Current Affairs EU In or Out

[peteblue]

ouch

Oh dear, looks like our GDP is going to shrink by even more than our total exports to the EU, which is going some tbh. I wonder how this might happen, who produced the numbers and who leaked them and why. Obviously these Project Fear 2 numbers must be completely accurate, just like Project Fear 1. Amazingly it’s the areas who voted to Leave that are worst off, whereas London doesn’t do quite so badly. You couldn’t make this crap up, although obviously someone has. It’s not even subtle ffs..........

 

[peteblue]

i presume everything you disagree with is going to be part of 'project fear' for the foreseeable future.

Do you agree with this forecast then ?.........

 

[peteblue]

These are still forecasts, The UK is still in the EU.
And yea, some might be sensational, it's definitely worth bearing that in mind but on the whole, I find the argument that the UK economy faces a tougher time post Brexit far more convincing than the one where it thrives. This argument only becomes more convincing if it's a hard Brexit.

Do the figures include additional trade to other countries or do they merely show the worst case scenarios of losing EU trade. Do they take into account the effect upon the £ and the potential existing export improvements. Do they consider what companies would do in the light of potential GDP reductions. How are the numbers arrived at, how are they so precise and why is there not a range for each scenario, i.e +or- X%. What effect has been included in respect of a reduction in existing EU bureaucracy and competition opportunities. What do the numbers look like for the EU in the same scenarios, etc etc. I’m pretty sure that the government report will include all of this and more, however the numbers will be scrutinised and I would be surprised if they stand the test......at least the next week or so will be interesting........

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Do the figures include additional trade to other countries or do they merely show the worst case scenarios of losing EU trade. Do they take into account the effect upon the £ and the potential existing export improvements. Do they consider what companies would do in the light of potential GDP reductions. How are the numbers arrived at, how are they so precise and why is there not a range for each scenario, i.e +or- X%. What effect has been included in respect of a reduction in existing EU bureaucracy and competition opportunities. What do the numbers look like for the EU in the same scenarios, etc etc. I’m pretty sure that the government report will include all of this and more, however the numbers will be scrutinised and I would be surprised if they stand the test......at least the next week or so will be interesting........

You make it sound like you haven't read it Pete, and you certainly sound like you haven't read anything that you believe supports your point of view. Given that the civil service are working under the remit of Davis and therefore might be inclined to look under every stone for advantages to Brexit, isn't it a bit odd that none seem to have been found?

We've had this debate before, and forecasting isn't designed to be a sure fire prediction into the future, but is designed to inform your thinking. It does this because the alternative to thinking about the impact of an action is to not think about it, which is what you appear to be advocating. I mean I'm sure that's what the government are doing as they analyse the current takeover at your old stomping ground. There's no guarantee that it'll be asset stripped and what not, but they'll be playing the odds and making a punt on what they believe is most likely to happen. That's kinda how it works isn't it?

 

[Charlie Sweet]

Also Switzerland has many EU countries ajoining it how is it done ?
Taxes on the vehicles number plates from firms regestered to the tax systems- also cameras linked to the borders to regulate the trade friction of fiddling trade !
No hard borders between more than one border outside the EU!
So it is already being done!
A total EU blowing up a problem they know already exsisting where EU countries merge with Switzerland!
A non EU country thst has a workable agreement with the EU!

Oh Joey....

Switzerland is a member of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA). Norway is also a EFTA member and I believe Theresa May and David Davis have already rejected that idea. But I'm sure you knew that when quoting Switzerland above as an answer to the Irish border issue?

By the way the first point of the Bilateral I agreements between the EU and Switzerland (signed 1999, in effect 1 June 2002) enshrines the right to the free movement of people. So are you now in support of that Joey?

 

[peteblue]

You make it sound like you haven't read it Pete, and you certainly sound like you haven't read anything that you believe supports your point of view. Given that the civil service are working under the remit of Davis and therefore might be inclined to look under every stone for advantages to Brexit, isn't it a bit odd that none seem to have been found?

