EU Referendum Megathread (Brexit)

[The Don]

"
It showed that 40 per cent of executives surveyed think the UK would be better off out of the trading bloc, with 49 per cent in favour of staying in and 11 per cent undecided."

You know they're struggling when Dan considers a 10% loss as something worth celebrating lmao... Paraphrasing a brilliant comment I read "Whose opinion do we think is more relevant, an ex-spice girls, nigel farrage's, the insidious buffoon mayor of london, or the leader of the worlds strongest power and potentially our most important ally?"

- - - Updated - - -

[Agnostic Bear]

"
It showed that 40 per cent of executives surveyed think the UK would be better off out of the trading bloc, with 49 per cent in favour of staying in and 11 per cent undecided."

You know they're struggling when Dan considers a 10% loss as something worth celebrating lmao... Paraphrasing a brilliant comment I read "Whose opinion do we think is more relevant, an ex-spice girls, nigel farrage's, the insidious buffoon mayor of london, or the leader of the worlds strongest power and potentially our most important ally?"

- - - Updated - - -

Just like the general election polls, it'll be decided on the day, I wouldn't believe the polls even if they said it was a tight 50/50 split... I'll wait until the results are in!

And as for the comments about Obama... he is completely irrelevant, absolutely a 0 worth opinion. When he leaves he will *immediately* fade into the background noise of politics as he has been a lame duck for quite a while now.

[The Don]

Just like the general election polls, it'll be decided on the day, I wouldn't believe the polls even if they said it was a tight 50/50 split... I'll wait until the results are in!

And as for the comments about Obama... he is completely irrelevant, absolutely a 0 worth opinion. When he leaves he will *immediately* fade into the background noise of politics as he has been a lame duck for quite a while now.

We weren't talking about polls speculating the results, re-read what I quoted. Whilst he's not been able to do much in his second term it's still disingenuous to call his opinion worthless.

[dbgtz]

I've always been curious, but I'm curious what pro-EU people will say to this.

A common argument made for staying in is that the EU can hold more weight in trade agreements, which I won't disagree with. I will, however, question how this really benefits the UK. If there's something that wouldn't be in the UK's best interest, surely it's easier to negotiate with one country than a whole bloc of countries?
I'm not sure if that was worded well but hopefully my point gets across.

[The Don]

I've always been curious, but I'm curious what pro-EU people will say to this.

A common argument made for staying in is that the EU can hold more weight in trade agreements, which I won't disagree with. I will, however, question how this really benefits the UK. If there's something that wouldn't be in the UK's best interest, surely it's easier to negotiate with one country than a whole bloc of countries?
I'm not sure if that was worded well but hopefully my point gets across.

We import double what we export to China, we rely on them more so than them on us (http://researchbriefings.parliament....mmary/CBP-7379). Their economy is much larger than ours, in any negotiations they have the economic upper hand. As part of the EU we are part of the worlds largest economy and as we're grouped with other countries our overall exports constitute a larger percentage of China's overall net imports. Whilst the EU still relies more on China for imports than vice versa, together we make up a bigger percentage of their trade and it therefore gives us a stronger negotiating position than if we were to do it individually.

Edit: Sorry, I feel like I didn't fully address the question. As we make up a bigger percentage of their trade when grouped with the other 27 member states of the EU we have more leverage to push for a better deal. Individually we wouldn't be able to push as much weight around as they realise proportionate to the rest of their trade ours is negligible. It benefits the UK because all the member states have to ratify the trade agreements meaning countries can refuse to if the deal isn't favourable to them which then results in further discussion.

[-:Undertaker:-]

And as for the comments about Obama... he is completely irrelevant, absolutely a 0 worth opinion. When he leaves he will *immediately* fade into the background noise of politics as he has been a lame duck for quite a while now.

Exactly and it is all just words. The Obama administration is saying what it can to help the Cameron Ministry out of the hole it is in.

In any case, imagine if what Obama even said was true. Let's say Britain would be at the back of a queue despite the economic facts being the total opposite (see below with US trade deals). My reply would be this, next time there's a war Mr Obama - phone up the French, Germans and EU leaders to send their boys to fight your wars.

You know they're struggling when Dan considers a 10% loss as something worth celebrating lmao... Paraphrasing a brilliant comment I read "Whose opinion do we think is more relevant, an ex-spice girls, nigel farrage's, the insidious buffoon mayor of london, or the leader of the worlds strongest power and potentially our most important ally?"

Character attacks?

Oh dear so let us see... you've got the trustworthy Tony Blair, the clean as a whistle Peter Mandelson, whiter than white Nick Clegg, Neil Kinnock who is on the EU gravy train, the IMF's Christine Largarge who is under investigation for fraud I believe and Eddie Izzard the man who dresses in his mother's clothes.

