BREXIT? Am I just plain stupid?

Why are WTO rules better/easier than the ones we have to adhere to now?

Stephen Hammond's reply to JRM's "budget".

Jacob is using some analysis; I looked into that analysis this week. It seems to me it has four fundamental flaws.

Firstly, it's predicting a price drop in the United Kingdom of 10%. Tariff drops will only be 3-4%; where is the rest coming from?

Secondly, it's predicting huge productivity gains across the economy, the like of which we have not seen in 20 years.

Thirdly, I think it's, despite Jacob's zero gravity models, there is clear evidence, in a lot of analysis they weren't [difficult to hear] and more importantly, actually if you go into the details of Professor Minford's analysis some of the data he's using is 14 years out of date.

Dominic Grieve on John Pinaar programme.

www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/dominic-grieve-blasts-brexiteers-as-unhinged-1-5286448

From the BBC site, which seems to agree with other sources.
“Does any other country trade on WTO rules alone?
If you look at the WTO database which lists all regional trade agreements, there is nothing for Mauritania. That's led some to suggest Mauritania is the only member to trade solely on WTO rules.
However, according to the WTO, Mauritania has joined the Economic Community of West African States, and it has preferential trade arrangements with some 20 WTO members.
There are some countries which aren't WTO members, including Algeria, Serbia and North Korea, but the WTO says all of its members have some sort of bilateral or regional trade agreement in place.”

Actually *lemongrove’ I think we do know it. Did you see the evidence given by the car manufacturers to the select committee last week? Why would they describe things in such dire terms unless it was true? As has been explained many times WTO rules do not cover services which form a large part of the British economy. It is a deeply complex subject but as I understand WTO rules are just that, rules. Here is the leaver, Richard North on the subject.
www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86654
As he says, it is not a free pass to a trading nirvana.

You don’t know that economic mayhem would follow a hard Brexit, so many cliches are bandied about ‘ cliff edge’ being a popular one. WTO rules would not be a cliff edge and many other countries manage it.

Anyone listen to Mogg “alternative budget”? What an appalling outlook for all except the venture capitalists.

I think POGS that faced with the economic cliff edge, it is likely that the line might be “Freedom of Movement must end but not just yet and not quite as some people thought”. We are already hearing talk of exemptions for agricultural workers and medical staff. The fact that we have a hung parliament means that the government has already been forced to backtrack. I don’t think any party wants to be responsible for the economic mayhem that would follow a hard Brexit and I hope that British pragmatism will ultimately prevail, despite the machinations of the hard right venture capitalists.

I take issue that it is ‘ the EU’s job’ to make things as difficult as possible for us.They need us, we ( may ) need them, although WTO rules could still be the way to go.
They need to get on with things just as much if not more than we do.If not, they are shooting themselves in the foot just for the sake of looking superior.

Tegan2. It is hunting them out again that will take the time and I don't have either the time or the inclination today but, as I said, I will try to find them again and put them up when the topic comes up again as it surely will.

As you say Pogs had previous Govt exercised the restrictions on immigration which were allowed the UK would quite possibly be in the position it now finds itself. Many other EU countries do exercise these restrictions which is basically if after three months you have not found work you cannot remain. Once people have worked and contributed to the system then they get anything they qualify for if made redundant.
Following through I would think that seasonal workers would qualify for benefits in UK when not working but most of them choose to return to their home countries for a few months - so UK's gets the best of both worlds - seasonal labour with no benefit payments.
The Economic part of the EU and the Customs union are not completely dependent an the EU and can be accessed without full membership as some other countries do - but they pay a hefty fee with no other benefits and with no say about anything - they are in a take it or leave it situation.

Mamie

The view that there will/could be a second Referendum , the ballot paper was merely advisory are 'AS THINGS STAND' only hyperthetical wishes. That is not to say things may change in the future but I am posting and asking questions within the remit of what is actually happening not what might happen.

Yes, some senior Leave campaigners stated categorically during the campaign that the Single Market was not at risk. It has no bearing on what is happening now . Another person would say some senior ' Remain ' campaigners stated categorically during the campaign that the Single Market 'was at risk'.

