will be able to form trade deals with the rest of the world. True in the short term it will be difficult but once things get going and we have things in place the rest of the EU members will be dying to leave too. 

[L.A.]

The ridiculous pish about Obama's ancestral heritage and the bust of Churchill, combining dog whistle racism and lying from Johnson and Garage today makes them look inept as well as offensive.

Obama dared to state the bleeding obvious - that the EU is of more economic importance to the USA than Little England.

(God! who are these cretins who couldn't see that)

[Jack Knave]

Jack, have the Leave campaign produced any properly costed predictions for the first few years of the UK being outside of the EU?  If so, perhaps you can direct us to them.

Why so myopic? Why not appreciate the long term advantages?

On a different issue, I can sort of understand the concerns about Obama wading into the debate - after all, there is the TTIP process though which the US want to have a far greater influence on and in European policies and practices.  The very fact that this agreement between the US and the EU remains largely secret as far as its details are concerned worries me, since if something is being negotiated 'on my behalf' I'd like to know what its all about before it is finally agreed.

http://ind.pn/1vKDnyU
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_Trade_and_Investment_Partnership

(I'd probably trust the former slightly over the latter)

TTIP sums up the EU et al and the corporate elites. We need to get rid of all of them. Obama is a sap, to put it nicely.

[L.A.]

TTIP sums up the EU et al and the corporate elites. We need to get rid of all of them. Obama is a sap, to put it nicely.

If you believe that, you really would be sending us into an economic backwater.  Who do you propose we trade with - North Korea?

[Jack Knave]

The problem is that they don't agree either. They can't say what post Brexit looks like because:

1. Gove disagrees fundamentally with Farage - Johnson's only concern is that Brexit equals Johnson PM etc etc.

2. Many of the key decisions that will shape what post Brexit looks like aren't under the control of the Brexiter or the UK, but (irony of ironies) the EU - because it is the remaining EU members, not the UK who will have the deciding say on what the relationship between an exited UK and the rest of the EU look like.

3. They aren't actually interested in detail, partly because they know that as soon as anyone credible looks at the economic forecast it isn't pretty reading, and partly because the hard-line Brexiters, who are running the campaign, see exist as the be all and end all - simply being out of the EU is enough for them, whatever the consequences on jobs, economy etc.

In most, but not all respects, this is the same as the Pro-Indy campaigners in the Indy-ref but even worse. At least largely they agreed on point 1 (albeit much of what they wanted wasn't in their control - see point 2). Also, although it was most likely that independence would be negative economically expert opinion was more balanced - so that with a following wind (i.e. oil prices remaining massively high) Scotland could have been better off - the issue was risk and lack of economic diversity and as we've seen the best case scenario has crumbled to dust on oil. By contrast there is no credible economic opinion that indicates that leaving the EU, in itself, would be anything other that economically damaging.

In fact the only report that suggests any kind of boost (when isn't specified) is (I think) from Open Europe, who aren't really a credible economic organisation, more a campaign group and they only suggest a tiny boost (0.7%), but critically this isn't actually due to leaving the EU, but due to their dogmatic desire for free market right wing deregulation policies that would make Thatcher look hard left wing - sort of Redwood plus. But that isn't going to happen even if we left the EU, because in order for it to happen we'd also need to elect (and continue to retain in power) a hard economic right wrong government more extreme than we've ever seen - it won't happen.

And actually leaving the EU isn't even a prerequisite for this theoretical (but never going to happen) possibility. If the EU member states also voted hard right economic governments this could happen EU wide. Indeed that is the only actual way their pipe dream could happen, because if the UK left, even if it had the requisite uber-right wing government, its ability to trade with the EU would be limited by the views of the remaining EU countries who will undoubtedly require adherence to certain fundamental levels of economic regulation as a prerequisite for free trade.

2 is wrong.

3. 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.

Add to this the TTIP agreement and the EU would be sucked dry by US or global companies, stuffing your last comment.

[Jack Knave]

Ecomonic experts from internationally credible organisations making predictive models of economic performance in the future based an credible assumptions and tried and tested methodologies isn't crystal ball gazing, it is sessile planning. And when all the organisations and their models tell the same story it is extremely unlikely they are all wrong.

