EU referendum

[bugsyblue]

Spot on, very well put. Apparently the claim that the EU costs us 361m a week is wrong. That is our gross contribution. After all the rebates an smoke and mirror stuff we only actually lose 61m per week. I'm assuming the remain campaign expect us to think that is a good thing?

How can anyone make a call on whether losing £61m a week is a good or bad thing when we don't actually know what the financial benefits are of the EU trade agreements. It's very feasible that we leave the EU, thus save £61m a week but actually lose £100m of trade and business contracts per week as a consequence. Equally if we still want to trade with our European partners then the EU will insist we have to abide by certain laws anyway, laws we no longer will get a say on because we aren't a party member, look at Norway and Switzerland!

 

[Chippy_boy]

How can anyone make a call on whether losing £61m a week is a good or bad thing when we don't actually know what the financial benefits are of the EU trade agreements. It's very feasible that we leave the EU, thus save £61m a week but actually lose £100m of trade and business contracts per week as a consequence. Equally if we still want to trade with our European partners then the EU will insist we have to abide by certain laws anyway, laws we no longer will get a say on because we aren't a party member, look at Norway and Switzerland!

I think you'll find your straightforward logic falls on deaf ears here mate. It's not what the Outers want to hear, is it.

 

[CityStu]

How can anyone make a call on whether losing £61m a week is a good or bad thing when we don't actually know what the financial benefits are of the EU trade agreements. It's very feasible that we leave the EU, thus save £61m a week but actually lose £100m of trade and business contracts per week as a consequence. Equally if we still want to trade with our European partners then the EU will insist we have to abide by certain laws anyway, laws we no longer will get a say on because we aren't a party member, look at Norway and Switzerland!

Then why aren't the In campaign detailing exactly how we benefit by staying in, instead of suggesting what we may lose if we vote Out. If they can categorically show that being in the EU saves us £40m a week (as in your example) then they'd have a very convincing argument. Trouble is, they can't.

 

[bugsyblue]

I think you'll find your straightforward logic falls on deaf ears here mate. It's not what the Outers want to hear, is it.

It's frustrating but my parents are the same! They read the Daily Mail and read about the influx of migrants and think that's the cause of all our problems and consequently blame the EU because they have a very good human rights law of freedom of movement for workers. They site jobs going to foreign workers without recognising unemployment apart from a small spike during the recession has stayed pretty constant meaning foreigners aren't taking our jobs, they site new build flats being clustered and having less space without recognising no government has passed laws to control this, to control house prices or rent (if NY can have rental controls, in the most capitalist society in the world, strange how London can't!) and then they talk about services being stretched again without laying any blame on government, who have cut services despite increased taxation due to increase population.

Our problems aren't migrants. They are political. And staying in or moving out of the EU isn't suddenly going to change the problems we face in this country.

 

[bugsyblue]

Then why aren't the In campaign detailing exactly how we benefit by staying in, instead of suggesting what we may lose if we vote Out. If they can categorically show that being in the EU saves us £40m a week (as in your example) then they'd have a very convincing argument. Trouble is, they can't.

Mate no one can, it's extremely difficult to calculate. The same argument can be said of the out campaign, why don't they prove we will be financially better off!

 

[CityStu]

Mate no one can, it's extremely difficult to calculate. The same argument can be said of the out campaign, why don't they prove we will be financially better off!

At least in the Out campaign, it is the future they have to predict - foreseeing potential trade partners, suggesting plausible trade deals with those partners and the amount of trade that would happen with each of them.

Telling us how much we trade with the EU and how much that would cost us if we weren't an EU country seems extremely simple by comparison.

 

[bugsyblue]

At least in the Out campaign, it is the future they have to predict - foreseeing potential trade partners, suggesting plausible trade deals with those partners and the amount of trade that would happen with each of them.

Telling us how much we trade with the EU and how much that would cost us if we weren't an EU country seems extremely simple by comparison.

So if it's that simple, and clearly as an outer I'm guessing you feel we will be financially better off leaving the EU, why then, in your opinion, have the Out campaign not made these calculations and shown the world how our contribution to the EU outweighs the trade benefits? I mean surely that would tip the campaign favourable in the direction of Out? I'd certainly change my vote.

 

[The perfect fumble]

Yes the United States has it all wrong, spending more on education than anywhere else in the world and producing more top scientists from 8 out of the world's top 10 universities. What a fuck up their system is. Bring me asbestos-riddled 1960's prefabs any time.

You're a 1% kinda guy.

Your happy servility always makes me smile.

 

[CityStu]

So if it's that simple, and clearly as an outer I'm guessing you feel we will be financially better off leaving the EU, why then, in your opinion, have the Out campaign not made these calculations and shown the world how our contribution to the EU outweighs the trade benefits? I mean surely that would tip the campaign favourable in the direction of Out? I'd certainly change my vote.

