Brexit - in or out

[Sonicscooter]

What's coming, and no i'm not discussing it, is one big 5hit storm....figure it out for yourselves....good luck with your own circumstances.

 

[Mr. Charts]

"Morons" are the ones who lose.

 

[NickBk]

Ok so staying in £ rises economy in trouble...

Rather simple way to view things

 

[timsk]

Hi forker,

The remain camp seem to associate the length of time it takes to agree trade deals with reference to Canada and the EU. Signing a deal with countries outside the EU doesn't require 28 countries agreeing and a mountain of existing red tape that needs altering.

Yes, I take your point. However, according to Prof. Dougan, we will have to start from scratch and having separate trade deals with lots of different countries is bound to be a time consuming process. By contrast, all of this has been done with the EU community - they're up and running.

To put trade deals in a realistic perspective; the first round of GATT which involved 23 countries at the time took only 6 months to conclude a deal that reduced 45,000 tariffs. This is a far cry from 10 years which will be needed when the EU negotiates trade deals. We also cannot overlook the fact that about 16% of the EU's trade is with the UK and thus it is in their interest to establish trade deals ASAP post brexit as it would severely affect their economy. It is not like Canada which is between 1-2% of their exports.

Well, if you have some expertise in this area, then I'm prepared to take your word for it. Certainly, as I've made clear already, I'll be voting the same way as you on Thursday, so I hope you're right! Where we differ, I feel, is that I can't discount the views of someone like Prof. Dougan quite as readily as you can. In my eyes, the man has credibility and, with my limited knowledge and understanding of what are complex issues, I'm inclined to accept that some of what he says is true and a likely consequence of opting out.
Tim.

 

[hhiusa]

It will most likely take more than two years. It is only two years after Article 50 is triggered, which the UK does not want to immediately trigger. Estimates are that a Brexit would lead to a divorce by 2019.

 

[Splitlink]

The remain camp seem to associate the length of time it takes to agree trade deals with reference to Canada and the EU. Signing a deal with countries outside the EU doesn't require 28 countries agreeing and a mountain of existing red tape that needs altering.

To put trade deals in a realistic perspective; the first round of GATT which involved 23 countries at the time took only 6 months to conclude a deal that reduced 45,000 tariffs. This is a far cry from 10 years which will be needed when the EU negotiates trade deals. We also cannot overlook the fact that about 16% of the EU's trade is with the UK and thus it is in their interest to establish trade deals ASAP post brexit as it would severely affect their economy. It is not like Canada which is between 1-2% of their exports.

Surely, it is not your concern to worry about what the EU is going to do. The question is What would the UK do? Get the right answer to that and you are justified. The Brexiters have an answer, they always have. Will it be the correct one? I think that it would be an eyeball to eyeball contest to see who blinks first. Not an enviable proposition for either side.

 

[Atilla]

I think some one is cherry picking again. After WWII, Bretton Woods agreement, IMF setup, World Bank setup were all very quick and desperate requirements for a new start. Great many other countries were eager to put it all behind them. Moreover, US effectively ran the show with all the money it had and all the other countries having no money, who could hardly say no!

Try and achieve all those now and you are looking at a whole different kettle of fish.




A brief history of GATT

The WTO's predecessor, the GATT, was established on a provisional basis after the Second World War in the wake of other new multilateral institutions dedicated to international economic cooperation - notably the "Bretton Woods" institutions now known as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

The original 23 GATT countries were among over 50 which agreed a draft Charter for an International Trade Organization (ITO) - a new specialized agency of the United Nations. The Charter was intended to provide not only world trade disciplines but also contained rules relating to employment, commodity agreements, restrictive business practices, international investment and services.

