The result of the EU referendum:

[Nearly Sane]

That's as maybe, but he fails to explain his criticism.

It is not 'histrionic' to point out obvious dangers.

Yes, that is what the last line of my post said, so I don't get the 'but'.

[L.A.]

Yes, that is what the last line of my post said, so I don't get the 'but'.

I'll await his post with bated breath (though I think I might go for a walk as it's such a nice day)

[jakswan]

While nothing in life is certain (except death and taxes), the one thing we can be pretty certain of is that on June 24, Michael Gove won't wave his magic wand and reveal a pile of free trade agreements for every country in the world (or probably any).

Has anyone suggested he would?

What is likely to happen in the event of a Brexit vote, is that after a lot hard negotiation we will eventually be offered a deal with the EU similar to Switzerland and Norway, and like Switzerland and Norway, we would have to accept EU migrants. It will be a 'take it or leave it deal' - Germany might have a vested interest in selling us cars, but they are not in any position to over-ride the vote of the other members.

Most members have an interest in a free trade agreement, you can't possibly know it would be 'take it or leave it'.

So, we would have to make another decision, whether to accept a deal that looks very much like what we currently have or make a total split with Europe.

We still trade with Europe trade deal or not, this is myth making.

Obviously that would allow us to make all kinds of bizarre laws without interference from those appalling foreigners, but we wouldn't have free access to the EU market - and that would be a major problem for much of our industry and in particular those foreign companies who have established plants in this country specifically to serve the EU market.

Histrionic -"appaling forgienrs"

So we actually have three options:

1/ We Remain.

2/ we negotiate a deal similar to Switzerland and Norway which would still give us access to the EU market but would allow EU migration (and probably wouldn't be free, those Brussels Eurocrats would likely demand an 'administration' fee)

3/ We go it alone - which might appeal to some, but it would mean that Britain was not a good manufacturing base for companies serving to the EU market. There would be no new investment and existing companies would downsize or shut-down. Very bad news  for the economy and employment.

Such a simplistic view, there are many options, a UK government would be in control accountable to the electorate.

[L.A.]

Has anyone suggested he would?

Pretty much - yes. Gove and several other prominent Brexitos have suggested that we will just we will just default into some kind free trading era after Brexit, though they all fail to be too specific on the details.

Most members have an interest in a free trade agreement, you can't possibly know it would be 'take it or leave it'.

No - some members have an interest in a free trade, others seem more concerned with the internal market, while a few are very concerned about freedom of movement, and every country must be very much aware that if Britain gets an over-generous deal others might follow!  And remember that the vote  on any UK deal has to be unanimous - so every country has a veto.

Under those circumstances, it's difficult to see how we could possibly get a better deal than Switzerland an Norway.

We still trade with Europe trade deal or not, this is myth making.

Of course we will trade! - but not without tariffs - and for some industries that will tip the balance, such that the UK is no longer a good place to do business.

Histrionic -"appalling foreigners"

Obviously a Ukipesque parody.

Such a simplistic view, there are many options, a UK government would be in control accountable to the electorate.

There are only going to be a limited number of options on the table - and they all have consequences, we have a lot to lose.

No government is totally in control these days - think 2008. We need partners and we need good trade deals.

[Nearly Sane]

Odds changing to 11/4 on Stay. It's a small change but the narrowest it's been for a while.

[jakswan]

Pretty much - yes. Gove and several other prominent Brexitos have suggested that we will just we will just default into some kind free trading era after Brexit, though they all fail to be too specific on the details.No - some members have an interest in a free trade, others seem more concerned with the internal market, while a few are very concerned about freedom of movement, and every country must be very much aware that if Britain gets an over-generous deal others might follow!  And remember that the vote  on any UK deal has to be unanimous - so every country has a veto.

Where did Gove mention his magic wand and this default you talk about?

Under those circumstances, it's difficult to see how we could possibly get a better deal than Switzerland an Norway.

Or Turkey or Canada or South Korea.

Of course we will trade! - but not without tariffs - and for some industries that will tip the balance, such that the UK is no longer a good place to do business.

You claimed it would be "total split".

Obviously a Ukipesque parody.

Histrionics I call it.

