EU Referendum - How will you vote?

[sutty27]

 

 

You seem to have the economics knowledge/understanding of a 5 year old.

The EU is 44% of the UK's total export market, about 13 % of UK GDP.

 

The UK is a hair under 16% of the EU's total export market, about 3% of EU GDP.

 

No doubt you can work out who needs the other the most from these figures

 

And you have zero understanding, the EU sells more to us than we to them, we buy stuff off them that we produce here, and we sell stuff to them whilst importing the same kind of stuff from them. If they don't want to trade which is very unlikely, they won't want what we have to sell, we won't want what they have to sell, if the EU businesses are no longer competing for UK trade then UK businesses will fill the void, if I can't buy French cheese I will buy British cheese, if I can't by German drills I will buy British drills, if I can't buy Polish steel I will buy British steel.

 

What is best as a business owner?

 

10 companies that do the same as you with a market of 500 million people.

 

Or no other companies that do what you do and a market of 50 million people.

 

You appear to believe that we won't be able to sell into the EU but we will still be able to buy from the EU.

[L00b]

But I feel for the people who don't have family here and might have to go back after years of living and working here. Will the government ask us to earn at least 35 k? Do we need to be in a desirable profession? Will we have to have a British passport to be treated as equals which costs over 1200 quid (and have to give up our own nationality?) Will we be made redundant because the company we work for will have to move or doesn't want to pay for work visas?

Don't be asking difficult questions for which the Leave camp has no answers

Although according to my neighbour (who, like so many other out-voters) has it all figured out, promised me that people "like me" will never be kicked out! Phew!

I guess that's what most integrated EU migrants are hearing from their British friends. Heard the same myself time and again...

 

...but then, silence, after I asked them to imagine how they would feel if their right to live in the UK, to live in their own house and to do their job and everything else that they're used to doing day-in day-out, would suddenly hang in the balance like for a non-EU immigrant, and remain so for ever more at the mercy of some paper-pushing and box-ticking immigration worker,

 

..and then, shock, after I told them that I'd be leaving anyway, (British-) family in tow, due to the unavoidable 30% (conservative) drop in profitable workload in my line of work.

 

Hey-ho, life punches, you roll with them

 

---------- Post added 01-06-2016 at 11:12 ----------

 

the EU sells more to us than we to them, we buy stuff off them that we produce here, and we sell stuff to them whilst importing the same kind of stuff from them.

The EU sells less to the UK than to the rest of the world. 84% less.

You appear to believe that we won't be able to sell into the EU but we will still be able to buy from the EU.

Not in the least.

 

I simply understand that 3% of GDP is far less critical to an economy than 13% (particularly once the indebtment ratio of the party with 13% in the balance has been considered), and that buys a lot of negotiating power around a table.

 

You don't even understand the differential between the EU's global trade level and the UK's global trade level.

And you have zero understanding

:hihi: Edited June 1, 2016 by L00b

[mossdog]

A long but good article from Moneyweek.

 

.....The freer we are, the better we do

 

I’d argue that history gives us a fairly hard-and-fast law: the freer people are, the more they achieve.

 

The societies that have the most freedom of thought in particular, but also the most freedom of action, labour, capital, movement and so on, tend to be the ones that are the most inventive and innovative.

 

As such, they tend to be the highest-achieving, the most progressive and the most prosperous. They also tend to be the healthiest and happiest.

 

Where people are free, they thrive. Where they are not, they languish. The obvious current example is Korea. The south dramatically outperforms the north because it is freer than the north.

 

Freedom takes many forms. In many ways we are now freer than we’ve ever been because there are more possibilities open to us. We can say pretty much anything we like (within reason); thanks to planes, we can get to pretty much anywhere in the world we like; we can drive hundreds of miles in just a few hours; we can communicate with people almost anywhere. For all these freedoms we have technological invention to thank.

 

In other ways, we are less free. The average working man must work until the end of May each year without pay to meet the taxation demands his government places on him. He gets all sorts of services in return for this, of course, but this is not his free choice. He must also meet all sorts of administrative requirements (mostly fairly simple ones), such as carrying a passport if he wants to travel and so on.

 

The freest societies tend to be those in which power is spread as thinly and widely as possible. To achieve this, some form of democracy is usually best. The other “cracies” don’t seem to work as well.

 

In an autocracy (rule by an individual, such as North Korea), the majority do not prosper. The same goes for theocracies (rule by a religious elite, such as Iran) and stratocracies (rule by the army, such as Thailand or Egypt). In these systems people’s possibilities are more limited.

 

How centralisation can stifle an economy

 

The European Union was born out of the very noble aim of never again allowing large-scale war in Europe to be possible, but the consequence of this has been to centralise power in the form of another "cracy" – a bureaucracy. Of course, it’s nothing like as bad as those countries I’ve mentioned above, but this centralisation of power has meant many regions of Europe have lost the freedom to make their own choices.

