Brexit

[ATG]

Fundamentally what I really don't get is why anyone is particularly exercised by our EU membership one way or the other. To me our membership continues to be beneficial, but not to some huge degree. Could we have a future outside the EU? Yes and no doubt we'd survive perfectly happily although we'd be worse off economically and would have lost influence regionally and globally. However the transition period would be a dreadful mess. And given that the EU does not have huge financial or political impact in the UK irrespective of the paranoid ramblings of the eurosceptics, why risk the upheaval of leaving for a somewhat poorer, politically weakened future? It seems extremely silly to me.

[don4l]

Bluebarge said:

All the trade benefits we have now come as a result of being part of the EU bloc.

Stop making stuff up. You must think that we are a bunch of ignorant thickos if you think that we are going to swallow this drivel.

Look up the WTO, and what is has achieved over the past 20 years.

The world is slowly, but surely, becoming a free trade area - a bit like the one we thought we were joining in 1973.

[CaptainSlow]

ATG said:

Any interest in having a serious discussion?

The UK helps keep the EU member states on a path towards open, free markets. There are plenty of people in the EU who think the UK is successfully pushing the EU towards some neo con Anglo Saxon free market hell. A clear sign we've got influence and are pushing in the right direction ;-)

Sorry, I hadn't realised your claim of there being increased democracy within the EU was serious.

[otolith]

ATG said:

otolith said:

ATG said:

So the freedom you give up is offset by the influence you gain over the other members. There is no net loss of democratic power.

Can you explain the mechanism by which, say, imposing our will on the French makes us more free?

Eh? It doesn't make us any more or less free. It's democratically NEUTRAL.

In order for the freedom we give up to be offset by the influence we gain over others, that influence must in some way grant us freedom. Otherwise, all that happens is that by each imposing our wishes upon the others, we all become less free. So how does this influence we gain offset the freedom we give up? How does that work?

[Digga]

ATG said:

Fundamentally what I really don't get is why anyone is particularly exercised by our EU membership one way or the other. To me our membership continues to be beneficial, but not to some huge degree. Could we have a future outside the EU? Yes and no doubt we'd survive perfectly happily although we'd be worse off economically and would have lost influence regionally and globally. However the transition period would be a dreadful mess. And given that the EU does not have huge financial or political impact in the UK irrespective of the paranoid ramblings of the eurosceptics, why risk the upheaval of leaving for a somewhat poorer, politically weakened future? It seems extremely silly to me.

I always like to ask people:

1. Do you trust politicians?
2. Irrespective of the party, do you think most are in it to serve the voting public and country, rather than being engaged in many and several combinations of ego trip, empire building, crony-capitalism/unionism and the like?
3. Do you think it is a good idea to have more politicians?

If you can't answer "yes" to all three questions, why would you want to be "in" the EU to the extent we are right now? Considered in those terms, most people are pretty stumped.

[Esseesse]

FiF said:

As above Flexcit all the way. Done with the EU, unless of course a referendum decision is to stay in, at which point the democratic decision has to be accepted.

Our continued membership will depend on the continuing assent of Parliament. Just because there is a 'stay' vote on one day doesn't mean the British electorate cannot then vote for a party who pledges to withdraw from the EU afterwards.

Edited by Esseesse on Tuesday 1st December 12:52

[CaptainSlow]

ATG said:

Fundamentally what I really don't get is why anyone is particularly exercised by our EU membership one way or the other. To me our membership continues to be beneficial, but not to some huge degree. Could we have a future outside the EU? Yes and no doubt we'd survive perfectly happily although we'd be worse off economically and would have lost influence regionally and globally. However the transition period would be a dreadful mess. And given that the EU does not have huge financial or political impact in the UK irrespective of the paranoid ramblings of the eurosceptics, why risk the upheaval of leaving for a somewhat poorer, politically weakened future? It seems extremely silly to me.

