|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
The reason Brexit is bad for the UK/EU economy is because the EU doesn't want to let the UK leave unpunished.
The solution is very simple. Let the UK have access to the single market without subscribing to arbitrary policies it does not agree with. The UK being a part of the single market is beneficial to all involved. We don't want to sacrifice our sovereignty in exchange for trade, and we shouldn't have to, given that our trade brings wealth and employment throughout the continent. Yes, if they allow this, other countries will request similar measures. Let them.
If the peoples of Europe want the EU to scale back its ambitions, or better yet revert to being a market and nothing more, then that is exactly what the EU should do. On the other hand, if other countries want to integrate further and this will is clearly, democratically expressed, then they should do so. But the market and the superstate should not be the same thing, and it should be the democratic choice of the member states as to which they want to be a part of.
Trying to bully the UK and other member states into remaining in a political union through economic coercion just shows how ugly the whole project really is. Any damage that might be caused by a vote to leave could be avoided through the EU simply respecting our democratic wish to be part of a market and not a superstate.
|
Unfortunately, after a hypothetical brexit, for the EU to allow the UK to have access to the single market free from other conditions such as the free movement of people and suchlike is extremely unlikely. Whether this is an argument for leave or to remain is a matter of opinion.
|
Anyone have any thoughts on how a Remain vote would play out? From what I've seen, whether or not the Brexit happens, the general consensus is that the UK isn't really on board with the Europe project. Seems like the problems for the EU have only just begun.
|
If the UK no longer adheres to the EU's environmental, consumer, financial, and labor regulations, why should the EU trade freely with them? It would be a farce to let UK industries undercut the EU in the future by, say, polluting more or abusing their workers.
The UK is perfectly entitled to leave the EU. The EU is perfectly entitled to sanction the shit out of them until they figure out how to fairly trade with a country no longer bound by EU policies and regulations.
If I was in charge of the EU, I wouldn't even bother with the "fair" part. A non-EU UK would be a competitor in a extremely weak position, and I'd treat it as such.
|
On June 23 2016 04:31 bardtown wrote:
The reason Brexit is bad for the UK/EU economy is because the EU doesn't want to let the UK leave unpunished.
The solution is very simple. Let the UK have access to the single market without subscribing to arbitrary policies it does not agree with. The UK being a part of the single market is beneficial to all involved. We don't want to sacrifice our sovereignty in exchange for trade, and we shouldn't have to, given that our trade brings wealth and employment throughout the continent. Yes, if they allow this, other countries will request similar measures. Let them.
If the peoples of Europe want the EU to scale back its ambitions, or better yet revert to being a market and nothing more, then that is exactly what the EU should do. On the other hand, if other countries want to integrate further and this will is clearly, democratically expressed, then they should do so. But the market and the superstate should not be the same thing, and it should be the democratic choice of the member states as to which they want to be a part of.
Trying to bully the UK and other member states into remaining in a political union through economic coercion just shows how ugly the whole project really is. Any damage that might be caused by a vote to leave could be avoided through the EU simply respecting our democratic wish to be part of a market and not a superstate.
To be part of a single market all member states have to comply to a basic set of rules otherwise it's no single market. A market is more than just tariffs.
To call ot undemocratic is silly. GB is free to leave if they want but they have to deal with the consequences. The governments in Europe are elected as well. You're only looking from the electorate of one country while disregarding thr other 20+.
|
If the UK no longer adheres to the EU's environmental, consumer, financial, and labor regulations, why should the EU trade freely with them? It would be a farce to let UK industries undercut the EU in the future by, say, polluting more or abusing their workers.
The UK is perfectly entitled to leave the EU. The EU is perfectly entitled to sanction the shit out of them until they figure out how to fairly trade with a country no longer bound by EU policies and regulations.
If I was in charge of the EU, I wouldn't even bother with the "fair" part. A non-EU UK would be a competitor in a extremely weak position, and I'd treat it as such.
The UK and the EU are both members of WTO. You'd still be bound by that kind of trade agreement even if they left which regulates a lot more than just the EU. You can't just sanction the UK for democratically leaving the union. That would be a multi nation suicide. Not only would it be seen as tyranny from above from an unelected government, but they'd have to actually enforce such a thing across member states despite what those nations would want.
Britain would get to keep control over their ocean tile and igniting a new fishing boom for native fishermen (currently only about 14% of the british sea tile quota goes to the british) which would mean about 2 billion pounds.
|
Britain would get to keep control over their ocean tile and igniting a new fishing boom for native fishermen (currently only about 14% of the british sea tile quota goes to the british) which would mean about 2 billion pounds.
