Europe: In or Out

[Pavilionaire]

Watching Question Time last night, two of the panellists made the point that Norway is OUT of the EU so does not sit at the decision-making table yet STILL has to pay 75% of the membership fee and STILL has to jump through hoops to sell their goods.

This could be the fate of the UK if we vote to leave.

One of the audience who said he'd vote to leave said that the German car manufacturers who get their components still made in the UK would continue to buy stuff from us regardless. I don't see why this would be the case, indeed I could see more manufacturing lost to Eastern Europe if we leave.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Watching Question Time last night, two of the panellists made the point that Norway is OUT of the EU so does not sit at the decision-making table yet STILL has to pay 75% of the membership fee and STILL has to jump through hoops to sell their goods.

This could be the fate of the UK if we vote to leave.

One of the audience who said he'd vote to leave said that the German car manufacturers who get their components still made in the UK would continue to buy stuff from us regardless. I don't see why this would be the case, indeed I could see more manufacturing lost to Eastern Europe if we leave.

The panellists oversimplify Norway's position then and would not be a template we would use anyway.

...the ‘Norway option’, works well for Norway but is not really appropriate for a major power like the UK.

Sometimes pejoratively described as ‘government by fax’, the balance of power looks to be squarely on the EU side. The disparity is exaggerated – Norway is represented on 200 EU committees, it does not have to accept every ruling, half its financial contributions are voluntary, and many of the EU’s regulations are copied from other international organisations’ requests – organisations on which Norway is represented and we are not!

More likely we would go for a different option better suited to our status and economic power.

The negotiation between the EU and Switzerland in the 1990s was marked by some hostility after it rejected EU membership, and yet it struck a decent deal.

The optimum aim for us would be similar, but without the free movement of peoples. That would not be on the table. Essentially we would be looking for a full scale free trade agreement. And it has just been done by another country.

If you want a model of how this would look, go on the European Commission website and look at the Canadian Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement that the EU has just struck.

It eliminates all customs duties, which the EU website excitedly describes as worth €470 million a year to EU business. A similar deal with Britain would save it 5 times that on cars alone.

This would be a perfectly good starting point for our discussions with the Commission.

At the same time these negotiations are going on Britain will need to undertake a massive programme of simultaneous negotiations to negotiate free trade agreements with target countries that will be key to a more global approach.

http://www.daviddavismp.com/david-davis-speech-on-brexit-at-the-institute-of-chartered-engineers/

The above is as likely as the spurious doomsday scenarios presented by the In at all costs contingent.

 

[Pavilionaire]

If the EU let the UK leave but still give generous terms on membership and trade then that could be a very dangerous precedent to set.

If the UK rejects the EU then human nature dictates that the EU will be even less well-disposed to the UK than they are at present (and we have precious few friends in the EU as it is). I'd fully expect the EU to close ranks after our exit, and that could be dangerous if other partners like China and the USA see we no longer sit at the top table with France and Germany.

I know to an extent life will carry on as before, but I cannot see that life being enhanced having walked away from being part of the most powerful trading bloc in the world.

Apart from anything else, aren't the main aims of the French and the Germans the same as ours? Trade, peace, environment co-operation, worker's rights, human rights and so on. Their agenda is broadly the same as ours.

 

[TSB]

Our unemployment rate is actually very low. It won't be if we leave.

So, IN, of course.

 

[jay d]

Out. Move england somewhere near barbados

 

[5ways]

The panellists oversimplify Norway's position then and would not be a template we would use anyway.

...the ‘Norway option’, works well for Norway but is not really appropriate for a major power like the UK.

Sometimes pejoratively described as ‘government by fax’, the balance of power looks to be squarely on the EU side. The disparity is exaggerated – Norway is represented on 200 EU committees, it does not have to accept every ruling, half its financial contributions are voluntary, and many of the EU’s regulations are copied from other international organisations’ requests – organisations on which Norway is represented and we are not!

More likely we would go for a different option better suited to our status and economic power.

The negotiation between the EU and Switzerland in the 1990s was marked by some hostility after it rejected EU membership, and yet it struck a decent deal.

The optimum aim for us would be similar, but without the free movement of peoples. That would not be on the table. Essentially we would be looking for a full scale free trade agreement. And it has just been done by another country.

