EU Referendum - How will you vote?

[I1L2T3]

The lib dems quote the 3 million jobs figure all the time. It's Clegg's favourite thing. I hear it frequently from the europhiles, but I can't say that anybody's referenced it on this thread.

 

It's based on a report in 2000 by South Bank University.

The report goes on to say quite clearly that though these 3 million jobs are in some way linked to the EU, there's no reason at all to thing that they'd be lost in the event of Brexit. They pro-EU folk always seem to manage to miss that bit out.

 

I keep coming back to the fact the the europhiles have been proven consistently wrong over the last 20 years about the economic effects of "less Europe".

Has everybody forgotten that the same warnings of economic losses due to Brexit were stated just as emphatically about not joining the ERM and not joining the EURO. The europhiles really do need to send back their crystal ball for a refund.

 

---------- Post added 19-06-2015 at 06:55 ----------

 

 

Striking a trade deal with Europe doesn't mean being run by Europe. Trade deals are a normal part of international affairs and they don't usually involve membership fees and supra-national government.

Single market membership, which does have a substantial membership fee, would be one of several options in the event of Brexit, but even then we would have much greater control of our own affairs and it would exclude us from further integration.

 

Your summary "practically all bad news" I don't think is justified.

The loss off ~0.05% of GDP per year for the first few years following Brexit which is the worst likely case is something we would hardly notice. And it's just as likely that we'd see the reverse which is a gain of ~0.05% per year.

 

Europe is struggling economically compared to the rest of the world (commonwealth, asia, BRIC etc). Largely because they've over-regulated and introduced a common currency without the proper support mechanisms, driven by political ideology rather than economic reality.

Withdrawing from the EU gets us away from that almighty mess and allows us to trade freely with the rest of the world, which is growing much faster.

It was obvious to everybody looking on that certainly Greece and likely the rest of the Med radically different economies from the north of Europe, as did Ireland and the UK for that matter. Still they all joined the EURO anyway and all hell broke loose. Now the Greeks are screwed (to the point where they have to burn furniture to keep warm) and the rest are not far behind.

 

So now the europhile narrative has changed. It was right for the Uk to stay out of the EURO (not what they said at the time). Greece needs to exit and default (a couple of years ago they said that would never happen).

 

You do know, don't you, that through various common European mechanisms and the IMF our taxes are helping to bail out Greece. The EURO is costing us a lot of money even though we're not in it. This is very improper. An IMF rescue always involves a devaluation and a debt write-off. Greece should have been forced out of the EURO immediately by the IMF. I'm not sure how they're getting away with this. If they'd done it properly we wouldn't have to keep chucking our money at them. What on earth is going on?

 

The IMF is supposed to be there to help struggling developing countries. Now they're spending most of their resources helping a developed country stay in an ill-considered currency union instead. Don't you think that there are places out there who needed that help a lot more.

The IMF is essentially propping up the EURO for the benefit of some of the worlds richest countries. When this is all over, I think that a lot of people at the top of the IMF are going to be in a lot of trouble.

 

Do you really want political power over the UK in the hands of the people largely responsible for the Greek situation?

 

I don't think it's wrong to say that 3 million jobs are supported by trade with the EU. It's entirely plausible. The issue really is whether those jobs would disappear if we left the EU. Some would obviously. At the end of the day this particular little nugget to cling on to is all about semantics - are the jobs utterly reliant on staying in the EU or are they supported by trade with the EU. It's the latter obviously given that many multi-nationals are warning about job losses. It's really just a case of how many. Might be a million. Might be two million. Who knows but the risks are definitely there.

 

Top marks for repeatedly missing failing to understand the points about our trading relationship. You totally have your head in the sand about what it means to stay in the single market and the fact that we would be subject to nearly all the same rules and regulations, would still have to make contributions to the EU budget and would have no say over the rules, no influence at all.

 

And again, you are cherry-picking the bits you like out of one report that points to lots of difficulties. The worst case is 2.2% loss of GDP in that report. That is the gamble and it translates into a huge impact on millions of people for little in return.

 

Nice swerve onto the Greek situation there.

[unbeliever]

We've been over this before, but let's do it again. The Eurozone is outperforming the Pound in terms of growth. It has been since the Euro was introduced. Also, despite the enormous crisis in Greece, the Eurozone has outperformed the Pound considerably.

 

 

 

Nope, really doesn't cost anything. Norway is also, as pointed out earlier, one of the top adopters of EU directives, without being able to influence them or introduce their own directives.

 

Sounds like a great deal this Brexit.

 

I've noticed you stopped replying to my posts, presumably you are getting beat a few times too many on your hollow arguments.

 

I'm dealing with several opponents at once.

If there's something specific you feel you've been denied a response on please do say so. I'll do my best to respond as I have before when I've received similar complaints.

 

I don't think you can credibly contend that the UK would have experienced growth like that of Germany if we were in the eurozone. It's far more likely that we would be in crisis like the PIIGS, as our economy is not naturally synchronised with that of Germany.

