Benefits of being in/out of the EU?

[Derek Smith]

ralphrj said:

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

Thanks for that.

Interesting reading.

[gruffalo]

Very interested to see what the 1970 to 2008 data looks like and the 2008 to 2015 data.

Would give a better perspective I think.

[Guybrush]

If the benefits of staying in were so tangible, Clegg wouldn't resort to emotional waffle whenever he has the chance to defend it.

Anyway, we seem to trade quite well with countries outside of the EU.

[Bluebarge]

Guybrush said:

Anyway, we seem to trade quite well with countries outside of the EU.

Under treaties largely negotiated on our behalf by the EU. These would fall away on exit, and we would have to start again from scratch, with all the negotiating clout that comes from being a market of 64m people, not 503m (in other words, a lot less).

[Cheese Mechanic]

Bluebarge said:

Under treaties largely negotiated on our behalf by the EU. These would fall away on exit, and we would have to start again from scratch, with all the negotiating clout that comes from being a market of 64m people, not 503m (in other words, a lot less).

As Ian Mansfield outlined, all that is required is the UK to be in EFTA, the market would be unaltered. The EU is not about trade,its about a federal european nation state,ie , political, is, and always has been.

[don4l]

ralphrj said:

don4l said:

If we follow your logic, then using those same numbers, we must come to the conclusion that the EEC/EU has been bad for France, Germany and Italy. Why is it that only Britain seems to benefit from the EU?

Or that the 15 years we spent outside the EEC left us miles behind.

Are you suggesting that the three day week wouldn't have happened if we had been in the EEC?

[Bluebarge]

Cheese Mechanic said:

As Ian Mansfield outlined, all that is required is the UK to be in EFTA, the market would be unaltered.

Wrong. Four of the EFTA members have joined the EEA, and Switzerland has negotiated its own bilateral agreements, but all are required to sign up to, and comply with, the bulk of EU regulation.

There is no EFTA route to easy trading with the EU; you do the deal the EU is happy with.

[wc98]

before herman van rompuy ,i mean bluebarge posts anymore eu propaganda ,this may be worth a look. http://www.iea.org.uk/sites/default/files/publicat...

The European Union remains an important trading partner of the United Kingdom, but it is also –
proportionally speaking – a declining one. The share of UK exports going to the European Union has declined in only 6 years from 54% to 46%xiv, as the UK currently runs a Balance of Payments deficit of £39bn with the European Union.

There is, therefore, no reason for the European Union to apply counter productive, punitive sanctions on UK-EU trade, despite scaremongering over a) tariffs applied to trade-surplus goodsxv, b) jeopardising the US-EU Trans-Atlantic Trading & Investment Partnershipxvi and c) the apparent dangers to the United Kingdom’s Financial Services Industry13. Even the simplest of analysis of EU and UK current-account positions (as well as future forecasts for the global distribution of wealth and trade) would imply that it is not in the European Union’s interests to obstruct or inhibit trade with the United Kingdom.

[ralphrj]

don4l said:

Are you suggesting that the three day week wouldn't have happened if we had been in the EEC?

What an odd post.

The three day week was after we had joined the EEC.

[HarryW]

To keep it simple the people of this country voted for an economic union, not a political one.
The political classes have taken it upon themselves over the years to further embed this country into a Frenchman's wet dream of bureaucratic spaghetti. Sticking to the first principle of us joining in the beginning, free trade, is all that is being now asked.
The parallels to Scotland and independence are not there, just obfuscation by those To meet with their agenda. The Union was freely entered, fully understood and agreed to by all who signed. They may have been a bit short of coin at the time, but what's money between friends.


FFS who apart from the EU could make a success out of the Kinnock's if it wasn't for the cronyism and mediocrity that is the EU, nothing so grand as a socialist who forgets his principles once his nose is deep in the trough. I'd like to be proved wrong and see that he actually lives in a 2 up 2 down and gives all of his money to deserved charities, but I won't hold my breath.

Edited by HarryW on Tuesday 21st April 19:18

[BGARK]

My answer:

I will keep selling to my customers in the countries that want to buy my products/service and actually have money to spend.

What has this got to do with the EU, nothing.

Who is the EU, I don't know do you, as far as I can make out its a dictatorship.

What benefit is the EU, it keeps bureaucrats and non entities employed to make them feel important.

