Benefits of being in/out of the EU?
Discussion
Well just from my line of work - a unified policy on medical device and pharmaceutical regulation that largely replaced cumbersome dealings with individual states, each with their own expensive take on things.
If the UK leaves the EU I am sure that most of my industry will relocate itself onto the continent and I will go too. Of course I will have to ask them nicely if I can come and work in their countries as opposed to having the right to do so, which I have exercised in the past.
If the UK leaves the EU I am sure that most of my industry will relocate itself onto the continent and I will go too. Of course I will have to ask them nicely if I can come and work in their countries as opposed to having the right to do so, which I have exercised in the past.
speedy_thrills said:
In defence of an exit plan I think by the time the UK was ready to exit many of those unknowns would be known. It may be a decade or more before we even get all the FTAs in place so it would likely be a very lengthy process rather than a 'big bang'. A lot of businesses are interdependent so even a simple question such as if BAe can continue to work with Airbus is uncertain until negotiations have taken place.
Surprisingly there isn't actually much in UKIP promotional materials about how the UK would go about exiting its position or what could be retained. So my answer is we don't know about economic impact with any certainty, that would be one of the foremost things to establish before a referendum I expect (talking to all our international partners about what they'd be likely to offer and how they'd behave).
1. What do you think international businesses will do in that 10 year hiatus? carry on investing as before? - nope; bugger off to the Single Market where the investment climate is more certain and the market much larger? - yup;Surprisingly there isn't actually much in UKIP promotional materials about how the UK would go about exiting its position or what could be retained. So my answer is we don't know about economic impact with any certainty, that would be one of the foremost things to establish before a referendum I expect (talking to all our international partners about what they'd be likely to offer and how they'd behave).
2. Do you really think our international partners are going to scribble on the back of an envelope precisely the post-EU deal we will get and whether it would be nice or not? Don't you think they would more likely say - go ahead, take a leap in the dark, cause us massive economic and political disruption and you will find out how much pain it will cause you when we get down to hard negotiations?.
It really isn't surprising that UKIP have no clue on the exit process - they simply don't know how they would do it or what the consequences would be, and there is no-one in their party who has any experience of anything other than protest politics - they just repeat the mantra about the sunlit uplands of freedom because it detracts from the very messy reality of re-negotiating all of our trade treaties, and trying to keep our post-EU economy afloat.
According to the BBC only 2.8% of EU residents are resident in an EU country other than their own, a surprsingly low figure to me, given all the media hype.
Can somebody explain how the EU Finances work in simple terms?
If say, net migration fom France to UK is 10k pa to the UK, does France pay an additional contribution to the EU (that Britain can then benefit from) to cover the extra demand on public services of those 10k people?
Or, given that it is 'free migration', so nobody really knows who is where at any one point, do they just set a (guesstimated?) figure that each member state must pay in for all the perceived benefits it receives, and is the calculation method the same for all member states?
Can somebody explain how the EU Finances work in simple terms?
If say, net migration fom France to UK is 10k pa to the UK, does France pay an additional contribution to the EU (that Britain can then benefit from) to cover the extra demand on public services of those 10k people?
Or, given that it is 'free migration', so nobody really knows who is where at any one point, do they just set a (guesstimated?) figure that each member state must pay in for all the perceived benefits it receives, and is the calculation method the same for all member states?
Edited by PurpleTurtle on Tuesday 21st April 14:36
Bluebarge said:
Hooli said:
In it costs us billions for no reward.
Out it doesn't cost us billions & we have more control of our own country.
No you don't. See ralphrj's post at 12:05.Out it doesn't cost us billions & we have more control of our own country.
As an example, remind me where we asked for Galleo? and what is this EU controlled GPS system really for? And who were the elected democratic officials that okayed the budget spend???
REF: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_%28satellite_...
Bluebarge said:
It really isn't surprising that UKIP have no clue on the exit process - they simply don't know how they would do it or what the consequences would be, and there is no-one in their party who has any experience of anything other than protest politics - they just repeat the mantra about the sunlit uplands of freedom because it detracts from the very messy reality of re-negotiating all of our trade treaties, and trying to keep our post-EU economy afloat.
In a nutshell, UK exit from the EU would an enormous unknown just like it would have been if Scotland had voted to leave the UK.UKIP's argument is exactly the same as the SNP's - "the future will be brilliant, we'll all be better off, we'll keep all the things we want and none of the things we don't". An absolute fantasy.
There are pros and cons to being in the EU. The EU are never, ever going to let a country decide that they will enjoy all of the benefits with none of the drawbacks. If they did then every country would leave the EU.
The EU will take the view that if the UK doesn't want freedom of movement of people (i.e. immigration) then they can't have access to free trade.
Don't believe me? Last year the Swiss voted to restrict the free movement of foreigners in Switzerland (the government is obliged to implement this some time in the next 3 years). As a result the EU are freezing the Swiss out of some agreements, and if not resolved, will bring about an automatic cessation of bilateral treaties between the Swiss and the EU.