 

The result has meant economic misery in southern Europe, for example. Limited in the policies they can set – in particular, the setting of their monetary policies –the southern European nations of Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain have been hamstrung.

 

Without control of their own currency, they have been thrust into a deflationary depression. We now have 39% youth unemployment in Italy, 45% in Spain and 49% in Italy. In this 21st century time of plenty, this is quite unnecessary. These economies should all be thriving.

 

Something similar has happened to our own fishing industry. EU regulation has led to all sorts of barriers to progress, and this once thriving industry has been destroyed.

 

When the EU sets its rules, it’s not like the bureaucrats are getting their feet dirty – visiting remote locations across Europe to make sure that each region has its own rules that suit that region. Rather you get an inflexible, one-size-fits-all code for the whole continent. Regulation can often prevent change and so a local industry languishes.

 

The UK is currently thriving relative to the rest of Europe, because it has been able to escape some of this centralisation of power. We still have the pound, so we can determine our own fiscal and monetary policies.

 

But even in the UK, centralisation is a problem. What suits London does not necessarily suit the rest of the UK, for example. London, it might be argued, needs higher interest rates, while the rest of the UK may not.

 

A heavily regulated society – even if that regulation is well intentioned – does not beget innovation. In fact, I would argue that most regulation hinders innovation, as it hinders change.

 

The internet has unleashed a technological and creative revolution. Had it been regulated, such invention would not have been possible. But the innovators were way ahead of the regulators.

 

If Alexander Fleming had cleaned up his workstation – and I imagine current regulation, whether from the EU or elsewhere, would declare that he must – we would not now have penicillin: the discovery which revolutionised medicine and saved millions of lives was a happy accident. You can’t regulate for invention. It is a contradiction.

 

It takes two to trade – but that’s all

 

Trade is no different. I don’t need the approval of someone in Brussels or Westminster to conduct the business I conduct. I just need the agreement of the person I’m doing business with. When we both agree, we trade and we both benefit from that trade. When the time comes, we both pay the appropriate taxes.

 

Looking at things from a self-interested, British point of view – for me, the choice between EU rule by officials in a bureaucracy and our system of parliamentary democracy is an easy one.

 

Of the two, our system, for all its many failings (and there are many), is preferable. We don’t want to be further enmeshed in a EU project that is so restrictive. When our economy hits rougher times – and that time will come – we must have as much freedom as possible to make our own decisions and set our own policies. We are more restricted if we vote to remain.

 

The evidence of history is irresistible. Freer countries always outperform their more heavily regulated neighbours. Let us vote ignore personal political prejudice and vote in favour of the system, which gives us the most freedom. That might entail a rocky period of re-adjustment, but any such period will be brief. Then we will thrive and prosper.

[Tomjames]

A long but good article from Moneyweek.

 

.....The freer we are, the better we do

 

I’d argue that history gives us a fairly hard-and-fast law: the freer people are, the more they achieve.

 

The societies that have the most freedom of thought in particular, but also the most freedom of action, labour, capital, movement and so on, tend to be the ones that are the most inventive and innovative.

 

As such, they tend to be the highest-achieving, the most progressive and the most prosperous. They also tend to be the healthiest and happiest.

 

Where people are free, they thrive. Where they are not, they languish. The obvious current example is Korea. The south dramatically outperforms the north because it is freer than the north.

 

Freedom takes many forms. In many ways we are now freer than we’ve ever been because there are more possibilities open to us. We can say pretty much anything we like (within reason); thanks to planes, we can get to pretty much anywhere in the world we like; we can drive hundreds of miles in just a few hours; we can communicate with people almost anywhere. For all these freedoms we have technological invention to thank.

 

In other ways, we are less free. The average working man must work until the end of May each year without pay to meet the taxation demands his government places on him. He gets all sorts of services in return for this, of course, but this is not his free choice. He must also meet all sorts of administrative requirements (mostly fairly simple ones), such as carrying a passport if he wants to travel and so on.

 

The freest societies tend to be those in which power is spread as thinly and widely as possible. To achieve this, some form of democracy is usually best. The other “cracies” don’t seem to work as well.

 

In an autocracy (rule by an individual, such as North Korea), the majority do not prosper. The same goes for theocracies (rule by a religious elite, such as Iran) and stratocracies (rule by the army, such as Thailand or Egypt). In these systems people’s possibilities are more limited.

 

How centralisation can stifle an economy

 

The European Union was born out of the very noble aim of never again allowing large-scale war in Europe to be possible, but the consequence of this has been to centralise power in the form of another "cracy" – a bureaucracy. Of course, it’s nothing like as bad as those countries I’ve mentioned above, but this centralisation of power has meant many regions of Europe have lost the freedom to make their own choices.