[dcb]

Cheese Mechanic said:

As Ian Mansfield outlined, all that is required is the UK to be in EFTA, the market would be unaltered. The EU is not about trade,its about a federal european nation state,ie , political, is, and always has been.

+1

For me, EU membership is all about identity and political union, not trade costs.

Remember, the UK doesn't do Schengen and doesn't do the Euro, so is
only lightly tied into the rest of Europe by the EU.

UK still a major trading nation with the rest of the world.

While I could see some sense in closer European integration in the
1980s with a bunch of similar countries in Central and Western Europe
working together, once the Berlin Wall came down and a lot of very different countries
in Eastern Europe joined the EU, then the nature of the EU changed radically.

I'd rather the UK paddle it's own canoe, without interference from
the EU, even if that choice costs us some small amount of money.

[Funkycoldribena]

BGARK said:

My answer:

I will keep selling to my customers in the countries that want to buy my products/service and actually have money to spend.

What has this got to do with the EU, nothing.

Who is the EU, I don't know do you, as far as I can make out its a dictatorship.

What benefit is the EU, it keeps bureaucrats and non entities employed to make them feel important.

This.If someone from the pro-eu can tell me where democracy comes into it I'm all ears.

[Jinx]

Bluebarge said:

Under treaties largely negotiated on our behalf by the EU. These would fall away on exit, and we would have to start again from scratch, with all the negotiating clout that comes from being a market of 64m people, not 503m (in other words, a lot less).

Which we could renegotiate to the UK's advantage rather than having to worry about the French farmers or German car industry. Our trade with Europe is dropping whilst trade with China is increasing - which economy would you rather be tied to? The EU trade agreements are for the benefits of France and Germany not the UK.

[AA999]

Eric Mc said:

Out-

Total more autonomy control over national legislation
Total more autonomy control over immigration
restriction on ability to buy and own land/property/businesses etc in other EU countries - for the few that do this
Total more freedom to negotiate trade deals with other countries - ie. the rest of the world where the large markets lie
restriction on ability to live and work in other EU countries
Increased likelihood of cross border tariffs - which would work both ways
Becoming a small and isolateda strong independent trading nation close to the EU with no trade restrictions with non-EU member nations
Being less attractive to non-EU businesses that want access to EU markets <- in which said businesses who need access to EU markets would likely simply set up depots within said EU states along with depot/offices in the UK.

I know which side of the fence you are sitting on Eric and apologies for hijacking your post, but you have to accept it was a easy 'target'. But one could argue the above additions in bold.

The problem we have is that we have no idea how businesses will change their model if the UK cuts its EU membership. We have seen however how the UK is in a stronger position due to the fact that we are NOT fully integrated in to the EU with respects to the Euro.
There are some clear benefits to the UK being an independent nation with full "sovereignty" over its own affairs, and there are some perks in also being an EU member when it comes to trade deals within the EU states.
BUT I think that markets such as China & India have grown so fast that focusing on the EU for the majority of incoming wealth is short sighted to say the least.
But then as it is all just speculation then its all just personal opinion.

[speedy_thrills]

Funkycoldribena said:

If someone from the pro-eu can tell me where democracy comes into it I'm all ears.

What do you consider undemocratic about the EU?


Broadly speaking Commissioners are appointed by the elected governments of individual nation to serve the EC (representative democracy). Then they are assigned portfolios by the Commission President (who is elected by MEPs via representative democracy).

Then the Commission must pass muster in the European parliament as a safeguard to ensure he has acted fairly in assigning portfolios and electorates generally agree with the majority of choices for commissioners. If not then the President can re-shuffle portfolios or request new Commissioners be appointed by elected governments (though, in practise, he has limited choices to work with the people he's been stuck with by elected national governments).

In other words the EC itself is answerable to two elected bodies:
- MEPs elected directly to the European Parliament.
- National governments who appoint Commissioners to the EC.

The EC must then do the day-to-day tasks of drafting bills, setting budgets, conducting trade talks etc.

Then as an additional check bills are passed to the Council of Ministers (which again is appointed by national governments) and European parliament (who can amend, reject or pass). Legislation and budgets must pass both to become law.

Flow diagram that shows who is appointed by elected governments, who is elected directly and how both are involved in the standard process.

If a country is unhappy with commissioner it's up to the electorate to elect another national government that will appoint someone more representative, if electorates were unhappy with MEPs then it's up to electorates to elect new MEPs.

