Please help me understand - what exactly WILL happen if we leave the EU?

[DorynownotFloundering]

Because quite frankly I can't see how all these wonderful ideas Brexit have could be implemented if the govt are not in agreement & no one from the Leave side is in any position of power?

Genuine question.

I run a small business.

I employ a team of people - some British and some migrants from the EU. Last year I tried to recruit someone from Japan but that proved impossible.

Most of our customers are overseas - some of them in Southern Europe.

For a few years now we have been prioritising our business with non-EU countries because Southern Europe continues to be in dire straights because of EU economic policy.

Europe is not a great market now or in the foreseeable. It would be better for most UK businesses to look to the wider world if they can. If we Leave we will presumably do just that. And the Govt (whoever they are) will do their best to enable that.

The only thing the UK really needs is free trade & that will continue because the EU-UK trade deficit is gigantic in the EU's favour & they depend on the UK market

Nonsense. The best we could do would be to try to negotiate the sort of deal that Norway has - which would cost us more than we are currently paying to the EU anyway.

MyHovercraftIsFullOfEels you are completely wrong the trade deficit is gigantic. In January to March 2016 the trade deficit was £23 billion, almost £100 billion a year in the EU's favour. If you look at Germany the UK is their biggest export market in the world, if you look at their trade figure they sell more to us than around 25 of the small European nations combined, we have the economic clout to get a great deal

Milly, I just wonder why so much of the UK's business goes to the EU if it not a good market. There is nothing preventing business seeking other markets right now. You are testament to it. It does sound quite niche and maybe for certain climates or demographics if it is only southern Europe and far off climes you operate in. My mind is imagining strange things.

However, if the UK leaves the EU and operates by wto rules, subsidies could not be gives to it's exporters under WTO rules.

Article 8 of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (“SCM Agreement”) originally contained a list of non-actionable subsidies (i.e. subsidies that states could provide to their own national businesses against which other WTO members could not take action). However, these provisions expired at the end of 1999, by virtue of Article 31 of the SCM Agreement, which provided for their expiry after a period of five years after the entry into force of the WTO Agreement (1 January 1995). As a result, these carve-outs would no longer be available to the UK Government to grant subsidies to its exporters.

Also, the economy in different areas of the UK can look quite different. Agriculture in Northern Ireland and Wales.

"The CBI has estimated that Wales would lose around £207 million in structural funding and £290 million in agricultural funding following UK departure from the EU, based on 2009 data (CBI, Our Global Future: The Business Vision for a Reformed EU, November 2013) –

news.cbi.org.uk/reports/our-global-future/our-global-future/

The CBI agree with you that other markets should be sought out. But they don't recommend leaving EU membership to do it.

Immigration is higher from outside the EU and it was entirely in the gov't gift whether you could bring that person from Japan or not.

I can't see how all these wonderful ideas Brexit have could be implemented

I think after a Brexit there will be a complete reorganisation of the government, and in future elections we can aim to vote for MPs we think will best carry out our wishes.

If the UK voted to leave (or it was close), it won't be long before the eurosceptics in other EU nations kicked off and the whole of the EU would be threatened.

That's why the WTO and other organizations and nations outside the EU, as well as those with a vested business interests are keen on maintaining the status quo and push remain. It's not looking to the longer term.

I think there's more merit and opportunities for growth in Milly's approach.

The potential for growth on being more flexible to the growing economies would far exceed playing it safe and protection the EU.

and they all lived happily ever after winterbiscuit

"I think after a Brexit there will be a complete reorganisation of the government, and in future elections we can aim to vote for MPs we think will best carry out our wishes." I have to smile at this

You don't need a Brexit to do that. Is there an EU directive that stops people for voting for the parties they think will carry out their wishes? Bl**dy EU again.

That is how I choose on the polling card, at the moment, like millions of others obviously. What party do I like least and who will do the opposite of what I want. Then I tick their box.

So are the WTO rules off then too? As they, like the EU, are deemed to have vested business interests.

Thanks for all the concise info everyone, will read some of those links later. Basically you have all confirmed my current thoughts that much as I'd love to be out from under the EU it seems the lesser of two evils to stay & negociate better terms as is already happening.

As a good friend of mine eloquently observed "better to be on the inside of the tent pissing out than on the outside trying to piss in when they close the flaps"

Winterbiscuit I applaud your optimism but I fear the MP's who get voted in (regardless of party) will carry out their own wishes not that of their electorate.

If there was an election tomorrow I seriously don't know which way I'd jump as I don't give a toss for any of them !!!

Milly, I just wonder why so much of the UK's business goes to the EU if it not a good market.

The EU is a good market for some I am sure. But it's not a growing market. As I am sure you know, the Eurozone is stagnating. Unemployment is appalling and getting worse. You can't buy much if you haven't got a job. So obviously, it makes more sense for us to expand our business to the wider world. There are a lot of customers in the Americas, China, India and elsewhere. I don't want to exaggerate this. Of course there are still excellent business opportunities in Europe - and there are some European countries that are still doing very well.