All the Brexiters do is go 'you're wrong' to the IMF, 'you're wrong' to the OECD, 'you're wrong' to the G7, 'you're wrong' to the Treasury, 'you're wrong' to the OBR, 'you're wrong' to the Bank of England, 'you're wrong' to the world bank etc etc, without having a shred of credibility in making predictions themselves and frankly not providing any evidence whatsoever to sustain a claim that we will be OK economically.

Their approach is effectively, 'I'm not listening, I'm not listening, they're all wrong - guess what it will be great, cos I say so'.

Laughable and increasingly the public are seeing through it. If you want the public to vote for the biggest change we will have seen in decades you have to provide a clear vision of what that future will be like (none is forthcoming) and credible evidence on the effect of that change on our jobs, wages, livelihood, public services etc etc - which is completely absent.

But these so called credible organisations' past records are not good. In fact all economic bodies have never got anything substantially right. The IMF have been shit at it. They predicted that Osborne austerity plan would trash the UK but it didn't.

[Jack Knave]

You are using exactly the same kind of fantasy argument that the indy-Ref nats used on membership of the EU. Like you they claimed that they would automatically be allowed entry, just cos they wanted it. That is fantasy as is your view.

Without an agreement the default will be (after 2 years) that UK-EU trade will be subject to standard tariffs. Indeed to do otherwise would likely be challenged in international law as the UK would be being given special treatment which would fall could of competitiveness rules.

And there can only be an agreement if both sides agree. One side cannot unilaterally impose an agreement on the other. So what this means is that the UK can veto an agreement, as can the EU but the UK cannot force an agreement on the UK. So there will only be an agreement if (and when) not only the UK wants it but all remaining 27 members of the EU agree. And the key point is that the consequences of not getting an agreement on the remaining EU countries is massively less significant than it is for the UK.

So you are, of course, correct that if the UK feels it is being bullied into a deal it doesn't like it can refuse to sign and continue to be hit with the standard trading tariffs. Doesn't sound quite as rosy when you work in the world of reality rather than fantasy as you clearly do.

You're talking as if the rest of the world doesn't exist. If we can't get our stuff from the EU we can go elsewhere. And I'm sure BMW will be a bit niffed if we stop buying their cars and the French with their goods. The EU will be poorer first because they won't have our membership fee anymore and secondly we won't be buying some much of their goods. Then with the Eurozone mess looming in the horizon once more and the migrant problem starting to go out of control even though they have tried to mitigate it. They will be begging us to sign up to a sweet deal for us!!!

[Jack Knave]

No it doesn't - if remain wins we will have the same situation as now - ie. the status quo. If Corbyn wants something different then he can make that case at a general election and the electorate can then decide whether they prefer Corbyn's or Cameron's (or his successor's) view - but the future is clear with 'remain'.

That isn't the case with 'leave' - there will be no status quo - we don't know what the future looks like, so it is essential that the 'leave' brigade are clear about what voting 'leave' means - is it a Norway style deal, is it isolationist little Englander, is it (even) a stick to drive a better renegotiate to then actually remain. Remember key 'leave' campaigners have suggested all of these.

One of the things the Brexiters often trot out is 'well we voted in 1975 to be in a common market, we didn't vote for this' - OK fair enough, but following the 1975 vote they got exactly what they voted for, there has been an evolution of the EU over the subsequent 41 years. But no-one has a clue what the future looks like if we vote for 'leave' - we are being asked to vote completely blind. That is 100 times worse than the situation with the 1975 vote which Brexiters complain about - that's rank hypocrisy.

Why are you so scared - let's have the official line on what a post-exit UK would be like in terms of its relationships with the remaining EU etc etc. But you won't do, because you can't.

In the long run the status quo is not on offer, it's Ever-Closer-Union!!!

So you want to stick with the abusive and corrupt EU?

[Jack Knave]

Nope nothing like good enough, because as we are absolutely clear abiding by EU regulations is linked to free trade and contribution to the EU - on a spectrum - so the freer the trade the more the regulations that will need to be adhered to and the greater the contribution required.

So where on the spectrum will we be - will we be Norway - free trade but one of the largest net contributors to the EU and also has to abide with effectively all the EU rules.

Or if we want not to accept EU regulations, and payments what level of tariff are we prepared to accept.

We really need to know - because none of us have a clue (and nor do the Brexit leadership) and if you don't know what 'leave' looks like, how on earth can you vote leave.

What are you wittering on about - contributions?

[ProfessorDavey]

In the long run the status quo is not on offer, it's Ever-Closer-Union!!!

