Brexit - in or out

This is a discussion on Brexit - in or out within the The Foyer forums, part of the Off the Grid category; Originally Posted by Pat494 I feel pretty sure we get less out than we put in. Greece etc. need bailing ...

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 6, 2016, 8:30am   #31
Joined Nov 2015
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pat494 View Post
I feel pretty sure we get less out than we put in. Greece etc. need bailing out.

The corruption in most of them is really bad too.
Yeah, this is the problem. For the poorer eastern countries and financial wrecks like Greece/Spain/Portugal, the EU is a blessing. Not sure we get such a good deal.
FXchedda is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanks! The following members like this post: hhiusa
Old Feb 19, 2016, 6:59pm   #32
 
Pat494's Avatar
Joined Mar 2004
Pat494 started this thread David Cameron has promised a referendum on whether Britain should remain in the European Union by the end of 2017. Here is a summary of the key arguments for and against British membership.

Are there any viable options for Britain leaving the EU?

If Britain votes to leave the EU, it will have to negotiate a new trading relationship with what would now be a 27 member organisation, to allow British firms to sell goods and services to EU countries without being hit by excessive tariffs and other restrictions.

Better off out: Britain could negotiate an "amicable divorce", but retain strong trading links with EU nations, say those campaigning for Britain's exit.

Some potential models:
◾ The Norwegian model: Britain leaves the EU and joins the European Economic Area, giving it access to the single market, with the exception of some financial services, but freeing it from EU rules on agriculture, fisheries, justice and home affairs
◾ The Swiss model: Britain emulates Switzerland, which is not a member of the EU but negotiates trade treaties on a sector-by-sector basis
◾ The Turkish model: The UK could enter into a customs union with the EU, allowing access to the free market in manufactured goods but not financial services
◾The UK could seek to negotiate a comprehensive Free Trade Agreement with the EU, similar to the Swiss model but with better access for financial services and more say over how rules and standards are implemented
◾The UK could make a clean break with the EU, relying on its membership of the World Trade Organisation as a basis for trade

Many of those campaigning for exit argue that none of the country-based models would work for the UK.




They want a Free Trade Agreement which would not involve the UK accepting the supremacy of EU law, the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, the free movement of people or the requirement to pay significant amounts into the EU budget.

Given the fact that there is already full regulatory compliance between the UK and EU, they say it would be easier to negotiate than past trade deals.

They point to Canada, which recently signed a Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with the EU, which is set to eliminate trade barriers in most areas but does not require free movement or budgetary contributions, as an example of what is possible.

Better off in: An "amicable divorce" is a pipe dream, pro-EU campaigners argue. France, Germany and other leading EU nations would never allow Britain a "pick and mix" approach to the bloc's rules. Norway and Switzerland have to abide by many EU rules without any influence over how they are formed and have to pay to access the single market. Negotiating a comprehensive free trade agreement could take years and have an uncertain outcome. And if Britain went for a completely clean break with the EU its exports would be subject to tariffs and would still have to meet EU production standards, harming the competitiveness of British business. The end result could be a trade war between Britain and the EU, some have warned, which could cripple Britain's export industries.
◾Read more: What we know so far about UK's in-out referendum


What would be the impact on British jobs?


The run-up to the EU referendum is likely to be dominated by competing claims about how many millions of jobs will be lost or gained by Britain's exit. All such claims come with a health warning. Coming up with a precise figure is difficult as there is no way of knowing if threats by foreign companies to scale back their operations in the UK would come to pass or, indeed, how many jobs would be created by the reshaped economy that might emerge in the wake of an exit.

Better off out: There would be a jobs boom as firms are freed from EU regulations and red tape, say those arguing for an exit, with small-and medium-sized companies who don't trade with the EU benefiting the most. In its recent paper, the EU Jobs Myth, the free market Institute for Economic Affairs seeks to debunk the claim that 3-4 million jobs would be lost if Britain left. "Jobs are associated with trade, not membership of a political union, and there is little evidence to suggest that trade would substantially fall between British businesses and European consumers in the event the UK was outside the EU," it argues. "The UK labour market is incredibly dynamic, and would adapt quickly to changed relationships with the EU."

Better off in: Millions of jobs would be lost as global manufacturers moved to lower-cost EU countries. Britain's large, foreign-owned car industry would be particularly at risk. "The attractiveness of the UK as a place to invest and do automotive business is clearly underpinned by the UK's influential membership of the EU," said a KPMG report on the car industry. The financial services sector, which employs about 2.1 million people in the UK, also has concerns about a British exit. "The success of the UK financial services industry is to a large extent built on EU Internal Market legislation. To abandon this for some untried, unknown and unpredictable alternative would carry very significant risks," said global law firm Clifford Chance in a report by think tank TheCityUK..


What about the impact on the economy as a whole?


Much would depend on the trade deals Britain managed to negotiate with the EU and rest of the world after its exit.

The best-case scenario, according to think tank Open Europe, is that the UK would be better off by 1.6% of GDP a year by 2030. That is assuming the UK carried out widespread deregulation after its exit and managed to strike favourable trade deals. The think tank adds: "A far more realistic range is between a 0.8% permanent loss to GDP in 2030 and a 0.6% permanent gain in GDP in 2030, in scenarios where Britain mixes policy approaches".

The Centre for Economic Performance, at the London School of Economics, says the worst-case scenario is a 6.3% to 9.5% reduction in GDP, "a loss of a similar size to that resulting from the global financial crisis of 2008/09". The best case, according to their analysis, is a loss of 2.2% of GDP, although it does not take into account as wide a range of factors as the Open Europe study.


What about immigration?



Better off out: Britain would regain full control of its borders, say anti-EU campaigners. UKIP wants to see a work permit system introduced, so that EU nationals would face the same visa restrictions as those from outside the EU, which it says would reduce population growth from current levels of 298,000 a year to about 50,000. This would create job opportunities for British workers and boost wages, as well as easing pressure on schools, hospitals and other public services.

Better off in: Britain might have to agree to allow free movement of EU migrants as the price of being allowed access to the free market. In any case, pro-EU campaigners argue, immigration from the rest of the EU has been good for Britain's economy. The UK's growth forecasts are based, in part, on continued high levels of net migration. The independent Office for Budget Responsibility says the economy relies on migrant labour and taxes paid by immigrants to keep funding public services.


Would Britain save money in membership fees?


The UK's net contribution to the EU, taking into account the rebate, was £11.3bn in 2013. That is more than four times what it was in 2008. It is about the same amount as the UK government spends on transport every year.

Better off out: The UK would save billions in membership fees, and end the "hidden tariff" paid by UK taxpayers when goods are exported to the EU, caused by red tape, waste, fraud and other factors.

Better off in: The UK's contribution to the EU budget is a drop in the ocean compared with the benefits to business of being in the single market.


What would be the effect on trade?


Better off out: The EU is not as important to British trade as it used to be, and continuing turmoil in the eurozone will make it even less so. Even if Britain did not manage to negotiate a free trade deal with the EU it would not be as disastrous as EU-enthusiasts claim, argues economist Roger Bootle in his book The Trouble with Europe: "It would place the UK in the same position as the US is currently in, along with India, China and Japan, all of which manage to export to the EU relatively easily." The UK would be free to establish bilateral trade agreements with fast-growing export markets such as China, Singapore, Brazil, Russia and India through the World Trade Organisation.

Better off in: The EU is the UK's main trading partner, worth more than £400bn a year, or 52% of the total trade in goods and services. Complete withdrawal from the EU would see trade barriers erected, with car exports to the EU, for example, facing a 15% tariff and imports a tariff of 10%. "The idea that the UK would be freer outside the EU is based on a series of misconceptions, that a medium-sized, open economy could hold sway in an increasingly fractured trading system dominated by the US, the EU and China; that the EU makes it harder for Britain to penetrate emerging markets; and that foreign capital would be more attracted to Britain's economy if it were no longer part of the single market," the pro-EU Centre for European Reform said in a recent report.


Would the UK's influence in the world change?


Better off out: The UK would remain a key part of Nato and the UN Security Council and a nuclear power, with a powerful global voice in its own right. The Eurosceptic Bruges Group wants an end to the "discredited" principle that Britain acts as a transatlantic bridge between the US and Europe, saying the country should make self-reliance its guiding principle.

Better off in: Stripped of influence in Brussels, Berlin and Paris, Britain would find itself increasingly ignored by Washington and sidelined on big transnational issues such as the environment, security and trade. America and other allies want Britain to remain in the EU. The UK risks becoming a maverick, isolated state if it leaves.


What would happen to Britons working in Europe, and EU citizens working in the UK?


Better off out: Britain would gain full control of its own borders, with migration in and out of the country regulated solely by British law. It would be more difficult for EU citizens to move to the UK, although those already living here are unlikely to be removed.

Better off in: A lot would depend on what kind of deal was reached with the other EU nations. Britons may have to apply for visas to enter EU countries and those already living there may face integration rules, such as proving they can speak the language before gaining long-term residency rights. There would also be uncertainty for many EU workers now paying taxes in the UK - what benefits, if any, would they be entitled to?


Would taxes change?


Better off out: The EU has limited power over tax, which is largely a matter for national governments. The exception is VAT, which has bands agreed at the EU level. Outside the EU, the UK would potentially have more flexibility.

Better off in: "Tax avoidance and evasion will reach crippling levels as our economy becomes increasingly wholly owned by foreign multinationals that make tax avoidance in Britain central to their business strategy," argued the pro-European Observer newspaper in an editorial.


Would Britain's legal system, democratic institutions and law-making process change?


Better off out: It would be a major shot in the arm for British democracy as the Westminster parliament regained its sovereignty and reconnected with voters. The country would be free from the European Arrest Warrant and other law and order measures.

Better off in: Britons benefit from EU employment laws and social protections, which would be stripped away. Withdrawal from the European Arrest Warrant could mean delays for the UK in extraditing suspects from other European countries; and the UK already has some opt-outs from EU labour law, including the Working Time Directive.
__________________
Love your own area.
Long live NIMBYISM

for quality of life.

The Westcountry is being overrun with
grotty new estates
Pat494 is online now   Reply With Quote
Thanks! The following members like this post: Atilla
Old Feb 19, 2016, 8:46pm   #33
Joined Jul 2008
I say out.
forker is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanks! The following members like this post: hhiusa
Old Feb 19, 2016, 10:47pm   #34
Joined Feb 2002
Very succinct article, thanks Pat.

I'm sure Cameron will do what I think is right and the country will back me up.
tomorton is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20, 2016, 8:46am   #35
 
Pat494's Avatar
Joined Mar 2004
Pat494 started this thread The general opinion this morning from the pundits is that Dipstick's gains are worthless.
I can't see anything for the pensioners.
French farmers etc. must be having a sigh of relief.
Could throw out all those rather ordinary foreign football managers too. Have we lost all belief in ourselves ?

The EU reminds me of a stranded whale just flapping about with the added burden of more and more useless laws.
They had their chance to get efficient and blown it imho.
__________________
Love your own area.
Long live NIMBYISM

for quality of life.

The Westcountry is being overrun with
grotty new estates
Pat494 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20, 2016, 9:11am   #36
 
Atilla's Avatar
Joined Nov 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pat494 View Post
The general opinion this morning from the pundits is that Dipstick's gains are worthless.
I can't see anything for the pensioners.
French farmers etc. must be having a sigh of relief.
Could throw out all those rather ordinary foreign football managers too. Have we lost all belief in ourselves ?

The EU reminds me of a stranded whale just flapping about with the added burden of more and more useless laws.
They had their chance to get efficient and blown it imho.

The issue is one of Conservatives making. My colleague is voting NO! just purely based on migrants. Nothing else is as important to him. He is about to retire.

The excellent assessment below clearly points out migrant vibrant labour has kept wages and inflation low whilst contributing to economic activity, taxes and population generation to help pay for the pensions. There are now so many Italians, Spanish and French and German in the City along with Latin Americans and builders that London is 40% foreign.

I fail to understand why the City is so against a bank transaction surcharge having gobbled up tax payers monies in the first place.

If we do step out I see Europe moving onwards and forwards paying off their debt whilst ours remains ballooned and forever growing with the City and London and trade taking a knock.

It was a headache to get in and it's a headache to get out. Doubt and hesitation usually lead to accidents.


UKIP and Galloway on same stand is a bit of a shock!
Can't see that ending well either
Atilla is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20, 2016, 9:41am   #37
 
barjon's Avatar
Joined May 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atilla View Post
...........The issue is one of Conservatives making. My colleague is voting NO! just purely based on migrants. Nothing else is as important to him. He is about to retire.

The excellent assessment below clearly points out migrant vibrant labour has kept wages and inflation low whilst contributing to economic activity, taxes and population generation to help pay for the pensions. There are now so many Italians, Spanish and French and German in the City along with Latin Americans and builders that London is 40% foreign.".............g
I wonder what Britain would look like without all the migrant workers? I guess my local hospital would fall apart for one. It's not as though the indigenous labour force is unemployed whilst migrants "steal" their jobs is it.
barjon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20, 2016, 10:42am   #38
Joined Jul 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by barjon View Post
I wonder what Britain would look like without all the migrant workers? I guess my local hospital would fall apart for one. It's not as though the indigenous labour force is unemployed whilst migrants "steal" their jobs is it.
Skilled visa system is the answer. That's how other countries operate and it is one that works. The open door policy to Europe is a disaster. This is an island not a huge continent
forker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20, 2016, 11:06am   #39
 
Pat494's Avatar
Joined Mar 2004
Pat494 started this thread What makes me laugh are the HUGE open spaces in Russia and they have at last count only accepted 3 with 6 more stuck at the airport ( wonder if they are still there ? )
__________________
Love your own area.
Long live NIMBYISM

for quality of life.

The Westcountry is being overrun with
grotty new estates
Pat494 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20, 2016, 3:17pm   #40
Joined Feb 2002
As we’re traders, we might look at Brexit in terms of economic risk:reward, rather than right/wrong. So –

UK stays in EU –

outcome economically positive - our economy grows, we are all better off: if this does happen, our economy will probably also grow faster and more strongly than our EU partners, so we simultaneously increase our political weight within the union -
Reward - economically good, politically good

outcome economically negative - our economy weakens, unemployment up, investment down, etc.: but if this does happen, our EU partners' economies are probably hurting way more than ours, they're already weaker and if we go down, they go down hard: little point exiting at that point, and politically it could be very beneficial when we’re comparatively stronger economically in comparison with the major EU members: but if we wished to exit, we still could, and we probably wouldn't be alone, so may even be able to head up a new EU with a constitution more to our liking -
Risk – economically bad short-term, but potential for political advantage that might limit the damage and hasten recovery

UK leaves the EU –

outcome economically positive - our economy grows, we are all better off: again, if this does happen, our economy will probably also grow faster and more strongly than our former EU partners so we may even be tempted to finesse the situation by offering to re-join the EU but on super-favourable economic terms in our favour -
Reward – economically good, with potential for political advantage that might be very beneficial economically long-term

outcome economically negative - our economy weakens, unemployment up, investment down, etc.: if this does happen, and the EU's economies are strengthening, we might try to get back into the EU, but we will be crucified on terms: if we don't / can't re-enter, or if the EU's economies are also going down so there's no point in re-entry, then we’re out of lifebelts, nobody else could or would help, so we're in deep do-do -
Risk – economically and politically very bad short-term and long-term.

On this basis, the economic risk of being wrong with an exit vote looks far worse than the risk of being wrong with a stay in vote. It does to me anyway, happy to hear a contrary view.
tomorton is online now   Reply With Quote
Thanks! The following members like this post: Atilla
Old Feb 20, 2016, 3:46pm   #41
 
Pat494's Avatar
Joined Mar 2004
Pat494 started this thread I suppose in my ignorance of such matters I would think that there would be one set of fair rules for everybody and that is that. The idea of individual countries jockeying for greater benefits seems grossly unfair and even absurd.
__________________
Love your own area.
Long live NIMBYISM

for quality of life.

The Westcountry is being overrun with
grotty new estates
Pat494 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20, 2016, 6:03pm   #42
Joined Feb 2002
But at the end of the day Pat, we're all competing. In the 17th century it was our explorers and settlers and priests, in the 19th century it was colonists and imperial armies and gunboats. Now its trade agreements, tariffs and sanctions. Our methods have definitely advanced, but we're still competing with the major European powers for what we can get.
tomorton is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 21, 2016, 9:21am   #43
 
Atilla's Avatar
Joined Nov 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomorton View Post
But at the end of the day Pat, we're all competing. In the 17th century it was our explorers and settlers and priests, in the 19th century it was colonists and imperial armies and gunboats. Now its trade agreements, tariffs and sanctions. Our methods have definitely advanced, but we're still competing with the major European powers for what we can get.
Agree on competing but not so much with our partners as rest of World. For example Airbus production is split into many parts like fuselage, wings, cockpit, engines, instruments etc., by members.

I see this as key risk if we leave. Why shouldn't France and Germany step in with their engines. Why not buy a cheaper US manufacturer's?

UK has a finance, services and some high tech industry. Germany and France primarily a manufacturing and agriculture. Spain, Portugal and Italy agriculture and then manufacturing and tourism etc. Point is being in a tightly bound cooperative club means we specialise in areas of advantage and avoid competition that's likely to reduce returns and raise costs and be less effective in the big wide world.

Ofcourse these are key theorem behind international trade as in text book theory but never the less very significant ones which i doubt the common lay man can understand or appreciate.

On radio 4 they were discussing the arguments and what ever one side says the other has a counter without real evidence. It's all hypothetical what if, yes we could with rose tinted glases is the get out campaign imo. Tomorton's risk reward assessment is a good one. Risks are higher in the get out i think.

Whilst the benefits of staying in is not being communicated to the lay man.

When Japan decides to lift and shift car assembly plants to Bulgaria or Romania , the midlands perhaps can take over all the low paid jobs of the migrants and Rolls Royce can think about finding new markets
Atilla is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 21, 2016, 6:41pm   #44
Joined Nov 2001
Everyone has his own reasons for whether he wants a Brexit, or not. In most cases, they concern one's immediate needs. For the good of the nation? I doubt it.

Boris Johnson is a powerful force for the "Out" vote. His reasons are for personal ambition, I have no doubt about that. Time will tell.

One thing is for sure. You guys are in for an ear pounding until June, We have had enough of ours.Firstly, Cataluña independence issue took the Catalan parties two months to get a president. Now, the same is happening with the national lot.

Good listening, fellows!
Splitlink is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 21, 2016, 8:29pm   #45
Joined Oct 2013
Looks like Boris Johnson could be doing the equivalent of a "Donald Trump" to the conservatives - by going against his party and wanting out of the EU

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35625669

I have always liked Boris for his entertainment and have met him twice in different company at the Henley Regatta held in his safe seat of Henley on Thames

He's extremely clever and very entertaining etc etc - but again similar to the Donald - good at putting his size 12 boot into many things - and very good at making loads of silly "gaffs" - more associated to a student prankster then a senior MP or the Mayor of London

For me he just does not hold the same gravitas as David Cameron - or even George Osborne - and therefore like so many sensible Americans who would dread the Donald making the high office of President of the USA - I too hope he doe not end up as our Prime Minister in the next few years.

Personally - I am one of those "don't know's" on whether to stay in or leave the EU.

Again - it should not be the public who decide - we just don't know enough facts and the guys who are firmly "stay" or "leave" are more concerned about there own individual circumstances - ie if the own a business with say 70% of their sales to say Europe - they will not want to leave - but then again if you read everything in the popular press - the EU is a gravy train for so many bureaucrats etc - even making FIFA look cash efficient and "straight"

I look forward to hearing proper facts ( that will be so difficult to obtain in today's world of "spin" )- but in my own mind deep down - I maybe be one of those voters who think stay with the "devil you know" - or - if its "not totally broke - don't fix it" and then end up with it just not working at all.

Looking forward to this year - both in terms of politics in the US and in the UK - could provide more entertainment and comedy value than even the "Little Britain" comedy series ;-))
Forexmospherian is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanks! The following members like this post: mike.
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For or Against Brexit 2017? hhiusa The Foyer 178 Jun 21, 2015 11:58pm
Grexit, Brexit, Spexit, and best exit Mr. Charts The Foyer 3 Jun 15, 2015 6:11pm
Brexit 2016 Cameron Referendum Poll hhiusa The Foyer 2 May 20, 2015 9:18pm

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)