There really is no point trying to persuade Leavers....

[Closertotheheart]

As the title suggests really. There is no point trying to reason a debate with them as they are totally tunnel-visioned. Loads of them seem to think we should leave without a deal and go on to WTO rules.

They blame the Remainers in parliament for us having not left yet.

They blame Remainers in general for, well, seemingly anything and everything.

They blame the EU for us not having left yet.

They spout myth as if it was fact.

I despair. There really is no point trying to reason with them.

I'm at the point where I feel there is nothing left to say on the topic so let them have their 'victory' so at least they will have no one to blame.

And how does that sit well with Brexiteers??

Many think that WTO deal is the only true Brexit in that UK has severed all ties with the EU. However, that does not exclude EU and UK entering into trade deals in the future.

Leave MP's/Farage/Entrepreneurs advocate that EU represents about 15% of World Trade. The remaining 85% of Word Trade is outside the EU. Leaving the EU membership enables UK to make deals with others more easily.

JRM and Tim Martin often say that people in the UK are being denied cheaper alternatives as current EU legislation does not allow such alternatives to be sold in the EU.

JRM often states that under WTO the cost of; clothing footwear and food will reduce which will benefit the most vunerable in UK.

{Same level as that required to claim Remain will be a shit idea}

Your level of reasoning is pathetic.
You are currently enjoying the fact that for the last 3 years the UK has remained an EU member. In theory NOTHING has changed yet. During this time some companies have already been 'scared off' and have either closed, reduced or have made plans to 'jump' when Brexit actually happens.
UK industrial activity is in general 'flat' as many have been stockpiling for the failed departure in April.
When the UK leaves, it is NOT 'carry on as usual', it will be MANY things that stop happening all at the same time, so many that the repercussions will strike everything at some point because the current integration is so deep.
Immigrants won't be sent 'home'. The NHS isn't going to be wonderful overnight but the stock markets will certainly be VERY volatile, wiping out the ability to do serious trade. Theresa';s speech in Salzburg last year, caused the Pound to lose 1% of value within her 15 minute speech.

@LifeContinues

This is taken directly from www.ukandeu.ac.uk

The Centre for Economic Performance estimates that a “No Deal WTO rules only” scenario would reduce the UK’s trade with the EU by 40% over ten years. This reduced trade would mean a fall in income per head of 2.6% per year (net of the savings from no membership fees). There would also be longer-term negative effects from lower investment and slower productivity growth, which are estimated to be another 3.5% of GDP. Adopting a policy of unilateral free trade would mitigate part of these costs. But the savings from unilateral tariff cuts are estimated to be just 0.35% of GDP. The short-term disruption resulting from the sudden imposition of these WTO rules could exacerbate these negative effects.

Do you trust everything JRM says, @LifeContinues? Considering he stands to make a fortune of the back of Brexit???

Please read up on what WTO actually means, using the site I posted. I know who I'd rather trust.

@bellinisurge - I think Life is a BeLeaver. At first I thought they might be playing devils advocate, but nah, they've taken to citing JRM and the wetherspoons guy as prophets of truth so I'm afraid there's no hope.

{Leave MP's/Farage/Entrepreneurs advocate that EU represents about 15% of World Trade. The remaining 85% of Word Trade is outside the EU. Leaving the EU membership enables UK to make deals with others more easily.}

It is easy to pull up raw figures like this but the important thing is that the UK/EU trade is with stuff that the UK either wants or can 'sell'.
It might be great to have 'great deals' on buffalo hides, but the UK doesn't WANT them, it wants iPhones and washing machines.

{JRM and Tim Martin} Talk a lot of shit, with the occasional true sentence to throw you off the scent, and it seems to be working.
Another is Patric Minford with his theories. Yes OK for the 'headline' statement but when you get to the real detail he actually states that UK manufacturing will be decimated so top bankers will make loads of money but millions of manufacturing employees will be made redundant.

Leaving the EU membership enables UK to make deals with others more easily.

Name one country we want to make a deal with and couldn’t whilst in the EU

And also consider our bargaining power as 1 small country compared to being part of the worlds largest trading bloc.

And finally consider the most favoured nation rules which will generally mean the EU will end up with as good or better deal than any we get anyway.

@LifeContinues- this is the page I referenced

ukandeu.ac.uk/explainers/no-deal-the-wto-option/

*What are the potential consequences of these outcomes?

The imposition of tariffs on trade with the EU would increase costs for both UK importers (and hence consumers) and exporters. The average EU tariff rate is low – around 1.5%. However, at a sectoral level, the impacts would be much larger: for example, for cars and car parts the tariff rate is 10%. Since most UKbased car production is exported, and uses imported parts, the impacts would be magnified. The impacts would also be large on agriculture, where EU tariffs and quotas remain high; this would result in significant food price inflation for British consumers.*

But don't worry, Tim (nice but dim) and Jacob Rees-smug say we'll be reet.

To Bells/CloseHeart

I am neither. Just can't my head around how a vote can be ignored by UK government because it is not what the majority of MP's (650 of them in total) wanted.