Back to the actual debate itself and @The Don; assumes that economics is a zero sum game and there has to be a winner and a loser to every trade deal made. That's an economic fallacy. Whilst the economy of China may be bigger than ours in terms of GDP, we have a much more specialised economy in sectors such as technology and especially finance. Britain is the world's number one financial power when it comes to markets and the Chinese dare not risk losing access to that. In addition, we're the world's 5th largest economy anyway so we have huge weight.

We import double what we export to China

Umm mate, that's a strength not a weakness. The buyer has the upper hand in negotiations, not the seller.

Hence the weakness of cheap labour economies in the East compared with the West.

A common argument made for staying in is that the EU can hold more weight in trade agreements, which I won't disagree with. I will, however, question how this really benefits the UK. If there's something that wouldn't be in the UK's best interest, surely it's easier to negotiate with one country than a whole bloc of countries?

What they won't tell you is that it is because we're in the EU that we currently have no FTA with the United States of America. Because we're locked into a 1950s outdated trading bloc with protectionist countries like France, we're forbidden from signing an FTA with the world's largest economy. And despite years of talk from people like Akeam about a US-EU trade deal, we're still as far away from it as ever if you follow the progress on it. Many have gone as far to declare it dead in the media.

Imagine on the other hand if Britain, Australia, New Zealand, India and America sat down together to discuss a multi-lateral and extensive FTA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...ade_agreements

Key

The United States
Current FTA's
Proposed/Suspended FTA's

Question to the Remain side @The Don; and @abc;

Are you making the claim that the United Kingdom as the world's 5th largest economy, key US military partner and number one financial markets power would be unable on her own to complete an FTA with the United States when countries like Jordan, Australia, Singapore, Chile, Peru, Panama and Columbia have already done so?

People here are missing the point. It is because of our EU membership we have not yet signed an FTA with America.

[The Don]

Back to the actual debate itself and @The Don; assumes that economics is a zero sum game and there has to be a winner and a loser to every trade deal made. That's an economic fallacy.

Dan putting words into peoples mouths again. Where did I say there's a definitive loser/winner? The country with more leverage is able to get better terms in an agreement, surely your 3 year politics degree taught you that much (besides it being common sense).

Whilst the economy of China may be bigger than ours in terms of GDP, we have a much more specialised economy in sectors such as technology and especially finance. Britain is the world's number one financial power when it comes to markets and the Chinese dare not risk losing access to that. In addition, we're the world's 5th largest economy anyway so we have huge weight.

China is a mere example of why it's beneficial for us to be in a larger trading group. Our 'specialised' economy would be taken into account whilst we're in the EU trading block, as well as all of the extras the 27 other member states have to offer. Clearly Britain AND the other 27 EU states is a more appealing deal than just Britain alone.

What they won't tell you is that it is because we're in the EU that we currently have no FTA with the United States of America. Because we're locked into a 1950s outdated trading bloc with protectionist countries like France, we're forbidden from signing an FTA with the world's largest economy. And despite years of talk from people like Akeam about a US-EU trade deal, we're still as far away from it as ever if you follow the progress on it. Many have gone as far to declare it dead in the media.

There's literally one in the works.

Imagine on the other hand if Britain, Australia, New Zealand, India and America sat down together to discuss a multi-lateral and extensive FTA.

No reason that can't be done in the EU, these things take time. Or would you rather we left the trading block of our LARGEST trading partner, a partner who provides nearly half of our trade, so that we can speed up the FTA's we're already working towards with Australia, New Zealand, India etc

http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/cou...s/new-zealand/
http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/cou...ies/australia/
http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/cou...untries/india/

Your entire argument seems to be "well we can get that out of the EU" as opposed to why it's beneficial to do so despite the uncertainty an exit from the EU brings.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Dan putting words into peoples mouths again. Where did I say there's a definitive loser/winner? The country with more leverage is able to get better terms in an agreement, surely your 3 year politics degree taught you that much (besides it being common sense).

It depends what the deal entails. China may be able to have better leverage in terms of manufacturing but not financial.

That's called negotiation in global politics. And that's what every other free country on this planet does with its neighbours and other countries around the world without delegating those powers to unaccountable bureaucrats from the Benelux countries who have to negotiate on behalf of 28 very different countries all with competing and very different interests and governments. What is it in you that gives you so little faith in yourself and this country to have control over its own future and destiny that makes you want to delegate those decisions out to unaccountable and rather useless politicians in Brussels?

