General Election June 8th

[kiam06]

They slate us for empty seats when we've sold out though.

We know its sold out but loads don't turn up unless its a big game

 

[CityStu]

An accepted rule of thumb is double the distance half the trade - because of increased costs. We will not replace lost trade with the EU with trade elsewhere with any ease. We will continue to trade with the EU but if you look at others that do they have to cede some controls and /or some money to the EU for that benefit - the idea we will get away scot free is delusional.

I'd wager that this is not consistent across all sectors. Britain's main export is services, which can often be done anywhere across the globe at no extra cost.

 

[CityStu]

Those other countries that trade with the EU without being members of the EU have limited agreements on goods and services- they are not fully comprehensive agreements. Even these limited agreements require MRA's to avoid trading on WTO terms.
If you want a comprehensive deal with the EU then for them agreement on non trade issues like immigration and ECJ rulings become important conditions ,( we might not like that, but it is a fact).So to get a full ( or fullish) trade deal you may not have to be a member of the EU but you will certainly have to agree to concessions on immigration, ECJ and maybe cough up a fair wedge for the privilege of getting access to the large EU market.

This is not a fact. The most recent trade deal I can remember being discussed/pushed through by the EU was with Canada. To my knowledge, they aren't having to accept freedom of movement, be ruled by a foreign court or pay extreme amounts to the EU.

Why does the fact that we are closer to the EU geographically mean that such a trade deal is off the table and it's either single market membership (with all the crap that comes with it) or WTO trading (with penalising tariffs to both parties)?

 

[CityStu]

well thats one place we disagree as I think it was as much the Leave campaigns place to have some idea of what we should do in the event of their winning - the absolute vacuum they filled with their backstabbing of each other was criminal - I'd have been happier if Dave had accepted that there were two possible results and told the Leave campaign at the outset that they needed to draw up plans. Of course he felt that to even contemplate such a thing never mind do it publicly was a no-no

They did have ideas but they could not categorically say if we leave we will do X, Y and Z because they did not know if they would have the power to enact X, Y and Z.

It would be acceptable for them to say in the event of us leaving I would suggest we do A, B and C, which several leave campaigners did (UKIP's 2015 general election manifesto did the same).

The only person who knew they could have the power to execute plans 1, 2 and 3 in the event of a leave vote was Cameron because he still had a 3 year term he could have seen through at the time of the referendum. I also see it as a crucial role of the sitting government to plan contingency actions in case of anything not going the way they think it will - it is necessary management. These plans needn't have been public knowledge, but Cameron actively banned the civil service from working on anything to determine the effects and strategies in the event of a leave vote.

It's like a retail manager only planning for what to do in the event of their sales rising. They're a bit scuppered in the event of sales dropping.

 

[Len Rum]

This is not a fact. The most recent trade deal I can remember being discussed/pushed through by the EU was with Canada. To my knowledge, they aren't having to accept freedom of movement, be ruled by a foreign court or pay extreme amounts to the EU.

Why does the fact that we are closer to the EU geographically mean that such a trade deal is off the table and it's either single market membership (with all the crap that comes with it) or WTO trading (with penalising tariffs to both parties)?

It is a fact. Go read up about the Canada EU trade deal.
It is very restricted in trade in services and financial services and is nowhere near the level of access in these services we enjoy with the EU ( services are 80% of our exports by the way).
As for goods (apart from cars)rules of origin checks still apply between Canada and the EU.That is something we would wish to avoid between EU and UK post Brexit.
Not all agricultural products are covered.
In other words to return to my original point it is nowhere near as full and comprehensive as the deal we currently have with the EU.

 

[CityStu]

It is a fact. Go read up about the Canada EU trade deal.
It is very restricted in trade in services and financial services and is nowhere near the level of access in these services we enjoy with the EU ( services are 80% of our exports by the way).
As for goods (apart from cars)rules of origin checks still apply between Canada and the EU.That is something we would wish to avoid between EU and UK post Brexit.
Not all agricultural products are covered.
In other words to return to my original point it is nowhere near as full and comprehensive as the deal we currently have with the EU.

I don't think anyone expects our trade with the EU to be as comprehensive as it is now with us outside the single market. The question is if it will be satisfactory or not.

I'm very confident that we can make up the likely drop in trade by increasing our trade with other nations around the world (many of whom are growing much faster than the EU).

 

[Gareth Barry Conlon]

I don't think anyone expects our trade with the EU to be as comprehensive as it is now with us outside the single market. The question is if it will be satisfactory or not.

I'm very confident that we can make up the likely drop in trade by increasing our trade with other nations around the world (many of whom are growing much faster than the EU).

Balls. The EU is on our doorstep making trade easy - it is also the route on the way to other countries so if we are outside the customs union we would be in a right mess and limited by our own transportation links. Trade with the far east is generally imports we pay for so that does nothing for our balance of payments (buying more Chinese tat is not going to help us). The US will do a deal with the EU before us leaving us in no better place and potentially worse. I'm not even going into pass-porting rights for our big financial firms which is our single biggest export. The argument that trade gets anything other than worse after brexit is completely flawed. Its rubbish.

 

[Gelsons Dad]

Balls. The EU is on our doorstep making trade easy - it is also the route on the way to other countries so if we are outside the customs union we would be in a right mess and limited by our own transportation links. Trade with the far east is generally imports we pay for so that does nothing for our balance of payments (buying more Chinese tat is not going to help us). The US will do a deal with the EU before us leaving us in no better place and potentially worse. I'm not even going into pass-porting rights for our big financial firms which is our single biggest export. The argument that trade gets anything other than worse after brexit is completely flawed. Its rubbish.

In your opinion.
Many would disagree.
Pass-porting is so last year. MiFID II will makes it an obsolete concept.

 

[Damocles]

I'd agree that although it's left leaning it shows as little bias as possible given the fact it employs humans.

Pretty much my stance. There was a great article written by a journalist who used to work heavily for Vice, the HuffPost and a few others.

In it he was talking about the nature of partisan reporting and that most modern media outlets, including the far left and far right ones, do have a decent editorial and fact checking program but the problem is that they specifically appoint people with their political bias.

The BBC fails in its task of providing unbiased content just because the people who make it are generally left leaning. It's a left of centre organisation in a right of centre country. How they'd get around this I'm not sure as most of the media is left leaning. They'd have to specifically hunt down right wing columnists but not too far to the right that would lead to biased output. It's a tricky problem.

With that said, I do think that due to their complaints procedures, their editorial transparency and given the tremendous daily output they have across all TV, internet and radio channels that they're by far the most accurate around.

 

[Gareth Barry Conlon]

In your opinion.
Many would disagree.
Pass-porting is so last year. MiFID II will makes it an obsolete concept.

It’s an opinion but it is also logical and reasoned. There is nothing behind the argument that trade with the rest of the world will make up the loss that will arise post brexit.

MIFID II is one piece of financial regulation amongst many, the many are largely harmonised across the EU and if you are in the EU you can trade anywhere without barriers – once we are out we can be excluded from these markets, MIFID II or not, it is that simple. There is already legislation in the pipe to bring foreign banks trading in the EU under a central EU holding company – most of these banks are currently spread across major European Cities, give it 10 years post brexit and these firms will have massively shrunk there London operations in favor of cities within the EU.

Our only competitive option would be to become a regulatory and tax light alternative and that is a political discussion that the tories and brexit extremists want to keep quiet. Do we want to be a tax and regulatory haven for ill-gotten / corrupt money? Would that suit the likes of Aaron Banks (millionaire backer of UKIP) or Murdoch (Billionaire owner of the Sun etc)? The whole thing stinks!