SURVEY: Brexit, do you support it?

[allanos]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/05/28/wto-chiefs-ludicrous-assertion-on-brexit-tariffs-and-trade/#428608f68dab

Forbes opinion on ex wto boss's comment brexit would be a blow to UK.(not ex, you mean current World Trade Organization chief Roberto Azevedo)

All very confusing.and misleading.

"Thus, we cannot have the two claims being made here. Both that Britain will not be a WTO member and also that Britain will be bound by WTO rules. We will thus be entirely free to set whatever import duties we desire. And as the only rational trade policy is one of unilateral free trade those duties should be set at a level of zero. Which, as Patrick Minford keeps pointing out, will make the UK economy grow by 3% or so."

The UK has effectively been a member of the WTO since 1948, initially one of the founding countries in GATT(General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) which was replaced by the WTO in 1995. All EU member states and the EU in its own right are full members of the WTO. The problem is that all EU member states share the tariff profile of the EU so in the event of a Brexit, the UK would have to establish a new tariff profile in order to maintain its membership. Any new tariff profile would subject to WTO rules and you cannot be a member without a tariff profile. It would be virtually impossible for the UK to trade as a non WTO member, currently 162 members..

"At the heart of the system — known as the multilateral trading system — are the WTO’s agreements, negotiated and signed by a large majority of the world’s trading nations, and ratified in their parliaments. These agreements are the legal ground-rules for international commerce. Essentially, they are contracts, guaranteeing member countries important trade rights. They also bind governments to keep their trade policies within agreed limits to everybody’s benefit."

The quotes below I attribute to Mr Jean-Pierre Lehman, Emeritus Professor of International Political Economy at IMD In Lausanne, Switzerland. He is a contributing editor at "The Globalist". I am not sure if the "in" campaigners will deem his comments credible, in light of the fact that the "ins" criticise other academics who Brexiteers have been used to support their campaign. However, the quotations taken from him are not concerning Brexit, specifically, but are amongst his recent commentary on the World Trade Organisation (WTO).

"Since the launch of the WTO Doha Development Round in 2001, everything on the trade governance front has gone downhill". "With the WTO effectively abandoned (my emphasis) - becoming, as former director-general of the WTO, Mike Moore, feared 'the League of Nations of the 21st Century world economy' (read: impotent and irrelevant) - global attention has moved to the TTIP and TPA . . ."

"A quarter of a century after the euphoric establishment of the WTO, we have a vacuum. We no longer have a rules-based multilateral trade regime, and we have nothing concrete, let alone legitimate, to take its place. Global trade is adrift!"

Based upon the eminent professor's comments, and that he is an independent commentator as opposed to the vested interests trotted out by the "in" campaigners, it would seem to me that world trade has become something of a free-for-all. And who knows how long the deeply-flawed and suspect TTIP negotiations will take to establish, if ever?

In this environment, I believe the United Kingdom will not have too much difficulty in establishing a sound, fruitful global trading position, OUTSIDE of the European Union.

[nontabury]

https://www.facebook.com/lynne.hawes.1/posts/1226055080760930

O.k so we have plenty of our own criminals,do we really need more.

[Grouse]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/05/28/wto-chiefs-ludicrous-assertion-on-brexit-tariffs-and-trade/#428608f68dab

Forbes opinion on ex wto boss's comment brexit would be a blow to UK.(not ex, you mean current World Trade Organization chief Roberto Azevedo)

All very confusing.and misleading.

"Thus, we cannot have the two claims being made here. Both that Britain will not be a WTO member and also that Britain will be bound by WTO rules. We will thus be entirely free to set whatever import duties we desire. And as the only rational trade policy is one of unilateral free trade those duties should be set at a level of zero. Which, as Patrick Minford keeps pointing out, will make the UK economy grow by 3% or so."

The UK has effectively been a member of the WTO since 1948, initially one of the founding countries in GATT(General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) which was replaced by the WTO in 1995. All EU member states and the EU in its own right are full members of the WTO. The problem is that all EU member states share the tariff profile of the EU so in the event of a Brexit, the UK would have to establish a new tariff profile in order to maintain its membership. Any new tariff profile would subject to WTO rules and you cannot be a member without a tariff profile. It would be virtually impossible for the UK to trade as a non WTO member, currently 162 members..

"At the heart of the system known as the multilateral trading system are the WTOs agreements, negotiated and signed by a large majority of the worlds trading nations, and ratified in their parliaments. These agreements are the legal ground-rules for international commerce. Essentially, they are contracts, guaranteeing member countries important trade rights. They also bind governments to keep their trade policies within agreed limits to everybodys benefit."

The quotes below I attribute to Mr Jean-Pierre Lehman, Emeritus Professor of International Political Economy at IMD In Lausanne, Switzerland. He is a contributing editor at "The Globalist". I am not sure if the "in" campaigners will deem his comments credible, in light of the fact that the "ins" criticise other academics who Brexiteers have been used to support their campaign. However, the quotations taken from him are not concerning Brexit, specifically, but are amongst his recent commentary on the World Trade Organisation (WTO).

