EU Referendum - How will you vote?

[I1L2T3]

Without the EU tariffs, food from outside the EU will be cheaper.

 

Any protectionist action by the EU will be matched by the UK. It'll cost them more than us as we operate a trade deficit with them. If they're that stupid then we're better off away from them.

 

Food from outside the EU will have to be shipped from further away and is likely to be from places with lower quality standards.

 

The trade deficit is not that great actually:

https://www.uktradeinfo.com/Statistics/EUOverseasTrade/Pages/EuOTS.aspx

 

In April 2015 the value of exports (EU and non-EU) decreased to £26.4bn, and imports (EU and non-EU) also decreased to £33.3bn, compared with last month. Consequently the UK is a net importer this month, with imports exceeding exports by £6.8 billion.

 

The UK is replacable

[tzijlstra]

The trade deficit is such a brilliant argument, used by people who don't realise that the deficit is actually in the UK's favour - it means it does not have to waste capacity on producing certain things and instead can spend it on core-strengths (pharma, advanced manufacturing, chemicals, tobacco products and of course beverages).

 

But hey, it sounds good because it is measured in money, so let's roll with it - the UK out of the EU is going to magically produce the following top imports: gas/oil/fuel (Norway and the Netherlands), cars, machinery, foodstuffs and of course beverages.

 

So when I go to the supermarket in my Swedish car, fuelled with petrol refined in the Netherlands to pick up a case of French/Italian wine, some pasta with mozzarella and parmigiano, flowers from the Netherlands and using a shopping trolley manufactured in the Czech Republic I always think: "Daft this, we should make all this in the UK!"

 

I simple can not believe that people still use this as an argument, get with the times! Even the most isolated nations import massive amounts, we live in a globalised world, deal with it. Not to mention that it was in fact the British Empire that INVENTED trade deficits once this nation became utterly reliant on the commonwealth.

[Alan Ladd]

We just need to encourage more to want a job and then improve the hours and pay of some of those jobs.

 

Without the voice of people saying we should leave, Cameron wouldn't have an intensive to change things.

 

I agree in principle, however I do not think you are making allowances for those who are trapped in welfare dependency.

 

In this area the worst thing Thatcher did was to encourage men to use sickness benefit rather than the then equivalent of "Jobseekers" allowance. This has lead to generational welfare dependence with low esteem, low aspiration, educational under achievement.

 

No government has really effectively tackled this issue until Camerons, and there are signs of definite improvement.

 

Immigration should be restricted to those who have a job to come to, or capable of supporting themselves. They should not be allowed any benefits whatsoever until they have been here for, say, 5 years and have worked throughout that time.

[unbeliever]

Food from outside the EU will have to be shipped from further away and is likely to be from places with lower quality standards.

 

The trade deficit is not that great actually:

https://www.uktradeinfo.com/Statistics/EUOverseasTrade/Pages/EuOTS.aspx

 

In April 2015 the value of exports (EU and non-EU) decreased to £26.4bn, and imports (EU and non-EU) also decreased to £33.3bn, compared with last month. Consequently the UK is a net importer this month, with imports exceeding exports by £6.8 billion.

 

The UK is replacable

 

Quality is determined more by competition that standards.

We don't have to buy anything we don't want to. After Brexit we have the option of importing food from outside the EU without tariffs. This is a good option to have.

 

The trade deficit with the EU does vary but it is persistent. You are, once again, suggesting that the EU would go out of their way to try to make us suffer at the expense of their greater suffering. I repeat: They're unlikely to be that stupid and if they are we're better of staying away from them.

 

---------- Post added 11-06-2015 at 12:55 ----------

 

The trade deficit is such a brilliant argument, used by people who don't realise that the deficit is actually in the UK's favour - it means it does not have to waste capacity on producing certain things and instead can spend it on core-strengths (pharma, advanced manufacturing, chemicals, tobacco products and of course beverages).

 

But hey, it sounds good because it is measured in money, so let's roll with it - the UK out of the EU is going to magically produce the following top imports: gas/oil/fuel (Norway and the Netherlands), cars, machinery, foodstuffs and of course beverages.

 

So when I go to the supermarket in my Swedish car, fuelled with petrol refined in the Netherlands to pick up a case of French/Italian wine, some pasta with mozzarella and parmigiano, flowers from the Netherlands and using a shopping trolley manufactured in the Czech Republic I always think: "Daft this, we should make all this in the UK!"

 

I simple can not believe that people still use this as an argument, get with the times! Even the most isolated nations import massive amounts, we live in a globalised world, deal with it. Not to mention that it was in fact the British Empire that INVENTED trade deficits once this nation became utterly reliant on the commonwealth.

 

 

I've read this entire post through several times and I can't tell which side you're on.

I've commented that our trade deficit with the EU makes protectionist action by the EU against the UK unlikely as it would cost them more than us.

I haven't noticed anybody complaining on here that the trade deficit should be

a general cause for concern. That's certainly not my position.