In an effort to give an early boost to trade liberalization after the Second World War - and to begin to correct the large overhang of protectionist measures which remained in place from the early 1930s - tariff negotiations were opened among the 23 founding GATT "contracting parties" in 1946. This first round of negotiations resulted in 45,000 tariff concessions affecting $10 billion - or about one-fifth - of world trade. It was also agreed that the value of these concessions should be protected by early - and largely "provisional" - acceptance of some of the trade rules in the draft ITO Charter. The tariff concessions and rules together became known as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and entered into force in January 1948.

Although the ITO Charter was finally agreed at a UN Conference on Trade and Employment in Havana in March 1948 ratification in national legislatures proved impossible in some cases. When the United States' government announced, in 1950, that it would not seek Congressional ratification of the Havana Charter, the ITO was effectively dead. Despite its provisional nature, the GATT remained the only multilateral instrument governing international trade from 1948 until the establishment of the WTO.

Although, in its 47 years, the basic legal text of the GATT remained much as it was in 1948, there were additions in the form of "plurilateral" - voluntary membership - agreements and continual efforts to reduce tariffs. Much of this was achieved through a series of "trade rounds".

 

[barjon]

How can i have a balanced consideration when i get on the train in the mornings in London and i am surrounded by EU migrants. I feel like a foreigner in my own country and every day i have them to the left and right and in front of me talking in a foreign language.
How can i have a balanced view when my children haven't any chance of owning their own house because the prices today are not affordable due to over demand and in 20-30 years time it will be nothing more than a dream.
How can i have a balanced view when the NHS cannot cope. My wife had to wait 8 months to get an appointment for a back specialist. My Wife's niece was in A&E for 10 hours last week before she could be seen.

Balanced view - are you living somewhere so remote that you are completely disengaged with reality.




The remain camp have been the most hostile in this campaign. From threatening world war 3 to 10 years of austerity to tax rises to becoming irrelevant an. Their latest stunt is piggy backing off the murder last week to influence the vote. No No No you are off the scale being wrong on this point. Only the leave campaign have promoted positive points. The remain camp can have no positive points for staying and truck loads of belligerent propaganda against brexit

Plenty of European immigrants (mostly temporary) round here and several friends who employ some of them, not for want of trying to recruit locals (they are not paying peanuts either). Not so many as to feel uncomfortable.

So far as hospitals are concerned our local one would fall apart without EU workers and I see it full of old people like me who are probably causing great and increasing pressure on the NHS more than EU migrants.

It would be interesting to find out how many of the EU migrants have come here permanently to the extent of buying houses. The London housing problem is certainly ott at the moment and I sympathise with anyone trying to get on the ladder. Immigration doesn't help, particularly the non-EU immigrants who tend (I think) to be more permanent. Brexit won't do much about those.

I don't believe either side has covered themselves in glory in the way they have approached their campaigns, but I suppose it's always the other side that's been naughty

 

[forker]

I think some one is cherry picking again. After WWII, Bretton Woods agreement, IMF setup, World Bank setup were all very quick and desperate requirements for a new start. Great many other countries were eager to put it all behind them. Moreover, US effectively ran the show with all the money it had and all the other countries having no money, who could hardly say no!

Try and achieve all those now and you are looking at a whole different kettle of fish.




A brief history of GATT

The WTO's predecessor, the GATT, was established on a provisional basis after the Second World War in the wake of other new multilateral institutions dedicated to international economic cooperation - notably the "Bretton Woods" institutions now known as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

The original 23 GATT countries were among over 50 which agreed a draft Charter for an International Trade Organization (ITO) - a new specialized agency of the United Nations. The Charter was intended to provide not only world trade disciplines but also contained rules relating to employment, commodity agreements, restrictive business practices, international investment and services.

In an effort to give an early boost to trade liberalization after the Second World War - and to begin to correct the large overhang of protectionist measures which remained in place from the early 1930s - tariff negotiations were opened among the 23 founding GATT "contracting parties" in 1946. This first round of negotiations resulted in 45,000 tariff concessions affecting $10 billion - or about one-fifth - of world trade. It was also agreed that the value of these concessions should be protected by early - and largely "provisional" - acceptance of some of the trade rules in the draft ITO Charter. The tariff concessions and rules together became known as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and entered into force in January 1948.

