The result of the EU referendum:

[ProfessorDavey]

Like Iceland who always enjoyed increased wealth during the same period who didn't join the EU, crashed at the same time and recovered much more quickly than Greece.

And of course Iceland announcing they they planned to join the EU was a major factor in their recovery - as it permitted a hugely successful bond issue, with investor confidence boosted by the planned safely net of the EU. Without that announcement (sure it was much later revoked) investors wouldn't have touched Iceland with a barge poll given their track record.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I feel asleep and woke up again for this, wasn't replying to you.

You were expanding on your reply #1064 where you said I was prejudiced for saying that migrants who applied for a job as a receptionist at our firm were often better educated than the Brits who applied for the job. 

You seem to have been sleep-walking your way through most of this discussion with your beliefs about whether it is economically viable to protect the British steel industry or keep British jobs for Brits or your belief that the Greek people didn't enjoy increased wealth after joining the EU and receiving EU funding. Maybe you should stay awake long enough to take into account other people's experiences of how it benefits the economy if good people are hired (migrants and locals) and in the process they can benefit themselves and the business, rather than your limited perspective about protecting British jobs.

Did you actually post any stats in support of your beliefs about how trade after leaving the EU will be a net gain to Britain - were you hoping that the cost of negotiations and lack of access to EU markets until free movement of people had been established were going to be funded by national pride?

And even if goods sold to the EU could be redirected to other markets - the extra cost of transporting goods and services further than nearby Europe to other markets - how were you proposing that British businesses fund that? Would increased transport costs drive up the prices of goods sold to those other markets - would that make British exports competitive?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Like Iceland who always enjoyed increased wealth during the same period who didn't join the EU, crashed at the same time and recovered much more quickly than Greece.

Iceland, as an EEA member, still had to allow EU citizens free movement so they could come and work there and Iceland had to make payments into the EU budget. Are you ok with a similar position for Britain?

Also Iceland has a substantial fishing industry, whereas Britain has positioned itself as a financial services centre. Not really comparable since financial services companies want access to the EU financial markets rather than re-negotiate service treaties.

[ProfessorDavey]

Iceland, as an EEA member, still had to allow EU citizens free movement so they could come and work there and Iceland had to make payments into the EU budget. Are you ok with a similar position for Britain?

Also Iceland has a substantial fishing industry, whereas Britain has positioned itself as a financial services centre. Not really comparable since financial services companies want access to the EU financial markets rather than re-negotiate service treaties.

And also, of course, just like Greece Iceland also needed a huge bailout and much of that came from, guess whom, oh yes EU countries. This suggestion that somehow Iceland solved its problems on its own in perfect isolation is nonsense. It was prevented from going bust by:

1. A bail out from the IMF
2. Loans from the EU
3. A successful private bond issue where investor confidence was massively boosted by Iceland have applied to join the EU just prior to that bond issue.

[jakswan]

You were expanding on your reply #1064 where you said I was prejudiced for saying that migrants who applied for a job as a receptionist at our firm were often better educated than the Brits who applied for the job. 

You seem to have been sleep-walking your way through most of this discussion with your beliefs about whether it is economically viable to protect the British steel industry or keep British jobs for Brits or your belief that the Greek people didn't enjoy increased wealth after joining the EU and receiving EU funding. Maybe you should stay awake long enough to take into account other people's experiences of how it benefits the economy if good people are hired (migrants and locals) and in the process they can benefit themselves and the business, rather than your limited perspective about protecting British jobs.

Did you actually post any stats in support of your beliefs about how trade after leaving the EU will be a net gain to Britain - were you hoping that the cost of negotiations and lack of access to EU markets until free movement of people had been established were going to be funded by national pride?

And even if goods sold to the EU could be redirected to other markets - the extra cost of transporting goods and services further than nearby Europe to other markets - how were you proposing that British businesses fund that? Would increased transport costs drive up the prices of goods sold to those other markets - would that make British exports competitive?

I know you like to spam strawmen so I'm not bothering with you.

[Nearly Sane]

I know you like to spam strawmen so I'm not bothering with you.

No answers then?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I guess that means Jakswan is ok with being like Iceland, since he brought it up - so Britain to not be part of the EU but to still allow free movement of EU citizens into the UK, make payments towards the EU budget based on GDP, and abide by EU regulations on trade. My mistake - I thought he wanted to have some kind of quota system like the Swiss are attempting.

Personally, if I have to agree to the above I would rather be part of the decision-making process in Brussels so I could push for reform, less waste and more transparency rather than have no MEPs representing me.

I also want the British government to build more affordable housing, and to tax rental income in a way that will reduce rents. I welcomed the increased Stamp Duty on people/ companies/ spouses/ civil partners (and possibly co-habitees and people who co-purchase properties with their kids and have their name on the deeds) who end up with 2 residential properties. They should now reduce/ end the grants, subsidies and tax breaks given to the big corporations that pay little tax in return while taking advantage of UK infrastructure.

