In-Out vote: Has anyone changed their mind since the campaign started?

[truman]

The UK is the fifth largest economy on earth, that means we consume a lot, in fact we consume far more than is sustainable, we should really be aiming to consume less.

 

How much of that is financial services?

[sutty27]

How much of that is financial services?

 

Below 10% of our GDP.

[mossdog]

Any figures?

.............from Moneyweek UKs largest financial mag........

The EU’s share of global GDP keeps on falling

 

When Britain joined the Common Market in 1973, the EU (as it is now) produced 38% of the world’s goods and services – 38% of global GDP.

 

In 1993, when the EU formally began, it produced just under 25%. Today the EU produces just 17%.

 

By comparison, the US’s share of global GDP stood at 30% in 1973, 27% in 1993, and stands at 22% today.

 

That’s a 55% drop for the EU versus a 27% drop for the US.

 

You can attach all sorts of narratives to this data, depending on your belief systems. You might argue that Europe’s share of global GDP was bound to fall because of the exponential growth of various Asian economies – growth which was easier to achieve because it came off a low base.

 

You might argue that European share of GDP has actually been falling since just before 1900.

 

But you can also argue that Europeans are every bit as capable and competent as their Asian and American rivals, and any failure to keep up boils down to poor systems of rule: our leaders have failed to put the right framework in place for us to compete and thrive.

 

In reality, it is probably a bit of everything – from soaring Asian growth to poor governance structures within EU countries. But whatever the reason, the reality is that in a generation, the EU’s global economic share has more than halved.

 

Of course, there has been some growth – with the technological advances that have been made in the world, there could hardly not have been – but EU member state growth has been, on a relative basis, poor.

 

EU countries are slipping down the wealth list

 

Let’s look next at the EU’s record on wealth. We’ll use GDP per capita as our measure. (It has to be nominal as I couldn’t find complete purchasing power parity – PPP – data going back to 1973.)

 

In 1973, three EU nations were on the list of top ten wealthiest countries: Luxembourg (4th), Sweden (6th) and Denmark (8th). The UK was 29th.

 

In 1993, five of the richest ten were EU members: Luxembourg (1st), Denmark (5th), Germany (8th), Austria (9th) and Sweden (10th). The UK was 18th.

 

Today, again on a nominal basis, we are back to three: Luxembourg (1st), Denmark (7th) and Ireland (8th). Sweden and Austria have both dropped off the list. The UK is 13th but this figure is misleading: on a PPP basis we’re much lower – 25th.

 

I’m well aware the inconsistencies in nominal GDP data make conclusions hard to draw. It seems EU membership has suited some countries – particularly Ireland – more than others. Ireland was 26th in 1993.

 

If I were a teacher marking the UK’s results, I would say the UK’s performance has been fairly good. We’ll give it a B plus, maybe an A minus. We appear to have benefited more from being in the EU than other member states.

 

Of course, we’re also talking about a period that covered Thatcherism, London’s revitalisation as a global centre of commerce, and an embrace of the “Anglo-Saxon” model so derided by the EU’s leading lights (at least until the eurozone plunged into its own crisis).

 

How much better would we have done had we not been part of the EU? That we will never know. But we can point to one very telling data point.

 

Look at the nations that border the EU but are not members. In 1973, just one of them – Switzerland – made the top ten richest countries. In 1993, two did – Switzerland and Norway. Last year a third nation joined them in the top ten (on a nominal basis) – Iceland. Given the bust it experienced in 2008, that is quite some achievement – though one should stress it ranks lower on a PPP basis.

 

Of course, the oil helped Norway, but it’s worth noting that it has overtaken and remained ahead of its Scandinavian neighbours, Denmark and Sweden.

 

In summary, the fringe nations have outperformed the member states. A fringe nation is exactly what Britain would become post Brexit.

 

EU nations are sliding down the GDP list too

 

Finally, we consider economies based on size alone. In 1973, there were four EU member states in the world’s largest ten economies – Germany (3rd), France (4th), the UK (5th) and Italy (7th).

 

In 1993, we had fallen behind Italy, and Spain had made it onto the list – overtaking China to move into 8th place. So there were five EU nations in the top ten at the inception of the EU in 1993.

 

Fast forward to today. There are now only four nations again. Spain has slid out of the charts from 8th to 14th. Italy has slid from 5th to 8th. (If anyone should be voting to leave the EU it is Spain and Italy, not to mention Greece and Portugal.) France has slid from 4th to 6th. The UK has risen from 6th to 5th. And Germany has slid from 3rd to 4th.

 

So in terms of size of economy – GDP – EU membership has not been the disaster for the UK that it has been for other EU members. Thank goodness we have the independence of not using the euro.

 

We have a better deal than most nations but we should still leave

 

It’s a shame we cannot measure how much better or worse we would have done had we not been a member of the EU. We can only speculate.

 

We do have a better deal than other EU member states, and we’ve outperformed them. But I don’t buy the idea that just because we have a good deal, we should stay in. There’s no guarantee we will always have these arrangements. We keep having to fight for deals, often against the wishes of those in government (Tony Blair was keen to join the euro, regardless of how he tries to spin it today). Many of the gains that Britain has seen over the past 40 years or so are down to factors beyond the EU – such as globalisation and financialisation. London’s spectacular growth can be attributed, as much as anything, to its financial independence.