China is a mere example of why it's beneficial for us to be in a larger trading group. Our 'specialised' economy would be taken into account whilst we're in the EU trading block, as well as all of the extras the 27 other member states have to offer. Clearly Britain AND the other 27 EU states is a more appealing deal than just Britain alone.

So why has tiny non-EU Switzerland completed an FTA with China whilst the EU is still nowhere near one?

There's literally one in the works.

Sigh, this old pie in the sky promise again.

For more than decade, there was accord between China and the EU that free trade talks should be explored, especially given the growing trade volume between the two economies and Beijing’s interest in developing Europe as an alternative economic pole to the United States and East Asia. Yet the process has frequently been hampered by diplomatic and economic tribulations which have prevented it from evolving beyond the very preliminary stages.

Early obstacles included the EU’s refusal since 2004 to grant China market economy status (MES), a prerequisite for the start of any free trade talks as far as Beijing is concerned, as well as widely different levels of enthusiasm among EU member economies for a free trade agreement with China. Since that time, China and the EU have also been embroiled in a series of trade disputes, most notably over accusations that Beijing was condoning the dumping of solar panels onto the international market, adding to the level of mistrust between the two sides.

Yet tiny Switzerland has completed an FTA with China yet according to the pap you're putting out you expect us to believe the UK would be unable to.

It is because of the EU that Britain has still not signed an FTA with China as non-EU Switzerland has.

No reason that can't be done in the EU, these things take time. Or would you rather we left the trading block of our LARGEST trading partner, a partner which which provides nearly half of our imports, so that we can speed up the FTA's we're already working towards with Australia, New Zealand, India etc

http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/cou...s/new-zealand/
http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/cou...ies/australia/
http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/cou...untries/india/

Any FTAs signed with Australia, New Zealand and India with the EU - and again I point out how the EU has still not completed these deals - will be poor. Britain is much more alike in mindset and outlook with New Zealand, India and Australia and has been trading with them for hundreds of years very closely - our relationship with New Zealand was hurt when we went into the EEC because their farming industry suffered enormously when it was subjected to tariffs that our EEC membership required in order to protect the French agricultural market.

Britain's economic relationship with the Commonwealth has been hurt severely by our EU membership hence why we need to leave and mend it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Ze...gdom_relations

Britain has however tied itself somewhat to European trade in recent years, forcing New Zealand and Australia to seek new markets and trade with the Asia-Pacific region. New Zealand has a large influence over former British colonies in the Pacific and the British territory of Pitcairn. During the Falklands War New Zealand sided with Britain by cutting off all diplomatic relations with Argentina.

Up to about the 1960s, New Zealand also had extremely close economic relations with the United Kingdom, especially considering the distance at which trade took place. As an example, in 1955, Britain took 65.3 percent of New Zealand's exports, and only during the following decades did this dominant position begin to decline when the United Kingdom joined the European Economic Community (now the European Union) in 1973, with the share of exports going to Britain having fallen to only 6.2 percent in 2000. Historically, some industries, such as dairying, a major economic factor in the former colony, had even more dominant trade links, with 80–100% of all cheese and butter exports going to Britain from around 1890 to 1940.

Had we not tied ourselves to the EU we'd have signed an FTA with New Zealand decades ago. Guaranteed.

Your entire argument seems to be "well we can get that out of the EU" as opposed to why it's beneficial to do so despite the uncertainty an exit from the EU brings.

Your entire argument has been scare stories about leaving despite nations much smaller than us managing independence quite perfectly alongside very strange claims about the "one day in the future" EU-US FTA and EU-NZ FTA. Yet you seemingly know no history behind the US-EU FTA as well as British-New Zealand trade otherwise you would have been aware just how [a] slow and virtually non-existant progress has been on the EU-US FTA as the LSE points out & [b] just how close British-NZ tarde links were prior to us joining the EEC and later EU.

What'll be most amusing if we do leave will be the following weeks and months when none of the outrageous scenarios you predicted came to pass.

[The Don]

That's called negotiation in global politics. And that's what every other free country on this planet does with its neighbours and other countries around the world without delegating those powers to unaccountable bureaucrats from the Benelux countries who have to negotiate on behalf of 28 very different countries all with competing and very different interests and governments. What is it in you that gives you so little faith in yourself and this country to have control over its own future and destiny that makes you want to delegate those decisions out to unaccountable and rather useless politicians in Brussels?

Oh dear, you’ve missed the point once again. I think everyone knows Britain could make its own trade agreement, that’s not being disputed. Britain is more relevant on a global scale as part of a major trading block, this is a fact. Britain has more weight in obtaining better deals whilst in this trading block, this is a fact. Britain leaving the EU would mean renegotiating deals with not just the EU, but all countries we currently have trade agreements with. These are all facts. As much as you and the rest of the leave campaign like to gloss over these points the reality is that it’s unlikely we’re going to be able to leave the EU whilst maintaining all the perks (such as access to the single market) unless we follow EU legislation, in which case we’re better off in as at least we get to sit around the table and have an input as opposed to being locked out of the negotiations and having to blindly take what we’re given. We rely much more heavily on the EU than the EU does on us in terms of trade.