We've had this debate before, and forecasting isn't designed to be a sure fire prediction into the future, but is designed to inform your thinking. It does this because the alternative to thinking about the impact of an action is to not think about it, which is what you appear to be advocating. I mean I'm sure that's what the government are doing as they analyse the current takeover at your old stomping ground. There's no guarantee that it'll be asset stripped and what not, but they'll be playing the odds and making a punt on what they believe is most likely to happen. That's kinda how it works isn't it?

I haven’t read it, just saw the numbers as published by sky. As you should well know Bruce, any forecast is based on assumptions, known unknowns and unknown unknowns. I have spent a professional life reviewing and being wary of forecasts, financial, or time based outcomes. I have reviewed thousands of such forecasts and I have never seen a single forecast stand up to detailed scrutiny, so my apprehension is not politically or emotionally based but one born of experience. I would have similar apprehension regarding any ‘good news’ forecasts. Not an issue of Leave or Remain, just professional cynicism......

 

[Charlie Sweet]

I haven’t read it, just saw the numbers as published by sky. As you should well know Bruce, any forecast is based on assumptions, known unknowns and unknown unknowns. I would have similar apprehension regarding any ‘good news’ forecasts. Not an issue of Leave or Remain, just professional cynicism......

So you would wilfully choose to step into the unknown? Isn't that a huge gamble?!?

Back in your professional days if say your company was contemplating purchasing another company (say because your chairman just had an instinct it would be the right thing to do) - surely you would do some due diligence and look to what the impacts would be of the combined company? I can't ever understand this idea that forecasts are never always perfect so just ignore the idea of doing any preparatory research!

 

[peteblue]

So you would wilfully choose to step into the unknown? Isn't that a huge gamble?!?

Back in your professional days if say your company was contemplating purchasing another company (say because your chairman just had an instinct it would be the right thing to do) - surely you would do some due diligence and look to what the impacts would be of the combined company? I can't ever understand this idea that forecasts are never always perfect so just ignore the idea of doing any preparatory research!

I didn’t say that at all. Forecasts may or may not be a good indicator, but there are no guarantees, and the assumptions and risks identified will drive the strategy. Due diligence is just another form of detailed review that may or may not give the correct answer. Many companies have bought ‘good’ companies and ‘bad’ companies.

When we voted to join the Common Market it was a choice to step into the unknown. Even now we have no idea how the EU will grow, shrink or develop, nobody does. I’ve stated all along that my view of leaving is based upon political and not economical grounds, however it is an absolute fact that once away from the EU the U.K. will have far more freedom to determine future trade agreements in expanding markets and our companies will be liberated from the constricting laws from the EU......

 

[Joey66]

Oh Joey....

Switzerland is a member of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA). Norway is also a EFTA member and I believe Theresa May and David Davis have already rejected that idea. But I'm sure you knew that when quoting Switzerland above as an answer to the Irish border issue?

By the way the first point of the Bilateral I agreements between the EU and Switzerland (signed 1999, in effect 1 June 2002) enshrines the right to the free movement of people. So are you now in support of that Joey?

They opted out of that!

 

[Charlie Sweet]

I didn’t say that at all. Forecasts may or may not be a good indicator, but there are no guarantees, and the assumptions and risks identified will drive the strategy. Due diligence is just another form of detailed review that may or may not give the correct answer. Many companies have bought ‘good’ companies and ‘bad’ companies.

When we voted to join the Common Market it was a choice to step into the unknown. Even now we have no idea how the EU will grow, shrink or develop, nobody does. I’ve stated all along that my view of leaving is based upon political and not economical grounds, however it is an absolute fact that once away from the EU the U.K. will have far more freedom to determine future trade agreements in expanding markets and our companies will be liberated from the constricting laws from the EU......

Thanks and I appreciate the reasoned reply.

If your due diligence identified the deal was going to be with a "bad company" - would you still be advocating that merger to your boss?