 

You're also ignoring that the Eurozone is about to get a massive financial shock when the vast amounts of money they've lent to Greece in a hopeless attempt to keep them in the EURO get written off.

[tzijlstra]

I'm dealing with several opponents at once.

If there's something specific you feel you've been denied a response on please do say so. I'll do my best to respond as I have before when I've received similar complaints.

 

I don't think you can credibly contend that the UK would have experienced growth like that of Germany if we were in the eurozone. It's far more likely that we would be in crisis like the PIIGS, as our economy is not naturally synchronised with that of Germany.

 

You're also ignoring that the Eurozone is about to get a massive financial shock when the vast amounts of money they've lent to Greece in a hopeless attempt to keep them in the EURO get written off.

 

And the second point of staying in the EEA and adopting the Norwegian model? Because as I understand it, that is what you and certainly many of your fellow sceptics, are after?

[unbeliever]

I don't think it's wrong to say that 3 million jobs are supported by trade with the EU. It's entirely plausible. The issue really is whether those jobs would disappear if we left the EU. Some would obviously. At the end of the day this particular little nugget to cling on to is all about semantics - are the jobs utterly reliant on staying in the EU or are they supported by trade with the EU. It's the latter obviously given that many multi-nationals are warning about job losses. It's really just a case of how many. Might be a million. Might be two million. Who knows but the risks are definitely there.

 

Top marks for repeatedly missing failing to understand the points about our trading relationship. You totally have your head in the sand about what it means to stay in the single market and the fact that we would be subject to nearly all the same rules and regulations, would still have to make contributions to the EU budget and would have no say over the rules, no influence at all.

 

And again, you are cherry-picking the bits you like out of one report that points to lots of difficulties. The worst case is 2.2% loss of GDP in that report. That is the gamble and it translates into a huge impact on millions of people for little in return.

 

Nice swerve onto the Greek situation there.

 

Why is it that people on the weaker side of debates routinely accuse their opponents of cherry-picking when in fact they're the ones which are doing it. I've consistently referred to the intermediate, most likely predictions in the report and not mentioned the most optimistic outcomes from Brexit. Since you have now chosen to state the worst case from the report of a loss of 2.2% of GDP over 15 years, I feel entitled now to state the best case which is a gain of 1.55%.

The actual plausible range of outcomes over the 15 years given in the report is between a loss of 0.8% and a gain of 0.6%. You'd have a job to notice either.

 

The report suggests membership of a free trade agreement. Not the single market, certainly not exclusively. Free trade agreements, as I stated before, do not usually involve supra-national government. The EU has free trade agreements with various other countries and is obedient in general to WTO rules, so there's really no reason to suggest that an independent UK could only trade freely with the EU if we were in the single market.

These other countries also have plenty of other free trade agreements outside the EU, so there's no reason to think they wouldn't trade freely with us.

 

Free trade is fast becoming the default as the governments of the world have realised that it's in everybody's best interests. You don't have to join a supra-national government to get free trade.

 

It'll be up to the democratically elected government of the UK people to decide, in consultation with the people, what trading arrangements are to be made with the EU following Brexit. Perhaps you're scared on behalf of the UK of making our own decisions? I'm not.

 

tzijlstra has rightly pointed out that without common standards, there can be trading difficulties (non-tarrif barriers) which make trading more difficult.

This is true, but these common standards create costs elsewhere and you have to balance out the 2 effects.

 

---------- Post added 19-06-2015 at 08:28 ----------

 

And the second point of staying in the EEA and adopting the Norwegian model? Because as I understand it, that is what you and certainly many of your fellow sceptics, are after?

 

I think I've now addressed this above.

 

---------- Post added 19-06-2015 at 08:51 ----------

 

I would also remind you that as I have stated before, the UK has a large trade deficit with the EU. That effectively means that as things stand we're paying the EU for the privilege of them selling stuff to us. It would cost the EU a lot more than the UK if there was not free trade following Brexit, so why on earth would they do it.

 

---------- Post added 19-06-2015 at 11:38 ----------

 

Furthermore. I1L2T3: I'd like to know where this estimate of 1 or 2 million job losses comes from. Did you just pluck it out of the air? I think you did.

 

I make no apologies for drawing attention to the catastrophe that has befallen Greece since they entered the EURO, as that could easily have been us, and the europhiles were emphatic that we had everything to gain from EURO membership and nothing to lose.

 

---------- Post added 19-06-2015 at 11:51 ----------

 

I've noticed you stopped replying to my posts, presumably you are getting beat a few times too many on your hollow arguments.

 

If I do at any point feel like you have the upper hand in this debate, I have made arrangements to borrow the EU's time machine which they previously used to found CERN to go back and correct any mistakes.

 

---------- Post added 19-06-2015 at 11:59 ----------

 

I would be very interested to know from tzijlstra, I1L2T3 and any other europhiles I may have missed:

Did you support the idea of the UK joining the EURO?

Do you think now that it would have been a mistake?

If you've changed your mind, what did you learn from this?

 

---------- Post added 19-06-2015 at 12:56 ----------

 

 

I'll get the ball rolling by answering these myself.