The link says :-

" Nevertheless, Donnelly helpfully spells out that the benefits Britain enjoys from its single market membership cannot be replicated in a trade deal and argues that Britain could buy time through temporary membership of the EEA. Doing so, he says, will allow more time to "see if we can find a realistic alternative that meets our economic needs".

My question is how can we be a member of the EEA (EU/EFTA) or as your opinion stands 'we buy time' by being a temporary member of the EEA if the criteria is ALL members must abide by the 4 Freedoms and both Labour and Conservative parties have stated the Free Movement of People will end.

I fully understand your point and to be fair a point raised by other posters that there are steps that could be taken by the UK to limit freedom of movement within the existing rules , had a government of any colour in the past not been so blinkered as to the problems of an open door policy with no restriction perhaps we would not be where we are today! Also that is an aside thought when Labour and Conservative parties state the Free Movement of People will end.

This idea falls in line with the question of Switzerland and it's referendum on reducing immigration . They were told nein, non you will abide by the 4 Freedoms/Pillars and they are not an EU Member.

www.swissinfo.ch/eng/directdemocracy/explainer_swiss-immigration-quotas-where-do-we-stand/42715214

' Never before has Switzerland’s system of direct democracy presented such a dilemma. Since 2014, politicians have tried to reconcile the seemingly irreconcilable: how to limit the number of EU workers entering Switzerland without breaching the free movement of people accord with the 28-country bloc. Officials in Brussels have said the agreement cannot be renegotiated.'

Jaycee; Bluegal obviously hasn't seen your previous comments so it would be good if you could put them on this thread for her to read if you want a balanced discussion. I'd be interested also. You could cut and paste some of them to save time perhaps.

whitewave I haven't put any on this thread as they were ignored when I put them up on the numerous previous discussions on this topic. If you are seriously interested in the other side, I will put them up next time the topic appears but I think that it is rude when people ignore them given that it does take time.

I can't think of anything more depressing than lilypollen's post. It's a good thing that, over the centuries, there have been people prepared to fight for what they believe is right. Otherwise we would not have the vote and we may not even be a free country.

POGS Firstly, there is no mandate for leaving the CU/SM. It was not on the ballot paper. On the contrary some senior Leave campaigners stated categorically during the campaign that the Single Market was not at risk.
Secondly, as I explained at length before, there are steps that could be taken by the UK to limit freedom of movement within the existing rules.
Thirdly, if you follow the link to Flexcit from the Richard North page www.eureferendum.com/default.aspx there is a 406 page explanation of how it could be done, using EEA / EFTA as an interim stage.
I hope this helps.

...y

The EU are making it 'difficult' for us because they're a darn sight better at negotiating than we are, which is why we're better off being in the EU and having them negotiate trade deals for us. I wouldn't even let the numpties that are negotiating for us organise a childrens part.

So what? That's their job.

We are where we are. Dave (the remainer) gave us the vote and if he had taken the line that no matter what the result he would support the will of the people he would still be PM and arguably a more able leader to take us forward than Theresa. History. Now it's obvious that EU majority need us so are making things as difficult as possible.

Here's another good website for reading about neoliberalism.

braveneweurope.com
Lots of interesting articles on it.

If we have Henry VIII rules surely we will be doing the very thing that so many castigated the EU for - the way it is run - handing authority over to the administration. I always said I was about 75% for remaining and the governance structure was the only thing that kept me at 75%. Why leave if we have to put or own Parliamentary democracy in this position to do it?

It's the Scottish fishermen who think that they are badly affected by being in the EU who voted to leave, Tegan2, and some of the farmers. Overall, 62% of the population voted to remain, which we see as being somewhat more 'overwhelming' an expression of the will of the people than the 52% of the UK voters who wanted to leave!

If Scotland is so badly affected by being in the EU why did Scotland vote to remain?

If you want to understand Brexit this is a good place to start.

en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Brexit/Summary