If UK leaves Europe … a warning??

[I1L2T3]

The UK population is the fastest growing population in Europe, its putting enormous pressure on public services, school and hospitals and all caused by immigration and the higher fertility rate of foreign born mothers. So no it isn't a good deal.

 

Then why did the Tories give visas to 290,000 non-EU immigrants last year. Without those net immigration would have been 28,000 and well within target.

 

Why did the Tories spend 5 years making cuts to border agencies.

 

They've got you looking at EU while all the time the damage is being done behind the scenes

 

---------- Post added 07-06-2015 at 22:39 ----------

 

from a travel point of view, travelling via road in the eu, britain are not in the free movement agreement unlike the rest of europe, so im sorry but im for us leaving the eu anyway...what do we GAIN in the eu?

 

All the stuff we'd lose by being out of it, and of course a few niggles that aren't really enough to justify exit.

[retep]

Then why did the Tories give visas to 290,000 non-EU immigrants last year. Without those net immigration would have been 28,000 and well within target.

 

Why did the Tories spend 5 years making cuts to border agencies.

 

They've got you looking at EU while all the time the damage is being done behind the scenes

 

---------- Post added 07-06-2015 at 22:39 ----------

 

 

All the stuff we'd lose by being out of it, and of course a few niggles that aren't really enough to justify exit.

 

Such as?...

[I1L2T3]

Such as?...

 

This is a start:

http://www.cbi.org.uk/campaigns/our-global-future/factsheets/factsheet-2-benefits-of-eu-membership-outweigh-costs/

[loraward]

Then why did the Tories give visas to 290,000 non-EU immigrants last year. Without those net immigration would have been 28,000 and well within target.

 

Why did the Tories spend 5 years making cuts to border agencies.

 

They've got you looking at EU while all the time the damage is being done behind the scenes

 

Two possibilities.

 

They was in a coalition government so didn't have enough power to do anything different.

 

They believe in high levels of immigration presumably because they benefit from it.

 

But they don't have me looking at just the EU, immigration from outside the EU also needs to fall significantly.

 

They probably cut border agency budget because with the current high pay scales in the public sector it's cheaper to have people unemployed than working.

[retep]

This is a start:

http://www.cbi.org.uk/campaigns/our-global-future/factsheets/factsheet-2-benefits-of-eu-membership-outweigh-costs/

 

And here's the finish,

http://www.betteroffout.net/the-case/10-eu-myths-about-withdrawl/

[Flanker7]

Civil Servants are not meant to tow ANY line, they are not political. They will be neutral and not give their opinion as they do before any General election. They are reminded of this before each election.

 

---------- Post added 07-06-2015 at 21:06 ----------

 

 

It won't be a Gereral Election. I was referring to this:-

 

"The civil service will not be expected to abide by "purdah" limitations in the run-up to the referendum on Britain's membership of the European Union, the foreign secretary has suggested, as Conservative backbenchers warned against the potential politicisation of officials."

 

That view was later echoed by Cameron, with the prime minister telling reporters at the G7 summit: "The government isn't neutral in this. We have a clear view: renegotiate, get a deal that's in Britain's interest and then recommend Britain stays in it."

 

https://www.civilserviceworld.com/articles/news/row-over-civil-service-neutrality-ahead-eu-referendum

[L00b]

And here's the finish,

http://www.betteroffout.net/the-case/10-eu-myths-about-withdrawl/

That's nothing like a 'finish', more like an 'open-ended beginning':

If Britain withdrew from the EU it would preserve the benefits of trade with the EU by imposing a UK/EU Free Trade Agreement

'Imposing'? How? You mean, rock up to Brussels and ask to incorporate the EFTA?

 

And so get back to pretty much square one (as regards movement of people and capital), only this time without MEPs, Commission members, Westminster bums on Executive councils?

 

I'm sure the ancients called this kind of outcome "cutting one's nose to spite one's face". But I could be wrong of course.

The EU sells a lot more to us than we sell to them. In 2011 there was a trade deficit of nearly £50bn, which had risen to £109.2bn by 2014. It seems unlikely that the EU would seek to disrupt a trade which is so beneficial to itself

And non-trade barriers are not going to change this, of course. Not with Merkel and Hollande, Frankfurt and Paris all with knives out for the City for years and years.

Moreover, the Lisbon Treaty stipulates that the EU must make a trade agreement with a country which leaves the EU

It "must", does it?

 

I'm familiar with Article 50 TEU:nowhere does it stipulate that "the EU must make a trade agreement with a country which leaves the EU". It just stipulates that the EU and the exiting country will "negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union". Nothing in there imposing a trade agreement.

 

So, can I have a statutory basis for that claim, please?

World Trade Organization (WTO) rules lay down basic rules for international trade by which both the EU and UK are obliged to abide.

And? How are these rules more beneficial to the UK out of the EU? China has been a WTO member for 14 years. Ask them how they're enjoying their reciprocal international trade agreements with the US and the EU.