"Since the launch of the WTO Doha Development Round in 2001, everything on the trade governance front has gone downhill". "With the WTO effectively abandoned (my emphasis) - becoming, as former director-general of the WTO, Mike Moore, feared 'the League of Nations of the 21st Century world economy' (read: impotent and irrelevant) - global attention has moved to the TTIP and TPA . . ."

"A quarter of a century after the euphoric establishment of the WTO, we have a vacuum. We no longer have a rules-based multilateral trade regime, and we have nothing concrete, let alone legitimate, to take its place. Global trade is adrift!"

Based upon the eminent professor's comments, and that he is an independent commentator as opposed to the vested interests trotted out by the "in" campaigners, it would seem to me that world trade has become something of a free-for-all. And who knows how long the deeply-flawed and suspect TTIP negotiations will take to establish, if ever?

In this environment, I believe the United Kingdom will not have too much difficulty in establishing a sound, fruitful global trading position, OUTSIDE of the European Union.

At the risk of showing balance, I agree with Lehman. The WTO is indeed a mess

[Grouse]

https://www.facebook.com/lynne.hawes.1/posts/1226055080760930

O.k so we have plenty of our own criminals,do we really need more.

I thought we exported most of ours to Spain? ?

[KunMatt]

https://www.facebook.com/lynne.hawes.1/posts/1226055080760930

O.k so we have plenty of our own criminals,do we really need more.

I thought we exported most of ours to Spain?

More like Pattaya, so if we are lucky enough to leave the EU it will make no difference in all the criminals that emigrate to Thailand.

[Linzz]

"The main reason is a hunt for taxes to prop up failing economic policies and governments going broke, failing pension schemes and failing negative interest rates. The dream of socialism has only lined the pockets of those in power at the expense of lowering the living standards of the people" - full-blown conspiracy theory about the left? and the Brexit also have full-blown conspiracies about the right.........

It might be nice to make a couple of league tables one for conspiracy theories as promulgated by each side and then one of "experts" each side has rolled out....tot them up and you would get a clearer picture of who is the biggest bullshitter

The attempt to Federalize Europe as a mega-state with one centralized currency, tax regime, Parliament, Central bank ruled by non elected bureaucrats akin to the former USSR is authoritarianism of the Left. Why do you think separatist movements are growing and the rise of right wing third parties? Nothing to do with "conspiracy theories" it's real if you care to look. Whether you like growing nationalistic movements or not they happen when politicians think they're smarter than the great unwashed and there is a rise against corruption in government.Socialism is all very noble sounding when you are taxed to hell for the privilege of living for the "greater good" but in reality there's too many hands in the till from government employees and politicians warming their seats in privileged positions of power. The same reasons for the rise of Trump.

I haven't come across any full blown Brexit conspiracies about the right. Make a couple of league tables, you said it might be nice.....go for it.

Who is the biggest bullshitter?

[Linzz]

It's again indicative of the lack of understanding of some Brexiteers that they are unable to make a comment themselves so just post a series of addresses that they hope hit the mark.

i notice another meme coming to the for - the use of "foeigner" in other aspects apart from migrants.....if does reveal how the Brexiteers rely heavily on xenophobia as a substitute for rational thought.

If there were any good arguments to leave the EU - they certainly have avoided the average Brexiteer - but that sort of thing really would be outside their remit?

Snobbish condescension. Like the hallmark of arrogant career politicians who can never be wrong is why there's a problem in the first place

[cumgranosalum]

It's again indicative of the lack of understanding of some Brexiteers that they are unable to make a comment themselves so just post a series of addresses that they hope hit the mark.

i notice another meme coming to the for - the use of "foeigner" in other aspects apart from migrants.....if does reveal how the Brexiteers rely heavily on xenophobia as a substitute for rational thought.

If there were any good arguments to leave the EU - they certainly have avoided the average Brexiteer - but that sort of thing really would be outside their remit?

Snobbish condescension. Like the hallmark of arrogant career politicians who can never be wrong is why there's a problem in the first place

see what I mean?

[Thaiwine]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/05/28/wto-chiefs-ludicrous-assertion-on-brexit-tariffs-and-trade/#428608f68dab

Forbes opinion on ex wto boss's comment brexit would be a blow to UK.(not ex, you mean current World Trade Organization chief Roberto Azevedo)

All very confusing.and misleading.

"Thus, we cannot have the two claims being made here. Both that Britain will not be a WTO member and also that Britain will be bound by WTO rules. We will thus be entirely free to set whatever import duties we desire. And as the only rational trade policy is one of unilateral free trade those duties should be set at a level of zero. Which, as Patrick Minford keeps pointing out, will make the UK economy grow by 3% or so."

The UK has effectively been a member of the WTO since 1948, initially one of the founding countries in GATT(General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) which was replaced by the WTO in 1995. All EU member states and the EU in its own right are full members of the WTO. The problem is that all EU member states share the tariff profile of the EU so in the event of a Brexit, the UK would have to establish a new tariff profile in order to maintain its membership. Any new tariff profile would subject to WTO rules and you cannot be a member without a tariff profile. It would be virtually impossible for the UK to trade as a non WTO member, currently 162 members..