There are only going to be a limited number of options on the table - and they all have consequences, we have a lot to lose.

Very complex coming up with a very short list and insisting those are the only options is histrionic.

No government is totally in control these days - think 2008. We need partners and we need good trade deals.

No one is claiming total control, we will still have partners and trade deals after we leave.

[L.A.]

Where did Gove mention his magic wand and this default you talk about?

Gove and others, have stated in radio interviews on more than one occasion that we will just trade freely with the world after brexit - bizarrely, the interviewers never took them to task.

Or Turkey or Canada or South Korea.

As I understand it, there is not currently a free trade deal with Canada. Turkey I think is quite a special case, it's not just about commerce, there is a political dimension. It's true that the EU have a trade agreement with South Korea but this does not offer the same open access to the EU market that Britain currently has (and needs)

You claimed it would be "total split".

Histrionics I call it.

Of course it wouldn't be a total split in as much as we will still trade with the EU, but if we don't at least get a deal as good as Norway/Switzerland we will not have the kind of access to the EU market that large exporters need - which will probably mean they will relocate.

Very complex coming up with a very short list and insisting those are the only options is histrionic.

No one is claiming total control, we will still have partners and trade deals after we leave.

The fact is that the Brexit camp just will not face-up to what the consequences of their actions would be. Whenever anyone points out any of the pitfalls they start screaming about scaremongering.

[jeremyp]

Such a simplistic view, there are many options, a UK government would be in control accountable to the electorate.

No. This is only a vote on EU membership. Nobody has said anything about promising electoral reform.

[jakswan]

Gove and others, have stated in radio interviews on more than one occasion that we will just trade freely with the world after brexit - bizarrely, the interviewers never took them to task.

Link please?

As I understand it, there is not currently a free trade deal with Canada. Turkey I think is quite a special case, it's not just about commerce, there is a political dimension. It's true that the EU have a trade agreement with South Korea but this does not offer the same open access to the EU market that Britain currently has (and needs)

So there are special cases.

Of course it wouldn't be a total split in as much as we will still trade with the EU, but if we don't at least get a deal as good as Norway/Switzerland we will not have the kind of access to the EU market that large exporters need - which will probably mean they will relocate.

So when you said total split it was an example of you being histrionic.

The fact is that the Brexit camp just will not face-up to what the consequences of their actions would be. Whenever anyone points out any of the pitfalls they start screaming about scaremongering.

I'm not screaming, honestly with you accusing me of screaming and Davey accusing Brexiters of being dogmatic I'll give you the same advice as I gave him, look in the mirror.

[jakswan]

No. This is only a vote on EU membership. Nobody has said anything about promising electoral reform.

The UK government is accountable to the UK electorate,granted it might not be perfect.

[ProfessorDavey]

The UK government is accountable to the UK electorate,granted it might not be perfect.

And the EU parliament and council of ministers are accountable to the EU electorate - what's your point.

To suggest the EU parliament is somehow undemocratic or unaccountable because it isn't solely accountable to UK voters is the equivalent of claiming that the UK parliament is somehow undemocratic or unaccountable because it isn't solely accountable to Scottish voters. A non-sense argument.

And, of course, it goes without saying that there are plenty of government ministers (now and in the past) who are accountable to the UK electorate whatsoever, as they are in the HoLs.

[ProfessorDavey]

Or Turkey or Canada or South Korea.

For crying out loud we've been through this time after time.

Turkey's deal is because it wants to join the EU.

There is no deal with Canada (after 8-12 years) and even if the current draft is enacted it doesn't cover services.

The South Korea deal is basically about goods - there is limited trade liberalisation on services.

So we aren't going to get a Turkey-type deal as we are leaving rather than staying. And if you think that either the Canada or South Korea are good in comparison with what we have now then you are completely blind. Just think of all those service exports to the EU that would effectively be languishing with the lowest and least favourable type of deal, equivalent to the WTO default - you know the one that in modelling means the economic is perhaps 7-10% below the situation if we stay.

[jakswan]

And the EU parliament and council of ministers are accountable to the EU electorate - what's your point.