I can actually identify somewhat with the political/sovereign state line of argument. It didn't/doesn't do enough for me to back a Leave vote but I can see some merit in it (especially for native English people).

Your comment though - that you didn't vote Leave on economic grounds - surely needs ongoing review? If the economic impact will be terrible then surely that must cause you to at least re-consider?

"however it is an absolute fact that once away from the EU the U.K. will have far more freedom to determine future trade agreements in expanding markets and our companies will be liberated from the constricting laws from the EU...."

There's nothing out there to support this statement though. We will get a worse deal with the EU than we have now - that, I believe, is a fact. So any net analysis is starting off on the back foot.

Dealing with the rest of the world has its issues. Do we really want completely free trade with the US? Do we want their cheap chlorinated chickens hammering our farmers? Or what about unlimited cheap Chinese imports where their labour laws are such that we can never compete?

The UK financial services sector alone has major issues in a WTO environment.

Lastly you quoted "restricting laws from the EU". Which laws are these? I'm genuinely interested here and not trying to score points.

 

[Joey66]

Oh Joey....

Switzerland is a member of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA). Norway is also a EFTA member and I believe Theresa May and David Davis have already rejected that idea. But I'm sure you knew that when quoting Switzerland above as an answer to the Irish border issue?

By the way the first point of the Bilateral I agreements between the EU and Switzerland (signed 1999, in effect 1 June 2002) enshrines the right to the free movement of people. So are you now in support of that Joey?

• 3 December 1972: free trade agreement with the European Communities is approved by 72.5% of voters
• 6 December 1992: joining the European Economic Area is rejected by 50.3% of voters. This vote strongly highlighted the cultural divide between the German- and the French-speaking cantons, the Röstigraben. The only German-speaking cantons voting for the EEA were Basel-Stadt and Basel-Landschaft, which border on France and Germany.
• 8 June 1997: the federal popular initiative "negotiations concerning EU membership: let the people decide!" on requiring the approval of a referendum and the Cantons to launch accession negotiations with the EU (« Négociations d'adhésion à l'UE : que le peuple décide ! ») is rejected by 74.1% of voters.
• 21 May 2000: the Bilateral I agreements with the EU are accepted by 67.2% of voters.
• 4 March 2001: the federal popular initiative "yes to Europe!" (« Oui à l'Europe ! ») on opening accession negotiations with the EU is rejected by 76.8% of voters.
• 5 June 2005: the Schengen Agreement and the Dublin Regulation are approved by 54.6% of voters.
• 25 September 2005: the extension of the free movement of persons to the ten new members of the European Union is accepted by 56.0% of voters.
• 26 November 2006: a cohesion contribution of one billion for the ten new member states of the European Union (Eastern Europe Cooperation Act) is approved by 53.4% of voters.
• 8 February 2009: the extension of the free movement of persons to new EU members Bulgaria and Romania is approved by 59.61% of voters.
• 17 May 2009: introduction of biometric passports, as required by the Schengen acquis, is approved by 50.15% of voters.
• 17 June 2012: the federal popular initiative "international agreements: let the people speak!" (« Accords internationaux : la parole au peuple ! ») on requiring all international treaties to be approved in a referendum launched by the Campaign for an Independent and Neutral Switzerland is rejected by 75.3% of voters.
• 9 February 2014: the federal popular initiative "against mass immigration", which would limit the free movement of people from EU member states, is accepted by 50.3% of voters.
• wrong yet again!

 

[Charlie Sweet]

• 
  
• 9 February 2014: the federal popular initiative "against mass immigration", which would limit the free movement of people from EU member states, is accepted by 50.3% of voters.
• wrong yet again!

Oh Joey it's like shooting fish in a barrel with you. Instead of mocking @Bruce Wayne for his googling you might want to ask him how to do it properly! Yesterday you googled a whole load of articles but didn't read any of them - only to find they don't support your argument in any way.

On Switzerland you haven't researched it properly. They still have free movement of people.