If you want a model of how this would look, go on the European Commission website and look at the Canadian Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement that the EU has just struck.

It eliminates all customs duties, which the EU website excitedly describes as worth €470 million a year to EU business. A similar deal with Britain would save it 5 times that on cars alone.

This would be a perfectly good starting point for our discussions with the Commission.

At the same time these negotiations are going on Britain will need to undertake a massive programme of simultaneous negotiations to negotiate free trade agreements with target countries that will be key to a more global approach.

http://www.daviddavismp.com/david-davis-speech-on-brexit-at-the-institute-of-chartered-engineers/

The above is as likely as the spurious doomsday scenarios presented by the In at all costs contingent.

Perfectly good for us, not for them. Outers want all of the benefit and none of the costs, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Davis is in la-la land.

 

[Pavilionaire]

Imagine if the tables were turned and, hypothetically, we were enthusiastic for the EU and it was France wanting to leave. The attitude here would be "F*ck off then you French tw*ts, good riddance". Now double that feeling because we're not well liked in the EU and you're probably getting near how the rest of Europe were to feel if we left.

Does that seem like a good starting point from which to improve our economy and our society?

Now is the time to show our commitment to the EU and stop the grumbling and bitching. Cameron's European "Deal Mission" is an absolute cringeworthy embarrassment of a sideshow, arguably his lowest point yet.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

If the EU let the UK leave but still give generous terms on membership and trade then that could be a very dangerous precedent to set.

If the UK rejects the EU then human nature dictates that the EU will be even less well-disposed to the UK than they are at present (and we have precious few friends in the EU as it is). I'd fully expect the EU to close ranks after our exit, and that could be dangerous if other partners like China and the USA see we no longer sit at the top table with France and Germany.

I know to an extent life will carry on as before, but I cannot see that life being enhanced having walked away from being part of the most powerful trading bloc in the world.

Apart from anything else, aren't the main aims of the French and the Germans the same as ours? Trade, peace, environment co-operation, worker's rights, human rights and so on. Their agenda is broadly the same as ours.

Economic self interest will be the overriding influence in any negotiation. Considering the relative weakness of European economic performance would they really put political vindictiveness over jobs and growth.

We currently import £59 billion more from Europe than we export. After Brexit we would be Europe’s largest export market, worth £289 billion in 2014, larger than China.

A trading block with faltering economic performance, high unemployment rates, reducing market share and at it's heart a Eurozone project with numerous structural unresolved flaws.

The French and Germans are fully signed up to ever closer political/economic Union so no at least one of their main aims is not the same. Other aims are achievable between friendly nations without losing sovereignty, democratic legitimacy and control of our borders.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Perfectly good for us, not for them. Outers want all of the benefit and none of the costs, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Davis is in la-la land.

And Inners claim it is all costs and no benefits. The truth which no one truly knows is somewhere in between.

 

[5ways]

Imagine if the tables were turned and, hypothetically, we were enthusiastic for the EU and it was France wanting to leave. The attitude here would be "F*ck off then you French tw*ts, good riddance". Now double that feeling because we're not well liked in the EU and you're probably getting near how the rest of Europe were to feel if we left.

Does that seem like a good starting point from which to improve our economy and our society?

Now is the time to show our commitment to the EU and stop the grumbling and bitching. Cameron's European "Deal Mission" is an absolute cringeworthy embarrassment of a sideshow, arguably his lowest point yet.

I agree with your first point but not the second. We already have opt-outs on the Euro, the Schengen passport-free zone, home affairs (working time directive), and issues of justice. Now Cameron goes back, what big areas of policy are left? Yet he still manages to secure yet more concessions - in work benefits, emergency brake, relief from onerous financial legislation. This is the basis of a good deal.

 

[Pavilionaire]

Economic self interest will be the overriding influence in any negotiation. Considering the relative weakness of European economic performance would they really put political vindictiveness over jobs and growth.

We currently import £59 billion more from Europe than we export. After Brexit we would be Europe’s largest export market, worth £289 billion in 2014, larger than China.

A trading block with faltering economic performance, high unemployment rates, reducing market share and at it's heart a Eurozone project with numerous structural unresolved flaws.