The UK might have a bigger economy than Switzerland so the impact on the EU would be more severe but pretending that there would be no downside is childishly naïve and akin to Alex Salmond saying "Aye, we'll have all the oil, use the Pound, none of the debt, automatically join the EU and free unicorns for everyone".
ralphrj said:
Bluebarge said:
It really isn't surprising that UKIP have no clue on the exit process - they simply don't know how they would do it or what the consequences would be, and there is no-one in their party who has any experience of anything other than protest politics - they just repeat the mantra about the sunlit uplands of freedom because it detracts from the very messy reality of re-negotiating all of our trade treaties, and trying to keep our post-EU economy afloat.
In a nutshell, UK exit from the EU would an enormous unknown just like it would have been if Scotland had voted to leave the UK.UKIP's argument is exactly the same as the SNP's - "the future will be brilliant, we'll all be better off, we'll keep all the things we want and none of the things we don't". An absolute fantasy.
while also saying we should blame everything on those to the south and leaving a close union is completely risk free
Timmy40 said:
In - Cost of £7.5bn a year.
Out - Saving of £7.5bn a year.
As the 2nd largest economy in Europe I doubt very much whether being out would lead to any decrease in trade with the EU block.
Source? ONS says £11.3bn in 2013.Out - Saving of £7.5bn a year.
As the 2nd largest economy in Europe I doubt very much whether being out would lead to any decrease in trade with the EU block.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/e...
PurpleTurtle said:
Timmy40 said:
In - Cost of £7.5bn a year.
Out - Saving of £7.5bn a year.
As the 2nd largest economy in Europe I doubt very much whether being out would lead to any decrease in trade with the EU block.
Source? ONS says £11.3bn in 2013.Out - Saving of £7.5bn a year.
As the 2nd largest economy in Europe I doubt very much whether being out would lead to any decrease in trade with the EU block.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/e...
Bluebarge said:
CuckooInMyNest said:
I have no desire to live/work/study/buy property in Europe.
The only bit that bothers me is this recession idea, you think that's pretty much guaranteed?
What? not even a retirement property or a B&B business in the sun? where's your ambition?The only bit that bothers me is this recession idea, you think that's pretty much guaranteed?
Recession - IMHO - yes - a significant outflow of important jobs would surely follow an exit and inward investment would drop considerably until it became clear on what tersm the UK could trade with the EU and whether those terms would be favourable (which they may not).
This is what the smart money thinks
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/ba...
The UK is where the focus for investment is from my company expecting to grow 30% this year in both staff and turnover. This is a small privately owned company, the cash being invested is real peoples cash and when asked if EU membership was expected to make any difference to this investment the answer is "no".
Draw your own conclusions.
Mojocvh said:
If you actually think that the mandarins will let the small matter of an aged treaty get in their way of expansionism then sorry you need a reality check sharpish...
As an example, remind me where we asked for Galleo? and what is this EU controlled GPS system really for? And who were the elected democratic officials that okayed the budget spend???
REF: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_%28satellite_...
I genuinely have no clue what your post has to do with the EEA.As an example, remind me where we asked for Galleo? and what is this EU controlled GPS system really for? And who were the elected democratic officials that okayed the budget spend???
REF: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_%28satellite_...
As to Galileo, the GPS system is controlled by the US military, who can switch it on and off (or degrade it) as they see fit. Having an alternative seems sensible given how much our modern lives depend on it.
Bluebarge said:
Mojocvh said:
If you actually think that the mandarins will let the small matter of an aged treaty get in their way of expansionism then sorry you need a reality check sharpish...
As an example, remind me where we asked for Galleo? and what is this EU controlled GPS system really for? And who were the elected democratic officials that okayed the budget spend???
REF: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_%28satellite_...
I genuinely have no clue what your post has to do with the EEA.As an example, remind me where we asked for Galleo? and what is this EU controlled GPS system really for? And who were the elected democratic officials that okayed the budget spend???
REF: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_%28satellite_...
As to Galileo, the GPS system is controlled by the US military, who can switch it on and off (or degrade it) as they see fit. Having an alternative seems sensible given how much our modern lives depend on it.
Classic PH.
Mojocvh said:
Bluebarge said:
Mojocvh said:
If you actually think that the mandarins will let the small matter of an aged treaty get in their way of expansionism then sorry you need a reality check sharpish...
As an example, remind me where we asked for Galleo? and what is this EU controlled GPS system really for? And who were the elected democratic officials that okayed the budget spend???
REF: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_%28satellite_...
I genuinely have no clue what your post has to do with the EEA.As an example, remind me where we asked for Galleo? and what is this EU controlled GPS system really for? And who were the elected democratic officials that okayed the budget spend???
REF: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_%28satellite_...
As to Galileo, the GPS system is controlled by the US military, who can switch it on and off (or degrade it) as they see fit. Having an alternative seems sensible given how much our modern lives depend on it.
Classic PH.
