BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

earth

There's a scare story that banks will leave if we exit.

It occurs to me that even within the EU we are successfully defending their interests. If we leave then the EU will be able to push for the financial transaction tax. London allows banks to operate at low cost and we bail them out when it goes wrong. Can't see that happening anywhere else. Iceland? Seriously, Sweden or Switzerland. Well the Swiss are not in the EU so in the event that we leave the EU I don't see much benefit in banks leaving one country outside the EU to set up shop in another. They might move to Sweden because it is a member but they are a small player in other respects so I don't think Sweden will be able to protect them against the financial transaction tax. Of course if we are out of the EU then we have control of our laws so I see Britain being the best place a bank could hope for. We might even see those banks in Sweden moving here if the FTT comes in.

ilm_zero7

great - bring on the vote - I'm OUT

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick, if the UK had never joined the EU and there was a referendum being held now to decide if we should join, would you support that referendum? Bearing in mind that the issues would be too complex for most people to understand.

Come on Rick, answer the question - it's a simple yes or no. Although people probably realise that you have painted yourself into a corner here

Course not.

Can't see what corner I've painted myself in?


Thing is there's no well informed debate on this since in parliament they just grandstand for the public who rightly have much better things to get on with that looking into the the spaghetti of correlation and causation and pros and cons that is EU membership.
There's a reason we have people who's job it is to to research and rebate this stuff - so we can get on with living our own lives.

So basically by opposing a referendum either in the real situation we have or the hypothetical situation I gave above, you are saying that the status quo should prevail.

At least its a better answer than the other possibility...

I agree with you that it is a complex situation and very difficult for anyone to call correctly. But that is the same for running a country and it is not a reason to not have general elections. Do you disagree with that?

Deciding who to make the decisions and making the decision yourself is quite different.

Stevo_666

Same underlying issue - too complex for most to fully understand and with far reaching consequences for the country.

finchy

Do politicians understand all the consequences? If not, then surely our opinion is as good as theirs.

pblakeney

finchy wrote:

Do politicians understand all the consequences? If not, then surely our opinion is as good as theirs.

If it was clear cut then they would all be on the one side.
It is obviously not as clear cut as some would like. Or, our "governors" are not as well informed as some would like.

finchy

PBlakeney wrote:

finchy wrote:

Do politicians understand all the consequences? If not, then surely our opinion is as good as theirs.

If it was clear cut then they would all be on the one side.
It is obviously not as clear cut as some would like. Or, our "governors" are not as well informed as some would like.

I think it was Christopher Hitchens who said that when he began rubbing shoulders with those in power, he was horrified to discover that they were less intelligent than he was.

mamba80

Ballysmate wrote:

Mamba, as I said earlier, the scare stories will come thick and fast from both sides. As Stevo alluded to earlier, if we weren't already in, we certainly wouldn't be voting to join. The status quo always seems to have an advantage when it comes to a referendum and I think we will vote to stay in.

we will vote to leave because for too many its a vote about "regaining control of our borders" ie immigration.

If a nations currency is an indicator of a countries worth, then the markets dont think much of the referendum, let alone what will happen if we leave.

ballysmate

Mamba. you yourself have stated that immigration is a big issue for you, but now seem to complain that it's an issue for too many people, which I find confusing.
The spectre of France packing off all the migrant from Calais to the UK has been raised and I admit, if I was France, I'd ship them out as well. But how many of the migrants landing in Europe now are going to go back home? That's right, none. In years to come. they will become citizens and have the right to roam. So whichever way we vote, we will be shafted by immigration.

hypster

I think Ballysmate has hit the nail on the head to a certain extent. Whichever way the referendum vote goes the EU will still play an enormous part in our lives and if Norway and Switzerland are anything to go by, will still be a massive PITA and still cost us a bundle.

The immigration problem is not suddenly going to disappear and it's refugees coming from outside the EU which pose the biggest problem. Economically we will still trade with the EU but there will be massive difficulties to sort out there too, so it won't all be gravy.

The right-wing press will still be printing massively exagerated stories about the EU to scare up readership and disgruntled government back benchers still stir up trouble mainly because they haven't been gifted a cushy cabinet seat.

C'est la vie...

bobmcstuff

Fancy adding a poll to this thread?

rick_chasey

Take a look at the ITV anchor's Twitter feed.

https://twitter.com/tombradby/status/701763089595813888

Preparing for the @agendaitv tonight, encountered this; When Greenland left in 1982, it spent 3 years negotiating a trade deal with the EEC.

The country had a population of 50,000 - a quarter of the size of the London Borough of Camden. And the deal was over 1 industry; fishing.
Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty stipulates that, after pulling the exit chord, a membership ceases after 2 years.

More
That can be extended if unanimously agreed. Given that it would be in everyone's interests for the UK to leave with a deal in place...


..I think a sensible time frame might be five to ten years. Don't you think?

Or to put it another way; whatever we decide, nothing is likely to happen quickly.

Switzerland took 7 years to negotiate two bilateral sets of trade deals. The 2nd lot (agreed between 2001- 4) have not all been enacted.


Or, to be put it another way, we might not actually know whether we ARE better or worse of for 10 years. Another ref in 2026?
More

surrey_commuter

bobmcstuff wrote:

Fancy adding a poll to this thread?

no need - just keep an eye on the betting exchanges as they have a 100% record on calling these things. Currently they are showing 2/1 for exit which is massive in a two horse race

surrey_commuter

Rick Chasey wrote:

Take a look at the ITV anchor's Twitter feed.

https://twitter.com/tombradby/status/701763089595813888

Preparing for the @agendaitv tonight, encountered this; When Greenland left in 1982, it spent 3 years negotiating a trade deal with the EEC.

