Reasons to Remain.

[Himaginn]

If we vote to leave, there are those in France and Germany who won't want to make it a comfortable experience. If it looks too easy, others may be encouraged to follow.

And that just highlights exactly why the U.K. should get out of this "club" while it still can, even if - as some assert - it does mean a little economic belt-tightening for a few years until things settle down.

Who do you think you are kidding, Mr PBC?
Have you any idea what 45% of UK GDP looks like? Or GDP per capita (that's for each individual)
About $42,000 per person per year. (what it would be in the case of Brexit and GBP devaluation is anybody's guess, nearer $36,000)
In 1967 UK was forced to devalue GBP by 14% to make exports more competitive. See below.
You call that "a little economic belt-tightening for a few years" until/if things settle down?
Do you head off to the casino to chance your salary each month, on the basis that if you lose (which is invariably the case) a little belt tightening will solve the problem. Of course it won't. What would stop the problem is to stop gambling with your/our future by chancing your livelihood on a leap into the unknown.

If you're the MD of a large organisation and at a board meeting a new plant/opening/whatever is proposed. You suggest that this new plant is positioned in the middle of some island somewhere, but you have no data/figures/research to support your suggestion other than you think you could build new bridges, you just think it would be 'for the best', you'd be laughed out of that meeting PDQ.

This is the position that Brexit campaigners are recommending: a leap into the unknown based on a gut feeling and nothing else. Actually, I'd go further and suggest that the campaigners are suggesting a Brexit on the false assumption that it will fix our broken border controls.

Harold Wilson (1967) became the butt of cartoonists, comics and impressionists with his assertion that the "pound in your pocket" would not change value.

The only alternative, he said, was to borrow heavily from governments abroad - but the only loans on offer were short-term ones.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/19/newsid_3208000/3208396.stm

Misreporting in the media leads us to believe that the cost of our overseas holiday is the biggest headache when the value of our currency goes down - if only. When the currency takes a fall the whole nation is immediately given a pay cut, all our imports now go up in price. If we have to buy raw materials or products produced abroad it now costs us more, our purchasing power has effectively fallen....A price spiral starts

http://theageofstupidity.blogspot.co.uk/2009/09/british-pound-devaluation-delusions.html

 

[Himaginn]

Interesting comparison of Singapore and UK in the light of the referendum:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-your-money-35655744

The short comparison (less than 3 minutes) points out that Singapore is a nation in a Free Trading Agreement with 10 other ASEAN countries, except that free movement of people is not included, only goods and services.
A relationship which Brexit campaigners would love to have with EU, I suspect. And a model which they are relying on.
Although the comparison does point out that 40% of people in Singapore are immigrants, it does not mention the population density of Singapore which is ranked 3rd in the world: 8,000 people per Km² for Singapore, compared to UK ranked 50th at 260 per Km²
Singapore is also bang in the middle of third world countries or developing nations.

So although this kind of relationship of Free Trade without free movement of people may be desirable, it is not a current feasible alternative for UK's relationship with EU.

 

[Himaginn]

An excellent article in BBC website this morning:

Reality Check: The EU referendum

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-p...&13:03&ns_fee=0#post_56d986663e0000b7a426ba63

 

[jockscott]

Interesting comparison of Singapore and UK in the light of the referendum:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-your-money-35655744

The short comparison (less than 3 minutes) points out that Singapore is a nation in a Free Trading Agreement with 10 other ASEAN countries, except that free movement of people is not included, only goods and services.
A relationship which Brexit campaigners would love to have with EU, I suspect. And a model which they are relying on.

Most telling in that short report "Singapore can pick and choose who it wants to let in." Something the EU don't allow us to do (at present) . For all your arguments saying the EU wouldn't allow the UK to have a trade agreement without the free movement of EU nationals, I'd ask, what makes you so absolutely sure that the EU would want to impose that condition, following a Brexit? Also, would you like to see the UK with a population density, approaching that of Singapore?? (on second thoughts, don't answer that, I think most of us already know your answer)

 

[Himaginn]

Interesting comparison of Singapore and UK in the light of the referendum:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-your-money-35655744

The short comparison (less than 3 minutes) points out that Singapore is a nation in a Free Trading Agreement with 10 other ASEAN countries, except that free movement of people is not included, only goods and services.
A relationship which Brexit campaigners would love to have with EU, I suspect. And a model which they are relying on.

Most telling in that short report "Singapore can pick and choose who it wants to let in." Something the EU don't allow us to do (at present) . For all your arguments saying the EU wouldn't allow the UK to have a trade agreement without the free movement of EU nationals, I'd ask, what makes you so absolutely sure that the EU would want to impose that condition, following a Brexit?