What's the relationship going to be like in 20 years? Going by the last 40 years it's going to be very different to what we have now, and the UK electorate won't get another chance to say enough's enough. There will be a single defence policy with an EU military, there will be single taxation legislation with aligned rates, there will be single policies for immigration. This is the natural progression on ever closer union, anyone that denies this will happen is deluded.

[CaptainSlow]

Esseesse said:

Our continued membership will depend on the continuing assent of Parliament. Just because there is a 'stay' vote on one day doesn't mean the British electorate cannot then vote for a party who pledges to withdraw from the EU afterwards.

Edited by Esseesse on Tuesday 1st December 12:52

Sadly this isn't the way it works. The UK voted for a party that promised a referendum in 2010 but didn't get one due to horse trading an election pledge the Tory leadership didn't really want tohonour to the Lib Dems. Likewise ~4 million people voted for this single issue in last year's GE and got 1 seat. UK politics is structured to favour the status quo, being able to vote to leave in the future will be almost impossible.

[AJS-]

ATG said:

otolith said:

ATG said:

So the freedom you give up is offset by the influence you gain over the other members. There is no net loss of democratic power.

Can you explain the mechanism by which, say, imposing our will on the French makes us more free?

Eh? It doesn't make us any more or less free. It's democratically NEUTRAL.

It's not "democratically neutral" at all. George Osborne was elected as the MP for Tatton and appointed as Chancellor of the Exchequer of Britain, answerable to parliament. He was not ordained as some sort of overlord to go and engage in murky deal making with his opposite number from 27 other countries. Only to then come back and tell us that we can't do X and we must do Y because the EU says so.

The whole language of democratic deficit and democratically neutral is rather telling. Democracy isn't some KPI which you have just enough of to keep it from going into deficit. It's a principle of a country being run for the people by the people, and by their elected representatives and institutions where appropriate.

[KrissKross]

Bluebarge said:

All the trade benefits we have now come as a result of being part of the EU bloc.

I cannot wait for Turkey to join the EU so I can start selling to them, this will really help grow my business and add great prosperity to the UK.

[Alex]

If I disagree with an EU directive, whom do I vote out? However I vote in the national election or the EU election, nothing will change.

There's your democratic deficit.

[ATG]

CaptainSlow said:

ATG said:

Any interest in having a serious discussion?

The UK helps keep the EU member states on a path towards open, free markets. There are plenty of people in the EU who think the UK is successfully pushing the EU towards some neo con Anglo Saxon free market hell. A clear sign we've got influence and are pushing in the right direction ;-)

Sorry, I hadn't realised your claim of there being increased democracy within the EU was serious.

I honestly don't know why I bother joining these threads. Perhaps you'd care to show me where I said the was "increased democracy"? I said quite clearly that there was no deficit. I said it was democratically neutral ... I even put it in capitol letters. Why try to put words in other people's mouths? Why not try to have an honest discussion rather than making stuff up?

[CaptainSlow]

ATG said:

I honestly don't know why I bother joining these threads. Perhaps you'd care to show me where I said the was "increased democracy"? I said quite clearly that there was no deficit. I said it was democratically neutral ... I even put it in capitol letters. Why try to put words in other people's mouths? Why not try to have an honest discussion rather than making stuff up?

Apologies, please amend my comment to democratically neutral. Either way, it's just as ridiculous.

[ATG]

CaptainSlow said:

What's the relationship going to be like in 20 years? Going by the last 40 years it's going to be very different to what we have now, and the UK electorate won't get another chance to say enough's enough. There will be a single defence policy with an EU military, there will be single taxation legislation with aligned rates, there will be single policies for immigration. This is the natural progression on ever closer union, anyone that denies this will happen is deluded.

Rather than bale out now when there is no good reason to do so, why not stay in and see how it develops while trying to push it in what we think is the right direction?

The idea that the future really is ever closer union is rather at odds with the wishes of almost every member state's population. Do you think the French want to be less French, for example?

