so 88% of top economists think that the UK will suffer financially for the next 5 years; 72% think the economy will suffer for the next 10-20 if we leave EU!

[Palehorse]

So we have the the IMF, the IFS, and now a big majority of top economists across academia, and the public and private sectors telling us that if we brexit, our economy will struggle for the next 20 years.

Surely this is the most important issue if the referendum. As a relativity low income family, I dread the future for my kids if we are forced to leave.

Why should Britain do them any favours?

Absolutely no reason we should. But there are some who seem to think that post-Brexit, the EU will be desperate to do a trade deal with us that is somehow just economically advantageous as remaining in the EU, and ask nothing in return. Which is either dishonest or delusional.

I respect where you're coming from; I disagree - I think it's entirely fair for leaders of affected countries to share their views on what might happen post-Brexit - but I can understand your position.

I once asked Rupert Murdoch why he was so opposed to the European Union. 'That’s easy,' he replied. 'When I go into Downing Street they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice.'

Haha, and yes, we all want to be ruled by far-right billionaire people like him!
asshole

Truth is, no-one can predict what will happen in the long run in a Brexit, despite all the desperate fantasies. (getting our own trade deals, farmers better off etc.)....

And as for being able to secure our own borders haha, seen the boats already stopped in the Channel tonight on the news? Why would the French still keep the Jungle on their territory? It's doing nothing for the ordinary folks who live around there.

And I don't think Juncker, Merkel, Hollande's warnings and scorn are acceptable. It demonstrates their lack of respect for Britain and comes across as bullying. You don't stay in a club that's run by bullies, you walk away.

It's not bullying to remind a club member that if they resign their membership, they will lose the benefits of that membership. You don't resign from your local tennis club or gym and expect to use the courts and showers for free afterwards, and then complain about lack of respect when they won't let you.

Mistigri, the trouble is that Juncker etc went beyond the withdrawing of member benefits line and talked about punishment and punitive measure as a deterrent to others. That sounds more like the tactics of the mafia than the rules of a country club.

Even using your club analogy, no one is disputing that leaving involves losing benefits. Let's envisage this club. It is very expensive to be a member of and requires members to give up substantial amounts of their free time to volunteer. It also has exacting standards in terms of dress code etc. It is wonderful if you want it to be the centre of your social life and your only hobby, but for those who want an occasional affordable game of tennis, or whose children have grown up and had children of their own who live elsewhere, the terms and conditions are onerous. Those members have many friends at the club, but it doesn't make sense to be a paid up member any more. Should this mean they can't socialise with their friends outside the club by meeting them at the pub occasionally or coming to club open days? I don't think it should.

Similarly, being outside the EU doesn't make us an enemy of the EU. It won't prevent us from being able to go on holiday there, or apply for jobs there in the same way that non-EU nationals do at present. It won't stop EU citizens from coming here either. Many non-EU nationals emigrate here every year. The doors would still be open, with the terms set by the British government to meet the needs of the British economy.

What leaving will do is free us up to have independent trading arrangements with non-EU countries without having to get the deal ratified by 27 others first. This includes many Commonwealth countries that, as former British colonies, used to trade with us without tariffs. A lot of these countries have developing economies that would benefit from improved trading arrangements with the fifth largest economy in the world. Leaving the EU presents a really exciting opportunity to have a more global outlook.

What leaving will do is ensure that those making our laws are fully elected by the British electorate. And it will also ensure that legal decisions are made on the basis of UK common law and not on the basis of EU law. Our legal system is fundamentally different from the systems used on most of the rest of the EU ( with the exception of Ireland, Malta and Cyprus, who also use the common law system). EU law, like that in most EU countries is based on a civil code that is not bound by precedent. This difference disadvantages us when cases are taken to the European Court of Justice.