I think the government should fund more school places as quickly as possible - while a higher birth rate is useful to support an ageing population, those being born need an education in order to start their own businesses or be productive employees as well as pay taxes to support the increased health, state pension and other welfare costs of the ageing population.

[jakswan]

And of course Iceland announcing they they planned to join the EU was a major factor in their recovery - as it permitted a hugely successful bond issue, with investor confidence boosted by the planned safely net of the EU. Without that announcement (sure it was much later revoked) investors wouldn't have touched Iceland with a barge poll given their track record.

It was one of the factors according to Wiki, as I recall they cite three major factors with that being the third.

Point still stands, Greece crashed, Iceland crashed, Iceland recovered, Greece hasn't, Iceland are out of EU.

[jakswan]

Since NS moaned.

Did you actually post any stats in support of your beliefs about how trade after leaving the EU will be a net gain to Britain - were you hoping that the cost of negotiations and lack of access to EU markets until free movement of people had been established were going to be funded by national pride?

Its my view that trade won't change.

And even if goods sold to the EU could be redirected to other markets - the extra cost of transporting goods and services further than nearby Europe to other markets - how were you proposing that British businesses fund that? Would increased transport costs drive up the prices of goods sold to those other markets - would that make British exports competitive?

Never mentioned moving goods to other markets.

[jakswan]

I guess that means Jakswan is ok with being like Iceland, since he brought it up - so Britain to not be part of the EU but to still allow free movement of EU citizens into the UK, make payments towards the EU budget based on GDP, and abide by EU regulations on trade. My mistake - I thought he wanted to have some kind of quota system like the Swiss are attempting.

Guessed wrong.

Personally, if I have to agree to the above I would rather be part of the decision-making process in Brussels so I could push for reform, less waste and more transparency rather than have no MEPs representing me.

Vote remain then.

I also want the British government to build more affordable housing, and to tax rental income in a way that will reduce rents. I welcomed the increased Stamp Duty on people/ companies/ spouses/ civil partners (and possibly co-habitees and people who co-purchase properties with their kids and have their name on the deeds) who end up with 2 residential properties. They should now reduce/ end the grants, subsidies and tax breaks given to the big corporations that pay little tax in return while taking advantage of UK infrastructure.

I think the government should fund more school places as quickly as possible - while a higher birth rate is useful to support an ageing population, those being born need an education in order to start their own businesses or be productive employees as well as pay taxes to support the increased health, state pension and other welfare costs of the ageing population.

You forgot to mention apple pie and mother love.

[jakswan]

And where would the Greek economy and the people of Greece have been without the input into economic develop that the EU have invested since Greece joined in 1981.

Don't forget that prior to joining the EU Greece was an authoritarian dictatorship and in the post EU period through to the crash the Greek economy, supported by the EU was growing at more than 5% per year, significantly more than the UK, or Germany or the USA or Japan etc etc etc - so sure the fall has been tough but it would have been anyhow, but without the levels of growth in the economy through the 1990s the absolute levels of economic prosperity would have been far lower to start with. So in effect, even with the austerity the Greek economy now is much stronger than it would have been had Greece not been in the EU.

So two changes (stable democracy/EU membership) you have concluded one of those changes was responsible for growth of the economy.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Its my view that trade won't change.

Because we will be part of the EEA? If not, then based on what and how long are you anticipating that new treaty negotiations will take and what are you anticipating the costs of those negotiations will be? I'm looking at both sides of the argument. Just haven't heard much in the way of evidence for your beliefs. Maybe you can tell me what the Leave campaign's estimates on these are.

 EU bail outs of failing banks worries me - I would rather shareholders took the hit rather than tax payers.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

It was one of the factors according to Wiki, as I recall they cite three major factors with that being the third.

Point still stands, Greece crashed, Iceland crashed, Iceland recovered, Greece hasn't, Iceland are out of EU.

And Iceland are in the EEA. So unless you want Britain to be like Iceland and be in the EEA why use them as an example?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

You forgot to mention apple pie and mother love.

I am not familiar with those fiscal policies or tax rates - please explain.

Investing in infrastructure is the normal things that governments are expected to do.

[ProfessorDavey]

It was one of the factors according to Wiki, as I recall they cite three major factors with that being the third.

And I mentioned one of the others too - the bail out by the IMF and EU countries. But the point remains that Iceland's decision to apply to join the EU was a major factor in their recovery.

Point still stands, Greece crashed, Iceland crashed, Iceland recovered, Greece hasn't, Iceland are out of EU.

Oh dear - don't understand the difference between causation and association.

Ireland crashed and recovered, yet they are in the EU, likewise the UK. Brazil and Pakistan crashed and have failed to recover yet neither are in the EU. I picked these deliberately as they are a list of the most affected countries by the economic crash.