I'm not certain we will be better off financially - my reasons for supporting Out are that the EU isn't in our best interests politically. I think there's a chance we might be better off economically and I think that the chances of any drop in the economy being completely unmanageable are tiny. The referendum wouldn't be on the table if the effect of one of the options was economic destruction.

 

[EalingBlue2]

That's a good point Ealing. Years back (perhaps 20) I argued that the EU could never work because unlike in the US where you have a properly functioning central government (<cough<), they also have a common currency, complete free movement of labour enabled by no borders and a common language. I argued that these thing were a necessary requirement if an EU aiming for full political union was to be viable. A single currency brings huge problems because it necessitates a single interest rate which may be wholly inappropriate for certain "geographies", with differing rates of growth, unemployment, wages etc. But it can be made to work if you have a central government willing to divert funding to different areas as required and free movement of labour to enable people to skill up and move.

It seems perhaps 20 years on that we are closer to that than I ever thought we would be. Of course it's not where many people (probably most people) in the UK want to go. But it's not impossible that that could work now.

There are a lot of people in Texas who still don't really believe themselves anything other than Texan.

 

[EalingBlue2]

So you'd be happy with the UK becoming an equivalent of California, speaking German and using the Euro? We should have just let Hitler get on with and saved tens of millions of lives...

I think that comment unworthy of you or this board tbh. Hitler was never about uniting Europe or economic bodies he was about the racial supremacy of the aryan and he was prepared to do anything to get that. Not fighting hitler would never have saved tens of millions of lives it may have costed even more. If the best you can do is go back to stereotypes that all Germans are nazis and that being in an economic bloc even a union with today's Germany is the same as being taken over by one of the most vile regimes in history then you have given up -

 

[CityStu]

I think that comment unworthy of you or this board tbh. Hitler was never about uniting Europe or economic bodies he was about the racial supremacy of the aryan and he was prepared to do anything to get that. Not fighting hitler would never have saved tens of millions of lives it may have costed even more. If the best you can do is go back to stereotypes that all Germans are nazis and that being in an economic bloc even a union with today's Germany is the same as being taken over by one of the most vile regimes in history then you have given up -

So apart from the Hitler bit you'd be happy?

 

[The perfect fumble]

At least in the Out campaign, it is the future they have to predict - foreseeing potential trade partners, suggesting plausible trade deals with those partners and the amount of trade that would happen with each of them.

Telling us how much we trade with the EU and how much that would cost us if we weren't an EU country seems extremely simple by comparison.

The Out campaign has nothing except made up figures and fairy tale visions of how milk and honey trade deals will spring up by this time next Thursday, how we'll enjoy all the advantages of club membership with none of its obligations.

It is madness.

No rational person could possibly buy into their vision based on anything but their gut.

 

[CityStu]

The Out campaign has nothing except made up figures and fairy tale visions of how milk and honey trade deals will spring up by this time next Thursday, how we'll enjoy all the advantages of club membership with none of its obligations.

It is madness.

No rational person could possibly buy into their vision based on anything but their gut.

You're absolutely right. Every single country outside the EU is languishing in poverty because they don't have any bizarre free trade agreements requiring them to spend billions on a central government and allow every Tom, Dick and Harry into their country. The EU, in contrast, is a thriving community with absolutely no issues whatsoever.

Oh no, wait...

 

[Chippy_boy]

You're a 1% kinda guy.

Your happy servility always makes me smile.

Your failure to come up with cogent arguments is far more amusing. Even your burger flipping comment failed miserably.

 

[Chippy_boy]

You're absolutely right. Every single country outside the EU is languishing in poverty because they don't have any bizarre free trade agreements requiring them to spend billions on a central government and allow every Tom, Dick and Harry into their country. The EU, in contrast, is a thriving community with absolutely no issues whatsoever.

Oh no, wait...

I told you Bugsyblue. This is what you are up against.

The above argument is so borked, I can hardly be bothered to reply to it, but since CityStu misses even the bleedin obvious, I'll spell it out anyway. No other country, CityStu is so dependent on the EU. You may not like that (I don't), but that's the reality of where we are today. You can't just switch off 44% of your exports without completely wrecking your economy.

That is why, unless we get a trade agrement which protects those exports, we are screwed. And about 10 times on here already, I've explained why getting such an agreement will be very difficult indeed and will take years, perhaps a decade or more, and all the time UK businesses will be in limbo, not knowing whether to invest or not, to hire people or not. The economy will stall and go into recession. It's barely out of recession as it is.

Now if we only sold 10% of our exports went to the EU, it wouldn't be so bad. But that's not the reality. We NEED to be able to continue to trade with the EU in a tariff-free way, or we are screwed.