Yet tiny Switzerland has completed an FTA with China yet according to the pap you're putting out you expect us to believe the UK would be unable to.

It is because of the EU that Britain has still not signed an FTA with China as non-EU Switzerland has.

Oh, looking at Switzerland’s FTA’s it seems like you’ve cherry picked the ONLY decent example. I don’t see them lining up FTA’s with the US, India, New Zealand, Australia etc, surely if it were as easy as you insisted they would have all of these already since they only have to negotiate for one?

https://www.seco.admin.ch/seco/en/ho...r_Schweiz.html

Any FTAs signed with Australia, New Zealand and India with the EU - and again I point out how the EU has still not completed these deals - will be poor. Britain is much more alike in mindset and outlook with New Zealand, India and Australia and has been trading with them for hundreds of years very closely - our relationship with New Zealand was hurt when we went into the EEC because their farming industry suffered enormously when it was subjected to tariffs that our EEC membership required in order to protect the French agricultural market.

Have you read the trade agreements, which haven’t been finalized/released? Or are you making your argument based entirely on conjecture over our shared colonial past? History is nice, but it’s what’s brought to the table that matters now. I’m glad you agree these countries have a close relationship with us, it shouldn’t be a problem finalizing the FTA’s we have with them in the works.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Oh dear, you’ve missed the point once again. I think everyone knows Britain could make its own trade agreement, that’s not being disputed. Britain is more relevant on a global scale as part of a major trading block, this is a fact. Britain has more weight in obtaining better deals whilst in this trading block, this is a fact.

So I will ask the question once again which you keep dodging, why does tiny non-EU Switzerland have an FTA with China and the EU does not?

It's all very well saying Britain has more weight and influence as part of this bloc but the evidence does not support your argument my friend.

Britain leaving the EU would mean renegotiating deals with not just the EU, but all countries we currently have trade agreements with. These are all facts.

And? You've just admitted above that Britain could make it's own trade agreements so what is the issue?

As much as you and the rest of the leave campaign like to gloss over these points the reality is that it’s unlikely we’re going to be able to leave the EU whilst maintaining all the perks (such as access to the single market) unless we follow EU legislation, in which case we’re better off in as at least we get to sit around the table and have an input as opposed to being locked out of the negotiations and having to blindly take what we’re given.

Oh no not these terrible public relations phrases again from the Nick Clegg speech book. "Around the table" "Playing our part" "Asserting our influence" and yet despite all this talk of sitting around the table we've achieved nothing in the European Union and it has kept on travelling in a direction which we do not want. How many years and lost battles in the EU will it take for you to realise that with under 10% of the vote in the EU we're wasting our time?

Canada, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland are all much wealthier and better off without "sitting around the [EU] table".

We rely much more heavily on the EU than the EU does on us in terms of trade.

As I told you earlier, they sell more to us than we do to them - they rely more on us.

Oh, looking at Switzerland’s FTA’s it seems like you’ve cherry picked the ONLY decent example. I don’t see them lining up FTA’s with the US, India, New Zealand, Australia etc, surely if it were as easy as you insisted they would have all of these already since they only have to negotiate for one?

EFTA-Canada FTA http://www.international.gc.ca/trade....aspx?lang=eng
http://www.efta.int/free-trade/free-..._modernisation

You haven't answered my question when I asked why Britain in your view would be unable to sign FTAs when the likes of Panama and Chile can.

A British, American, New Zealand and Australian multilateral FTA would be perfectly possible. For a security example, see the Five Eyes grouping.

Have you read the trade agreements, which haven’t been finalized/released? Or are you making your argument based entirely on conjecture over our shared colonial past? History is nice, but it’s what’s brought to the table that matters now. I’m glad you agree these countries have a close relationship with us, it shouldn’t be a problem finalizing the FTA’s we have with them in the works.

No I am making the argument based on where world trade is going my friend. The EU as a % of wold trade is rapidly declining and world trade is shifting to Asia and the Commonwealth. Although I believe we will leave the EU regardless within the next decade, it is the reason why I want out so badly now because I will be so pissed if people like you keep us in there for another ten years and throw away the opportunities that we have now to sign FTAs with India, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Malaysia and China right now.

It is absolute madness to trap ourselves in a 1950's style trading bloc when that is the trajectory of global wealth and trade.