It is the continuation of the road we are on - we understand what that means - it is the status quo.

So you want to stick with the abusive and corrupt EU?

You are welcome to your opinion, but in mine the EU is no more corrupt than the UK government and is certainly not abusive - what on earth do you mean by that. As far as I am concerned the EU is a thoroughly good thing and we benefit massively from our membership in many, many ways.

[jakswan]

Nope nothing like good enough, because as we are absolutely clear abiding by EU regulations is linked to free trade and contribution to the EU - on a spectrum - so the freer the trade the more the regulations that will need to be adhered to and the greater the contribution required.

If we sell to the US we need to abide by US regulations, if the EU sell to us they need to abide by Uk regulations.

So where on the spectrum will we be - will we be Norway - free trade but one of the largest net contributors to the EU and also has to abide with effectively all the EU rules.

Maybe South Korea or maybe the 5th largest economy will be able to negotiate its own unique trade deal.

Or if we want not to accept EU regulations, and payments what level of tariff are we prepared to accept.

If you are exporting to the US, Australia, India, Germany the products need to conform to their regulations and vice versa.

We really need to know - because none of us have a clue (and nor do the Brexit leadership) and if you don't know what 'leave' looks like, how on earth can you vote leave.

There are close to a few hundred countries that are not in the EU it can't be that hard to get a clue.

[jakswan]

Classic muddled thinking - it doesn't matter that we import more than we export, the issue is what proportion of our trade is with the other 27 and what proportion of the other 27 is with us. So trade with the EU is proportionately far, far more significant to us, than trade from (for example) Germany is with us.

The epitome of muddled thinking is example of your post.

Try it this way - image I am a small company with a turnover of £1M and 50% of that turnover depends on bilateral trade with Tesco, and they buy more from me than I buy from them. So £500k of their trade is with me, which represents 0.0008% of their turnover. Who is the deal more important to - not rocket science. Now I now this is a more extreme example than UK/rest of EU trade but the principle remains trade from the other 27 with the UK represents a vastly small proportion of their trade or GDP than trade from UK to the other 27 represents for the UK.

Imagine it this way you are the MD of BMW and Merkel says 'yo, we think we are going to impose trade barriers to exporting to the UK' when its one your biggest markets, what do you think BMW will say?

So we are screwed if we don't get a deal, for many of the other EU countries it would have very little effect. And for some there is very little trade at all - Bulgaria, for example. And there may be other issues far more important to the Bulgarian government and people than a tiny loss of trade, for example free movement of labour.

If screwed is 31% richer, free and independent by 2030 bring it on!

But of course Bulgaria has an absolute veto on any deal, so if Bulgaria decides not to play ball unless the UK allows free movement, then the deal is dead and up come the tariffs once the 2 year moratorium is over and there is absolutely nothing the UK can do about it. Indeed this is why there remains no deal in place with Canada, despite Boris (never one to actually understand detail) claiming that was the kind of deal we wanted, i.e. one that isn't in place 8 years after the start of formal process and 12 years after the agreement to sort out a deal. And of course one that even if enacted it doesn't cover services, which just might be a teeny, tiny problem for the UK.

There you are relegating the UK to be as relevant as Bulgaria.

There is also, of course, the politics. There will almost certainly be countries that will want to give the UK a very hard ride if it leaves, on the basis of deterring others from leaving. Now you might think that's pathetic, and silly, but your view is irrelevant - if Portugal for example thinks holding the EU project together is more important than a bit of trade with the UK, then we are in trouble. And of course this is what the UK government did in advance of IndyRef

You and my view may be irrelevant, the arguments may not be and as the polls show your arguments are not as convincing as you like to think. 

[ProfessorDavey]

If screwed is 31% richer, free and independent by 2030 bring it on!

You keep wittering on about 31% - where does this come from.

What credible organisation has suggested that by 2030 we'd be 31% richer (what does that mean, GDP, personal household income?) if we left the EU than if we remain.

[~TW~]

Look Pal, Brexit can't tell us anything about what will actually happen when we leave either they don't know or they are afraid to tell us, immigration, Brexit has shifted that from cutting immigration to controlling immigration, why not cutting eh?
Finally Gove and Johnson wish to silence dissenting or advisory voices and are therefore treating us like children.

My advice as usual is vote for your job...not Gove's

 You overlook we are ruled by them right now.
~TW~