I respect your decision to vote to remain in the EU. I love Europe and I can see that the EU has done a lot of good, particularly in providing a route to prosperity for some of its newer members. However, I can also see that the EU is incapable of making the changes it needs to make if it is to survive the 21st century. I think both the EU and the UK will thrive best if they are friends but not bound together.

I think both the EU and the UK will thrive best if they are friends but not bound together.

Yes. You can have a group of friends without all having to live in the same house, do the same things with your money, and having your own procedures and rules chosen for you.

Mistigri, the trouble is that Juncker etc went beyond the withdrawing of member benefits line and talked about punishment and punitive measure as a deterrent to others.

Did they? Can you link to a transcript?

I have read the Juncker comments at source, in an interview by Le Monde, in French, and there is very little that is contentious - at least not in factual terms.

He basically says that leaving the EU is a one way ticket (does anyone dispute this?) and that the EU's relationship with the UK would change, such that the UK would have to get used to being treated as a third party (no shit Sherlock). There was a lot of stating the obvious, albeit in rather blunt terms.

I read the Le Monde article too. It was very carefully phrased, but decidedly unfriendly - no "I respect the democratic process in every member state, including in the event of a vote to leave the EU" and no "if the UK do vote to leave we will work together to find a way forward."

Hollande has threatened to tear up the Calais arrangements, even though this is a bilateral agreement that benefits both sides. Before it was enacted the UK would send illegal migrants back across the Channel to France. Moving the boarder controls to Calais came with an agreement that, when illegal migrants do arrive here, they stay here and we deal with them. It saves a lot of unnecessary journeys and paperwork for everyone.

If I have time I will try to find some references, but it won't happen this week. I think the article below is more interesting, as it shows the underlying animosity rather than solidarity that festers at the moment. If the UK were out of the EU then the EU could get on with the job of becoming a sovereign state and we could be a friendly ally.

www.euractiv.com/section/uk-europe/news/french-uncertainty-over-brexit-gives-way-to-fear-of-the-status-quo/

It was very carefully phrased, but decidedly unfriendly

I thought it was rather bluntly phrased, and simply stating the obvious.

As for being "decidedly unfriendly", how would you describe the rhetoric by members of the official campaign towards the EU? "Decidedly unfriendly" might a fair description. "Carefully phrased" certainly wouldn't. This animosity you speak of isn't one sided, is it? Is this a case of the UK being able to dish it out, but not take it?

Hollande has threatened to tear up the Calais arrangements - actually he hasn't (it was Macron) but he's correct to point out that they may not survive a brexit. The Le Touquet agreement certainly was beneficial to both sides when it was signed; whether that's still true is debatable, and certainly, in the event of a Brexit, there will be political pressure on whoever wins the next French presidential election to do something about it.

I read the Le Monde article too. It was very carefully phrased, but decidedly unfriendly - no "I respect the democratic process in every member state, including in the event of a vote to leave the EU" and no "if the UK do vote to leave we will work together to find a way forward."

Why should he pander to the UK's feelings or pretend that the UK outside the EU is going to get special treatment? The Brexit camp hasn't been particular friendly or even basically polite about and towards him and the EU.

I thought Juncker mostly came across as exasperated, and it's hard to blame him. I think it's an entirely rational reaction to the mudslinging that passes for political debate in the UK right now.

Calamara - reading the piece you've linked to, it's about worries in France that a Remain vote would make the UK even more influential in the EU than it already is, and bitching about the UK's existing influence and independent-mindedness?

You are right - it was Emmanuel Macron. I am meant to be working, not writing on here. Better get back to it. I also wrote boarder instead of border. Oops!

Why should he pander to the UK's feelings or pretend that the UK outside the EU is going to get special treatment? The Brexit camp hasn't been particular friendly or even basically polite about and towards him and the EU.

Politicians should be able to accept criticism about the way their organisations work and the leadership. If one of the mainstream parties isn't likely to win at a UK general election, they don't start threatening petulantly to deliberately make everyone's life difficult, or to penalise the general public as a "punishment" for not voting for them. If they lose, they are obviously disappointed, but they congratulate the winners, they don't round up support to ostracise them.