The country had a population of 50,000 - a quarter of the size of the London Borough of Camden. And the deal was over 1 industry; fishing.
Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty stipulates that, after pulling the exit chord, a membership ceases after 2 years.

More
That can be extended if unanimously agreed. Given that it would be in everyone's interests for the UK to leave with a deal in place...


..I think a sensible time frame might be five to ten years. Don't you think?

Or to put it another way; whatever we decide, nothing is likely to happen quickly.

Switzerland took 7 years to negotiate two bilateral sets of trade deals. The 2nd lot (agreed between 2001- 4) have not all been enacted.


Or, to be put it another way, we might not actually know whether we ARE better or worse of for 10 years. Another ref in 2026?
More

saw a similar article in the FT which said similar. ie it will take up to 10 years and overall it will be bad for us but not calamitous

Bobbinogs

finchy wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

finchy wrote:

Do politicians understand all the consequences? If not, then surely our opinion is as good as theirs.

If it was clear cut then they would all be on the one side.
It is obviously not as clear cut as some would like. Or, our "governors" are not as well informed as some would like.

I think it was Christopher Hitchens who said that when he began rubbing shoulders with those in power, he was horrified to discover that they were less intelligent than he was.

Are you sure that wasn't Christopher Biggins??

orraloon

Surrey Commuter wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

Fancy adding a poll to this thread?

no need - just keep an eye on the betting exchanges as they have a 100% record on calling these things. Currently they are showing 2/1 for exit which is massive in a two horse race

Or keep an eye on the foreign exchange markets. £ down 2% vs $, and we've only just started the 'game'.

ballysmate

Ftse up

FTSE 100 Index
INDEXFTSE: UKX - 22 Feb 15:48 GMT
6,047.17GBPPrice increase96.94 (1.63%)

Bobbinogs

orraloon wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

Fancy adding a poll to this thread?

no need - just keep an eye on the betting exchanges as they have a 100% record on calling these things. Currently they are showing 2/1 for exit which is massive in a two horse race

Or keep an eye on the foreign exchange markets. £ down 2% vs $, and we've only just started the 'game'.

I don't think anyone can read too much into that. The one thing markets don't like is uncertainty, even if the possible outcome of change is a good thing. I foresee the markets (FTSE and currency) being fairly volatile until they work out which way the vote is going to go.

RideOnTime

bobmcstuff wrote:

Fancy adding a poll to this thread?

I think it needs to be more than just IN / OUT.

although that's clearly all that's on offer

may be IN OUT SHAKE IT ALL ABOUT

RideOnTime

I'll work on one. No one do one while I'm in preparation - otherwise I'll get mad and all that time will be wasted.

bobmcstuff

RideOnTime wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

Fancy adding a poll to this thread?

I think it needs to be more than just IN / OUT.

although that's clearly all that's on offer

may be IN OUT SHAKE IT ALL ABOUT

Looks like a Mr H. Cokey has beaten you to it https://www.change.org/p/mr-david-camer ... dum-ballot

Would be better if it was on the actual government petition website but hey ho.

RideOnTime

The BBC's Laura Kuenssberg said the last 72 hours was the equivalent of a "cork coming out of a bottle" for the Conservatives, with ministers speaking openly about their views for the first time in years and big arguments being made.

the cork's come out of something, but not the bottle I fear...

bobmcstuff

Boris is such a self-aggrandising sh!t stirrer.

surrey_commuter

bobmcstuff wrote:

Boris is such a self-aggrandising sh!t stirrer.

I was amazed that Cameron had it in him to give Boris such a savaging. If they had a debate Boris would get destroyed.

RideOnTime

Shake It All About campaign is the only way

peterbob

Ballysmate wrote:

Mamba. you yourself have stated that immigration is a big issue for you, but now seem to complain that it's an issue for too many people, which I find confusing.
The spectre of France packing off all the migrant from Calais to the UK has been raised and I admit, if I was France, I'd ship them out as well. But how many of the migrants landing in Europe now are going to go back home? That's right, none. In years to come. they will become citizens and have the right to roam. So whichever way we vote, we will be shafted by immigration.

I don't think the Australians would agree with you.

rick_chasey

Does amuse me, some of the immigration chat.


After all, I'm a naturalised EU immigrant

mamba80

Rick Chasey wrote:

Does amuse me, some of the immigration chat.


After all, I'm a naturalised EU immigrant

what do you think the EU should do about the millions that have either crossed or intend to cross into Europe?

orraloon

mamba80 wrote:

what do you think the EU should do about the millions that have either crossed or intend to cross into Europe?

D'ye reckon the millions of displaced Syrians, the Afghans and all are gonna be swayed in their choice of final 1st world destination by our having a wee vote to ourselves on whether the UK is inside or outside the political structure of the EU? I'm gonna hazard a guess here and say no they're not.

The Syrian refugee situation is a global crisis; not helped by US, UK, Russia, Uncle Tom Cobley and all firing high explosives in there. Bomb Assad, no wait bomb ISIL, oh bomb anyone...

pblakeney

mamba80 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Does amuse me, some of the immigration chat.


After all, I'm a naturalised EU immigrant

what do you think the EU should do about the millions that have either crossed or intend to cross into Europe?

I believe that the EU are planning on having a meeting to decide what should be on the agenda for future meetings to discuss what the options are.
I am sure that stern words will be used.