Leave voters, how much would you pay to leave the EU?

[fakenamefornow]

I have sensed a change of mood. In that lots of leave voters seem to have accepted that leaving the EU will make us poorer, and that that's ok, money isn't everything and it's a price worth paying. I never heard this view before the ref.

So, my question is , if you knew Brexit would result in the UK being poorer would you still vote for it?
If Brexit resulted in the break up of the UK would you vote for it?
If it restarted the troubles in NI would you vote for it?

This isn't to have a go btw. I have spoken to some who believe almost any price is worth it to leave the EU.

I'm a remain voter. Being in the EU and having free movement across the other 27 states is very valuable to me, I would vote to remain even if I knew it would make us poorer. If staying in the EU caused the break up of the UK or endangered the NI peace , that would be too high a price and I'd vote out.

I think it snow time to stop looking backwards and instead to look forwards.

We are leaving. Question is, what comes next?

It is vital that, if people aren't educated about the effects of what their utopia will cost, they educate themselves pretty bloody quickly!

What comes next is far more important than the referendum ever was. The price of controlling our borders comes at the cost of a free trade agreement.

Is that worth it? To my mind it'd be suicide and require complicated trade negotiate compared with a copy cat Norway style agreement, and we need to protect our current trade whilst giving us the freedom to negotiate trade with the world without the EU holding us back.

Honestly, I'm an outie, but can't see why everyone is so anxious! Yes yes, pound is having a wibble, but really.....you think a little bit of political drama can stop a great nation like us from thriving!? Nah.

Oh do go and read some fecking recent political history.

The Good Friday Agreement is based on European Law and one very important and symbolic gesture was the dismantling of the fortified border between NI and the Republic. Reinstate the border (the only land border we have with the away except Gibraltar) and you massively piss off large parts of the community in NI. Which historically has not gone well.

I'm fucking delighted that so many of you can be blase about people being killed because no bastarding idiot in the Leave campaign bothered to figure out a credible plan to maintain the safety and stability of not just NI but also the mainland. But you know, just blame it on the non voters. Or the 'whinging' Remainers.

I've posted this elsewhere. One important point of clarification is the source of the gleefully quoted 36% turnout:

"Bruter and Harrison say the lower and wrong estimate was based on information released by Sky Data which relied on data compiled after last year’s general election, which looked at the proportion within each generation who said they always vote."

In other words, the Sky figure wasn't even based on this referendum. We can dispute the methodology and accuracy (hello special) of the higher figure found by this LSE study, but even if this is "wrong", the Sky figure is even wronger.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/09/young-people-referendum-turnout-brexit-twice-as-high

"Many countries (about 167) and many people (about 6.5 billion) manage without being in the EU. Of these many have a better standard of living than we do.
It is possible."

I hate these comments, because it over simplifies a very complex issue.

Ok then Carol, how many of these other 167 countries are as developed as those in the EU? I think for example we an strike off huge parts of Africa and South America from wanting to buy our financial and legal services in the same way that the EU does, or even buying our leading manufactured exports. Their populations with that type of income that would allow enough demand to increase in order to meet the slack incurred by a trade deal that is different to the current one with the EU.

The US takes 15% of our exports at the minute, countries with trade deals with the EU take another 15%, so as the EU takes 44% we can now account for 74% of exports, 59% of which is through the EU. We'd have to negotiate deals with the other countries that make up 26% of our trade.

A deal with China would be good, but at what cost to our own manufacturing base? Oh and the reason the EU doesn't have a trade deal with China is because it doesn't class it as a market economy, the planned nature of the Chinese economy means that it can give its firms advantages that those in democratic nations won't get.

We could do a deal with India, but India is notoriously protectionist so I'm sceptical. South Africa and Brazil are possibilities as are former Aus and NZ, but the vast distances between the UK and these countries, as well as the fact that these countries economies are already aligned with those of other countries means that it would be strategically challenging to increase the level of exports to these places.

See your "168" other countries stuff is a platitude, an argument made by one brexiteer one day that the rest of you thought was good and have kept using.

Except it shows a great lack of understanding about trade and economics.

