In , out, shake it all about

[????]

Listen I'm a reluctant pro but we wouldn't be paying import/export duties France & Germany would want us in a trade agreement straightaway given we are their 3rd biggest export market and our BoP with them is very much in their favour - the trade argument put about by the pros is false. The inward investment argument is more convincing.

[sheff]

As long as they did. And i don't doubt that they would - but you'd want that defined before voting either way.

ETA - although to send to Norway you incur duty costs (or at least the end consumer should). Same in Switzerland.

[Blah Blah]

But you miss the core point ???? which is that we won't be able to do single trade deals with individual EU countries, we would have to go through the existing EU treaties on trade deals. If we couldn't agree terms with the EU then we'd refer to the World Trade Organisation tariffs. Either way we will have tariffs to pay, reduced membership costs, and be required to adopt a third of EU regulations.

Sheff, your figures are interesting and pretty much in line with what economists estimate would be the extra costs on exports (of between ?18bn and ?50bn in tariffs). You also illustrate perfectly why some aspects of that business would relocate to within the EU to avoid those tariffs.

[????]

er, no. we'd have a single trade agreement with the EU like other countries do; and that would be rushed through by the big beast of Europe as we are a massive importer of their products and we run a trade defeceit with them; it would be put through pretty quickly.

[uncleglen]

Yes they need us more than we need them...

[Louisa]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11415842/Would-Britain-thrive-outside-the-EU.html

For a lay person such as myself, I think this article above summarises exit outcomes pretty nicely. I know a wide range of economists want to put their tuppence worth in, but for me this is a good summary (taken from article):

Best outcome: EU trade hit, more than offset by red tape bonfire and budget bill reduction.

In this scenario, the economic benefit to Britain would be ?16.1bn - or 1.1pc of GDP.

Most likely outcome: Some disruption, but the UK recovers. Most likely scenario would leave Britain slightly better off outside EU.

Under this scenario, Britain would be better off by ?1.3bn - or 0.1pc of GDP

Worst-case scenario: Britain is frozen out by its neighbours. Trade and investment from the EU and further afield evaporates, triggering a market shock that pushes Britain's borrowing costs up by 1.5 percentage points. While Britain would not be left on the hook for EU budget payments, the costs would far outweigh the benefits.

Under this scenario, Britain would be worse off by around ?40bn - or 2.6pc of GDP.

Louisa.

[Blah Blah]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> er, no. we'd have a single trade agreement with

> the EU like other countries do; and that would be

> rushed through by the big beast of Europe as we

> are a massive importer of their products and we

> run a trade defeceit with them; it would be put

> through pretty quickly.

No we don't. We have 50 different trade agreements, all of which would have to be renegotiated.

And here we go again, this delusion that we are somehow special, more special than Norway and Switzerland.

[Blah Blah]

The article is a little out of date Louisa, we now pay 7bn more than we get back, not 10bn, but interesting all the same. I still think the most likely deal would be along the same lines of Norway, Switzerland etc and that would place us around 20bn worse off.

[Earl Aelfheah]

A pretty balanced article on the Europe question: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/26/irrational-unhinged-gullible-many-who-want-britain-out-of-europe-deserve-listened

[pg500]

I can't help thinking that the Leave camp have a worryingly na?ve expectation of the ease with which we could secure favourable replacement trade deals. Yes we're a big market for EU exports but that does not mean they are going to roll over in any negotiation (they didn't exactly when faced with Cameron's demands did they?). They will not stand back and allow UK products to become more competitive against their companies by the UK weakening workers rights or watering down standards and practices. Consequently, there would be no-bonfire of red-tape as the EU would insist on a level playing field (at best).

Much is made of the fact that we import more goods from Europe than we export (not true of services though I don't think) and how they'd be desperate to maintain access to our market. This misreads the balance of power in the negotiating positions though. The UK is far more dependent on trading with the EU than the EU collectively is in trading with the UK. They know that, we know that, so in any negotiation we would likely blink first.

The same principle extends to trade deals with non-EU countries. Access to a market of 500 million people is a far more attractive proposition than the UK's 60 million. It allows the EU to drive a very hard bargain which the UK simply couldn't do.

[Blah Blah]

These were points made on Question Time, especially in reference to services. And that we currently have 53 trade deals in place, all of which would have to be renegotiated. The more I hear from both sides on this, the more apparent it becomes to me that the whole thing would be a mess to sort out, which could take years, and in the meantime UK business and jobs would suffer to some degree. But at least now the debate is moving on to detail instead of single issue soundbites on things like immigration.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Also, whilst some member state might be willing to quickly cut a favouable deal with the UK, it will only take one or two to dig their heels in to derail the whole process. Personally, I think the out camp are kidding themselves.