"At the heart of the system — known as the multilateral trading system — are the WTO’s agreements, negotiated and signed by a large majority of the world’s trading nations, and ratified in their parliaments. These agreements are the legal ground-rules for international commerce. Essentially, they are contracts, guaranteeing member countries important trade rights. They also bind governments to keep their trade policies within agreed limits to everybody’s benefit."

Thanks for the well reasoned response

The trouble is, there is so much biased half truths and lies spouted in the media it makes it difficult to decide where the truth if any lies in any given topic.

[Thaiwine]

I see the knives are now out for 'call me Dave'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/28/tory-mp-andrew-bridgen-says-david-cameron-is-finished-as-party-l/

Personally I agree his project fear was the wrong way to present the remain case.

[allanos]

I see the knives are now out for 'call me Dave'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/28/tory-mp-andrew-bridgen-says-david-cameron-is-finished-as-party-l/

Personally I agree his project fear was the wrong way to present the remain case.

It was politics that got Cameron into this mess anyway, trying to placate his Eurosceptic wing following

UKIP's surge in popularity. He was not acting in the best interests of the country in any way whatsoever.

Despite coming back from the negotiations with a pretty bland set of grudging concessions from the EU,

I believe he should have then stayed above the fray and try to show himself as being neutral, by appointing

a point man to lead the charge for the "in" campaign, and let everyone else slug it out.

It is likely that he will have to fall on his sword, whatever the outcome of the Referendum.

[cumgranosalum]

I see the knives are now out for 'call me Dave'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/28/tory-mp-andrew-bridgen-says-david-cameron-is-finished-as-party-l/

Personally I agree his project fear was the wrong way to present the remain case.

It was politics that got Cameron into this mess anyway, trying to placate his Eurosceptic wing following

UKIP's surge in popularity. He was not acting in the best interests of the country in any way whatsoever.

Despite coming back from the negotiations with a pretty bland set of grudging concessions from the EU,

I believe he should have then stayed above the fray and try to show himself as being neutral, by appointing

a point man to lead the charge for the "in" campaign, and let everyone else slug it out.

It is likely that he will have to fall on his sword, whatever the outcome of the Referendum.

I'd agree that Cameron looks dead in the water.....his idea to hold a referendum has come back and smacked him in the face a gross misjudgement just to win an election.. He's split his own party and made himself an international fool.

What worries me is the mob of baying wolves waiting in the wings (to mix a metaphor or two).

there is no need for an election until 2020 - If they vote to leave, the hard right will take control....if they stay in.....well there is still a chance the hard right will prevail, and the Tories as a party are unlikely to trigger an early election which would go to labour or a left coalition.

[sandyf]

"Thus, we cannot have the two claims being made here. Both that Britain will not be a WTO member and also that Britain will be bound by WTO rules. We will thus be entirely free to set whatever import duties we desire. And as the only rational trade policy is one of unilateral free trade those duties should be set at a level of zero. Which, as Patrick Minford keeps pointing out, will make the UK economy grow by 3% or so."

The UK has effectively been a member of the WTO since 1948, initially one of the founding countries in GATT(General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) which was replaced by the WTO in 1995. All EU member states and the EU in its own right are full members of the WTO. The problem is that all EU member states share the tariff profile of the EU so in the event of a Brexit, the UK would have to establish a new tariff profile in order to maintain its membership. Any new tariff profile would subject to WTO rules and you cannot be a member without a tariff profile. It would be virtually impossible for the UK to trade as a non WTO member, currently 162 members..

"At the heart of the system — known as the multilateral trading system — are the WTO’s agreements, negotiated and signed by a large majority of the world’s trading nations, and ratified in their parliaments. These agreements are the legal ground-rules for international commerce. Essentially, they are contracts, guaranteeing member countries important trade rights. They also bind governments to keep their trade policies within agreed limits to everybody’s benefit."

Sandy,

Paragraph 1 above is an extract from the Forbes opinion piece, that's fine.

Are paragraphs 2 & 3 quotes that should be attributed to somebody else or are they your own thoughts on the matter?

The second paragraph is my comment and the last paragraph is text from the WTO website, apologies for the omission.

It doesn't really matter what anyone thinks of the WTO, they are still the ruling body when it comes to trade. You may not like the law but you still have to abide by it. Well most of us do, those that think they can get round it usually end up in trouble.

[sandyf]

Very few seem to have considered the aftermath in the event of a Brexit vote. It is almost guaranteed there would be a change in leadership in the conservative party but the the real danger could be a general election. It would be highly unlikely that there would be any outright majority and the UK could end up with another coalition government.

A government that cannot agree among themselves is exactly what the EU would want in the exit negotiations, things could drag on for years and all this talk about new trade deals etc just evaporate like the morning mist on a summers day.

Repost.

[SheungWan]

"The main reason is a hunt for taxes to prop up failing economic policies and governments going broke, failing pension schemes and failing negative interest rates. The dream of socialism has only lined the pockets of those in power at the expense of lowering the living standards of the people" - full-blown conspiracy theory about the left? and the Brexit also have full-blown conspiracies about the right.........