As for the CBI advice. Those sorts of institutions always favour the status quo. They would no doubt have advised the USA to remain as a British colony. Just in case the Dollar had a bit of a wobble.

and they all lived happily ever after winterbiscuit

I think we will, at least rather more contentedly than while in the EU. Looking forward to it

Dory - I'm with you there about not giving a toss for any of them! And I also agree that elected politicians carry out their own wishes rather than those of the electorate - they toe the party line, hoping for a bigger and more powerful job in government.

The state of the EU economy worries me and how it will progress over the next 1-5-10 years as the EU changes and admits even more (poor) countries thereby diluting our "influence" still further, yet costing us more - our contribution is set for 7years and then reviewed, but the annual budget is just that, annual. That has been delayed until July..

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/20/brexit-best-answer-to-dying-eurozone-eu-undemocratic-elite

"I fear the MP's who get voted in (regardless of party) will carry out their own wishes not that of their electorate."

Dorynownot so presumably that applies to MEPs in the EU also? The EU Commissioners? The five presidents?

Wanting to negotiate better terms is a noble aim but I'm not convinced the EU is really reformable. Cameron tried recently and didn't get very far. Personally I'd rather see our energies focused on the UK which we do stand a chance of shaping.

Dory - can I just ask you to read this one before you make up your mind?

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/20/brexit-best-answer-to-dying-eurozone-eu-undemocratic-elite

Sorry Banana. Cross posted with you.

it seems the lesser of two evils to stay & negociate better terms as is already happening

...like how this didn't happen when Cameron tried to negotiate changes prior to the referendum date announcement you mean?

Proof that even being sat at the table doesn't give us much influence!

They would no doubt have advised the USA to remain as a British colony. Just in case the Dollar had a bit of a wobble.

Or, more pertinently and within the lifetime of some people voting, I wonder what advice they would have given to India.

There will be huge change whether we stay or leave.

Staying is not the safe option in my opinion.

the simple answer is we just do not know. we can guess, but the biggest problem with brexit is we do not know what our post- eu membership deal will look like.

uncertainty is a bad thing for the economy. people dont spend money and companies do not invest in more employees or new products. if we vote brexit, we are signing up for at least 2 (more like 3/4) years of complete turmoil while we negotiate our exit.

the EU will almost certainly want to warn other off leaving so we will most likely get a raw deal in anything we negotiate.

also - people forget we cannot have free trade without free movement of people - if we want a good trade deal, we are powerless to stop immigration. its a fact that seems to get lost in the clamour.

But we don't know what membership of the EU post referendum will look like either.

We can have free trade without free movement of people - depending on the deal that's struck IF the vote is out.

people forget we cannot have free trade without free movement of people

Seriously? NAFTA is a free-trade area covering the USA, Mexica and Canada. I don't think there is free movement over the US/Mexican border, is there?

No there isn't free movement. Free movement is a political trick intended to weaken independent nations and create a common European superstate, it is not necessary for trade.

Well other people have dealt with the timescales and details of article 50.

Note however that the two years is supposed to be both preparing to leave and a renogotiation, however this has been refused by Cameron. The idea is that the EU would try to keep a country in by offering concessions and the country would then put it to it's people. By refusing a second referendum Cameron appears to have blocked this route. Foolishly in my opinion.

As to what would happen economically that is problematic. One would be forgiven for thinking that detailed forecasts and plans had been made by the civil service ( the only institution capable of such) but... These were blocked by Cameron.

Indeed he stridently refused to allow the civil service to even consider Brexit in case it favoured the leave campaign. Leave campaigners knew they could use freedom of information laws to access any documents relating to Brexit so our sitting Prime Minister refused to allow the civil service to even minute a single meeting to discuss it.

Shocked yet? Well think of the implications..

We are about to have a say in deciding government policy. We either commit to ever closer union with all that entails ( EU Army as mooted by President Junker, further countries joining, fiscal policy decided by the EU etc) or we decide to go our own way and set sail to trade with the rest of the world.

There is no middle road, no status quo. Our treaty obligations are clear with regard to ever closer Union. It is either accelerated EU integration or out, as the EU will clearly see an in vote as the matter put to rest for a couple of generations, by which time nothing could be done anyway.

Given an out vote the government has no plan, no clue and has actively prevented any from being made.

Hence when Cameron et al accuse the Leave campaign of not having a detailed economic strategy they are merely attempting to hide their own extreme negligence. It is a self evident truth that the government of the day should consider all possibilities and plan for them, no? Well they haven't and are being thoroughly dishonest in their scaremongering campaign.

The leave campaign can make their case but it can only go as far as expounding on their vision.

We are offering our Prime Minister more power and more responsibility, he is clearly telling us, and frankly showing us by his actions, that he is not up to the job.

Never in the field of British politics has so much been withheld from so many by so few.

I think the "no free trade without free movement" claim was made in the context of the EU. In which case, it's absolutely true. Free movement within the Single Market is a core principle of the EU, and they've repeatedly an consistently said they would not go back on it.

Switzerland doesn't even get full free trade (not on services, including financial services, kind of a big deal for them) and they still had to accept freedom of movement to get there.