You cannot simply link the ability to recover to not being a member of the EU as there are far too many examples within and outside the EU that disprove your theory.

[jakswan]

You cannot simply link the ability to recover to not being a member of the EU as there are far too many examples within and outside the EU that disprove your theory.

What theory, there was a suggestion in the thread that the EU brought economic stability, it doesn't. There was also a suggestion that it increased the wealth of all countries, it hasn't. 

[jakswan]

Because we will be part of the EEA? If not, then based on what and how long are you anticipating that new treaty negotiations will take and what are you anticipating the costs of those negotiations will be? I'm looking at both sides of the argument. Just haven't heard much in the way of evidence for your beliefs. Maybe you can tell me what the Leave campaign's estimates on these are.

I have no idea why German car makers and French farmers would want to impose tariffs, a deal like that of Canada, Turkey, South Korea.

Can I be certain? No, Bremainers can't be certain over what the TTIP will be either, or when/if Turkey and Albania will join.

[jakswan]

And Iceland are in the EEA. So unless you want Britain to be like Iceland and be in the EEA why use them as an example?

Iceland had a crash as did Greece.

[jakswan]

I am not familiar with those fiscal policies or tax rates - please explain.

Whoosh.

Investing in infrastructure is the normal things that governments are expected to do.

Has anyone suggested otherwise?

The immigration debate often doesn't happen. Two extremes, people are simply xenophobic and the opposite, anyone who disagrees with them is called xenophobic.

I think immigration is a good thing just that it needs to be controlled. If 300,000 people are coming into the country and all of them are Doctors, and not bricklayers then we're all going to suffer,  because we don't have the skills needed to build the extra houses, hospitals, etc that we need.

If 300,000 people are coming and we're not building enough houses then prices will rise, i.e. the housing crisis we have in this country today.

[Udayana]

Isn't the market, capitalism, supposed to control these situations. Why would 300000 doctors decide to move here unless offered some ludicrous, can't refuse, contract?

In fact over the last few years, haven't the immigrants from the rest of the EU, been the people we have needed?  Mainly builders, plumbers doctors etc.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I have no idea why German car makers and French farmers would want to impose tariffs, a deal like that of Canada, Turkey, South Korea.

Can I be certain? No, Bremainers can't be certain over what the TTIP will be either, or when/if Turkey and Albania will join.

TTIP will affect us if we want to trade with the EU, whether we are part of the EU or not. At least as part of the EU we can object to the terms of TTIP and have a say in the decision-making.

I think the issue with hoping to have a deal like Canada is that due to geography the EU is not a significant market for Canada, as most of its trade is with the US - so during negotiations Canada could walk away from the deal if they didn't like it. Also, under the terms of the deal, there is the potential conflict if the EU disputes the origin of products exported from Canada e.g if some parts of the product are made in other countries such as China and refuses to allow them the same favourable terms as Canadian origin products. 

Also, Canada's trading deal took years to negotiate and doesn't have the kind of access to the EU market in the financial services industry that Britain would need if Britain is to continue generating a large proportion of its GDP from its Financial Services sector.

Which also differentiates Britain from Turkey or S. Korea - their deals do not cover financial services. And Turkey currently has restrictions on its trade caused by EU road transport quotas and transit permits. Turkey also has to align itself with EU legislation covering the areas it trades in but had no say in the decision-making process as it was not an EU member, It also has very limited avenues to settle disputes with the EU, e.g. if the EU changes a regulation unilaterally and expects Turkey to comply.

Apart from negotiating a new trade deal with the EU, Britain will need to negotiate separate trade deals to replace the trade deals other countries have with the EU that Britain is allowed to participate in as a member of the EU. From what I read there are over 50 of these deals and Britain will be negotiating as a country of 65 million people, and therefore it seems unlikely that we will get the same terms as the EU did with its population of 500 million. These negotiations will take years and cost money.

And in the meantime, will Britain continue to contribute to the EU budget and if it doesn't are you expecting there not to be repercussions when it comes to negotiations?

I agree that Turkey and Albania are a worry but given the financial disadvantages of leaving I would rather deal with the consequences of Turks and Albanians by investing in our infrastructure.

Health services are screwed either way - the NHS is bad at collecting the money it can claim back from foreign users and writes off a significant proportion. Migrants account for about 10% of the cost of the NHS. We are an ageing population (old people with multiple health issues combined with increasing frailty whereby treatment of one issue adversely impacts on another health issue) and are dealing with the health consequences of obesity on top - so whether we stay or leave I am expecting people to have lack of access to health care and long waiting lists because of lack of resources for more and more expensive R&D and health treatments on the NHS. Hopefully migrants will continue helping to pay for welfare and health services and physically do the work in taking care of the sick, rather than becoming obese and incapacitated due to health issues themselves.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Iceland had a crash as did Greece.