Old ground again, jock.
I've already said that the EU would obviously insist on the four freedoms else UK Brexit could become contagious. Obvious init?
Additionally the other four countries in EFTA must agree to the free movement of people. Switzerland is currently under investigation and its agreements under consideration, not to mention some sanctions already in place, for not following Schengen Agreement properly. The current bilateral agreements that Switzerland enjoys with EU are in danger. Some measures have already been suspended.

UK can pick and choose from non-EU nationals who it wants to allow in, except for some Commonwealth citizens, many of whom retain the right to abode, entry without visa, etc.

Additionally, Singapore relies on 40% of population being immigrants for its prosperity.

 

[jockscott]

I've already said that the EU would obviously insist on the four freedoms else UK Brexit could become contagious. Obvious init?
Additionally the other four countries in EFTA must agree to the free movement of people. Switzerland is currently under investigation and its agreements under consideration, not to mention some sanctions already in place, for not following Schengen Agreement properly. The current bilateral agreements that Switzerland enjoys with EU are in danger. Some measures have already been suspended.

Himmy, you keep saying that they'd "obviously insist" on this, as if it's an absolute certainty.. Why? Is the EU so intransigent there's no room for negotiation? ..
As for a Brexit becoming contagious, should it happen, I'm sure it would. The collapse of the EU isn't far away Himmy, and for me personally, it can't happen soon enough

 

[rules&rulers]

Leave and double bolt the door.

 

[Himaginn]

I've already said that the EU would obviously insist on the four freedoms else UK Brexit could become contagious. Obvious init?
Additionally the other four countries in EFTA must agree to the free movement of people. Switzerland is currently under investigation and its agreements under consideration, not to mention some sanctions already in place, for not following Schengen Agreement properly. The current bilateral agreements that Switzerland enjoys with EU are in danger. Some measures have already been suspended.

Himmy, you keep saying that they'd "obviously insist" on this, as if it's an absolute certainty.. Why? Is the EU so intransigent there's no room for negotiation? ..

The EU is a political entity, and as a political entity it will behave in a way to perpetuate itself. Obvious init?
It will negotiate to give itself the best advantage. It will compromise if necessary, but only if absolutely necessary. That's politics. Obvious init?

As for a Brexit becoming contagious, should it happen, I'm sure it would.

That is exactly why the EU will negotiate in such a way to make contagion unthinkable.
It will enforce stringent tariffs and regulation compliance if there is no trade deal, and it will enforce the four freedoms and regulation compliance in the event of a trade deal.
Thus, we're in the best position currently. We can never hope to negotiate a better arrangement than that.

 

[PBC_1966]

Himmy, you keep saying that they'd "obviously insist" on this, as if it's an absolute certainty.. Why? Is the EU so intransigent there's no room for negotiation? ..
As for a Brexit becoming contagious, should it happen, I'm sure it would. The collapse of the EU isn't far away Himmy, and for me personally, it can't happen soon enough

Exactly. There's nothing "obvious" about the EU trying to insist on it just to come up with some sort of trade deal. Does it insist on it for trade with the U.S.A., Canada, South Africa, Japan, and any other one of dozens of other countries?

But if it did try to insist upon it, then the U.K. should simply refuse and negotiate whatever deal can be had without giving in to such EU demands.

 

[Himaginn]

Himmy, you keep saying that they'd "obviously insist" on this, as if it's an absolute certainty.. Why? Is the EU so intransigent there's no room for negotiation? ..
As for a Brexit becoming contagious, should it happen, I'm sure it would. The collapse of the EU isn't far away Himmy, and for me personally, it can't happen soon enough

Exactly. There's nothing "obvious" about the EU trying to insist on it just to come up with some sort of trade deal. Does it insist on it for trade with the U.S.A., Canada, South Africa, Japan, and any other one of dozens of other countries?

The Schengen Agreement is hardly likely to apply to USA, Canada, Japan or S Africa, is it. Talk sense.

But if it did try to insist upon it, then the U.K. should simply refuse and negotiate whatever deal can be had without giving in to such EU demands.

So you've eventually come round to acknowledging that a trade deal with EU is essential?
What if the EU refused a trade deal without UK accepting the Schengen Agreement?
What then? A reliance on WTO terms resulting in EU import tariffs, making our exports more expensive in EU, and UK import tariffs, making EU goods more expensive in UK. A lose/lose scenario all round. An estimate has been made of an increase cost to UK for EU imports of about £11Billion. That'll be some "economic belt tightening" and it won't be temporary.
There's no projection, that I'm aware of, of any loss of exports to EU, because it's all dependent on what kind of trade deal is negotiated, if any.