 

Did you support the idea of the UK joining the EURO?: yes

Do you think now that it would have been a mistake?: most certainly

If you've changed your mind, what did you learn from this?:

 

Don't trust europhile politicians when they predict disaster from eurosceptic ideas.

EU decision making is dysfunctional. They want to expand their power at any cost.

Learn how macro-economics works before forming a strong opinion on such things.

Europe is too diverse economically, culturally and politically to function as a single state.

Our politicians, for all their faults, are a far better crop than a lot on the continent.

Sovereignty is important in various practical ways and not just a sentimental idea.

National democracy doesn't function properly when you're in the EU.

The EU is not a functional democracy.

Edited June 19, 2015 by unbeliever
worth inviting others on my 3 questions, i should probably start by giving my answers

[RickyM]

In the event of a Brexit, the UK can negotiate a favourable trade agreement withy the EU due to it's size.

 

A quarter of German manufactured cars are exported here to the UK - is Germany going to willingly lose that?

 

As many of the panellists on Question Time last night were acknowledging, the UK is more than able to exist outside of the EU. David Davis said that all the claims to the contrary were simply rubbish.

[L00b]

Lacking time to go over the earlier stuff in detail right now, but happy to oblige with the following, for the sake of debating clarity and since I must be what you class as a 'europhile'.

I would be very interested to know from tzijlstra, I1L2T3 and any other europhiles I may have missed:

Did you support the idea of the UK joining the EURO?

Contrary to you, no. Not at any point.

Do you think now that it would have been a mistake?

Redundant question.

If you've changed your mind, what did you learn from this?

I haven't changed my mind.

A quarter of German manufactured cars are exported here to the UK - is Germany going to willingly lose that?

I don't see the Germans losing that regardless: who buys these cars in the UK?

 

As I already posted, it's the staff which will have to do without pay rises for a bit longer, while the managers and directors redirect the earnings to pay for the import tariffs

As many of the panellists on Question Time last night were acknowledging, the UK is more than able to exist outside of the EU. David Davis said that all the claims to the contrary were simply rubbish.

Nobody has suggested that the UK cannot exist outside the EU: the UK is a sovereign nation with its own governing apparatus regardless of whether in or out of the EU.

 

The debate is 'in what condition'.

 

If you're going to rely on the word of professional politicians, I suggest that you learn how to read, and listen to, polit-speak. Here's a hint: it's more about what's not said, than what is said

Edited June 19, 2015 by L00b

[sgtkate]

In the event of a Brexit, the UK can negotiate a favourable trade agreement withy the EU due to it's size.

 

A quarter of German manufactured cars are exported here to the UK - is Germany going to willingly lose that?

 

As many of the panellists on Question Time last night were acknowledging, the UK is more than able to exist outside of the EU. David Davis said that all the claims to the contrary were simply rubbish.

 

I'd say we almost certainly could exist outside the EU. I guess my question is would we categorically be better off, or at least more than a 50/50. The vast majority of experts say not with some saying yes...I'd need a hell of a lot more than that to support leaving as it could end in utter disaster and the status quo has to be a lesser risk.

[unbeliever]

I'd say we almost certainly could exist outside the EU. I guess my question is would we categorically be better off, or at least more than a 50/50. The vast majority of experts say not with some saying yes...I'd need a hell of a lot more than that to support leaving as it could end in utter disaster and the status quo has to be a lesser risk.

 

So the out campaign has lost you because it's honest and has not predicted a land of milk and honey; and the in campaign gets your vote because they're scary.

I honestly understand.

I would remind you that the europhiles said the same things about not joining the ERM and not joining the EURO and in both cases being out turned out to be far better for the UK.

Still there's no way to know for certain.

[sgtkate]

So the out campaign has lost you because it's honest and has not predicted a land of milk and honey; and the in campaign gets your vote because they're scary.

I honestly understand.

I would remind you that the europhiles said the same things about not joining the ERM and not joining the EURO and in both cases being out turned out to be far better for the UK.

Still there's no way to know for certain.

 

In a way yes. As things stand my life and those around me is fairly decent. Always some exceptions. I see no major reason to risk a fundamental change to this unless the risk/reward numbers add up. Currently we are been offered very little reason to leave the EU except some mumbling about foreigners. Nothing financial really. And even those that do say yeah we should go for it, still aren't being totally clear as to the risks versus reward. I of course accept the EU could come crashing down around our ears and that would be a risk to stay but until I can be shown legitimate evidence to support leaving I won't support it.

[unbeliever]

In a way yes. As things stand my life and those around me is fairly decent. Always some exceptions. I see no major reason to risk a fundamental change to this unless the risk/reward numbers add up. Currently we are been offered very little reason to leave the EU except some mumbling about foreigners. Nothing financial really. And even those that do say yeah we should go for it, still aren't being totally clear as to the risks versus reward. I of course accept the EU could come crashing down around our ears and that would be a risk to stay but until I can be shown legitimate evidence to support leaving I won't support it.

 

Fair enough. Thank you for hearing us out on the various arguments.