It might be nice to make a couple of league tables one for conspiracy theories as promulgated by each side and then one of "experts" each side has rolled out....tot them up and you would get a clearer picture of who is the biggest bullshitter

The attempt to Federalize Europe as a mega-state with one centralized currency, tax regime, Parliament, Central bank ruled by non elected bureaucrats akin to the former USSR is authoritarianism of the Left. Why do you think separatist movements are growing and the rise of right wing third parties? Nothing to do with "conspiracy theories" it's real if you care to look. Whether you like growing nationalistic movements or not they happen when politicians think they're smarter than the great unwashed and there is a rise against corruption in government.Socialism is all very noble sounding when you are taxed to hell for the privilege of living for the "greater good" but in reality there's too many hands in the till from government employees and politicians warming their seats in privileged positions of power. The same reasons for the rise of Trump.

I haven't come across any full blown Brexit conspiracies about the right. Make a couple of league tables, you said it might be nice.....go for it.

Who is the biggest bullshitter?

Really just an outsized rant but I guess we will have to endure more of the same doom and gloom as we approach the big day. This time it is comparison to our old friends from the USSR. So, an elected central bank and civil service? When was that ever a part of our green and pleasant land other than in some some libertarian populist deluded dreams? This is what happens when the awful realisation that the vote may not be going their way dawns and the wheels begin to come off. Mega-this, mega-that.

[cumgranosalum]

Very few seem to have considered the aftermath in the event of a Brexit vote. It is almost guaranteed there would be a change in leadership in the conservative party but the the real danger could be a general election. It would be highly unlikely that there would be any outright majority and the UK could end up with another coalition government.

A government that cannot agree among themselves is exactly what the EU would want in the exit negotiations, things could drag on for years and all this talk about new trade deals etc just evaporate like the morning mist on a summers day.

th next election is May 2020.

Cameron is unlikely to survive a Brexit, and now looks unlikely to survive the referendum....(even up to the referendum??)

This basically leaves it open for the Tory hard right....coaltion? Well UKIP don't have enough members for that.....Lib Dems are very pro market.....so who would they coalesce with"

There are only 2 ways to call ann election - vote of no confidence (even that has subsequent provisions) and a 2/3 majority in the HoC to call one.

so it would be up to the Brexit Tories to form a government....in a UK that is divided down some rather peculiar lines....and facing some very complex issues.

In order to leave the EU there is a 2 year period stipulated to negotiate the out.....what happens if this isn't acheived...I don't know.

If it runs over, the UK is likely to face higher tariffs imposed by the EU and many consider 2 years an impossibly short period.

[cumgranosalum]

Many Brexiteers cite other countries as examples of how UK might function as a "satellite" of the EU.....they also have cited some UK free trade deals....here is a take from the economist on those hopes....

"Norway and Iceland have access to the single market through their membership of the European Economic Area (EEA). But they are obliged to observe all the EU’s single-market regulations without having a say in them, to make payments into the EU budget (in Norway’s case, around 90% of Britain’s net payment per head) and to accept free movement of EU migrants. As a Norwegian minister once put it, “if you want to run Europe, you must be in Europe. If you want to be run by Europe, feel free to join Norway.”

Switzerland, which is not in the EEA, has negotiated bilateral agreements that give access for goods but not most services. It has to keep to most single-market rules, contribute to the budget and accept free movement of people. The Swiss have been warned that, if they try to implement a 2014 referendum demand for limits on the latter, their trade agreement with the EU will lapse."

"Countries such as South Korea and, now, Canada, have free-trade deals with the EU that do not require observing all its rules, paying into the budget or accepting migrants. But such deals do not circumvent non-tariff barriers, nor do they cover financial services. Moreover, the EU has or is negotiating free-trade deals with America, China and India, from which a post-Brexit Britain would be excluded. The EU has 53 such deals. Britain would have to try to replicate them, a huge challenge given its lack of trade negotiators and the length of time even simple trade talks take."

[Mosha]

Nontabury, I have to ask you this, why are you so vehemently against anything in favour of the EU?

Most here have gone out of there way to explain that their decision to be pro or anti EU is a balanced, rational one.

You're a Yorkshireman right?

Is there really nothing you think the EU has done that's of any use whatsoever?

How about the banning of mass use of antibiotics by farmers to fatten livestock unlike in the USA? Good?

Your arguments would carry more weight if you showed more balance!

And before you go off on one I've already expressed my concern about the democratic deficit in the EU and the lamentable border force in the UK

He's not capable. He takes pride in sticking to his vexatious fixed positions. You are wasting your time engaging with him.

He's the type that posts images such as the one just above putting words into the mouths of British soldiers in the trenches - thinking that cheap, deranged photoshopping supports his argument. He'll now be sitting in front of his PC thinking that he's oh, so clever. So lets go back to the OP -

Ask this question of the Allied troops in the trenches -

Would you vote for a political and economic union that brought peace to Europe?

1. Yes.

2. No.

It would be a 99.1% yes vote.

The 0.9% no vote would be a bunch of vexatious Yorkshiremen who'd rather fight to the death than admit they are wrong.

It would seem presumptuous to speak for 5.7 million people who can't be asked.

Giving the EU the credit for keeping the peace is an insult to NATO.