[ATG]

otolith said:

In order for the freedom we give up to be offset by the influence we gain over others, that influence must in some way grant us freedom. Otherwise, all that happens is that by each imposing our wishes upon the others, we all become less free. So how does this influence we gain offset the freedom we give up? How does that work?

I don't think your calculus of freedom makes sense. If I'm one of 5, 10, or 20 making a collective decision, the decisions are equally democratically fair. My vote's weight is proportional to the population size.

[Mrr T]

steveT350C said:

Mrr T said:

steveT350C said:

Mrr T said:

Scuffers said:

wolves_wanderer said:

Happy to be convinced either way as I am completely on the fence. I don't particularly believe claims that we would be signing free trade deals with all and sundry in the first week after exit but neither do I believe that we are doomed if we exit.

there is a view that running with no trade deal could actually be the better outcome....

I would agree however we would need a lot of agreements on mutual standard setting.

The problem of that option is of cause the financial service industry where every UK financial service company would need to create a regulated entity within the EU to continue to do business within the EU. I would estimate 20K-50K UK jobs would be lost.

Creating a regulatory entity would create jobs surely?

It would certainly create jobs in the EU and/or the EEA, however, it would I expect reduce jobs in the UK.

What specific jobs do you expect to be lost in the UK?

Any number is a guess and would depend on how the effected companies restructured themselves, and the attitude of regulators. Its perfect possible to set up a regulated entity in the EU and then out source much of its functions to a non EU entity. However, out soucing is the subject of lots of regulations and in general regulators do not like decision making, control functions or sales for an EU regulated entity to be out sourced outside the EU.

If we take 2 examples.

1- Investment Management - The UK has a very successful share of this market. Most of the UK companies who sell in the EU sell investments via Irish or Luxembourg UCITS, but the directors and fund managers will be based in the UK. If the UK leaves the EU I would expect regulators to require directors to be EU residents. Fund management has more flexibility and a case can be made for this to be done outside the EU, for example on a SEA fund you can argue its better the managers are in SEA. However, I would expect the regulators to require most of the fund management to be operated from the EU. This will not just be fund managers moving but support staff, IT, investment analysts, and sales. Underneath the investment business are a whole range of other business, pricing services, fund accounting, depository services, custody. These generate a lots of jobs but many are also regulated business and if the investment management moves to the EU many of these jobs will move to the EU.

2, EU Corporate Sales - This is selling every thing from investments, underwriting, money market, FX etc to larger EU corporates and financial institutions. This must be done via an EU regulated entity and I would guess EU regulators will expect those sales people to be EU resident. Again its not just the sales staff which will have to move but because they move its likely lots of other support jobs will follow them.

[ATG]

AJS- said:

It's not "democratically neutral" at all. George Osborne was elected as the MP for Tatton and appointed as Chancellor of the Exchequer of Britain, answerable to parliament. He was not ordained as some sort of overlord to go and engage in murky deal making with his opposite number from 27 other countries. Only to then come back and tell us that we can't do X and we must do Y because the EU says so.

The whole language of democratic deficit and democratically neutral is rather telling. Democracy isn't some KPI which you have just enough of to keep it from going into deficit. It's a principle of a country being run for the people by the people, and by their elected representatives and institutions where appropriate.

He's accountable to Parliament. How much more democratic do you want?

[Rovinghawk]

ATG said:

He's accountable to Parliament. How much more democratic do you want?

How about those who hand down EU orders being accountable to someone?

[otolith]

ATG said:

I don't think your calculus of freedom makes sense. If I'm one of 5, 10, or 20 making a collective decision, the decisions are equally democratically fair. My vote's weight is proportional to the population size.

It's not my calculus, it's yours. My calculus would be that by voting collectively as a larger group, we all become less free. There is no offsetting. There is a compromise to be made, which may or may not be worthwhile, and it costs freedom.

[Digga]

Rovinghawk said:

ATG said:

He's accountable to Parliament. How much more democratic do you want?

How about those who hand down EU orders being accountable to someone?

^This.

The singular and collective unaccountability of all nation's EU representatives is the major concern.