Politicians should be able to accept criticism about the way their organisations work and the leadership. If one of the mainstream parties isn't likely to win at a UK general election, they don't start threatening petulantly to deliberately make everyone's life difficult, or to penalise the general public as a "punishment" for not voting for them.

Again, I've not seen the 'punishment' use - can you link? But that's not what's been said - rather, that in the event of Brexit then rEU would act to best serve their own interests, and not do any special favours for the UK - no kid gloves. We would have to face the consequences of being a third party state, to use Junker's words.

Which is a pretty reasonable position. Why would we expect anything else?

I'm surprised Brexiteers are so thin-skinned about criticism of their position, tbh.

Springing talks a lot about us being the 5th largest economy. According to which measure you read the top ones are EU, US, Japan, France, Us and Germany. Not necessarily in that order. So we want to trade with the big boys, I presume? Is there anything that currently prevents us trading in a beneficial manner with the US and Japan? because trade with the others is only going to become less simple.

EU would act to best serve their own interests, and not do any special favours for the UK

No change there then!

Brexiters aren't the thin-skinned ones. It's the Brexiters who are prepared to take some risks (a possible dip in the economy) and work with a blank sheet of paper to create and innovate a new Britain. It's Brexiters who don't want to be spoon-fed by Nanny EU and have confidence that we can successfully return to making our own laws, allocating our own taxpayers' money, building businesses and helping entrepeneurs instead of large corporations, and much more.

The French finance minister has said the UK would be "killed" in post-Brexit trade negotiations. Juncker told eurosceptics to visit war graves, to give a message that Brexit is somehow associated with war As Liam Fox said, "The military cemeteries of Europe are testament to the failure of the continent to control extremism in the twentieth century.

“Had Britain not been a free and independent nation, we would have been unable to intervene to protect Europe from the result of its own folly.

“Before we are lectured by the European Commission, we should take a look at the rise of extremism across the continent and ask whether they are helping or hurting.”

Juncker has insultingly attempted to brand Brexiters "deserters", a metaphor as if the EU is somehow courageous and we are too cowardly to fight. Actually it's the other way round. Brexiters and an independent Britain are perfectly capable of standing up for themselves.

The EU will be a third party to Britain after Brexit.

Is there anything that currently prevents us trading in a beneficial manner with the US and Japan?

I understand that the EU prevents us making our own trade deals around the world, but if we leave the EU this will then be possible

I mean, let's look at this rationally.

Britain votes to leave. Two things happen:

1. European stock markets take a hit. The markets hate uncertainty and particularly hate the long term uncertainty Brexit would cause. Major European economies face uncertain or decking economic outlooks. Their citizens think this is all Britain's fault.

1. Article 50 is invoked and negotiations commence to determine the future relationship between the UK and the EU. The UK is an external party to these discussions, and article 50 is designed to give power to the remainder of the EU, particularly because the two-year guillotine can only be extended if all 27 MSes agree.

These two points come together when individual MSes are formulating their own positions on the future UK relationship. They are democratically accountable to citizens who are angry that Britain's decision has caused them economic pain, and are therefore demanding that their governments not endorse a deal that is particularly advantageous to Britain or that contains major concessions from their own industries. At the same time, the governing parties are fighting anti-EU parties in their own elections, and feel they must make sure the EU is more advantageous to members than to former members.

Those circumstances mean that, as Junker says, Britain should not expect to be handled with kid gloves post-Brexit. It would be extraordinary (not to mention profoundly undemocratic) for leaders of the continuing EU members to put the needs and wishes of British citizens above their own.

Voters who are currently being spun a comforting tale of how we will get to pick what sort of post-Brexit trade deal we have - we can be like Norway! No, Switzerland! No, Canada! - deserve someone honest enough to tell them that the choice won't be in our gift, and that it is unlikely to be as favourable as we would wish.