Sent from my SMART_4G_Speedy_5inch using Tapatalk

[Linzz]

It's again indicative of the lack of understanding of some Brexiteers that they are unable to make a comment themselves so just post a series of addresses that they hope hit the mark.

i notice another meme coming to the for - the use of "foeigner" in other aspects apart from migrants.....if does reveal how the Brexiteers rely heavily on xenophobia as a substitute for rational thought.

If there were any good arguments to leave the EU - they certainly have avoided the average Brexiteer - but that sort of thing really would be outside their remit?

Snobbish condescension. Like the hallmark of arrogant career politicians who can never be wrong is why there's a problem in the first place

see what I mean?

See what I mean?

[cumgranosalum]

Nontabury, I have to ask you this, why are you so vehemently against anything in favour of the EU?

Most here have gone out of there way to explain that their decision to be pro or anti EU is a balanced, rational one.

You're a Yorkshireman right?

Is there really nothing you think the EU has done that's of any use whatsoever?

How about the banning of mass use of antibiotics by farmers to fatten livestock unlike in the USA? Good?

Your arguments would carry more weight if you showed more balance!

And before you go off on one I've already expressed my concern about the democratic deficit in the EU and the lamentable border force in the UK

He's not capable. He takes pride in sticking to his vexatious fixed positions. You are wasting your time engaging with him.

He's the type that posts images such as the one just above putting words into the mouths of British soldiers in the trenches - thinking that cheap, deranged photoshopping supports his argument. He'll now be sitting in front of his PC thinking that he's oh, so clever. So lets go back to the OP -

Ask this question of the Allied troops in the trenches -

Would you vote for a political and economic union that brought peace to Europe?

1. Yes.

2. No.

It would be a 99.1% yes vote.

The 0.9% no vote would be a bunch of vexatious Yorkshiremen who'd rather fight to the death than admit they are wrong.

It would seem presumptuous to speak for 5.7 million people who can't be asked.

Giving the EU the credit for keeping the peace is an insult to NATO.

Sent from my SMART_4G_Speedy_5inch using Tapatalk

please explain...

[Grouse]

Nontabury, I have to ask you this, why are you so vehemently against anything in favour of the EU?

Most here have gone out of there way to explain that their decision to be pro or anti EU is a balanced, rational one.

You're a Yorkshireman right?

Is there really nothing you think the EU has done that's of any use whatsoever?

How about the banning of mass use of antibiotics by farmers to fatten livestock unlike in the USA? Good?

Your arguments would carry more weight if you showed more balance!

And before you go off on one I've already expressed my concern about the democratic deficit in the EU and the lamentable border force in the UK

He's not capable. He takes pride in sticking to his vexatious fixed positions. You are wasting your time engaging with him.

He's the type that posts images such as the one just above putting words into the mouths of British soldiers in the trenches - thinking that cheap, deranged photoshopping supports his argument. He'll now be sitting in front of his PC thinking that he's oh, so clever. So lets go back to the OP -

Ask this question of the Allied troops in the trenches -

Would you vote for a political and economic union that brought peace to Europe?

1. Yes.

2. No.

It would be a 99.1% yes vote.

The 0.9% no vote would be a bunch of vexatious Yorkshiremen who'd rather fight to the death than admit they are wrong.

It would seem presumptuous to speak for 5.7 million people who can't be asked.

Giving the EU the credit for keeping the peace is an insult to NATO.

Sent from my SMART_4G_Speedy_5inch using Tapatalk

please explain...

This will be amusing

He obviously has no idea about European History over the last 70 years?

[Mosha]

Nontabury, I have to ask you this, why are you so vehemently against anything in favour of the EU?

Most here have gone out of there way to explain that their decision to be pro or anti EU is a balanced, rational one.

You're a Yorkshireman right?

Is there really nothing you think the EU has done that's of any use whatsoever?

How about the banning of mass use of antibiotics by farmers to fatten livestock unlike in the USA? Good?

Your arguments would carry more weight if you showed more balance!

And before you go off on one I've already expressed my concern about the democratic deficit in the EU and the lamentable border force in the UK

He's not capable. He takes pride in sticking to his vexatious fixed positions. You are wasting your time engaging with him.

He's the type that posts images such as the one just above putting words into the mouths of British soldiers in the trenches - thinking that cheap, deranged photoshopping supports his argument. He'll now be sitting in front of his PC thinking that he's oh, so clever. So lets go back to the OP -

Ask this question of the Allied troops in the trenches -

Would you vote for a political and economic union that brought peace to Europe?

1. Yes.

2. No.

It would be a 99.1% yes vote.

The 0.9% no vote would be a bunch of vexatious Yorkshiremen who'd rather fight to the death than admit they are wrong.

It would seem presumptuous to speak for 5.7 million people who can't be asked.

Giving the EU the credit for keeping the peace is an insult to NATO.

Sent from my SMART_4G_Speedy_5inch using Tapatalk

please explain...

EU isn't responsible for maintaining the peace. If it was we would already have a Euro Army. Europe does have NATO bases. What the EU is causing is the rise of the far right.