The French and Germans are fully signed up to ever closer political/economic Union so no at least one of their main aims is not the same. Other aims are achievable between friendly nations without losing sovereignty, democratic legitimacy and control of our borders.

Isn't the fact we import and export so much with the EU precisely a vindication that membership of the EU has been so good in taking this country's economy forward?

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Our unemployment rate is actually very low. It won't be if we leave.

So, IN, of course.

So if we don't import millions of EU citizens to take up the majority of newly created jobs in this country instead of prioritising/training our unemployed to do the jobs then the rate would go up?

 

[beorhthelm]

Watching Question Time last night, two of the panellists made the point that Norway is OUT of the EU so does not sit at the decision-making table yet STILL has to pay 75% of the membership fee and STILL has to jump through hoops to sell their goods.

This could be the fate of the UK if we vote to leave.

One of the audience who said he'd vote to leave said that the German car manufacturers who get their components still made in the UK would continue to buy stuff from us regardless. I don't see why this would be the case, indeed I could see more manufacturing lost to Eastern Europe if we leave.

yes, you'd still have to comply with the regulations for the EU when selling there. but not when selling within the UK or elsewhere, which for the majority of businesses that dont trade with the EU would led to a considerable reduction in regulation. what happens to manufactured goods is speculation on both sides, though there's little reason to expect German car manufacturers would stop using British components - there's the quality and expertise aspect to products, not just about price. if it were, they'd be buying them cheaper from eastern Europe already. there's no reason to expect tariffs would be introduced, it would hurt European exports to the UK to do so. generally world trade is moving towards free trade, why implement tariffs just to be nasty, to then remove them over the coming years and decades?

 

[5ways]

Economic self interest will be the overriding influence in any negotiation. Considering the relative weakness of European economic performance would they really put political vindictiveness over jobs and growth.

We currently import £59 billion more from Europe than we export. After Brexit we would be Europe’s largest export market, worth £289 billion in 2014, larger than China.

A trading block with faltering economic performance, high unemployment rates, reducing market share and at it's heart a Eurozone project with numerous structural unresolved flaws.

The French and Germans are fully signed up to ever closer political/economic Union so no at least one of their main aims is not the same. Other aims are achievable between friendly nations without losing sovereignty, democratic legitimacy and control of our borders.

It is not pure economics, which clearly favour us being in, it is politics too.

"The Polish former deputy prime minister Leszek Balcerowicz said Britain would be used as example. “We should not encourage other populist forces campaigning on exit such as National Front in France or Podemos in Spain. This is a very important consideration. This is in the interests of Europe that we do not encourage other EU countries to leave. The common interest of remaining members is to deter other exits. This should have an impact on the terms Britain gets.”

Britain was also warned it would not be able to cherry-pick its best deals, and might find UK citizens inside the EU at a serious disadvantage with questionable legal status. “There is no such thing as a free lunch. Brexit is something which does not only affect your country but our country,” the former German deputy finance minister Steffen Kampeter warned. “The cherry-picking after torturing us for months is not acceptable.”

The former Italian prime minister Enrico Letta said Italy would support moving Europe’s financial centre away from London, adding that Europe could not afford such navel-gazing at a time when other parts of the world were forging ahead."


http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...it-leaves-european-union-to-deter-other-exits

Read the whole thing. You might just brush it off as more scaremongering. Well they sound pretty serious to me. Rational interest is also sending warnings to populists and separatists, rational interest is moving the continent's financial centre to somewhere you can control it, rational interest is extracting maximum concessions from the UK because you are more powerful. There will of course be massive blow-back if we take a sledgehammer to the post-war European settlement.

 

[Two Professors]

Our unemployment rate is actually very low. It won't be if we leave.

So, IN, of course.

There have been some very silly comments on this thread,but this qualifies as the silliest one I have seen on any discussion of Brexit.If the 2.2 million EU citizens cleared off back where they came from,the release of pressure on the NHS and other infrastructure alone would reduce the employees needed and free up mega quantities of jobs.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Isn't the fact we import and export so much with the EU precisely a vindication that membership of the EU has been so good in taking this country's economy forward?

I'm not sure how we can show how membership of the EEC/EU has helped or hindered trade rates if compared with a hypothetical Independent UK situation. But It clearly shows we are economically interdependent meaning it is in all our interests to negotiate a mutually beneficial trade deal.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

It is not pure economics, which clearly favour us being in, it is politics too.