20 out of 27 member states need to agree the terms of any new trade deal. Most of them have nothing to gain and quite a bit to lose by agreeing to the sort of terms we want. Inevitably these will be difficult negotiations and inevitably that means (a) they will take time and (b) it will involve compromise on both sides. Almost certainly, we will have to agree to things we don't want to agree to, and I would not be remotely surprised if that included having to agree to free movement of labour, payment to the EU perhaps, the working time diretive and much of the same shite we have to put up with now.

 

[CityStu]

I told you Bugsyblue. This is what you are up against.

The above argument is so borked, I can hardly be bothered to reply to it, but since CityStu misses even the bleedin obvious, I'll spell it out anyway. No other country, CityStu is so dependent on the EU. You may not like that (I don't), but that's the reality of where we are today. You can't just switch off 44% of your exports without completely wrecking your economy.

That is why, unless we get a trade agrement which protects those exports, we are screwed. And about 10 times on here already, I've explained why getting such an agreement will be very difficult indeed and will take years, perhaps a decade or more, and all the time UK businesses will be in limbo, not knowing whether to invest or not, to hire people or not. The economy will stall and go into recession. It's barely out of recession as it is.

Now if we only sold 10% of our exports went to the EU, it wouldn't be so bad. But that's not the reality. We NEED to be able to continue to trade with the EU in a tariff-free way, or we are screwed.

Over 90% of the UK's economy is not involved with the EU, since the vast majority doesn't involve importing or exporting. Also, you need to look at the trend of EU/RoW exports (graph below); that 44% is ever decreasing as we trade more and more with non-EU countries. You also assume that leaving the EU will reduce EU trade to zero, which won't be the case. Once exit agreements are triggered (which need not be immediately after the referendum) there is a 2 year grace period where trade would carry on as before to acclimatise to the exit and agree new trade deals. It's in both party's interests to get that sorted.

 

[The perfect fumble]

Your failure to come up with cogent arguments is far more amusing. Even your burger flipping comment failed miserably.

I'll cede my claim to humour as you've ceded yours to rational argument.

 

[bugsyblue]

I told you Bugsyblue. This is what you are up against.

The above argument is so borked, I can hardly be bothered to reply to it, but since CityStu misses even the bleedin obvious, I'll spell it out anyway. No other country, CityStu is so dependent on the EU. You may not like that (I don't), but that's the reality of where we are today. You can't just switch off 44% of your exports without completely wrecking your economy.

That is why, unless we get a trade agrement which protects those exports, we are screwed. And about 10 times on here already, I've explained why getting such an agreement will be very difficult indeed and will take years, perhaps a decade or more, and all the time UK businesses will be in limbo, not knowing whether to invest or not, to hire people or not. The economy will stall and go into recession. It's barely out of recession as it is.

Now if we only sold 10% of our exports went to the EU, it wouldn't be so bad. But that's not the reality. We NEED to be able to continue to trade with the EU in a tariff-free way, or we are screwed.

20 out of 27 member states need to agree the terms of any new trade deal. Most of them have nothing to gain and quite a bit to lose by agreeing to the sort of terms we want. Inevitably these will be difficult negotiations and inevitably that means (a) they will take time and (b) it will involve compromise on both sides. Almost certainly, we will have to agree to things we don't want to agree to, and I would not be remotely surprised if that included having to agree to free movement of labour, payment to the EU perhaps, the working time diretive and much of the same shite we have to put up with now.

It basically goes back to that old Great Britain mentality, the blinkered belief that we are somehow still an empire. Suddenly changing the way we trade, the way we do business, our globally political position etc will take decades to right, as you've pointed out above mate. We aren't the US, we aren't an emerging power like Brazil, we aren't a lone ranger like Switzerland, we have been ingrained in EU markets and politics for too long and make no mistake if we leave, do people really think the remaining power players in the EU, Germany and France, will give us favourable deals! Of course not, they will use it for their own benefit. If people think leaving the EU will suddenly make us less dictated to by Brussels, think again. We will be less powerful, less rich and have a much weaker hand to do trade deals. Unless all our trade is suddenly going to come from South America and Asia then we will be reliant on the European market just as we are now.

And if we start to impose visa restrictions on EU worker, trust me we will lose them eventually to growing countries in the EU that will take our slice of the pie. Then we will no doubt open our borders to workers from even more disadvantaged countries to come and clean our streets, mend our roads and serve in our restaurants and culturally, politically and financially that could prove even more complicated than some of the issues we face with EU migrants.

People always like to think the grass is greener but I just can't see how it is in this case.

 

[The perfect fumble]

You're absolutely right. Every single country outside the EU is languishing in poverty because they don't have any bizarre free trade agreements requiring them to spend billions on a central government and allow every Tom, Dick and Harry into their country. The EU, in contrast, is a thriving community with absolutely no issues whatsoever.

Oh no, wait...

This sums up the absolute vacuity of the Out argument. Point at countries outside the EU that are doing OK and say look they're alright so we'll be alright.

Why didn't I think of that? Right! I remember now, because it makes no sense.