Sent from my SMART_4G_Speedy_5inch using Tapatalk

[Linzz]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/05/28/wto-chiefs-ludicrous-assertion-on-brexit-tariffs-and-trade/#428608f68dab

Forbes opinion on ex wto boss's comment brexit would be a blow to UK.(not ex, you mean current World Trade Organization chief Roberto Azevedo)

All very confusing.and misleading.

"Thus, we cannot have the two claims being made here. Both that Britain will not be a WTO member and also that Britain will be bound by WTO rules. We will thus be entirely free to set whatever import duties we desire. And as the only rational trade policy is one of unilateral free trade those duties should be set at a level of zero. Which, as Patrick Minford keeps pointing out, will make the UK economy grow by 3% or so."

The UK has effectively been a member of the WTO since 1948, initially one of the founding countries in GATT(General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) which was replaced by the WTO in 1995. All EU member states and the EU in its own right are full members of the WTO. The problem is that all EU member states share the tariff profile of the EU so in the event of a Brexit, the UK would have to establish a new tariff profile in order to maintain its membership. Any new tariff profile would subject to WTO rules and you cannot be a member without a tariff profile. It would be virtually impossible for the UK to trade as a non WTO member, currently 162 members..

"At the heart of the system — known as the multilateral trading system — are the WTO’s agreements, negotiated and signed by a large majority of the world’s trading nations, and ratified in their parliaments. These agreements are the legal ground-rules for international commerce. Essentially, they are contracts, guaranteeing member countries important trade rights. They also bind governments to keep their trade policies within agreed limits to everybody’s benefit."

Thanks for the well reasoned response

The trouble is, there is so much biased half truths and lies spouted in the media it makes it difficult to decide where the truth if any lies in any given topic.

Spot on.

the Guardian is reporting that 88% of 600 expert economists say that a vote to leave would have a negative impact on growth for 10-20 years. (Online survey with a 17% response rate) http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/28/economists-reject-brexit-boost-cameron

There's a desperate propaganda war to keep the UK in the EU. The implication is that the UK has benefited since joining the EU economically and thus an exit will mean economic disaster. Yet according to the Office of National Statistics economic growth peaked BEFORE joining the EU.and has declined ever since with lower lows and lower highs.No doubt I will be accused of conspiracy theory and desperation as per the previous posts, but you may be able to see how the media is being manipulated by the government if you simply use the government's own statistics.

[cumgranosalum]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/05/28/wto-chiefs-ludicrous-assertion-on-brexit-tariffs-and-trade/#428608f68dab

Forbes opinion on ex wto boss's comment brexit would be a blow to UK.(not ex, you mean current World Trade Organization chief Roberto Azevedo)

All very confusing.and misleading.

"Thus, we cannot have the two claims being made here. Both that Britain will not be a WTO member and also that Britain will be bound by WTO rules. We will thus be entirely free to set whatever import duties we desire. And as the only rational trade policy is one of unilateral free trade those duties should be set at a level of zero. Which, as Patrick Minford keeps pointing out, will make the UK economy grow by 3% or so."

The UK has effectively been a member of the WTO since 1948, initially one of the founding countries in GATT(General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) which was replaced by the WTO in 1995. All EU member states and the EU in its own right are full members of the WTO. The problem is that all EU member states share the tariff profile of the EU so in the event of a Brexit, the UK would have to establish a new tariff profile in order to maintain its membership. Any new tariff profile would subject to WTO rules and you cannot be a member without a tariff profile. It would be virtually impossible for the UK to trade as a non WTO member, currently 162 members..

"At the heart of the system — known as the multilateral trading system — are the WTO’s agreements, negotiated and signed by a large majority of the world’s trading nations, and ratified in their parliaments. These agreements are the legal ground-rules for international commerce. Essentially, they are contracts, guaranteeing member countries important trade rights. They also bind governments to keep their trade policies within agreed limits to everybody’s benefit."

Thanks for the well reasoned response

The trouble is, there is so much biased half truths and lies spouted in the media it makes it difficult to decide where the truth if any lies in any given topic.

Spot on.

the Guardian is reporting that 88% of 600 expert economists say that a vote to leave would have a negative impact on growth for 10-20 years. (Online survey with a 17% response rate) http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/28/economists-reject-brexit-boost-cameron

There's a desperate propaganda war to keep the UK in the EU. The implication is that the UK has benefited since joining the EU economically and thus an exit will mean economic disaster. Yet according to the Office of National Statistics economic growth peaked BEFORE joining the EU.and has declined ever since with lower lows and lower highs.No doubt I will be accused of conspiracy theory and desperation as per the previous posts, but you may be able to see how the media is being manipulated by the government if you simply use the government's own statistics.

British-GDP-Growth-since-1949.jpg

THis is growth rate - you don't seem to realise actually what that is and have picked one graph out of thsands of economic reviews of various aspects of the economy simply because you think erroneously it backs up your point of view.

Why not check on a standards of living graph?

REAL research is looking first and making your mind up after - you appear to be doing it the wrong way round.

you need to learn how to "research"...it's not the same as "search", Google or Facebook.

[Linzz]

Thanks for the well reasoned response

The trouble is, there is so much biased half truths and lies spouted in the media it makes it difficult to decide where the truth if any lies in any given topic.