Although the ITO Charter was finally agreed at a UN Conference on Trade and Employment in Havana in March 1948 ratification in national legislatures proved impossible in some cases. When the United States' government announced, in 1950, that it would not seek Congressional ratification of the Havana Charter, the ITO was effectively dead. Despite its provisional nature, the GATT remained the only multilateral instrument governing international trade from 1948 until the establishment of the WTO.

Although, in its 47 years, the basic legal text of the GATT remained much as it was in 1948, there were additions in the form of "plurilateral" - voluntary membership - agreements and continual efforts to reduce tariffs. Much of this was achieved through a series of "trade rounds".

Cherry picking what exactly? My response was in reference to it taking 10 years to establish a trade deal when in fact that only applies to the EU. Speaking of cherry picking, I see you forgot to copy and paste the fact that it took 6 months with 23 countries to sign an initial agreement removing 45000 tariffs.

 

[forker]

Plenty of European immigrants (mostly temporary) round here and several friends who employ some of them, not for want of trying to recruit locals (they are not paying peanuts either). Not so many as to feel uncomfortable.

So far as hospitals are concerned our local one would fall apart without EU workers and I see it full of old people like me who are probably causing great and increasing pressure on the NHS more than EU migrants.

It would be interesting to find out how many of the EU migrants have come here permanently to the extent of buying houses. The London housing problem is certainly ott at the moment and I sympathise with anyone trying to get on the ladder. Immigration doesn't help, particularly the non-EU immigrants who tend (I think) to be more permanent. Brexit won't do much about those.

I don't believe either side has covered themselves in glory in the way they have approached their campaigns, but I suppose it's always the other side that's been naughty

Mostly temporary? Anyone here for more than a day needs somewhere to live and uses public services. This is as weak an argument as the remain camp stating the the massive difference in NI registrations is not reflective of immigration and only represents temporary occupation. This is as laughable as Camerons integrity.

 

[barjon]

Mostly temporary? Anyone here for more than a day needs somewhere to live and uses public services. This is as weak an argument as the remain camp stating the the massive difference in NI registrations is not reflective of immigration and only represents temporary occupation. This is as laughable as Camerons integrity.

I didn't parade it as an argument, just a fact, although I expect most are renting rather than buying. Temporary or permanent they still put pressure on public services though.

i also think a high proportion of EU migrants are in work (don't have any stats of that, though) which is perhaps partly evidenced by your morning train journeys to work .

 

[forker]

I didn't parade it as an argument, just a fact, although I expect most are renting rather than buying. Temporary or permanent they still put pressure on public services though.

i also think a high proportion of EU migrants are in work (don't have any stats of that, though) which is perhaps partly evidenced by your morning train journeys to work .

I know you didn't. Sorry if I came across as if I did.

 

[barjon]

I know you didn't. Sorry if I came across as if I did.

S'ok, forks, our foils have got button tips

 

[myattitude]

Poll of polls have things neck and neck again. Have a look at these figures and consider the following: Up until the 15th June, Leave had a 10-pt lead, which then swung for Remain the day you know what happened. Since the swing, the gap has been leveling again. If you plotted those figures onto a chart, aren't we looking at a dead cat bounce in progress?

https://ig.ft.com/sites/brexit-polling/

I'm not bothered either way because I know I will win regardless, but for no other reason than I'm bored and want something interesting to happen, I'd like to see what the country does after a Brexit

 

[tomorton]

How can i have a balanced consideration when i get on the train in the mornings in London and i am surrounded by EU migrants.

I suppose they're commuting to work......? Not quite sure if you're bragging or complaining, could you enlighten please?