EU would act to best serve their own interests, and not do any special favours for the UK

Why, do you think Hollande, Merkel et al should put the needs and wishes of our citizens above those of their own citizens, particularly when our citizens have just said we'd rather not work together in our common interests any more?

What an odd idea.

I understand that the EU prevents us making our own trade deals around the world, but if we leave the EU this will then be possible

Ah, but there's a leap from 'possible' to 'likely', isn't there? And that's even before you get into the contents and favourabililty of these far-off deals.

Well, surely it isn't a question of them doing the UK any favours, but whether they want to protect their own economic stability - which to a large extent depends upon the UK buying cars, cheese, wine etc from them.

I find quite a lot of this confusing (even though I'm a well educated professional!). We don't have trading agreements with many countries, and yet we do trade with them. Can I repeat this as the point seems to be lost in many discussions I read and hear - We do a great deal of trade with countries outside the UK - WITHOUT TRADE DEALS.

If the vote is to leave the UK, Germany would still be very keen to sell us their cars even if their government was very, very angry with us, because we are one of their largest importers. Hence there would be trade between us.

I find the suggestion (as I have read elsewhere) that German cars would be more expensive due to tariffs imposed by them when exporting to the UK totally baffling. Why would they want to make their cars more expensive, when we could all go out and buy a Nissan or a Ford instead? If they wanted to impose a tariff on goods exported from the UK into Germany, then we would retaliate by slapping a tariff on their cars, so being difficult is not in THEIR best interests.

I'm so cross that both sides are not being honest. They are like two fighting cocks, strutting and posturing. Those who are entitled to vote need clear and honest information.

I agree MuddledMuse - trade will continue, capitalism always wins.

Certainly the EU will be in a tailspin about a Brexit, because a huge wedge of its previously guaranteed income will disappear into the ether. But what can they do? Why would they want to stop any trade? If the champagne socialists are forced to switch to English sparkling wine, who loses out? Only the vineyards of France.

Mother - the EU economy is already in a tailspin.

Genuinely, I am a fence-sitter. On sovereignty, I'm out. On immigration, I'm out. Not because I'm a "little Englander", but because of the effect of numbers on infrastructure, and because I'm concerned about those who are already here and at the bottom of the social pile. Whilesoever cheap labour can be obtained from those who have few options in their home countries, there will be no political will to solve the downward spiral caused by poverty and lack of education & opportunity for the less privileged.

On the economy, I'm less convinced of the arguments for out and may still vote in, but I'm not convinced of the economic arguments for in either. Short term gain for long term gain does not appear to me to be a deluded approach.

I find quite a lot of this confusing (even though I'm a well educated professional!). We don't have trading agreements with many countries, and yet we do trade with them.

It's a shame that schools in the UK don't require a basic module on economics and trade, as I hear this point made a lot, including by educated people, and it comes from a basic misunderstanding about why companies trade and how it works.

You can trade with literally anyone if (a) your trading partner wishes to do a deal with you ie he cannot buy the same thing more cheaply or more quickly elsewhere and (b) you can make a profitable deal.

Trade agreements help exporters compete, by minimising or removing tariffs and by simplifying (or in the case of a customs union or single market removing) the administrative burden of customs procedures. This latter point is important because shipping is expensive and timeconsuming, and having to deal with customs makes it even more so. (The division that I work for, which ships commodities worldwide, employs an entire department of shipping clerks and managers.) If your competitor's goods do not have to pass through customs, he will have a competitive advantage because he can charge less and he can supply the customer more quickly.

There is nothing to prevent UK companies doing business worldwide right now - so what, apart from desperation (never a good starting point for making business deals) will cause manufacturers to increase their exports to non-EU countries post-Brexit? If it were profitable to do those deals, they would be doing them already. Indeed, many are: my employer sells goods worldwide, and sometimes those goods are shipped from the UK, but more often they are manufactured locally in plants built close to the markets they serve.