Spot on.

the Guardian is reporting that 88% of 600 expert economists say that a vote to leave would have a negative impact on growth for 10-20 years. (Online survey with a 17% response rate) http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/28/economists-reject-brexit-boost-cameron

There's a desperate propaganda war to keep the UK in the EU. The implication is that the UK has benefited since joining the EU economically and thus an exit will mean economic disaster. Yet according to the Office of National Statistics economic growth peaked BEFORE joining the EU.and has declined ever since with lower lows and lower highs.No doubt I will be accused of conspiracy theory and desperation as per the previous posts, but you may be able to see how the media is being manipulated by the government if you simply use the government's own statistics.

British-GDP-Growth-since-1949.jpg

THis is growth rate - you don't seem to realise actually what that is and have picked one graph out of thsands of economic reviews of various aspects of the economy simply because you think erroneously it backs up your point of view.

Why not check on a standards of living graph?

REAL research is looking first and making your mind up after - you appear to be doing it the wrong way round.

you need to learn how to "research"...it's not the same as "search", Google or Facebook.

I have picked an economic growth graph because the Guardian article was about economic growth rate, how blindingly appropriate is that?

You still appear to have a condescending attitude to anyone who disagrees with you, I have never told you what you need to do. This is not a contest of egos.

[sandyf]

Very few seem to have considered the aftermath in the event of a Brexit vote. It is almost guaranteed there would be a change in leadership in the conservative party but the the real danger could be a general election. It would be highly unlikely that there would be any outright majority and the UK could end up with another coalition government.

A government that cannot agree among themselves is exactly what the EU would want in the exit negotiations, things could drag on for years and all this talk about new trade deals etc just evaporate like the morning mist on a summers day.

th next election is May 2020.

Cameron is unlikely to survive a Brexit, and now looks unlikely to survive the referendum....(even up to the referendum??)

This basically leaves it open for the Tory hard right....coaltion? Well UKIP don't have enough members for that.....Lib Dems are very pro market.....so who would they coalesce with"

There are only 2 ways to call ann election - vote of no confidence (even that has subsequent provisions) and a 2/3 majority in the HoC to call one.

so it would be up to the Brexit Tories to form a government....in a UK that is divided down some rather peculiar lines....and facing some very complex issues.

In order to leave the EU there is a 2 year period stipulated to negotiate the out.....what happens if this isn't acheived...I don't know.

If it runs over, the UK is likely to face higher tariffs imposed by the EU and many consider 2 years an impossibly short period.

"However, since the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, a vote of no confidence means the government has 14 days in which to win a vote of confidence, or a general election is held."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motions_of_no_confidence_in_the_United_Kingdom

“The party is fairly fractured, straight down the middle, and I don't know which character could possibly pull it back together going forward for an effective government. I honestly think we probably need to go for a general election before Christmas and get a new mandate from the people.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-conservative-rifts-deepen-as-mps-call-for-david-cameron-to-quit-a7055481.html

[sandyf]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/05/28/wto-chiefs-ludicrous-assertion-on-brexit-tariffs-and-trade/#428608f68dab

Forbes opinion on ex wto boss's comment brexit would be a blow to UK.(not ex, you mean current World Trade Organization chief Roberto Azevedo)

All very confusing.and misleading.

"Thus, we cannot have the two claims being made here. Both that Britain will not be a WTO member and also that Britain will be bound by WTO rules. We will thus be entirely free to set whatever import duties we desire. And as the only rational trade policy is one of unilateral free trade those duties should be set at a level of zero. Which, as Patrick Minford keeps pointing out, will make the UK economy grow by 3% or so."

The UK has effectively been a member of the WTO since 1948, initially one of the founding countries in GATT(General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) which was replaced by the WTO in 1995. All EU member states and the EU in its own right are full members of the WTO. The problem is that all EU member states share the tariff profile of the EU so in the event of a Brexit, the UK would have to establish a new tariff profile in order to maintain its membership. Any new tariff profile would subject to WTO rules and you cannot be a member without a tariff profile. It would be virtually impossible for the UK to trade as a non WTO member, currently 162 members..

"At the heart of the system — known as the multilateral trading system — are the WTO’s agreements, negotiated and signed by a large majority of the world’s trading nations, and ratified in their parliaments. These agreements are the legal ground-rules for international commerce. Essentially, they are contracts, guaranteeing member countries important trade rights. They also bind governments to keep their trade policies within agreed limits to everybody’s benefit."

Thanks for the well reasoned response

The trouble is, there is so much biased half truths and lies spouted in the media it makes it difficult to decide where the truth if any lies in any given topic.

Very true, but one thing you can take as fact is that there is no tariff profile for the United Kingdom in the WTO database, only for the European Union and all the other member countries.

The European Union and the WTO

This page gathers key information on the European Union’s participation in the WTO. The European Union (until 30 November 2009 known officially in the WTO as the European Communities for legal reasons) (more info) has been a WTO member since 1 January 1995. The 28 member States of the EU are also WTO members in their own right. The EU is a single customs union with a single trade policy and tariff. The European Commission — the EU’s executive arm — speaks for all EU member States at almost all WTO meetings.

https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/countries_e/european_communities_e.htm

[Jip99]

THis is growth rate - you don't seem to realise actually what that is and have picked one graph out of thsands of economic reviews of various aspects of the economy simply because you think erroneously it backs up your point of view.