 

[Splitlink]

Poll of polls have things neck and neck again. Have a look at these figures and consider the following: Up until the 15th June, Leave had a 10-pt lead, which then swung for Remain the day you know what happened. Since the swing, the gap has been leveling again. If you plotted those figures onto a chart, aren't we looking at a dead cat bounce in progress?

https://ig.ft.com/sites/brexit-polling/

I'm not bothered either way because I know I will win regardless, but for no other reason than I'm bored and want something interesting to happen, I'd like to see what the country does after a Brexit

I would not like to see a Brexit. I hope that I am not going to. I'd rather be bored about something else.

 

[forker]

I suppose they're commuting to work......? Not quite sure if you're bragging or complaining, could you enlighten please?

Neither, just an observation which I find specifically interesting when contrasted with the official numbers.

The government claims EU migration is only about 100k. They responded to the 1.2 million gap in NI number registrations by stating that it is only short term. Well you only need to spend a bit of time in and around London and on its public transport to have a sense of how big the lie really is.

Why does it bother me, stress on services and cost of property. That about sums it up.

 

[Atilla]

Cherry picking what exactly? My response was in reference to it taking 10 years to establish a trade deal when in fact that only applies to the EU. Speaking of cherry picking, I see you forgot to copy and paste the fact that it took 6 months with 23 countries to sign an initial agreement removing 45000 tariffs.

Forker mate, the point I was trying to make is that those times were different to what we have now.

TTIP in some form was initiated in 1990s apparently. Was supposed to be finalised in 2014 and now completion not expected until 2019-20. I doubt there are 45000 tariffs to remove between 23 countries now. Started with just 12 countries to remove non tariff (under 3%) barriers.

So 17 years later and we are in dispute over whether GM stuff should be accepted into EU markets. Also, whether US global giants will have powers to take European countries to court and sue them for damages if they don't have their way?

Would you not agree that if we were back in 1948, TTIP would have been well and truly dusted. Europe wouldn't have been in any position to object. Take what ever was on the table?

 

[forker]

Forker mate, the point I was trying to make is that those times were different to what we have now.

TTIP in some form was initiated in 1990s apparently. Was supposed to be finalised in 2014 and now completion not expected until 2019-20. I doubt there are 45000 tariffs to remove between 23 countries now. Started with just 12 countries to remove non tariff (under 3%) barriers.

So 17 years later and we are in dispute over whether GM stuff should be accepted originating in US. Also, whether US global giants will have powers to take European countries to court and sue them for damages if they don't have their way?

Would you not agree that if we were back in 1948, TTIP would have been well and truly dusted. Europe wouldn't have been in any position to object. Take what ever was on the table?

Sorry but I don't think nations are capable of making decisions without needing 10 years (remain forecast) of talking about it.

 

[Atilla]

Sorry but I don't think nations are capable of making decisions without needing 10 years (remain forecast) of talking about it.

What we all need to be aware of, beyond what self serving politicians tell us is the new world order and the way trade is being conducted. Regional trade agreements are flourishing. They are popping up like mushrooms.

UK stepping out of the most advanced and idealistic trade agreement with a view to forming single bilateral agreements swiftly is wishful thinking to the point of lunacy.

YES IT CAN BE DONE but there is no certainty none what so ever. Moreover, given the number of regional blocks, making bilateral agreements will not be like those in the old days.

Here is just one random paper written in 2012. Discusses relevant interesting subject matter. Regional and Bilateral Trade Agreements.

Of particular concern is the complex nature of interlacing bilateral and regional trade agreements and the impact that this structure may have on the developing world. In recent years, bilateral and regional trade agreements have become increasingly sophisticated and they now cover a far wider remit than the multilateral trading system: for example, most bilateral and regional trade agreements address issues relating to competition and intellectual property, which are contentious issues within multilateral trade negotiations. In addition, they are becoming geographically more far reaching; many regional trade agreements are now entered into between several countries from different regions with consistent trade policy aspirations.

This suggests that regional trade agreements are increasingly being used to
strengthen political and economic partnerships rather than to simply enhance regional integration.



In a nut shell the risk factor in going it alone based on hope to crack our migrant control issue is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.