Oh and your point about living standards? Well using the HDI, and discounting for City states, there are only 4 countries in the world that are not part of the EU or EEA and have a better standard of living. The US, Canada, NZ and Australia.

I wouldn't classify that as "many".

caroldecker every country is different. Not many of the 167 countries have a higher standard of living than the UK. Those that do usually have significantly lower population density and more resources. Those are going to be Britain's two biggest future challenges. Most wealthy countries are in trade agreements already. Negotiating new trade agreements is complex, they cannot step on the toes of those already in existence. Why would country that currently getting its financial services (Britain's main export) from the USA for example, stop that to import British services? It depends what they stand to gain and lose and what current agreements they have with the USA.
A split with Scotland will dent the global position of England, Wales and potentially N.I. even more than it is at the moment.
Britain has little option but to negotiate trade agreements with the EU. Those big promises of opening up trade with other countries are easy to spout but not so easy to carry out.

still going to be interesting to see what happens to all those uk based international companies who are here to access the EU.

Can't be certain till or it Article 50 is envoked but think we will loose a lot of jobs. Good quality jobs. And seems like Tata steel is down to 2 bidders and sale been put on hold. Agh well 11,000 steal workers more fucked than before. But at least Wales voted leave.

Again nothing concrete till article 50.

The 167 countries argument is not a convincing one. Leaving aside the points already made above, it completely ignores other regional blocs. I lived in a Mercosur country in the early 2000s. Mercosur's aims are roughly equivalent to the EU's, although it is much younger and located in a geography with far poorer neighbours at present. You can't reasonably include members of something like Mercosur in the argument because they are clearly building their own regional union.

It is ridiculous to imply there is strength in numbers in being outside the EU if you're including the likes of Bolivia and Chad. You need to consider who has made a go of it outside the EU who could reasonably be a member at some point for comparison. It then becomes striking that west of a certain point, every European country is either a member, a candidate or hopeful candidate, part of an EEA/EFTA arrangement or associated in some other way (e.g. Liechtenstein).

MangoMoon : If there had been highly unlikely 100% turnout in Scotland and if every single one of those votes had been for Remain (itself highly unlikely), then yes, the c1.5 million extra votes would have been (just) enough to turn the Brexit vote into a Remain vote.

However, then you'd have the Schadenfreude situation that "Scotland was keeping England in the EU against its will "

Welcome to Scotland's world.

Oh no, I understand that Scotland, NI & Wales are at the mercy of England numbers wise.

But if NI, Scotland & Wales combined had had a turnout of 73% like England then how many extra voters would that translate to?

And if they voted remain (as has been implied many times), then could they have turned the vote?

It was never an individual country thing though, and that is the biggest point - every single person had an equal say in the referendum.

The majority wins.

So even if 'England were kept in against their will' it doesn't matter - the citizens of the U.K. as a whole decided, not any one country.

About Northern Ireland

To those who think the EU has nothing to do with it... even Irish politicians have admitted that the EU that brought peace.

Bloody hell, the EU has been funding the peace process for years!!! And no, that money can't come from the UK, where the billions 'saved' from leaving the EU (of course, not taking into account what is now being lost in research/science, etc.) that has been 'earmarked' for the NHS.

The referendum explains the case of Tyranny of the majority quite well.

If Scotland and NI had had turnouts of 73% and if every single one of those extra voters had voted Remain (highly unlikely in itself), then the result would still have been for Brexit, due to the 10x greater numbers in England and the strength of the Brexit vote there.

So don't lay the responsibility for Remain not winning on the turnout in Scotland and NI.

I'm not laying responsibility with any country.

People voted to leave.
It was not a 'country' thing, it was an individual vote.

1,269,501 more people voted to leave than to remain.

smallfox2002

HDI - South Korea, Japan, Israel, Taiwan, Many parts of China (Shanghai,Beijing - 20million+ population)..

Those countries have lower HDI than UK but higher than many EU countries.

Not according to the report from December 2015 when you adjust for inequality.

Also taking individual cities is poor because many of the negative externalities generated by those cities will not be felt directly (hence them being negative externalities) within the city.

