[skinster]

Labour will scrap university tuition fees if they win general election

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Half our exports go to the EU and as the EU countries are on our doorstep, that is likely to continue. Our trade with other countries hasn't been in any way restricted by being a member of the EU. There have been various papers published showing this to be the case. You can find them quite easily.

Trade will no doubt continue, but the proportion of trade that the UK does with the EU may well decrease further which is quite likely a good thing in the long term. You can view this as diversification, i.e. not being overly dependent on one trading partner, especially if it is unlikely to be a future growth market.

Being a member of a customs union restricts your trade policy by definition regardless of whatever opinion pieces of academics you have read. The UK's priorities with respect to FTAs would certainly have been different to the EU as a whole and bilateral trade agreements and negotiations also tend to be less complicated and are therefore agreed quicker.

Foreign investment is certainly of enormous value, but so is the trade of financial services.

I already know that you think this is true, so simply repeating what you have already said is not enough. For the second time, please show some evidence for this. How much of British trade with non-EU countries depends on the UK being a gateway?

Which is probably why the EU won't become vengeful. Not allowing Britain to cherry pick a deal and protecting the interests of the rest of the EU countries would not be "vengeful".

Free trade is win-win, is it not? The UK wants the win-win part. It doesn't want the ever closer political union part which means less and less sovereignty and, as the EU itself admits, ever increasing obligations. The EU calls this cherry picking because it wants the UK to stay an EU-member and assume the obligations.

Mainly due to the British consumer acting as if nothing had happened. Which was a very good thing, of course, but perhaps it would be better for you not to get into a "which side told the most lies" argument. Also what do you mean by "your own" treasury? is it not yours, too?

Yes, the Brits have rejected Project Fear and good for them.

If we started listing lies of both sides, I would win hands down in showing that it was yours who was the most dishonest, not only in quantity, but also in quality. I'd start with one of my own posts here and would then go on to list every wrong claim in the treasury report which was politically motivated and hence deliberate in its excessively gloomy outlook. We would then go on to hyperbolic and false political consequences about what Brexit means.

Of course it's a pro EU paper. They all are. Try to find a scholarly paper that isn't and also maintains the UK is no longer sovereign. That paper states Britain chose to pool some sovereignty with other EU countries.

The EU is not a sovereign state, and no country of the EU has any sovereignty over Britain. No foreign states overrides Parliament. No, no no. It's the British parliament that enacts those laws. The fact the Tories hate some of them is a bonus.

There is always a trade off that has to be made when it comes to negotiating deals with other countries. That is not an erosion of sovereignty, that is the way the world works these days. I certainly don't take your idea of sovereignty seriously. Pimping the Queen to Trump as a kind of sweetener is something I can easily give up.

The EU must reduce the sovereignty of the member state, otherwise it wouldn't be able to function. That's also why qualified majority voting now covers a wide range of issues, which by definition means that the UK has to submit to decisions that others are making for it if it is outvoted on them. Arguing that this doesn't negatively affect British sovereignty is inane on the face of it. The EU is far and away the most intrusive and dangerous institution when it comes to sovereignty. It is orders of magnitudes more advanced in that respect than any other organisation or treaty. This is by design because it is a political union which, as mentioned, cannot properly function otherwise and its objective is to integrate ever more.

"The whole population", you claimed . It's far from it.

You are right. What I wanted to write was the majority of Brits and I thought I had written that. Apologies!

[B0ycey]

Free trade is win-win, is it not? The UK wants the win-win part. It doesn't want the ever closer political union part which means less and less sovereignty and, as the EU itself admits, ever increasing obligations. The EU calls this cherry picking because it wants the UK to stay an EU-member and assume the obligations.

Free trade is actually more a win for the EU, but then again in other ways it actually isn't. The UK will want free movement in services because that is where they benefit in order to make a deal worth signing (because they can subsidise exporters with the income of tariffs as long as the tax breaks remain within WTO rules). And this is where the problem lies. Now you are talking about the four laws of free movement, which includes people and labour - and to be part of the ECJ. Because you cannot cherry pick. To give into UK demands will cause more problems for the EU in the long run. Because what would stop other nations leaving the EU if they're better off outside? The reality is the UK could quite easily remain in the single market and be outside the EU but would have to agree to movement of people. But this is why a large amount of people voted to leave, so if they accept this people would question why did the UK leave the EU in the first place? So today the UK is in a crux. We should have had a 'Leave' manifesto which covered what the UK plans for leaving were. Not a promise of everything. Then at least we wouldn't have a mess. Personally I think we need another referendum to see what is more important to people. New international relationships, border controls and a restriction in European movements or a stronger European relationship, European trade but an acceptance of EU residents movement. And I genuinely believe people would rather have a soft Brexit. And if the ECJ appeal allows the UK to reverse article 50 before the rectification in two years time then we (the UK) still has a chance to get out of this mess and become part of Europe once again. So vote Lib Dems in June. We need Europhiles to challenge May through EU talks. Because you can criticise the EU for its import restrictions, but the restrictions keeps the wealth in Europe. And a wealthy Europe benefits the UK whether or not it's in the EU or not. Because no trade deal with any country would ever be bigger than trade to the EU (whether it's WTO or not). And this is down to geography. So in order for the EU to buy UK goods it needs to be strong and wealthy.