 

The result has meant economic misery in southern Europe, for example. Limited in the policies they can set – in particular, the setting of their monetary policies –the southern European nations of Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain have been hamstrung.

 

Without control of their own currency, they have been thrust into a deflationary depression. We now have 39% youth unemployment in Italy, 45% in Spain and 49% in Italy. In this 21st century time of plenty, this is quite unnecessary. These economies should all be thriving.

 

Something similar has happened to our own fishing industry. EU regulation has led to all sorts of barriers to progress, and this once thriving industry has been destroyed.

 

When the EU sets its rules, it’s not like the bureaucrats are getting their feet dirty – visiting remote locations across Europe to make sure that each region has its own rules that suit that region. Rather you get an inflexible, one-size-fits-all code for the whole continent. Regulation can often prevent change and so a local industry languishes.

 

The UK is currently thriving relative to the rest of Europe, because it has been able to escape some of this centralisation of power. We still have the pound, so we can determine our own fiscal and monetary policies.

 

But even in the UK, centralisation is a problem. What suits London does not necessarily suit the rest of the UK, for example. London, it might be argued, needs higher interest rates, while the rest of the UK may not.

 

A heavily regulated society – even if that regulation is well intentioned – does not beget innovation. In fact, I would argue that most regulation hinders innovation, as it hinders change.

 

The internet has unleashed a technological and creative revolution. Had it been regulated, such invention would not have been possible. But the innovators were way ahead of the regulators.

 

If Alexander Fleming had cleaned up his workstation – and I imagine current regulation, whether from the EU or elsewhere, would declare that he must – we would not now have penicillin: the discovery which revolutionised medicine and saved millions of lives was a happy accident. You can’t regulate for invention. It is a contradiction.

 

It takes two to trade – but that’s all

 

Trade is no different. I don’t need the approval of someone in Brussels or Westminster to conduct the business I conduct. I just need the agreement of the person I’m doing business with. When we both agree, we trade and we both benefit from that trade. When the time comes, we both pay the appropriate taxes.

 

Looking at things from a self-interested, British point of view – for me, the choice between EU rule by officials in a bureaucracy and our system of parliamentary democracy is an easy one.

 

Of the two, our system, for all its many failings (and there are many), is preferable. We don’t want to be further enmeshed in a EU project that is so restrictive. When our economy hits rougher times – and that time will come – we must have as much freedom as possible to make our own decisions and set our own policies. We are more restricted if we vote to remain.

 

The evidence of history is irresistible. Freer countries always outperform their more heavily regulated neighbours. Let us vote ignore personal political prejudice and vote in favour of the system, which gives us the most freedom. That might entail a rocky period of re-adjustment, but any such period will be brief. Then we will thrive and prosper.

 

 

The only sensible thing in that article is suggesting we don't need governments to trade.

It's one dimensional shoddy journalism otherwise.

[sutty27]

 

 

The EU sells less to the UK than to the rest of the world. 84% less.

And you think they will want to cut their exports by 16%. If they do it will leave a gap in the UK market which will be filled by UK business expansion. If EU business don't want to sell into the UK market then UK business will simply sell more into the UK market.

 

 

I simply understand that 3% of GDP is far less critical to an economy than 13% (particularly once the indebtment ratio of the party with 13% in the balance has been considered), and that buys a lot of negotiating power around a table.

 

Our businesses will expand to fill any void that is left if the EU won't trade. We will buy more British milk, more British fish, more British steel if the EU don't want to sell it to us, so more of the stuff we consume will be supplied by British companies if the EU won't trade with us, which is very unlikely, our consumption won't fall so our economy won't fall.

[Tomjames]

Germany do well...They are in EU.

The Arab states are hardly free of tyranny and sharia law...extremely prosperous.

 

The UK is the fastest growing economy in Europe.

 

Although there are several examples of free countries outside the EU who are prosperous....its not really an argument for staying in or out.

[thegreenjudy]

Germany do well...They are in EU.

The Arab states are hardly free of tyranny and sharia law...extremely prosperous.

 

The UK is the fastest growing economy in Europe.

 

Although there are several examples of free countries outside the EU who are prosperous....its not really an argument for staying in or out.

 

I think most people don't realise how well off they are. Most people who want out have this idea that not being able to have Sky subscription means that they live in poverty.

 

On the other hand, I think sovereignty (which usually is the other reason they state) is completely overrated.. But I was brought up in a country where people were scared to hold up their countries flag up until the 2016 World Cup.

[unbeliever]

The EU is 44% of the UK's total export market, about 13 % of UK GDP.

 

The UK is a hair under 16% of the EU's total export market, about 3% of EU GDP.