Some say that 120,000 to 160,000 people choosing the next PM is not democratic. If so how can 650 MP's ignoring a vote cast by 17.4 million be a democracy? Seems to be lots of double standards being applied.

As for all of these expert reports and forecasts of certain doom why did Cameron not have them prepared before calling the referendum? He could have attached them to the leaflet he sent to every household in the UK? Plus anyone who can predict the future with certainty would not waste their time preparing economic forecasts, but would allocate their time in cleaning up on the stock market and would own the World and they could never lose a bet.

Whether or not Brexit turns out to be good or bad remains to be seen. If it is deemed a bad idea then people can vote to rejoin the EU.

And finally consider the most favoured nation rules which will generally mean the EU will end up with as good or better deal than any we get anyway

So if UK's departure from the EU is no disadvantage to the EU why has EU broke its back to prevent UK leaving? They are obviously afraid of something?

but millions of manufacturing employees will be made redundant

Manufacturing in the UK has been in decline since the 80s. So nothing new about people in that sector being made redundant.

Just can't my head around how a vote can be ignored by UK government because it is not what the majority of MP's (650 of them in total) wanted.

I can because it's their duty (old fashioned word, that) to enact what they think is for the good of the country and their constituents.

As for the 'majority of MPs not wanting Brexit. We have had a General Election after the Referendum. How come UKIP didn't win hands down? They were the party which represented Brexit.

Just can't my head around how a vote can be ignored by UK government because it is not what the majority of MP's (650 of them in total) wanted.

Because no one can agree upon the mechanics of leaving and what it actually means/is to leave.

Some say that 120,000 to 160,000 people choosing the next PM is not democratic. If so how can 650 MP's ignoring a vote cast by 17.4 million be a democracy? Seems to be lots of double standards being applied.
That's what politicians do, unless we hold them to account.

As for all of these expert reports and forecasts of certain doom why did Cameron not have them prepared before calling the referendum? He could have attached them to the leaflet he sent to every household in the UK? Plus anyone who can predict the future with certainty would not waste their time preparing economic forecasts, but would allocate their time in cleaning up on the stock market and would own the World and they could never lose a bet.
Because he was a silly arrogant berk who thought Remain would smash it. However, the Economics experts did release information prior to the referendum. I saw loads of info (but then again I did my research). It was dismiss promptly as 'Project Fear'. I feel like you've been living under a rock these past three years...

Whether or not Brexit turns out to be good or bad remains to be seen. If it is deemed a bad idea then people can vote to rejoin the EU.

Yes - but all the member states will have to allow us to rejoin. If they don't we won't be allowed back in. If they do we will be on less favourable terms than the current ones.

So if UK's departure from the EU is no disadvantage to the EU why has EU broke its back to prevent UK leaving? They are obviously afraid of something?

The EU hasn't 'broke its back' to prevent us leaving, it has tried to maintain some integrity over the GFA though. We are allowed to leave, hence the Withdrawal Agreement. Its our parliament that won't pass it.

*but millions of manufacturing employees will be made redundant

Manufacturing in the UK has been in decline since the 80s. So nothing new about people in that sector being made redundant.*

Ah, well who give a stuff if the rest go ey? Whats a few more million people below the poverty line?

Again, your arguments are weak at best, disingenuous at worst. You really making yourself look silly.

Is this bad news for the Irish beef farmers? I thought the EU would be working for its members not against them. Or will it all be ok?
www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/eu-trade-deal-with-south-america-will-damage-irish-beef-industry-says-sinn-fein-td-933817.html

{So if UK's departure from the EU is no disadvantage to the EU why has EU broke its back to prevent UK leaving? They are obviously afraid of something?}

The EU is NOT preventing the UK leaving, what a ridiculous 'argument'.
Of course the UK can leave, but it can't take the furniture and fittings when it does. Unfortunately there are liars that suggest the UK can have 'cake' (BoJo and Hunt among them) although Hunt is beginning to change and actually reveal that the 'possible deals' will not be great, for example 'some UK companies will go under the wheels of the bus'.
Since some UK manufacturing has been in decline, and the finance industry (the Tory darlings) is moving out as it NEEDS to be IN the EU), who is going to create the wealth to pay benefits to anybody?

Timeforachangeofscenery

There is not enough detail in that 'report' and you would have to go into the final details of the 'deal' to get a true picture of what the situation will be. It doesn't sound as if the final 'figures' have been worked out yet.
With an EU push to address climate change, it may well be that farmers outside the EU will have to show what they are doing to support reduction in the carbon footprint and so on, before their quotas can be permitted into the EU.

Closertotheheart
car parts the tariff rate is 10%. Since most UK based car production is exported, and uses imported parts, the impacts would be magnified.

Just dipping in briefly - the Gov announced in March that imported car parts from the EU would not attract tariffs in a no-deal Brexit.

The Centre for Economic Performance estimates that a “No Deal WTO rules only” scenario would reduce the UK’s trade with the EU by 40% over ten years.