 

[PBC_1966]

The Schengen Agreement is hardly likely to apply to USA, Canada, Japan or S Africa, is it. Talk sense.

Then why should it apply to a United Kingdom which is no longer in the European Union?

If you are suggesting that despite it not being applicable to all those other countries the EU would insist upon it for the U.K. as some kind of "punishment" for daring to withdraw, then as I and others have said before, that's all the more reason to be well rid of the EU "club" and its whole attitude.

 

[Himaginn]

The Schengen Agreement is hardly likely to apply to USA, Canada, Japan or S Africa, is it. Talk sense.

Then why should it apply to a United Kingdom which is no longer in the European Union?

Iceland, Norway, Lichtenstein and Switzerland are not in EU, but they are in Schengen Zone.

If you are suggesting that despite it not being applicable to all those other countries the EU would insist upon it for the U.K. as some kind of "punishment" for daring to withdraw, then as I and others have said before, that's all the more reason to be well rid of the EU "club" and its whole attitude.

How many more times? EU would insist on the Schengen Agreement in the event of a Brexit to reduce the possibility of contagion!
If EU done a deal with UK without Schengen then Norway, et al would be queuing up for the same.
There may be more countries that consider an exit.

Now if you want to interpret it as some form of punishment, that's your prerogative.

You'll ask me again in another couple of pages and the answer will be the same.

 

[PBC_1966]

So you've eventually come round to acknowledging that a trade deal with EU is essential?

It might be nice, but not essential.

What if the EU refused a trade deal without UK accepting the Schengen Agreement?

Then the U.K. should basically tell the EU to take a long walk on a short pier..... As I said before, if you've just managed to escape from the native's cooking pot and get a safe distance away, you don't go running back to sit on the edge and dangle your legs in the water again.

What then? A reliance on WTO terms resulting in EU import tariffs, making our exports more expensive in EU, and UK import tariffs, making EU goods more expensive in UK. A lose/lose scenario all round.

And possibly a winning situation for the U.K. being free to come to mutually acceptable trade deals on its own terms with the rest of the world, once free of the EU's common tariff shackles.

An estimate has been made of an increase cost to UK for EU imports of about £11Billion.

How much is the U.K.'s current net contribution to the EU again? About £33 million per day? That comes to about £12 billion per annum, so even if that £11 bn. extra cost estimate is accurate, that's the U.K. about £1 bn. ahead per annum anyway.

There's no projection, that I'm aware of, of any loss of exports to EU, because it's all dependent on what kind of trade deal is negotiated, if any.

But haven't you been claiming that they'll be decimated, or worse? Based upon what assumption?

 

[PBC_1966]

Iceland, Norway, Lichtenstein and Switzerland are not in EU, but they are in Schengen Zone.

So what? There are other places in Europe which are in neither. Why couldn't the U.K. be the same?

How many more times? EU would insist on the Schengen Agreement in the event of a Brexit to reduce the possibility of contagion!

That might well be so, since obviously the EU is about expansion of territory and power. So as I said before, the U.K. should just say "No." If that means having to accept the EU's general external tariffs, so be it.

 

[Himaginn]

So you've eventually come round to acknowledging that a trade deal with EU is essential?

It might be nice, but not essential.

Even the Brexit campaigners think that a trade with EU is essential. So basically you're out on a limb.

What if the EU refused a trade deal without UK accepting the Schengen Agreement?

Then the U.K. should basically tell the EU to take a long walk on a short pier.....

You're the only one advocating that approach.

What then? A reliance on WTO terms resulting in EU import tariffs, making our exports more expensive in EU, and UK import tariffs, making EU goods more expensive in UK. A lose/lose scenario all round.

And possibly a winning situation for the U.K. being free to come to mutually acceptable trade deals on its own terms with the rest of the world, once free of the EU's common tariff shackles.

Time frame? Cost? Administrative effort?

An estimate has been made of an increase cost to UK for EU imports of about £11Billion.

How much is the U.K.'s current net contribution to the EU again? About £33 million per day? That comes to about £12 billion per annum, so even if that £11 bn. extra cost estimate is accurate, that's the U.K. about £1 bn. ahead per annum anyway.

We've already dealt with this. The answer is the same as before. That money will disappear, explained away as replacing lost tax revenue, paying EU import tariffs, expenditure on negotiating other trade deals, worsening balance of trade, rises in benefits/pensions etc to pay for increases in RPI.

There's no projection, that I'm aware of, of any loss of exports to EU, because it's all dependent on what kind of trade deal is negotiated, if any.

But haven't you been claiming that they'll be decimated, or worse? Based upon what assumption?

Nope, that's been and still is your strawman argument.