Edited June 11, 2015 by unbeliever
wrote constant when i meant persistent

[Eater Sundae]

A bit of an aside, but I was listening to a programme on the radio a couple of weeks ago, about what would happen if the UK chose to leave the EU. The example put forward was Norway, and they spoke about the free trade agreements they have with the EU - the only problem seemed to be that they were affected by some of the laws and agreements that came out of the EU, but could take no part in developing these laws and agreements.

 

However, even after talking about free trade, they went on to say that in order to protect its indigenous cheese industry, Norway imposes a 300% duty on imported cheese. That seemed to fly totally in the face of any sort of free trade agreement. I couldn't understand how the EU would accept that (unless there was some sort of quid pro quo related to another commodity that they just didn't mention).

[I1L2T3]

Quality is determined more by competition that standards.

We don't have to buy anything we don't want to. After Brexit we have the option of importing food from outside the EU without tariffs. This is a good option to have.

 

The trade deficit with the EU does vary but it is persistent. You are, once again, suggesting that the EU would go out of their way to try to make us suffer at the expense of their greater suffering. I repeat: They're unlikely to be that stupid and if they are we're better of staying away from them.

 

The problem with your argument is that there are no guarantees about tariffs. Right now we have a stable system that reliably allows us to freely trade with most of our major trading partners, free of tariffs.

 

You are proposing to swap that with a system where we have to negotiate for everything, where tariffs can be introduced on a whim by our trading partners. With certain countries that could place us in serious difficulty, for example with countries that are purchasing our national debt or countries where we are trying to gain entry to rapidly growing markets (China and India are examples)

 

Once again, there are no guarantees. Absolutely none whatsoever.

[unbeliever]

A bit of an aside, but I was listening to a programme on the radio a couple of weeks ago, about what would happen if the UK chose to leave the EU. The example put forward was Norway, and they spoke about the free trade agreements they have with the EU - the only problem seemed to be that they were affected by some of the laws and agreements that came out of the EU, but could take no part in developing these laws and agreements.

 

However, even after talking about free trade, they went on to say that in order to protect its indigenous cheese industry, Norway imposes a 300% duty on imported cheese. That seemed to fly totally in the face of any sort of free trade agreement. I couldn't understand how the EU would accept that (unless there was some sort of quid pro quo related to another commodity that they just didn't mention).

 

We trade with almost every other country, but are affected by their laws. It's runs both ways as our laws affect others wanting to trade with us.

At least outside the EU, we'd only have to deal with EU law when trading with the EU. Right now we have to deal with EU law for all trade, and our influence over it is negligible.

[I1L2T3]

A bit of an aside, but I was listening to a programme on the radio a couple of weeks ago, about what would happen if the UK chose to leave the EU. The example put forward was Norway, and they spoke about the free trade agreements they have with the EU - the only problem seemed to be that they were affected by some of the laws and agreements that came out of the EU, but could take no part in developing these laws and agreements.

 

However, even after talking about free trade, they went on to say that in order to protect its indigenous cheese industry, Norway imposes a 300% duty on imported cheese. That seemed to fly totally in the face of any sort of free trade agreement. I couldn't understand how the EU would accept that (unless there was some sort of quid pro quo related to another commodity that they just didn't mention).

 

It's because of one important thing that no pro-exit bod will ever tell you. If you exit the EU and say join the EEA then fisheries and agriculture are not covered by any free trade agreement. We'd have to negotiate on every single foodstuff that we might export to or import from the EU.

 

Our agricultural sector would be plunged into chaos.

[unbeliever]

The problem with your argument is that there are no guarantees about tariffs. Right now we have a stable system that reliably allows us to freely trade with most of our major trading partners, free of tariffs.

 

You are proposing to swap that with a system where we have to negotiate for everything, where tariffs can be introduced on a whim by our trading partners. With certain countries that could place us in serious difficulty, for example with countries that are purchasing our national debt or countries where we are trying to gain entry to rapidly growing markets (China and India are examples)

 

Once again, there are no guarantees. Absolutely none whatsoever.

 

So we accept a badly run, unaccountable, corrupt super-state gradually taking more and more control of our lives and of our laws because there's a remote chance they'll initiate a short term, self destructive protectionist response if we leave?

Really?

[I1L2T3]

We trade with almost every other country, but are affected by their laws. It's runs both ways as our laws affect others wanting to trade with us.

At least outside the EU, we'd only have to deal with EU law when trading with the EU. Right now we have to deal with EU law for all trade, and our influence over it is negligible.

 

No, if we were outside the EU and in the EEA instead all the same laws apply (except for fisheries and agriculture).

 

The only way to try and avoid them is to leave the single market totally but even then for every trade agreement you tried to negotiate with the EU then the EU would insist on us meeting their standards, as it does now with all other countries that trade with it.

 

Again, you will never be told that by the pro-exit crew.