And then you wake up, and realise that this has nothing to do with the EU, contrary to Mr. Johnsons tirades.
http://theconversation.com/what-would-brexit-really-mean-for-the-uks-fishing-industry-56312
And that even lefts out the interesting thought experiment that scotland could have another referendum on top, if Sturgeon would get a deal to stay in the EU. The biggest UK fishing grounds are in shetland. Something you'd need to pay dearly to access. Just food for thought, and certainly not impossible. And actually a lot more realistic than your "2 billion pounds" of revenue of a resource that JUST recovered.
On June 23 2016 05:26 acker wrote:
If the UK no longer adheres to the EU's environmental, consumer, financial, and labor regulations, why should the EU trade freely with them? It would be a farce to let UK industries undercut the EU in the future by, say, polluting more or abusing their workers.
The UK is perfectly entitled to leave the EU. The EU is perfectly entitled to sanction the shit out of them until they figure out how to fairly trade with a country no longer bound by EU policies and regulations.
If I was in charge of the EU, I wouldn't even bother with the "fair" part. A non-EU UK would be a competitor in a extremely weak position, and I'd treat it as such.
Pretty much this. A country that isn't bound to the same regulations as all the others should not be allowed on the same market. It's like driving a formula 1 car in a mini-series. They're not allowed there for a reason, and the same should (and will) happen to the UK. No country will fuck with their corporations/accept losses etc to "stay friends with the UK". That's not how the world works, and in this case, i'd actually agree.
|
You think you're operating in a vacuum. You're making the same mistake as the EU. Go ahead: bully the UK, hurt the EU economies by extension, and give them that little push they need to fully embrace nationalism.
It has nothing to do with friendship. It's about keeping one of the EU's, and in particular Germany's, best markets strong. The European people are not so in love with the EU that they are willing to sacrifice business/employment for it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36596060
Edit: by the way, the UK would undoubtedly accept certain rules and regulations in order to keep access to the market. That stops short of free movement of people and anything else that is political and not economic.
|
On June 23 2016 06:52 bardtown wrote:
You think you're operating in a vacuum. You're making the same mistake as the EU. Go ahead: bully the UK, hurt the EU economies by extension, and give them that little push they need to fully embrace nationalism.
Markets are not static, they constantly fluctuate.
A short term uncertainty will quickly be counterbalanced by a decrease in imports for EU states.
And when the big banks begin to relocate to Frankfurt, the UK economy will feel it in the long run.
|
On June 23 2016 07:40 lord_nibbler wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2016 06:52 bardtown wrote:
You think you're operating in a vacuum. You're making the same mistake as the EU. Go ahead: bully the UK, hurt the EU economies by extension, and give them that little push they need to fully embrace nationalism. Markets are not static, they constantly fluctuate. A short term uncertainty will quickly be counterbalanced by a decrease in imports for EU states. And when the big banks begin to relocate to Frankfurt, the UK economy will feel it in the long run.
It's actually Germany that will feel it even more, considering the trading balance between the two countries. Which is why Merkel, unlike that idiot Schauble, does not have a tough stance in regard to UK.
It's obvious that the current countries that gain the most from the EU are the one that will lose the most if it decline.
|
On June 23 2016 06:52 bardtown wrote:You think you're operating in a vacuum. You're making the same mistake as the EU. Go ahead: bully the UK, hurt the EU economies by extension, and give them that little push they need to fully embrace nationalism. It has nothing to do with friendship. It's about keeping one of the EU's, and in particular Germany's, best markets strong. The European people are not so in love with the EU that they are willing to sacrifice business/employment for it. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36596060Edit: by the way, the UK would undoubtedly accept certain rules and regulations in order to keep access to the market. That stops short of free movement of people and anything else that is political and not economic.
Why would the EU want to keep strong a country that has time and again shown it will embrace all the advantages the EU brings but wants to contribute as little as possible?
Britain will be shown that it cannot expect to both have its cake and eat it too. In is in, out is out. It would be a display of shocking political weakness if the EU let the UK leave but still lets it enjoy all the perks of being part of the single market.
|
On June 23 2016 06:52 bardtown wrote:You think you're operating in a vacuum. You're making the same mistake as the EU. Go ahead: bully the UK, hurt the EU economies by extension, and give them that little push they need to fully embrace nationalism. It has nothing to do with friendship. It's about keeping one of the EU's, and in particular Germany's, best markets strong. The European people are not so in love with the EU that they are willing to sacrifice business/employment for it. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36596060Edit: by the way, the UK would undoubtedly accept certain rules and regulations in order to keep access to the market. That stops short of free movement of people and anything else that is political and not economic.