To suggest the EU parliament is somehow undemocratic or unaccountable because it isn't solely accountable to UK voters is the equivalent of claiming that the UK parliament is somehow undemocratic or unaccountable because it isn't solely accountable to Scottish voters. A non-sense argument.

And, of course, it goes without saying that there are plenty of government ministers (now and in the past) who are accountable to the UK electorate whatsoever, as they are in the HoLs.

I've explained to you why I think the EU is undemocratic, I know you disagree but can't even acknowledge the argument as valid, what you would expect from someone who is dogmatic and evangelical.

[jakswan]

For crying out loud we've been through this time after time.

Turkey's deal is because it wants to join the EU.

There is no deal with Canada (after 8-12 years) and even if the current draft is enacted it doesn't cover services.

The South Korea deal is basically about goods - there is limited trade liberalisation on services.

So we aren't going to get a Turkey-type deal as we are leaving rather than staying. And if you think that either the Canada or South Korea are good in comparison with what we have now then you are completely blind. Just think of all those service exports to the EU that would effectively be languishing with the lowest and least favourable type of deal, equivalent to the WTO default - you know the one that in modelling means the economic is perhaps 7-10% below the situation if we stay.

We disagree, LA suggested we can only get a deal like X, Y, I'm just pointing out that deals like A, B, C exist and there remains the possibility of D, E, F.

[ProfessorDavey]

I've explained to you why I think the EU is undemocratic, I know you disagree but can't even acknowledge the argument as valid

No you haven't - you have made an unevidenced assertion, which I have countered with facts, not least the fact that I have a direct influence over a much greater proportion of the members of the EU parliament than I do over members of the westminster parliament.

Also that of the three sections of the UK parliament/government only one is elected and accountable to voters. In the EU one is directly elected, a second is composed of the directly elected governments and even the third, the EU commission (the equivalent of the UK civil service) is much more accountable to directly elected representatives in their appointment than is the case for the civil service.

So there you go, some facts for you to mull over. Perhaps you'd like to actual engage in a proper argument of the issues rather than trotting out tired and lame UKIP-style sound-bites (e.g. the EU is undemocratic) when those statements crumble to dust when actually subjected to scrutiny.

, what you would expect from someone who is dogmatic and evangelical.

It isn't big, and it isn't clever to simple repeat criticisms made of you back in a 'no you smell' kind of playground manner. It is a classic diversionary tactic, used by someone who isn't actually able to counter the points being made in a cogent and coherent manner.

[ekim]

Also that of the three sections of the UK parliament/government only one is elected and accountable to voters. In the EU one is directly elected, a second is composed of the directly elected governments and even the third, the EU commission (the equivalent of the UK civil service) is much more accountable to directly elected representatives in their appointment than is the case for the civil service.

What seems to be missing are manifestos which lead to mandates to be carried out by an elected government of Europe.

[jakswan]

No you haven't - you have made an unevidenced assertion, which I have countered with facts, not least the fact that I have a direct influence over a much greater proportion of the members of the EU parliament than I do over members of the westminster parliament.

Also that of the three sections of the UK parliament/government only one is elected and accountable to voters. In the EU one is directly elected, a second is composed of the directly elected governments and even the third, the EU commission (the equivalent of the UK civil service) is much more accountable to directly elected representatives in their appointment than is the case for the civil service.

So there you go, some facts for you to mull over. Perhaps you'd like to actual engage in a proper argument of the issues rather than trotting out tired and lame UKIP-style sound-bites (e.g. the EU is undemocratic) when those statements crumble to dust when actually subjected to scrutiny.

I've explained why I think the EU is undemocratic in some detail, as I recall you failed to address those concerns. 

It isn't big, and it isn't clever to simple repeat criticisms made of you back in a 'no you smell' kind of playground manner. It is a classic diversionary tactic, used by someone who isn't actually able to counter the points being made in a cogent and coherent manner.

If you are utterly convinced you are 100% right on an issue it is a sign of dogma. Voltaire: doubt is uncomfortable position but certainty is absurd.

This has been like debating a theist, 100% certain they are right without any ability to tolerate someone who holds a differing view.

We've explored all the arguments I disagree with you lets not go over the same ground over and over again.