Either way from the 2015 report the UK is 14th and 13th (when adjusted for inequality) the data you are looking at is old, and doesn't take into account the new methodology.

Even before Brexit the 2050 economic prediction for the top 10 countries was that the USA, China, India, Brazil, Japan and Russia would continue to hold ranks in the top 10 but the UK, Germany and France would drop off the top 10. Making way for countries like Nigeria and Indonesia. There is a gradual global shift happening. Former 3rd world countries are climbing out of the aftermath of centuries of exploitation and inequality. Many are improving both financially and socially.
To take Britain forward now will require careful planning and strategy. A leader with Farage like notions that Britain always was, still is and will continue to be a global superpower could be harmful for long term prosperity. Britain cannot go back to being a great global power because it no longer owns and exploits half the world's resources. It needs to humble itself and start making sacrifices and trade deals within its current reality. Britain will be absolutely fine but that will be very dependent on leadership and decisions in the next 10 years.

There are theories though, that China has had its exponential growth period. Mainly due to the fact that like us, they have an ageing population. The one child policy from 1978 certainly has effected this, the older generation will retire and the leave the labour force depleted.

But MangoMoon - you were stating implying earlier that if the Scots and NI had bothered to go out and vote then they could have changed the result. I was pointing out that they couldn't - it would only have been possible if the turnout had been close to 100% and all the "extra" votes had been for Remain. At the same turnout as England, it would have made no difference to the final result.

Yes, it was a UK wide referendum. But it was always going to be decided by how England voted.

That's the way it's always been.

That's the real democratic deficit. The constituent parts of this "Union" don't have a veto (unlike the constituent countries of the EU) so are always overruled by what England wants, due to the vastly greater numbers (both in Parliament and in referendums)

Oh come now pretty, democracy only matters to leavers when they want it to.

Pretty The truth is Scotland, Wales NI and England are not 4 members of the EU - The UK is, the UK voted to Leave.
Why use arbitrary lines to split the Leave and Remain vote?

My comment about many countries and peoples outside the EU was partially flippant, but as people have mentioned NZ, Aus, Canada manage.
The EU is also shrinking as a share of world trade, so is becoming less important.
In terms of negotiation, we have a lot of work to do with the EU, but I see no reason why the current deals the EU has with other countries cannot be simply mirrored by the UK - no change for either party from the current UK trading relationship. These could then be reviewed if desirable later. We could even sign the agreed deal with Canada that has sat on the desks of a couple of EU countries for the last few years.
Also, geography is a much smaller problem than it was 40 years ago for trade, specifically as our skills are in services, where language, culture and laws make more difference.

But MangoMoon - you were stating implying earlier that if the Scots and NI had bothered to go out and vote then they could have changed the result.

No need for passive/aggressive crossings out.
If you have something to say, and you consider it to be of note, then just say it.
No need to be school girlish about it.

To answer that statement:
No, I was not implying, or indeed stating, anything other than that I would have had more sympathy if the turnout of NI & Scotland had been higher than it was.
If they had had a higher turnout then the result could have been a lot closer - possibly almost 50/50.

I then asked:
But if NI, Scotland & Wales combined had had a turnout of 73% like England then how many extra voters would that translate to?

And if they voted remain (as has been implied many times), then could they have turned the vote?

In answer to your post to me.

And this by CarolDecker is exactly my point:

^ The truth is Scotland, Wales NI and England are not 4 members of the EU - The UK is, the UK voted to Leave.
Why use arbitrary lines to split the Leave and Remain vote?^

I had lunch with family yesterday. They work mostly in London based financial services. The Investment Portfolio manager reeled offall the competitors freezing accounts, declaring bankruptcy, closing down specific arms of their business. The insurance client manager talked off trade deals falling through. Companies they manage who are withdrawing. Even the fitness instructor has seen clients too busy trying to save their jobs to come to train with her any more.

Other friends who work for large EU companies in London headquarters are worried for their jobs. University admissions are receiving panicked phonecalls and funding crises to their research departments.

To suggest that it's just a blip on the pound or that it'll recover in 4 years is just ridiculous.