Markets and politics are linked especially in the EU. You can't expect to pick and choose what you want while the rest of the EU has to compromize to get access. A referendum doesn't give you some special status.
|
RISE UP BRITANNIA
LEAVE THE EU
|
On June 23 2016 15:16 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2016 06:52 bardtown wrote:You think you're operating in a vacuum. You're making the same mistake as the EU. Go ahead: bully the UK, hurt the EU economies by extension, and give them that little push they need to fully embrace nationalism. It has nothing to do with friendship. It's about keeping one of the EU's, and in particular Germany's, best markets strong. The European people are not so in love with the EU that they are willing to sacrifice business/employment for it. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36596060Edit: by the way, the UK would undoubtedly accept certain rules and regulations in order to keep access to the market. That stops short of free movement of people and anything else that is political and not economic. Markets and politics are linked especially in the EU. You can't expect to pick and choose what you want while the rest of the EU has to compromize to get access. A referendum doesn't give you some special status.
This would make sense if the entire world had to be a part of the EU to trade with EU countries, but that's clearly not the case. Canada trades with Europe, but isn't apart of the EU. Why does Britain have to be a part of the EU to trade with European countries?
Honestly, if the EU wants to start trade wars because countries "near/within its sphere of geo-political influence" choose to democratically not be apart of it that doesn't exactly look too well upon the EU and I'm sure the people of the member countries will take notice. The EU is all ready not too popular of an institution in many member states, but maybe I'm off base here because I'm not as intimately knowledgeable as European folk are about this particular issue. Granted, I also as a matter of principle support non-coercive political units down to the individual so punishing folk for choosing not to politically associate doesn't come off well.
In other words, to me this issue seems to be more of a power play than about economic activity if the EU retaliates, because frankly, erecting trade barriers is not good for anyone.
|
You do understand Canada trade with EU on different terms than UK-EU trade? If UK will leave those terms will change. Noone says that EU will ban UK goods or impose some crazy sanctions or whatever. But terms of trade will defiently change. No reason not to. Inter EU trade has different regulations than NONEU-EU trade.
|
It's not about trade wars. But only members get membership privileges for example zero tariffs. Without a deal of some sort Britain will fall back to WTO trade rules. And a deal means giving and taking.
|
On June 23 2016 16:36 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2016 15:16 RvB wrote:On June 23 2016 06:52 bardtown wrote:You think you're operating in a vacuum. You're making the same mistake as the EU. Go ahead: bully the UK, hurt the EU economies by extension, and give them that little push they need to fully embrace nationalism. It has nothing to do with friendship. It's about keeping one of the EU's, and in particular Germany's, best markets strong. The European people are not so in love with the EU that they are willing to sacrifice business/employment for it. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36596060Edit: by the way, the UK would undoubtedly accept certain rules and regulations in order to keep access to the market. That stops short of free movement of people and anything else that is political and not economic. Markets and politics are linked especially in the EU. You can't expect to pick and choose what you want while the rest of the EU has to compromize to get access. A referendum doesn't give you some special status. This would make sense if the entire world had to be a part of the EU to trade with EU countries, but that's clearly not the case. Canada trades with Europe, but isn't apart of the EU. Why does Britain have to be a part of the EU to trade with European countries? Honestly, if the EU wants to start trade wars because countries "near/within its sphere of geo-political influence" choose to democratically not be apart of it that doesn't exactly look too well upon the EU and I'm sure the people of the member countries will take notice. The EU is all ready not too popular of an institution in many member states, but maybe I'm off base here because I'm not as intimately knowledgeable as European folk are about this particular issue. Granted, I also as a matter of principle support non-coercive political units down to the individual so punishing folk for choosing not to politically associate doesn't come off well. In other words, to me this issue seems to be more of a power play than about economic activity if the EU retaliates, because frankly, erecting trade barriers is not good for anyone.
Nobody is talking about trade wars. We're talking about access to the single market. A free trade agreement is something different. If push comes to shove theyll trade on the basis of thr WTO agreement like already mentioned.
Edit: same thibg already saod by others ^^
|
Torrential rain in London.
Turnout could be lower than expected there.
Everything is aligning for leave.
|
On June 23 2016 18:55 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Torrential rain in London.
Turnout could be lower than expected there.
Everything is aligning for leave.
Don't say that, I'm getting ill...
|
On June 23 2016 18:55 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Torrential rain in London.
Turnout could be lower than expected there.
Everything is aligning for leave.
If rain prevented anything in London I'm pretty sure Brits would have gone extinct by now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