The trouble with some of these estimates/reports is that they were mostly researched by European academics working in the UK (I checked) - it's difficult to say how much their research is biased.

There's bias in everything, even independent studies. Still, I know who would choose to believe.

Greenpeace are upset by the EU-Mercosur deal as well;

EU-Mercosur deal trades in environmental destruction.

www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/issues/democracy-europe/2122/eu-mercosur-environmental-destruction/

@Clavinova

Does this not bother you?

. The impacts would also be large on agriculture, where EU tariffs and quotas remain high; this would result in significant food price inflation for British consumers.*

The car industry is just one industry. Jeremy hunt is already talking about setting aside money for agriculture. How in gods name is that a positive? It's more of a safety blanket

Which wouldn't be needed is we weren't leaving

If*

Jeremy hunt is already talking about setting aside money for agriculture. How in gods name is that a positive?

It's a positive that we can set up our own agricultural policy - helping smaller farmers - even President Macron thinks the EU's CAP is "not fit for purpose".

So if UK's departure from the EU is no disadvantage to the EU why has EU broke its back to prevent UK leaving? They are obviously afraid of something?

Oh dear.

The EU have not ‘broke their back’ trying to stop us leaving - we just have to abide by the rules, that we helped to create.

I noticed you didn’t respond to the part of my post asking which actual countries we want to trade with but can’t currently - funny that.

Going by this article, I'm not sure how much our new agriculture policies will help smaller farmers....

*Support for agriculture has been directed by theCommon Agricultural Policy (CAP)since the UK joined what was then the European Economic Community in 1973.

However, the vote to leave the EU means the UK will effectively have a ‘blank sheet of paper’ with which to set its future farm policy. But until ‘Brexit’ formally occurs, the CAP still applies, which means farmers will continue to receive support under all the existing policies, including the Basic Payment Scheme and the Rural Development Programme.

Article 50 of the EU’s Lisbon Treaty was invoked by the UK government on 29 March 2017 commencing a two-year period of negotiations between the EU and the UK. This means that BPS payments are certain for 2018. The government has also announced support for agriculture will remain at the same level of funding until the end of the current Parliament, scheduled for 2022 (but an earlier general election is quite possible).

However, while funding has been guaranteed, this does not mean the ‘system’ cannot be changed. Nevertheless, it is doubtful that DEFRA and the devolved administrations would be able to draw up a new system in such a short timeframe, making it likely that a scheme similar to the BPS will be rolled over until a new policy can be drawn up, possibly in 2021.

Although there have been ‘positive’ comments by Theresa May and the DEFRA Secretary Michael Gove with regard to future farm policy, there has been little detail. Future trade talks are also likely to have a bearing on policy, as there may be more political backing for farm support if agriculture receives a ‘bad deal’.

Going forward, any new farm policy will have to be set within the UK budget and with other sectors such as education and the NHS competing for the same money, most people expect the level of support to be cut. Any reduction is likely to be phased, but by 2025 some commentators believe it is plausible that the level of support to agriculture may have reduced by 50%.

Once the UK has left the EU, there are many options open to policy makers; Michael Gove has said that subsidies will need to be ‘earned’. Some options that have been talked about include:

More emphasis on agri-environmental schemes, including more support for natural resources such as flood management and irrigation measures.Incentives such as payments to farmers who are willing to allocate farm ecosystems or natural resources to help alleviate challenges to society, such as flooding.Targeted support for sectors that are deemed to be more at risk, such as hill farms, small family farms and suckler cow farming.Support to increase the productivity of farming, including training and knowledge transfer.Insurance schemes to help farmers cope with volatility in the markets.Possible support for the industry to promote the British food brand to new export destinations. Support like this might not
be seen in farmers’ bank accounts but if it helps secure business, it is good for every producer.

[insert image: Projected range of support payments for Lowland English holdings]

Whatever the total amount of funds allocated for agricultural policy, if it is allocated according to a new policy with different objectives, the amount received by each farm will inevitably vary.

The concept of earning the subsidy suggests some effort in exchange for the support too, so changes to the farming landscape or practices might be expected. In the future it is quite feasible that there will be a range of support for farmers, some even getting a little more in per hectare terms, others much less (or even nothing) depending on what ‘public good’ hoops they are prepared to jump through.

All current recipients of farm support should be examining their management accounts to understand just how important the subsidy receipts are for the farm business and whether they could survive profitably if they were halved. It’s a sensible preparation for the future.

Through our Land and Farming series, we will keep readers updated regarding key CAP announcements.

Support is likely to fall, that much is clear, though there may well be new opportunities if the focus for support changes.

In the meantime, businesses must plan accordingly for a reduction in support, through development of existing and new income streams, improving efficiency, as well as finding ways to add value to their produce wherever possible.

With interest rates forecast to begin to rise in the near future and inflation gathering pace, time may be running out to secure the lowest-cost longer term borrowings, which might enable businesses to invest now to increase diversification and establish new income sources ahead of the forecast reducing BPS income.*