You are correct in that in a referendum in February 2014, the Swiss voters narrowly approved a proposal to limit the freedom of movement of foreign citizens to Switzerland. The European Commission responded by saying it would have to examine the implications of the result on EU–Swiss relations since literal implementation would invoke the guillotine clause.

But on 22 December 2016, Switzerland and the EU concluded an agreement whereby a new Swiss law (in response to the referendum) would require Swiss employers to take on any job seekers (whether Swiss nationals or non-Swiss citizens registered in Swiss job agencies) whilst continuing to observe the free movement of EU citizens into Switzerland thus allowing them to work there.

 

[Joey66]

Oh Joey it's like shooting fish in a barrel with you. Instead of mocking @Bruce Wayne for his googling you might want to ask him how to do it properly! Yesterday you googled a whole load of articles but didn't read any of them - only to find they don't support your argument in any way.

On Switzerland you haven't researched it properly. They still have free movement of people.

You are correct in that in a referendum in February 2014, the Swiss voters narrowly approved a proposal to limit the freedom of movement of foreign citizens to Switzerland. The European Commission responded by saying it would have to examine the implications of the result on EU–Swiss relations since literal implementation would invoke the guillotine clause.

But on 22 December 2016, Switzerland and the EU concluded an agreement whereby a new Swiss law (in response to the referendum) would require Swiss employers to take on any job seekers (whether Swiss nationals or non-Swiss citizens registered in Swiss job agencies) whilst continuing to observe the free movement of EU citizens into Switzerland thus allowing them to work there.

That is not the case here in bold they just flood in to the UK no controls- also whats that got to do with trade borders without barriers you twist like a snake in a barrell!
My brief was that Switzerland borders with EU countries with no hard border - so the irish question can be solved with agreement without a hard border as it shows a non EU country joining EU countries with a soft border!

 

[Charlie Sweet]

That is not the case here in bold they just flood in to the UK no controls- also whats that got to do with trade borders without barriers you twist like a snake in a barrell!
My brief was that Switzerland borders with EU countries with no hard border - so the irish question can be solved with agreement without a hard border as it shows a non EU country joining EU countries with a soft border!

Sorry Joey I'm struggling here with what you're saying!

You said that Switzerland didn't operate 'freedom movement of people' with the EU. That's incorrect.

Switzerland is part of the EFTA with the EU (like Norway). That massively helps the passage of cross-border trade but there is still border checks on the Swiss border and queues. But Theresa May has rejected the idea of a EFTA agreement and Boris and Rees Mogg will go beserk at the idea of allowing free movement of people. So the Irish border would be a lot 'harder' than even the Swiss one.

But remember the December agreement promises to maintain the current open border as guaranteed by the Good Friday Agreement. She has also promised full alignment with the EU so as not to jeopardise the Irish situation in any case.

So all that needs to be done is to tell Boris and Rees Mogg to pipe down - there will be a very soft Brexit in name only but the UK will sign up to customs union with the EU and maintain a free movement of people. That's the only way your Brexit can happen now.

 

[Joey66]

Sorry Joey I'm struggling here with what you're saying!

You said that Switzerland didn't operate 'freedom movement of people' with the EU. That's incorrect.

Switzerland is part of the EFTA with the EU (like Norway). That massively helps the passage of cross-border trade but there is still border checks on the Swiss border and queues. But Theresa May has rejected the idea of a EFTA agreement and Boris and Rees Mogg will go beserk at the idea of allowing free movement of people. So the Irish border would be a lot 'harder' than even the Swiss one.

But remember the December agreement promises to maintain the current open border as guaranteed by the Good Friday Agreement. She has also promised full alignment with the EU so as not to jeopardise the Irish situation in any case.

So all that needs to be done is to tell Boris and Rees Mogg to pipe down - there will be a very soft Brexit in name only but the UK will sign up to customs union with the EU and maintain a free movement of people. That's the only way your Brexit can happen now.[/QUOTe
You need try and understand that a solution is there and stop your retrck