I suspect your support for the EU is that you think the EU will mitigate what you see as a damaging Tory government. Which is odd since I see the EU as just as right wing with a Neo-libreal agenda.

[ProfessorDavey]

What seems to be missing are manifestos which lead to mandates to be carried out by an elected government of Europe.

Well given that the primary responsibility for decision making rests with the national governments the manifestos and mandates are associated with general elections in the various member states, so in the UK a UK general election.

And there is also the elections to the European parliament, where the parties publish their manifestos in exactly the same manner as they do for UK elections. So for example here are the Labour and Green party manifestos for the 2014 European elections:
https://www.greenparty.org.uk/assets/files/European%20Manifesto%202014.pdf
http://www.yourbritain.org.uk/uploads/editor/files/LABOUR_PARTY_euro_manifesto.pdf

All the other parties published similar manifestos

[ProfessorDavey]

I've explained why I think the EU is undemocratic in some detail

No you haven't - you have merely asserted that is isn't.

[jakswan]

No you haven't - you have merely asserted that is isn't.

I stated my view and gave my reasons why, if the EU has a democratic deficit is going to be subjective. I know this doesn't fit with your 'I'm right everyone else is wrong' dogma but people will disagree, something you need to accept Davey.

[jakswan]

Notice Turkeys Erdogan says women who reject motherhood 'incomplete'. Political Union with that? No thanks.

[Nearly Sane]

Odds narrowing further to 5\2 on.

[Nearly Sane]

Sums up a lot of what I currently feel.

http://www.gerryhassan.com/blog/confused-by-the-european-debate-you-should-be/

[jakswan]

Odds narrowing further to 52 on.

www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/#/politics/market/1.118739911

Wow, those prices have moved a lot!

[L.A.]

Link please?

I have no intention of listening through a large number of Today programs to find the exact broadcast, but he expresses much the same sentiments here:
https://next.ft.com/content/d0e88d1a-0624-11e6-9b51-0fb5e65703ce

I draw your attention to the paragraph:

He said Britain would forge its own deal with the EU, but said that a continent-wide free-trade area — embracing a wide range of bilateral deals — would “be the core of our new arrangement”.

What deal is it he is talking about, if he is not going to produce it by waving a magic wand perhaps you would like to explain how this near miraculous event is going to occur?

So when you said total split it was an example of you being histrionic.

It's perfectly reasonable to describe it as a total split as we would no longer have any part in EU institutions or have the same free access to the EU market as EU members. I'm sure that the USA would consider that they had a total split with Britain in 1783 but we still trade with them!

I'm not screaming, honestly with you accusing me of screaming and Davey accusing Brexiters of being dogmatic I'll give you the same advice as I gave him, look in the mirror.

Whatever adjectives anyone might choose to describe your tone- you simply dismiss the arguments out of hand as alarmist rather than answering them:

This link seems to spell things out fairly clearly:

https://fullfact.org/europe/tariffs-and-barriers-trade-between-britain-and-eu/

I draw your attention the the paragraph:

"Trade with Europe could be lower if we left

The bold claim that "all the trade would continue" with the EU is speculative. The only way to know for sure is to leave.

There are good reasons to doubt that things will be as simple as everything continuing as it is. While you don't need to have a free trade agreement to trade with a country (or indeed a bloc of countries), it certainly helps.

There are a number of reasons why trade with the EU might become more costly if Britain leaves. Even if Britain negotiates an agreement without tariffs, increasing differences in regulations or tighter integration within the EU could see a fall in trade relative to staying in.
"

i.e. Trade with the EU is likely to become more costly.

It's interesting to consider the position from a manufactures point of view:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/mar/03/uk-motor-industry-backs-uk-remaining-in-europe-survey-eu-positive-impacy

I draw your attention to the paragraph:

"Toyota exports 90% of the cars it makes in the UK, but Walker warned that export costs would increase if the country leaves the EU due to tariffs, a loss of efficiency, and a lack of harmonisation in regulations across the continent."

This is hard commerce - not politics, if costs go up profits go down. While Toyota have stated that they won't abandon the UK, if it becomes cheaper to manufacture elsewhere they can't afford to ignore that option - they will downsize the UK operation.

And that is just one company, there are plenty of others in the same position.