 

No doubt you can work out who needs the other the most from these figures

 

Nice try. In March 2016 (most recent data) Uk exports to the EU totalled £25bn and Uk imports from the EU totalled £40bn.

https://www.uktradeinfo.com/Statistics/OverseasTradeStatistics/Pages/OTS.aspx

Feel free to look at other periods. It's all on that page.

 

Add to that, the fact that the UK is currently Germany's biggest trading partner (recently moved ahead of France).

 

Now who needs who more.

 

---------- Post added 01-06-2016 at 11:35 ----------

 

On the other hand, I think sovereignty (which usually is the other reason they state) is completely overrated.. But I was brought up in a country where people were scared to hold up their countries flag up until the 2016 World Cup.

 

Sovereignty is desperately important to me.

If the lines of authority and responsibility are not clear and accountable, then democracy does not function.

Edited June 1, 2016 by unbeliever

[L00b]

And you think they will want to cut their exports by 16%. If they do it will leave a gap in the UK market which will be filled by UK business expansion. If EU business don't want to sell into the UK market then UK business will simply sell more into the UK market.

For the love of God...

 

No I don't think the EU "will want to cut their exports by 16%", no more than the UK "will want to cut their exports by 45%".

 

But the UK will want to preserve as full an access to the Single Market as it can to keep as much of that 45% problem-free, and the EU will have the stronger negotiating position when discussing terms for that access, because it has far less to lose.

Our businesses will expand to fill any void that is left if the EU won't trade. We will buy more British milk, more British fish, more British steel if the EU don't want to sell it to us, so more of the stuff we consume will be supplied by British companies if the EU won't trade with us, which is very unlikely, our consumption won't fall so our economy won't fall.

French, German, Spanish, Italian, Dutch <etc> businesses will expand to fill any void that is left if the UK won't trade. They will buy more French lamb, more German cars, more Polish steel if the UK don't want to sell it to the EU, so more of the stuff they consume will be supplied by European companies if the UK won't trade with the EU, which is very unlikely, the EU consumption won't fall so its economy won't fall.

 

All UK businesses have EU competition now, always have, always will. Restricting the UK's access to the Single Market in any way will make UK businesses less competitive in proportion, automatically giving their EU competition a leg up.

 

The UK will accept the EU's terms to preserve as much of the status quo as possible in the joint interest of UK Plc and No.11. Including freedom of movement of EU nationals, of goods and, if the UK is really lucky (because I can't see it, given how poised the Germans are for it), capitals.

Nice try. In March 2016 (most recent data) Uk exports to the EU totalled £25bn and Uk imports from the EU totalled £40bn.

https://www.uktradeinfo.com/Statistics/OverseasTradeStatistics/Pages/OTS.aspx

Feel free to look at other periods. It's all on that page.

I suggest that you look at the make-up of the EU's exports by country (make that the EU minus the UK of course): UK is 16%, US is 15%, China 8%, Switzerland 6%, balance of 55% is rest of world. Have a pie chart on me.

 

For the rest, see above: EU/UK (FR, DE, PL <etc.>/UK) trade will of course continue, I have never suggested otherwise. The question is in what balance and on what terms post-Brexit, and whether in sufficiently close proximity to current terms that it makes Brexit worthwhile. That's yet to be answered by the Leave economists, never mind you or sutty.

Edited June 1, 2016 by L00b

[unbeliever]

For the love of God...

 

No I don't think the EU "will want to cut their exports by 16%", no more than the UK "will want to cut their exports by 45%".

 

But the UK will want to preserve as full an access to the Single Market as it can to keep as much of that 45% problem-free, and the EU will have the stronger negotiating position when discussing terms for that access, because it has far less to lose.

French, German, Spanish, Italian, Dutch <etc> businesses will expand to fill any void that is left if the UK won't trade. They will buy more French lamb, more German cars, more Polish steel if the UK don't want to sell it to the EU, so more of the stuff they consume will be supplied by European companies if the UK won't trade with the EU, which is very unlikely, the EU consumption won't fall so its economy won't fall.

 

All UK businesses have EU competition now, always have, always will. Restricting the UK's access to the Single Market in any way will make UK businesses less competitive in proportion, automatically giving their EU competition a leg up.

 

The UK will accept the EU's terms to preserve as much of the status quo as possible in the joint interest of UK Plc and No.11. Including freedom of movement of EU nationals, of goods and, if the UK is really lucky (because I can't see it, given how poised the Germans are for it), capitals.

 

With all due respect to your crystal ball, I think you're wrong. And I'm by no means the only one.

Apart from anything else, the UK people will not consent to a Brexit deal which involves unlimited free movement and it's not terribly popular in Germany and France either.

The Swiss just rejected unlimited free movement in a referendum. We're yet to see the fall-out from this.