The EU has free trade agreements with 53 countries to overcome such tariffs, and is negotiating a further 74 such agreements.

Yes, that's the EU. So, what about the UK? And by that I mean - the UK on its own, not as an EU member state?

-EU now exempts services and many goods from duties anyway. In 2009 UK charged customs duty of just 1.76% on non-EU imports. This is so low that the EU Common Market is basically redundant as a customs union with tariff walls

This website has obviously never heard of non-tariff barriers:

Table 1 summarises the results of our analysis for the impact of changes in trade barriers on incomes in the UK. In the optimistic scenario, there is an overall welfare loss of 1.1 per cent, which is driven by current and future changes in non-tariff barriers. Non-tariff barriers play a particularly important role in restricting trade in service industries such as finance and accounting, an area where the UK is a major exporter.

 

In the pessimistic scenario, the overall loss swells to 3.1 per cent, with most of the impact coming from non-tariff barriers (2.55 per cent). Leaving the EU would increase non-tariff barriers to trade (arising from different regulations, border controls, etc.) and reduce the UK’s ability to participate in future steps toward deeper integration in the EU. The costs of reduced trade far outweigh the fiscal savings. In cash terms, the loss is £50 billion in the pessimistic scenario and a still substantial £18 billion in the optimistic scenario.

(source)

-Norway and Switzerland are not in the EU, yet they export far more per capita to the EU than the UK does; this suggests that EU membership is not a prerequisite for a healthy trading relationship.

Ask the Norwegians (full of oil up to their nostrils - we're not) how they're enjoying their Mediterranean refugees, and the Swiss (full of banking services - the sort we don't have) how they're enjoying their EU citizens walking in-&-out UK-like (currently)

-The largest investor in the UK is not even an EU country, but the US

Much of that goes into the UK because it's in the EU. There's a very good reason (tens and hundreds of £bns' worth of reason) the UK has been considered as a US aircraft carrier (in economical terms) off the EU coast for decades. Why do you think Obama just stepped in with both feet about it?

 

I could go on and on, that page you linked is just comedy gold. Wasn't copy-pasted from a UKIP leaflet, was it?

[Tommo68]

There may be some downsides to leaving the EU but depite what some say I for one can not see them outweighing the benefits.

 

Our Self determination immediately increased.

Far more control over immigration... if we are stupid enough to continue to allow any. We need to stop the influx from all nations not just the european ones.

Far more choice about where we spend our own money as we certainly do not get back from the EU more than we put in and why should we subsidise the weak and under-developed.

Much less health tourism going on.. which costs us a fortune.

Much less food waste as EU dictation even defines he shape fruit and veg have to be.

 

If it, and I do say IF, it raises our cost of living a little it would be worth it to me.

 

We signed up for a Common Market not to relinquish all our powers to the state of Eurasia.

.

.

[MikeFrank]

I hope its going to be a fair and unbiased referendum, but I doubt it. The issue has been debated twice in recent weeks on Question Time where all the panel, the BBC and most of the audience want to stay in... it was a joke to be honest.

 

Just because massive multinationals and other big business are campaigning to stay in doesn't mean its good for the ordinary person in the street. They want to stay in because it means they get lots of cheap labour..

 

Then we have the BBC, who receive massive grants from the EU? Which side of the argument do you think their on?

 

The Yes campaign also want 16/17 year olds to vote knowing that schools promote the EU as a good thing with little said in opposition... I saw the other day on TV that schools get lots of materials and educational text paid for by the EU, so its little wonder schools will also, on the whole, be promoting the EU as all things good...

 

Both sides of the argument should only be allowed to spend the same on their cause and should be given equal representation in the media to make the debate fair...

 

I was very much a "No" voter, but now I'm wavering a little... we need the facts and not spin though...

[tzijlstra]

There may be some downsides to leaving the EU but depite what some say I for one can not see them outweighing the benefits.

 

Our Self determination immediately increased.

Far more control over immigration... if we are stupid enough to continue to allow any. We need to stop the influx from all nations not just the european ones.

Far more choice about where we spend our own money as we certainly do not get back from the EU more than we put in and why should we subsidise the weak and under-developed.

Much less health tourism going on.. which costs us a fortune.

Much less food waste as EU dictation even defines he shape fruit and veg have to be.

 

If it, and I do say IF, it raises our cost of living a little it would be worth it to me.

 

We signed up for a Common Market not to relinquish all our powers to the state of Eurasia.

.

.

 

Uhmmm, have you got any figures to back these statements up? Particularly the latter shows you up (again) as not having a clue what you are talking about. But the health tourism is a gem as well, as is the 'certainly not getting back what we put in' argument. In fact, everything you say is nonsense, are you aware of that? I can keep showing you up on this, or you could actually do some proper research into the topic and familiarise yourself with the EU and how it works, it might help you with your arguments against.