So the EU is a system that combines direct and representative democracy (something we should be very comfortable with in the UK). British people complaining about how undemocratic the EU is should take a look at the UKs electoral and governmental systems. The UK still has archaic hangovers like hereditary peerage, monarchy and runs a FPTP electoral system .

[AJS-]

CuckooInMyNest said:

Before I decide how to vote can anyone explain in simple terms:

a) What are the benefits of leaving the EU?

b) What are the benefits of remaining in the EU?

No. Because it's not a simple question, and there are no definite answers. You have to research it and form an opinion based on what you deem important.

[Bluebarge]

Jinx said:

Which we could renegotiate to the UK's advantage rather than having to worry about the French farmers or German car industry. Our trade with Europe is dropping whilst trade with China is increasing - which economy would you rather be tied to? The EU trade agreements are for the benefits of France and Germany not the UK.

You might want to look at what is happening to the Chinese economy right now before making too many assumptions. A significant part of our economy will always be dependent on Europe. Your last sentence is nonsense and merely an expression of your own prejudice - the trade deals are negotiated on behalf of, and voted for, by all member states. You could say that the CAP favours France, but then plenty of our farmers do prety well out of it also.

[BGARK]

speedy_thrills said:

Funkycoldribena said:

If someone from the pro-eu can tell me where democracy comes into it I'm all ears.

What do you consider undemocratic about the EU?


Broadly speaking Commissioners are appointed by the elected governments of individual nation to serve the EC (representative democracy). Then they are assigned portfolios by the Commission President (who is elected by MEPs via representative democracy).

Then the Commission must pass muster in the European parliament as a safeguard to ensure he has acted fairly in assigning portfolios and electorates generally agree with the majority of choices for commissioners. If not then the President can re-shuffle portfolios or request new Commissioners be appointed by elected governments (though, in practise, he has limited choices to work with the people he's been stuck with by elected national governments).

In other words the EC itself is answerable to two elected bodies:
- MEPs elected directly to the European Parliament.
- National governments who appoint Commissioners to the EC.

The EC must then do the day-to-day tasks of drafting bills, setting budgets, conducting trade talks etc.

Then as an additional check bills are passed to the Council of Ministers (which again is appointed by national governments) and European parliament (who can amend, reject or pass). Legislation and budgets must pass both to become law.

Flow diagram that shows who is appointed by elected governments, who is elected directly and how both are involved in the standard process.

If a country is unhappy with commissioner it's up to the electorate to elect another national government that will appoint someone more representative, if electorates were unhappy with MEPs then it's up to electorates to elect new MEPs.

So the EU is a system that combines direct and representative democracy (something we should be very comfortable with in the UK). British people complaining about how undemocratic the EU is should take a look at the UKs electoral and governmental systems. The UK still has archaic hangovers like hereditary peerage, monarchy and runs a FPTP electoral system .

The fact that you have used so many random words proves a point that's for sure.

[Bluebarge]

wc98 said:

There is, therefore, no reason for the European Union to apply counter productive, punitive sanctions on UK-EU trade, despite scaremongering over a) tariffs applied to trade-surplus goodsxv, b) jeopardising the US-EU Trans-Atlantic Trading & Investment Partnershipxvi and c) the apparent dangers to the United Kingdom’s Financial Services Industry13. Even the simplest of analysis of EU and UK current-account positions (as well as future forecasts for the global distribution of wealth and trade) would imply that it is not in the European Union’s interests to obstruct or inhibit trade with the United Kingdom.

It will be in the EU's interests to ensure that the UK does not become a "regulation-lite" aircraft carrier off the coast of Europe which is able to suck trade and jobs away from Europe by failing to comply with the same regulatory structure that EU businesses have to contend with. The EU negotiators will also be influenced by democratic pressures from their electorates, who will not be keen to see a "sweetheart" deal for the UK, given the amount of disruption a Brexit would cause, and from EEA countries who will insist that the UK does not get a more favourable deal than them. So, in summary, a Brexit will probably lead to access to the Single Market being granted only on the basis that UK trades on EEA terms, which means that 90% of the EU regulation of UK business will remain.

You may think that is "propaganda", I think it is pragmatism. Your approach appears to be based on wishful thinking and an assumption that people with divergent interests from you will do exactly as you want. That is naive.