"The Polish former deputy prime minister Leszek Balcerowicz said Britain would be used as example. “We should not encourage other populist forces campaigning on exit such as National Front in France or Podemos in Spain. This is a very important consideration. This is in the interests of Europe that we do not encourage other EU countries to leave. The common interest of remaining members is to deter other exits. This should have an impact on the terms Britain gets.”

Britain was also warned it would not be able to cherry-pick its best deals, and might find UK citizens inside the EU at a serious disadvantage with questionable legal status. “There is no such thing as a free lunch. Brexit is something which does not only affect your country but our country,” the former German deputy finance minister Steffen Kampeter warned. “The cherry-picking after torturing us for months is not acceptable.”

The former Italian prime minister Enrico Letta said Italy would support moving Europe’s financial centre away from London, adding that Europe could not afford such navel-gazing at a time when other parts of the world were forging ahead."


http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...it-leaves-european-union-to-deter-other-exits

Read the whole thing. You might just brush it off as more scaremongering. Well they sound pretty serious to me. Rational interest is also sending warnings to populists and separatists, rational interest is moving the continent's financial centre to somewhere you can control it, rational interest is extracting maximum concessions from the UK because you are more powerful. There will of course be massive blow-back if we take a sledgehammer to the post-war European settlement.

Yes that program was amusing I liked the bit where the Irish chappy said it would be an unfriendly act I thought he was going to declare war.

You seem to be suggesting the British public should be influenced by hypothetical threats by numerous B list retired European politicians .... scaremongering indeed.

On just the first part of that link I would ask is the Polish Government really likely to be that hostile to a country which has just sent a thousand soldiers to help defend it?

 

[brighton fella]

Watching Question Time last night, two of the panellists made the point that Norway is OUT of the EU so does not sit at the decision-making table yet STILL has to pay 75% of the membership fee and STILL has to jump through hoops to sell their goods.

This could be the fate of the UK if we vote to leave.

One of the audience who said he'd vote to leave said that the German car manufacturers who get their components still made in the UK would continue to buy stuff from us regardless. I don't see why this would be the case, indeed I could see more manufacturing lost to Eastern Europe if we leave.

britain is nothing like norway,..britain has a much larger economy for a start,.since when was it said that britain has to stick to the same set of rules that apply only to norway, once britain gains freedom it is then that it is able to make decisions for itself.. .

the myth politics determine trade deals.. certainly that be the case all the time britain is trapped inside the EU ... a mate of mine runs his own electrical business, currently the EU restricts him from making any deals for himself meaning that he cant expand his company, once out he then has the opportunity of making a deal that suits both him and his customer which current EU legislation's such as red tape and the like prevent him from doing, . whilst big corporate businesses can easily withstand this sort of treatment it doesn't exactly give bundles of encouragement to the smaller businesses who want very much to progress and make a go of things...

 

[Gwylan]

There have been some very silly comments on this thread,but this qualifies as the silliest one I have seen on any discussion of Brexit.If the 2.2 million EU citizens cleared off back where they came from,the release of pressure on the NHS and other infrastructure alone would reduce the employees needed and free up mega quantities of jobs.

I've not seen any suggestion from any anti-EU group that suggests that EU citizens living in Britain would be forced to leave after a UK exit. But if that were the case, then we could expect 1.5m UK citizens currently living in the EU to return home. As we'd be replacing healthy young people with several hundred thousand elderly citizens, rather than a release of pressure on the NHS, we'd see a considerable squeeze on resources, particularly as you're talking about reducing the staffing levels of the health service

 

[alfredmizen]

I've not seen any suggestion from any anti-EU group that suggests that EU citizens living in Britain would be forced to leave after a UK exit. But if that were the case, then we could expect 1.5m UK citizens currently living in the EU to return home. As we'd be replacing healthy young people with several hundred thousand elderly citizens, rather than a release of pressure on the NHS, we'd see a considerable squeeze on resources, particularly as you're talking about reducing the staffing levels of the health service

I disagree, do you really think they would kick out pensioners who are contributing to their economies , not taking up jobs that locals could do or social housing that locals could use ?