Why not check on a standards of living graph?

REAL research is looking first and making your mind up after - you appear to be doing it the wrong way round.

you need to learn how to "research"...it's not the same as "search", Google or Facebook.

I have picked an economic growth graph because the Guardian article was about economic growth rate, how blindingly appropriate is that?

You still appear to have a condescending attitude to anyone who disagrees with you, I have never told you what you need to do.

This is not a contest of egos.

Regrettably, I fear that it is. I also fear it will get worse in the next three weeks.

This does not have to become a p!ssing contest, but invariably on Thai Visa (and elsewhere) it seems to.

Some people have difficulty understanding that opinions are just that - a personal view of any given situation.

Two people can be given the same data/facts/bullsh!t and come to a different conclusion about the best outcome.

There is no clear cut set of reasons for EXIT or REMAIN. In most cases it depends on your fundamental political standpoint and preconceptions. Being in the EU has not been all bad - it couldn't be, there has to have been benefits from such an alliance over 43 years. Those are recognised and acknowledged. Equally, an EXIT should not be all about the fear of a collapse of trade/economy/Pound etc - life will go on after EXIT. Will it be plain sailing and the land of milk and honey? - of course not. Will a vote to REMAIN ensure a better future for Britain? - frankly, I doubt out and (in my opinion only) I can see it only getting worse with more of the same.

If in your individual opinion you think that membership of the EU currently offers greater benefits for Britain (and will continue to do so in the future) then it is right to vote REMAIN. I have no issue with anyone who sees it that way and democracy allows them to vote differently to me.

For my part, the EU is broken. We can't mend it and it has changed dramatically from the EEC that I was in favour of back in the 1970's and was pro-European about for 30 years.

Tough decisions are not easy and invariably come at a cost. I prefer the risk of short-term pain for the long-term benefits, that I believe are associated with EXIT, rather than the terminal decline of the EU with a REMAIN vote. As said, I respect the democratic right of others to see things differently and vote accordingly - they are not wrong any more than I am.

[cumgranosalum]

Thanks for the well reasoned response

The trouble is, there is so much biased half truths and lies spouted in the media it makes it difficult to decide where the truth if any lies in any given topic.

Spot on.

the Guardian is reporting that 88% of 600 expert economists say that a vote to leave would have a negative impact on growth for 10-20 years. (Online survey with a 17% response rate) http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/28/economists-reject-brexit-boost-cameron

There's a desperate propaganda war to keep the UK in the EU. The implication is that the UK has benefited since joining the EU economically and thus an exit will mean economic disaster. Yet according to the Office of National Statistics economic growth peaked BEFORE joining the EU.and has declined ever since with lower lows and lower highs.No doubt I will be accused of conspiracy theory and desperation as per the previous posts, but you may be able to see how the media is being manipulated by the government if you simply use the government's own statistics.

British-GDP-Growth-since-1949.jpg

THis is growth rate - you don't seem to realise actually what that is and have picked one graph out of thsands of economic reviews of various aspects of the economy simply because you think erroneously it backs up your point of view.

Why not check on a standards of living graph?

REAL research is looking first and making your mind up after - you appear to be doing it the wrong way round.

you need to learn how to "research"...it's not the same as "search", Google or Facebook.

I have picked an economic growth graph because the Guardian article was about economic growth rate, how blindingly appropriate is that?

You still appear to have a condescending attitude to anyone who disagrees with you, I have never told you what you need to do. This is not a contest of egos.

Now you haven't read the article either - it's about the effect on the economy now not the history of growth rate - it talks about several economic factors too - which I mentioned earlier; you have the wrong end of the stick - it is I admit very difficult not to be condescending to some posters on this thread.

[MartinL]

Very true, but one thing you can take as fact is that there is no tariff profile for the United Kingdom in the WTO database, only for the European Union and all the other member countries.

The European Union and the WTO

This page gathers key information on the European Union’s participation in the WTO. The European Union (until 30 November 2009 known officially in the WTO as the European Communities for legal reasons) (more info) has been a WTO member since 1 January 1995. The 28 member States of the EU are also WTO members in their own right. The EU is a single customs union with a single trade policy and tariff. The European Commission — the EU’s executive arm — speaks for all EU member States at almost all WTO meetings.

https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/countries_e/european_communities_e.htm

I'd read that in entirely the opposite way, Sandy.

"The 28 member states ... are also WTO members in their own right" and "The EC ... speaks for all EU member states ...".

The EU plus member states = 29 WTO members.

The Tariff Profile for UK reads "See tariff profile for the European Communities".

My interpretation - and it's no more than that since I don't know the details of the WTO's terms & conditions - would suggest that the EC speaks on behalf of the individual EU member states, not instead of them, and that the individual states accept the tariffs agreed by the EU on their behalf after having some input at an earlier stage.

EU tariff rates would therefore equally be the 'property' of the individual EU member and could be transferred to or used by an individual country should it choose to withdraw from the EU.

I'd say that the UK does have a tariff profile that just happens to be identical to that of the EU.