[maxxi]

Still the negativity continues, "naive, deluded, kidding themselves, it'll be a mess..." an endless stream of patronising & pompous" warnings" so reminiscent of the Scots independence vote that I can see many being swayed into the out camp if only to be deliberately perverse (a great British pastime).

Let's hear instead about all the positive reasons for staying and not just because it's the status quo, sing out on the joys of European union and let us hear you.

[maxxi]

Or don't. (Posts non-aligned neutral smiley)

[pg500]

Yes mine is a negative argument but that is inevitable when arguing for the status quo. It should be perfectly valid to point out risks without provoking a cry of ?scaremongering?. Not that Iain Duncan Smith was engaging in that when his first contribution to the debate was a warning that staying in the EU would make a Paris style attack more likely.

As you ask though I?d say that being in the EU gives us a stronger economy with greater employment opportunities. If you want ?joys? though, that's stretching it.

[right-clicking]

I for one would welcome further integration, a united states of Europe would make total sense, this half in half out mish mash is what is letting the whole shooting match down, I have travelled extensively throughout Europe and the USA and the parallels are there and obvious, one state can be so unlike another, almost like a foreign country, they have their own laws (state) and they have union laws (federal) they set their own taxes but have a common fiscal union.

Only when total integration is achieved will this great experiment succeed then we (Europe) will be in a very strong position to stand up to the other super-powers

Vive L'Europe!!

[DulwichFox]

The United States are far from being United in its laws...

The one that stands out more than most is the laws governing the Death Penalty..

Laws in the UK are governed by approval from the Brussels / Srasbourg circus and not just the House of Lords..

DulwichFox.

[apbremer]

The referendum is academic. If we vote "IN" we stay with the whole corrupt mess. "NO" and we shall be thrown a few conciliatory crumbs and told to vote again until Brussels gets the right result.Ignore what that slimy liar, Cameron says. Uncontrolled mass migration will continue, and get worse.

[apbremer]

I read that Brussels, having messed up the light bulbs and vacuum cleaners, is now to ban quick boil electric kettles and cotton oven gloves but directives will only arrive AFTER the referendum~might upset the Brits. I also hear from my pal Juncker, lately the Big Cheese of that nest of tax avoiders, Luxembourg(although he of course knew nothing of its main industry!) that after an IN vote every household is to hand over any spare rooms to house refugees as Europe cannot cope. In addition the householder will have to attend compulsory language lessons in his lodgers' home tongue so that they will not feel disadvantaged. Monthly diet sheets are to be prepared and approved by the local EU Vulnerability Commissar.

You have been warned.

[????]

i think you've been 'listening' to the Daily Mail

[maxxi]

not to mention sniffing the ink

[Earl Aelfheah]

right-clicking Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I for one would welcome further integration, a

> united states of Europe would make total sense,

> this half in half out mish mash is what is letting

> the whole shooting match down, I have travelled

> extensively throughout Europe and the USA and the

> parallels are there and obvious, one state can be

> so unlike another, almost like a foreign country,

> they have their own laws (state) and they have

> union laws (federal) they set their own taxes but

> have a common fiscal union.

> Only when total integration is achieved will this

> great experiment succeed then we (Europe) will be

> in a very strong position to stand up to the other

> super-powers

>

> Vive L'Europe!!

I think there is some truth to this.

[malumbu]

Well what an exciting few days.

Farage in the Speaker in Westminster (pub)

Now two Lords in a row, one giving an argument for staying in (this was specific to the event I attended, rather than a Euro debate).

Then one arguing in a private conversation out. A chap I was with explained that regarding the said issue that as this was an international agreement (a) we wouldn't have any influence from outside the EU and (b) the internal market for this sort of product was too small (and we stopped manufacturing years ago in any case).

The Lord's view was mainly about Sovereignty, fair enough.

Apbremer - a must amusing post by the way. You've either been spending too much time South of Penge or I expect are being rather witty - which may have had the desired effect.

John Cooper Clarke - a twiddly dee a twiddle dum, the day they brought back hanging for everyone (and you never see a nipple in the Daily Express) coupled with a bit of Atilla the Stockbroker - Libyan Students from Hell

The subject matter was very narrow, and as said the Euro angle whilst relevant was incidental.

And last night, again with Europe not the subject, we discussed the rather poor 'in' leaflet which seeemed to be about reduced mobile roaming - a pretty trivial thing in the great scheme of things, and studying/working in Europe. Not the substantive stuff that is generally debated here. A shame because the leaflet is rather playing to the common denominator and rather patronising/simplistic.

[Blah Blah]

But that's how they think they win votes malumbu. By treating people as though they are stupid and can only grasp simple single issues. Quite depressing really.

[????]

I am still in. But mainly because I keep looking at those representing out, with friends like that etc