"The US reserves the right to limit the signal strength or precision of GPS, or to shut down public GPS access completely"
If you want to make a point, make it; don't just post a massive wikipedia link which contradicts your position accompanied by some obtuse comment about Chinese civil servants and then stamp your feet when no-one has a bloody clue what the buggery b
ks you are on about.Classic PH
Hooli said:
Bluebarge said:
Hooli said:
In it costs us billions for no reward.
Out it doesn't cost us billions & we have more control of our own country.
No you don't. See ralphrj's post at 12:05.Out it doesn't cost us billions & we have more control of our own country.
That's why the UKIP independence argument is completely bogus - no country is completely independent because we all have to conclude agreements with our neighbours to trade, which involves compromise and doing things we sometimes don't like so that we win a greater prize. You only get to dictate terms if you are big enough. Versus the EU, we ain't.
Timmy40 said:
In - Cost of £7.5bn a year.
Out - Saving of £7.5bn a year.
As the 2nd largest economy in Europe I doubt very much whether being out would lead to any decrease in trade with the EU block.
Every bit of sensible commentary that I've read, and I've read quite a bit, tends to suggest that it is not quite that simple.Out - Saving of £7.5bn a year.
As the 2nd largest economy in Europe I doubt very much whether being out would lead to any decrease in trade with the EU block.
Indeed, there is general agreement that it is almost impossible to say whether it will cost us less or more by leaving. This includes articles in magazines which otherwise would have a clearish pro or anti EU stance.
Despite doing a lot or reading on the subject, the only conclusion I have come to is that no one knows whether we will be better off financially and that anyone who tells you they know is selling something.
As pointed out above, if we wish to continue to trade with the EU we will have to follow their requirements in order to do so. We would have to negotiate terms and these would include following directives that we have no say in.
One thing which is clear is that it costs each individual in Norway more to trade with the EU than it costs each individual UK bod. Further, it would seem unlikely that we would have the so-called advantageous terms the Norwegians have as a matter of course.
Businesses might well suffer. Some international car companies have established factories in this country after giving the reason that they want a gateway into Europe. This might be spin of course, but I have no way of telling. It might be that it is easier and cheaper to sack UK workers than it is most other EU workers. This is a worrying fact of course if we leave.
Emigration is given as a major plus, or lack of it, but there seems little doubt that those emigrants from the EU have a largely positive effect on the economy, certainly in keeping costs low. Illegal immigration is not going to go away if we leave the EU.
At the moment I'm pro staying. If we are indeed the 2nd biggest economy in Europe, then why the need to change? We seem to be doing all right. However, I'm willing to be convinced otherwise but what I need is a reason to jump, and not dreams and wishes.
And especially what I don't need is mythical figures giving massive benefits which are plain wrong.
One problem is that leaving the EU is seen as a left/right political issue, when it it nothing of the sort. I want to know what is best for my kids and grandchildren. 2nd largest economy seems pretty good to me.
Derek Smith said:
If we are indeed the 2nd biggest economy in Europe, then why the need to change? We seem to be doing all right.
Newspapers would have you believe otherwise but in terms of GDP the UK has done very well since joining the EU.Back in 1970 the UK was the 5th largest economy in the world (behind USA, Japan, Germany and France ).
In 2015 the UK economy is still the 5th largest in the world (now behind USA, China, Japan and Germany) but with the exception of China which is a special case we have outperformed our peers.
In 1970 the UK economy was equivalent to:
12% of the US economy
60% of the Japanese economy
61% of the German economy
84% of the French economy
115% of the Italian economy
In 2015 the UK economy is equivalent to:
16% of the US economy
68% of the Japanese economy
84% of the German economy
116% of the French economy
155% of the Italian economy
Sources: 1970 figures from OECD, 2015 figures are IMF forecast
ralphrj said:
Derek Smith said:
If we are indeed the 2nd biggest economy in Europe, then why the need to change? We seem to be doing all right.
Newspapers would have you believe otherwise but in terms of GDP the UK has done very well since joining the EU.Back in 1970 the UK was the 5th largest economy in the world (behind USA, Japan, Germany and France ).
In 2015 the UK economy is still the 5th largest in the world (now behind USA, China, Japan and Germany) but with the exception of China which is a special case we have outperformed our peers.
In 1970 the UK economy was equivalent to:
12% of the US economy
60% of the Japanese economy
61% of the German economy
84% of the French economy
115% of the Italian economy
In 2015 the UK economy is equivalent to:
16% of the US economy
68% of the Japanese economy
84% of the German economy
116% of the French economy
155% of the Italian economy
Sources: 1970 figures from OECD, 2015 figures are IMF forecast
Pity its 1970 held up for comparison, we had had 6 years of Harold Wilson's idiot Labour party socialists running the show by then , the country was in a st state economically.
Incidentally, we have never needed a federal state of Europe, we have only ever needed EFTA, which works/ed a treat. The EU is about political union, not trade.
t state economically.Incidentally, we have never needed a federal state of Europe, we have only ever needed EFTA, which works/ed a treat. The EU is about political union, not trade.
Edited by Cheese Mechanic on Tuesday 21st April 16:45
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff