The only way to get the EU to take the UK seriously is to vote to leave

[SpringingIntoAction]

Cameron tells us repeatedly that he wants to remain in a reformed EU.

Many others across the political divides also acknowledge the need for the EU to reform itself.

Some say that's why we need to remain in the EU - to change it from within.

I think the EU's refusal to engage with Cameron's plea for his EU reforms and the failure of his 'special deal' to achieve anything like the changes he originally said he wanted, show the EU is unwilling/incapable of reform.

I think the only way to get the EU to start taking our demands for reform seriously is to vote to leave.

They need to start imagining what the EU would be like without one of its largest funders - the UK. We do that by voting to leave.

My main point - sloppiness/partisanship/lack of awareness of research processes just confuses the public but also highlights the fact that experts are not always 'expert' - so why would anyone believe the findings?

There's a third element to this story - the role of the media in reporting and contextualising research findings. They're the ones who are failing the public by not doing their job properly, and in some cases wilfully misrepresenting research, to make it sound more catchy or fit a political agenda. It's no wonder the public think research is all unreliable fluff, when they read one day that chocolate causes cancer, and the next day that it cures it.

It's a balance. A level of healthy skepticism is good, but blanket rejection of all research as biased and corrupt is very dangerous. Because if you can't trust any facts anymore, who do you trust? The people who tell you what you want to hear, ie populist politicians like Trump. There has to be some sort of basis in facts and knowledge in public discussion, otherwise we have nothing. And the only way I can think of having that is through academic research relayed by a responsible media.

PS damn family. Getting in my way too

I don't mind sceptisism but I mind the dismissal of the overwhelming body of evidence, even when you go back to the euro fourmummy there wasn't this level of agreement amongst think tanks, universities, banks, treasury and BOE on what the outcome would be.

I also object to then evidence on the recent studies on immigration being dismissed by the " people know" or "what people see" arguments. Because neither of this retorts are valid. Even the facts from the ONS on recent immigrants contributing far more to the treasury than they take out ( confirming two previous academic studies) gets the same treatment.

It is a blanket on anything that refutes the leave parties points, adn I'm sorry but the overwhelming body of evidence points to the fact that the leave party don't have a leg to stand on.

This is a very well put together film about Brexit. I have watched it once and will watch it again. Can we all take a look, and then reconvene? Everyone in the film is very eloquent, i.e. Kate Hooey, Lawson, Mark Littlewood et al. The Remainers can then shoot down everything stated, point by point and explain why something is not accurate.

www.brexitthemovie.com/

I actually do intend to watch this, and I'll get back to you on that. I've read a few reviews, I have a fair idea what's in it.

But it's a bit unfair to ask pro-EU posters to watch Brexit propaganda if you're not prepared to do the same.

Will all the Brexit posters agree to read all the Guardian's articles on Brexit and all the studies cited above, and then reconvene and explain point by point why they're not accurate?

I will read/watch anything on reasons to Remain. One thing that was mentioned was that shops in the UK are full of products manufactured outside of the EU. The EU does not have a trade agreement with most of those countries, so how come those products are in our shops?

The EU does not have a trade agreement with most of those countries, so how come those products are in our shops?

Because, as you have just noticed, you don't need a 'trade agreement' to trade.

That's what Lord Lawson said. The UK and the EU have products from Sri Lanka, Vietnam, Cambodia, India, Chile etc. Not to mention fruit, veg and flowers flown in from various African countries.

No, you don't need a trade agreement to trade with whoever you want. But most countries protect their domestic industries by imposing import tariffs.

For example say the US want to protect their domestic car industry - they impose a 20% tariff on all foreign imports, to give their own companies an advantage. And in return China will impose a 30% trade tariff on American exports of steel to China (completely made-up examples).

What the EU does is get rid of all these tariffs between EU countries, so that no one is allowed to be protectionist and give unfair advantages to their domestic products within the EU. That's the difference between normal trade, and free trade.

No, you don't need a trade agreement to trade with whoever you want. But most countries protect their domestic industries by imposing import tariffs.

For example say the US want to protect their domestic car industry - they impose a 20% tariff on all foreign imports, to give their own companies an advantage. And in return China will impose a 30% trade tariff on American exports of steel to China (completely made-up examples).

What the EU does is get rid of all these tariffs between EU countries, so that no one is allowed to be protectionist and give unfair advantages to their domestic products within the EU. That's the difference between normal trade, and free trade

Which is good for a country that is a member of the trade bloc and wishes to trade with fellow members of that trade bloc but bad for countries outside that trade bloc that cannot penetrate the defensive walls set up by the trade bloc and bad for countries within the trade bloc when they wish to trade outside the bloc.

A trade bloc turns what should be your natural 'competitor countries' into your 'trade partners', so can stifle enterprise, keep prices artificially high and act as a protectionist barrier to innovation from outside the trade bloc.

It makes trade inwards looking between members of the same bloc instead of opening up opportunities to make new deals with other countries across the world.

I understand that, Chalala. Large tariffs can be put in place when protecting one's own companies. Are you saying that EU has no tariffs in place for importations from Sri Lanka, Vietnam, Cambodia, India, Chile, Africa?

A trade bloc turns what should be your natural 'competitor countries' into your 'trade partners', so can stifle enterprise, keep prices artificially high

it also keeps salaries high - if you think competition with eastern European workers drives salaries down, wait until post-Brexit Britain has to compete with the production costs (ie low, low, low salaries and lack of workers' rights) of China, India, etc

it's ok for Britain to have higher workers' costs, more safety guarantees, more protection for workers' rights, because everyone else within the EU does too so no one is disadvantaged. Watch all of this disappear as the ultra free-market Brexit Tories do everything they can to make Britain more "competitive" against the rest of the world.

"beause, as you have just noticed, you don't need a 'trade agreement' to trade"

Actually if you don't have a direct agreement it reverts to WTO agreements, which of course is a trade agreement.

Shakeeba I'm afraid I have no idea about specific tariffs, it would depend on the country and on the type of product. I'm sure someone more knowledgeable will come along.

"Actually if you don't have a direct agreement it reverts to WTO agreements, which of course is a trade agreement."

Got it. Agreeing WTOs with non-EU countries does not seem to be a problem, but of course buying & selling from/to EU nations could be. At the moment my salad & veg come from Lincolnshire & Norfolk, my avocados from Israel, strawberries, several cheeses, tomatoes, milk & poultry from England. I need tinned pulses from India. If we leave, the biggest expense (for me) may be flowers from Holland. I am being flippant of course.

The way Brexit is presented by the other side gives a different impression. I am suggesting that Sri Lanka-Vietnam-Cambodia- India-Chile-Africa and many other non-EU countries would not change the arrangement and apply a high tariff to GB if we were to leave.

As regards trading with an EU country if we left, GB would not be in direct competition or disadvantage the industry of any EU nation in respect of goods, so I imagine some levy being applied but not a harsh one.

But only under the very specific parameters you have just set.

Especially as 44% of our exports go to the EU, now put some tariffs on them and demand is likely to drop, effecting the level of employment here.

Secondly how many of those things that you list are major providers to the UK? We buy a huge amount of our food stuffs, machinary, all sorts of equipment and pharma goods from the EU, How would that be effected.

How would the production of our own goods be effected by removing EU subsidy, and trade?

As regards trading with an EU country if we left, GB would not be in direct competition or disadvantage the industry of any EU nation in respect of goods

I'm not sure why you think this? The EU produces lots of the same things the UK does (cars, pharmaceuticals, etc), so yes, the UK would be in direct competition with EU countries.

Also not obvious that it would be as straightforward with the rest of the world as the Brexiters like to think, as the US and Japan have made clear.

As there wouldn't be tariffs if we vote to exit, as we exit on current terms, then someone in the EU would have to make an active decision to raise tariff barriers with the UK. Given that we are moving to QMV within the EU, that would mean that 22 nations, all of whom would trade with the UK with different goods and services, would have to agree to those barriers going up.

The Germans export an awful lot of their cars to the UK apparently, and we are one of the largest export markets for French wine (and I bet we buy a lot of pasta, parmesan and prosecco from the Italians as well). Why would those countries wish to lose access to our market by raising tariff barriers?

The idea that the EU will put tariffs on UK goods will never happen, the UK is such a powerful economy & we buy so many EU goods and services that they can't survive without our trade. The trade deficit from January-March 2016 was £24 billion in the EU's favour (about £2bn a week, almost £100bn a year) they simply cannot afford to have tariffs with the UK

Outside of the EU there would be tariffs, under the terms of a WTO agreement (which Gove et al have now cited as a possibility) it would certainly happen. All the other countries you have mentioned as being outside the EU have tariffs on their products or even quotas, even China the second most powerful economy in the world and whose largest trading partner is the EU when it is judged as a whole. The USA have tariffs on their goods entering the EU, who is their biggest trading partner and largest source of FDI?

You can keep spouting your cod economics all you like, it doesn't make it true.

15% of our GDP is down to EU trade, 3% of EU GDP is down to UK trade, you do the maths on who needs who more. Who is our largest source of FDI etc?

Seriously I'm shocked that so many of you fee the ability to comment on these topics which you evidently don't have sufficient knowledge of.

There would definitely be tariffs. EU governments have their own electorates to think of.
How would the UK react if the French said, "we are not paying to be members of the club anymore and we are not going to apply the rules we don't like but we will continue to collect all the benefits, thank you very much?"
Brexit will mean that German cars ( which we buy because we think they are better than others on the market) and French food (ditto) will all go up in price.

"that they can't survive without our trade"

Yeah, cause the EU doesn't trade with anyone else? 15% of their exports come here, 44% of ours go there, 3% of their GDP is British trade, 15% of ours is. They are our major FDI investor, and our theirs, but overall they have by far the larger upper hand in any negotiation.

Coming out of the EU would mean tariffs on their products coming here too btw, which means yes lower demand for their goods and services here, but also higher costs of living for our consumers. Do you think we're going to stop consuming lots of the goods that they make? Of course it depends on PED, but as we'd have WTO tariffs with everyone else as well the EU might still have comparative advantage over other countries on lots of products. PED doesn't matter so much when it comes to other things the Europeans want to sell us, brands of cars, machinery etc.

Lets be honest, the economic argument you lost long ago, in a case of almost unprecedented unanimity economists, banks, government bodies, NGOs, universities and think tanks have been lining up to forecast a difficult and negative future outside the EU.

Your response "there won't be tariffs because the UK is so powerful and the EU needs us more than we need them" over and over again, simply isn't true.

Tariffs can be applied both ways.

If one country, for instance Germany, wants to apply tariffs, we could do the same. Germany would be the loser because it sells more to the Uk then we sell to Germany. Germany would also need to consider the effect of making its products uncompetitive demand will fall and unemployment rise.

These are the hard choices that Cameron should have been placing before the EU at his 'special deal' meetings in Feb this year. But he didn't.

I agree that should the UK secure tariff-free trade with the EU then the whole purpose of the EU/EEA becomes irrelevant as every country would want the same deal. So the EU would fall - good! That would be perfect - the end of the political experiment.