 

And none of this irons out the fact that the EU is a distant, inflexible, unaccountable bureaucratic body, which has suppressed the potential of many of its citizens. We should not be supporting it. Reforming such bodies from within is an impossible task. Better to hasten its demise, so we can start again. Such bodies don’t do anyone any favours – unless you happen to be working for them or receiving subsidy from them.

 

We can’t be sure of what we’ve gained from the EU – but there are a few areas where it’s clear that we’ve lost. Next week I want to look at one particular sacrifice we have had to make to the EU, an underreported sacrifice which has cost us dear – our waters.

[janie48]

No I haven't changed my mind, and although I quite like him, listening to Boris has convinced me I'm right.

[PeteMorris]

No I haven't changed my mind, and although I quite like him, listening to Boris has convinced me I'm right.

 

Ah!....Someone (at last) back on topic! Thanks Janie48.

 

So someone with (I presume) opposing opinions to you has convinced you to not to change?

 

Well I've listened and read a lot of stuff (for an against), both on here and elsewhere, and I can't realistically see my opinion changing either!

 

But then I've been around a fair while and seen politicians come and go, so I think I'm able to see past the smarmy grinning and half truths, and damn lies.

[unbeliever]

Ah!....Someone (at last) back on topic! Thanks Janie48.

 

So someone with (I presume) opposing opinions to you has convinced you to not to change?

 

Well I've listened and read a lot of stuff (for an against), both on here and elsewhere, and I can't realistically see my opinion changing either!

 

But then I've been around a fair while and seen politicians come and go, so I think I'm able to see past the smarmy grinning and half truths, and damn lies.

 

 

The opponents of Brexit on here have made me think hard about the matter. Which was the dominant reason for me to discuss it here.

 

1. The denial of our loss of sovereignty is frustrating.

 

2. The common obsession with immigration is distracting.

 

3. The assertion that people who are not the government should pretend that they can determine government policy in the event of a leave vote is nonsense.

 

4. The pretence (or belief) that we will be left out of further EU integration is completely incredible to me.

 

5. The danger of an economic hit is worrying. That's the reason I keep engaging.

 

So many experts saying we'll be hurt. Why don't I believe them?

 

Usually I value the views of experts, and economics is partly scientific. It's what I refer to as a soft science. So I take it seriously, but I don't assume it's correct.

I suspect bias, but without any substantial evidence. I remember hearing such similar arguments over the ERM and the Euro, but I can't find things in writing to back that up.

 

I suppose it comes down to the fact that I hope that the economics turn out for the better or neutral, and that's certainly possible, but is it likely? The risk is undeniable. But then what of the risk of staying in, tethered to a union with so many problems?

 

I've not changed my mind. And it's too late now anyway as I've already voted. I just wish I could be sure about the economic effects. At least so that people who are undecided, to whom I expect it is important, could make an informed choice.

[L00b]

Successful businesses are very good at adapting, if they lose some business in the EU market they will find new business elsewhere.

Well, in my case the 30% (estimate) is down to automatically losing the right to file international designs, EU designs and EU trademarks from the UK.

 

And no, that right cannot be 'preserved', or 'maintained' or 'extended' by agreement.

 

If you're in the EU, you have it.

 

If you're out of the EU, you don't (even if you're still in the EEA/EFTA).

 

That simple.

 

Now, post-Brexit, if you're a person or a business, in the UK or anywhere else in the world, and you want to secure an international design, an EU design or an EU trademark, you'll have to go to the Irish or the Continental competition that's still in the EU, instead of having a go yourself (for UK people and businesses currently) or asking a UK professional to do it for you.

 

So, what "new business" do I -and the rest of the UK profession- replace that lost business with?

 

More UK designs and trademarks aren't going to fill the trade gap, particularly when the differential between UK and EU applications has been steadily increasing for over a decade and will continue to increase seemingly forever more (since you get order-of-magnitude better value far money with a cross-European right than with a UK-only right, which is far more relevant to any EU and non-EU business that trades across the EU).

Edited June 8, 2016 by L00b

[janie48]

Ah!....Someone (at last) back on topic! Thanks Janie48.

 

So someone with (I presume) opposing opinions to you has convinced you to not change?

 

Well I've listened and read a lot of stuff (for an against), both on here and elsewhere, and I can't realistically see my opinion changing either!

 

But then I've been around a fair while and seen politicians come and go, so I think I'm able to see past the smarmy grinning and half truths, and damn lies.

Yes that's it, not just opposing opinions though, but perhaps I thought of Boris Johnson because he's been one of the few politicians speaking on the subject that I've managed to listen to lately without falling asleep.

[PeteMorris]

Yes that's it, not just opposing opinions though, but perhaps I thought of Boris Johnson because he's been one of the few politicians speaking on the subject that I've managed to listen too lately without falling asleep.

 

Yes, there's a few worthy of participating in a cure for insomnia. AND..Succeeding very well!

[Tomjames]

No I haven't changed my mind, and although I quite like him, listening to Boris has convinced me I'm right.

 

An EU army? Is it true?