[skinster]

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Free trade is actually more a win for the EU, but then again in other ways it actually isn't. The UK will want free movement in services because that is where they benefit in order to make a deal worth signing (because they can subsidise exporters with the income of tariffs as long as the tax breaks remain within WTO rules). And this is where the problem lies. Now you are talking about the four laws of free movement, which includes people and labour - and to be part of the ECJ. Because you cannot cherry pick. To give into UK demands will cause more problems for the EU in the long run. Because what would stop other nations leaving the EU if they're better off outside? The reality is the UK could quite easily remain in the single market and be outside the EU but would have to agree to movement of people. But this is why a large amount of people voted to leave, so if they accept this people would question why did the UK leave the EU in the first place? So today the UK is in a crux. We should have had a 'Leave' manifesto which covered what the UK plans for leaving were. Not a promise of everything. Then at least we wouldn't have a mess. Personally I think we need another referendum to see what is more important to people. New international relationships, border controls and a restriction in European movements or a stronger European relationship, European trade but an acceptance of EU residents movement. And I genuinely believe people would rather have a soft Brexit. And if the ECJ appeal allows the UK to reverse article 50 before the rectification in two years time then we (the UK) still has a chance to get out of this mess and become part of Europe once again. So vote Lib Dems in June. We need Europhiles to challenge May through EU talks. Because you can criticise the EU for its import restrictions, but the restrictions keeps the wealth in Europe. And a wealthy Europe benefits the UK whether or not it's in the EU or not. Because no trade deal with any country would ever be bigger than trade to the EU (whether it's WTO or not). And this is down to geography. So in order for the EU to buy UK goods it needs to be strong and wealthy.

I agree that (financial) services will be a major focus of the UK. Retaining the status quo would of course be optimal. But if not, it wouldn't mean that revenue related to the EU, which is 23% of total revenue of UK financial services, goes to zero. After all, even without passporting, there are still the options of opening a branch or subsidiary in the EU. The point to be driven home is that London is the leading global financial centre and hence its financial industry operates globally and more than three quarters of its revenue is not related to the EU. There is also an interconnected system with know-how, infrastructure and economies of scale here that cannot be reproduced easily elsewhere in the EU. There is nothing on the European continent that comes even close and for the EU to have something comparable within the union can only be a long term goal with an uncertain outcome. I think many restrictions will likely be transitioned in rather than introduced abruptly.

So the question is by how much the 23% will be reduced if passporting is no longer available and transactions which are dependent on the euro payment system can no longer be cleared in London (mainly euro-denominated derivatives and bonds). And the next question is whether at least some of this can be recouped elsewhere, as the financial industry reorients itself away from the EU, perhaps also with the help of the government striking some deals. After looking into this, I was actually a bit surprised how much of an international outlook the financial industry had retained despite the UK being an EU member.

As for the EU having incentives to make the UK worse off, I agree, although it is also restricted by how much damage it is prepared to do to itself. I suspect after all is said and done, and the result for the UK is nowhere near as bad as predicted, the narrative will change. They'll say that the UK is a unique case for all the reasons the Brexit campaign has highlighted - the English language, common law, intelligence and security, the size of its economy, decreasing trade with the EU and a trade deficit, its international standing and relationships with the Commonwealth, etc. - and that other EU members won't be able to reproduce its success outside the EU. And they won't be wrong. The UK is a special case which makes it somewhat easier for it to leave.

But the important point is that the narrative will again be beside the point which is, as a British relative of mine keeps saying "It's gone too far. All we wanted is free trade." I guess that's why many people who voted remain in the 70s voted leave now. Personally, I feel much the same. But since a discussion about how much EU people want is not on the table, people like me have to make an in/out choice. And while I'm prepared to see the EU break up and disintegrate if all else fails, I actually have no wish to see its actual achievements destroyed.

So as you might imagine, I'm strongly opposed to your suggestions. The best place to be at this point in time for the UK is outside the EU. You'll get a deal with the EU and, as opposed to being a member of an ever closer union which has great ambitions to become a superstate in the future, you'll carry on as a successful sovereign nation with a parliamentary system that has served you so well for centuries. If the British people one day want to become part of a European state, they can choose to do so, but they deserve being asked openly and honestly if giving up their independence as a sovereign nation is their actual wish rather than being taken in by stealth.