Ok. Are you saying Iceland would have recovered fine without being part of the EEA or receiving an EU bail out?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Has anyone suggested otherwise?

The immigration debate often doesn't happen. Two extremes, people are simply xenophobic and the opposite, anyone who disagrees with them is called xenophobic.

I think immigration is a good thing just that it needs to be controlled. If 300,000 people are coming into the country and all of them are Doctors, and not bricklayers then we're all going to suffer,  because we don't have the skills needed to build the extra houses, hospitals, etc that we need.

If 300,000 people are coming and we're not building enough houses then prices will rise, i.e. the housing crisis we have in this country today.

I am not interested in calling anyone xenophobic. I am looking at this from an economic perspective of leaving the EU versus staying. Staying is far from perfect - it's going to be very tough - but I can't see a credible economic argument for leaving.

I think house prices rise mainly because of lack of supply due to planning regulations and people investing in residential properties as buy-to-lets. According to a study by the LSE the majority of people who invest in residential property are more interested in capital gains than in rental income.

[jakswan]

TTIP will affect us if we want to trade with the EU, whether we are part of the EU or not. At least as part of the EU we can object to the terms of TTIP and have a say in the decision-making.

If we are not in the EU then we won't be in TTIP.

I think the issue with hoping to have a deal like Canada is that due to geography the EU is not a significant market for Canada, as most of its trade is with the US - so during negotiations Canada could walk away from the deal if they didn't like it. Also, under the terms of the deal, there is the potential conflict if the EU disputes the origin of products exported from Canada e.g if some parts of the product are made in other countries such as China and refuses to allow them the same favourable terms as Canadian origin products.

Also, Canada's trading deal took years to negotiate and doesn't have the kind of access to the EU market in the financial services industry that Britain would need if Britain is to continue generating a large proportion of its GDP from its Financial Services sector.

Which also differentiates Britain from Turkey or S. Korea - their deals do not cover financial services. And Turkey currently has restrictions on its trade caused by EU road transport quotas and transit permits. Turkey also has to align itself with EU legislation covering the areas it trades in but had no say in the decision-making process as it was not an EU member, It also has very limited avenues to settle disputes with the EU, e.g. if the EU changes a regulation unilaterally and expects Turkey to comply.

I'm hoping for a free trade deal pretty much what we have now without freedom of movement and political union, this will be in everyone's interests. It will be bespoke British -EU deal.

Apart from negotiating a new trade deal with the EU, Britain will need to negotiate separate trade deals to replace the trade deals other countries have with the EU that Britain is allowed to participate in as a member of the EU. From what I read there are over 50 of these deals and Britain will be negotiating as a country of 65 million people, and therefore it seems unlikely that we will get the same terms as the EU did with its population of 500 million. These negotiations will take years and cost money.

Trade deals are not done on e the basis of size, it depends what is right for countries negotiating them. These deals can be done quicker when you don't need to get 28 countries to agree.

And in the meantime, will Britain continue to contribute to the EU budget and if it doesn't are you expecting there not to be repercussions when it comes to negotiations?

We'll set out our terms and negotiate.

I agree that Turkey and Albania are a worry but given the financial disadvantages of leaving I would rather deal with the consequences of Turks and Albanians by investing in our infrastructure.

Your not going to be able to control that so building infrastructure for an unknown population is going to cost since you will inevitably build too much or too little.

Health services are screwed either way - the NHS is bad at collecting the money it can claim back from foreign users and writes off a significant proportion. Migrants account for about 10% of the cost of the NHS. We are an ageing population (old people with multiple health issues combined with increasing frailty whereby treatment of one issue adversely impacts on another health issue) and are dealing with the health consequences of obesity on top - so whether we stay or leave I am expecting people to have lack of access to health care and long waiting lists because of lack of resources for more and more expensive R&D and health treatments on the NHS.

The cost of the NHS is dependant upon the population it serves, everyone eventually gets sick and dies. Its funded by the working population.

Hopefully migrants will continue helping to pay for welfare and health services and physically do the work in taking care of the sick, rather than becoming obese and incapacitated due to health issues themselves.

Broadly agree, if we have uncontrolled immigration yes fingers crossed it might work out, controlled immigration though we can be a bit more certain.

[ProfessorDavey]

If we are not in the EU then we won't be in TTIP.

But any agreement that we make with the USA is likely to be pretty well identical - why would they negotiate something with a bunch of european countries and then go for something completely different with the UK. There is a caveat - negotiations between the EU and the USA are broadly negotiations between equals, negotiations between the USA and the UK on their own won't be between equals at all, so the likelihood that we would get anything like as favourable treatment as the EU isn't going to happen. So we would get our own bespoke TTIP - like the current TTIP but less favourable for the UK.

Yup that would be a great deal - not.