EU Referendum NSC opinion poll 2015

[pastafarian]

There will be shouty people in both camps and there will be people in both camps who claim opinions as facts ( I'm sure we'll keep hearing that we'll no long be able to trade ever again with EU members and that economy will collapse with the loss of millions of jobs - all opinion not fact ).

ive never quite understood this opinion and you do hear it quite a bit,only rarely on here though.
it makes no sense to me that being out of the club means never being able to trade again with the EU.

Do any of the people that promote this opinion seriously think the UK market would be ignored because we were not a member of the club?

Imagine the scenario where we never joined in the first place,The EU would still want access to our markets and us likewise.The big capitalists would have made sure this happened. I cant imagine the EU money men would all say .....nah not interested in the UK.

 

[pastafarian]

probably should be noted although im no qualified pollster,a sample size this small probably has one of those error variant ratios of a gerzillion percent.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

You're the one that started using the word - now point me to a post that suggests any outer has made that accusation .......

Post 60. As I say, my references to the word were to criticise its use.

 

[Rowdey]

Not at all.

I work for a company which sources around 35% of its products directly from Asia, another 50% from Europe (although the original source is often Asia, and another 15% from the UK (originally split 50/50 from UK and other sources). We import from Europe when needed due to the economics of volume, one European importer can get far better prices than 15 different companies all trying to negotiate in the far East. If the free trade area were to cease our buying prices would increase thus leading to higher retail prices.

And the free trade zone WOULD cease if we leave the EU, it is a club that demands a membership fee in return for priviledges, no fee equals no benefits.

So, we pay a fee, to be in the club to get discounts/privileges..

So whats the fee, and how does it stack up against these discounts ? (assuming discounts are not available elsewhere, for free or less fees of course)

 

[wellquickwoody]

So, we pay a fee, to be in the club to get discounts/privileges..

So whats the fee, and how does it stack up against these discounts ? (assuming discounts are not available elsewhere, for free or less fees of course)

The fee is our EU budget contribution in the main, the discount/benefit is the free trade zone in this context, but you knew that anyway.

 

[pastafarian]

So, we pay a fee, to be in the club to get discounts/privileges..

So whats the fee, and how does it stack up against these discounts ? (assuming discounts are not available elsewhere, for free or less fees of course)

The fee is your sovereignty,the discount is your democracy.

 

[BigGully]

The fee is our EU budget contribution in the main, the discount/benefit is the free trade zone in this context, but you knew that anyway.

Just to clarify:

The UK pays a net contribution of £10 billion per year to access your perceived benefits of trading freely within the EU.

How anyone can say this represents value for money is beyond me, why not aspire to free trading block without some arbitrary tariff.

Of course this isnt a contribution for free trade anyway, it is a fee sucked out of the UK and into a bottomless pit of bureaucracy and aspirational political union by Germany and France.

 

[cunning fergus]

The fee is your sovereignty,the discount is your democracy.

Following yesterday's decision by some EU states to override the national sovereignty by other EU states, Tony Benn's assessment of the whole circus when Lisbon was signed is more prophetic than ever...........

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=o0I-ZdvQz1o

The real tragedy is this has already happened...............TTIP is just another nail in the coffin.

 

[Bakero]

Are you a Ukip bot?

 

[Seagull on the wing]

ive never quite understood this opinion and you do hear it quite a bit,only rarely on here though.
it makes no sense to me that being out of the club means never being able to trade again with the EU.

Do any of the people that promote this opinion seriously think the UK market would be ignored because we were not a member of the club?

Imagine the scenario where we never joined in the first place,The EU would still want access to our markets and us likewise.The big capitalists would have made sure this happened. I cant imagine the EU money men would all say .....nah not interested in the UK.

Couldn't agree more...We are in trade deficit with the EU,other words we import more than we export to the EU and we pay for that privilege to the tune of £55m a day....But Ah! say the EU supporters,look at what we get back in from the EU,according to Money facts (pro EU) we get back £22m a day...good thinking Batman...every week I will go to my neighbour,he gives me £50 and I give him back £20 and I tell him what to do and when...seems a good deal dosen't it.
OUT! OUT OUT!

 

[sten_super]

ive never quite understood this opinion and you do hear it quite a bit,only rarely on here though.
it makes no sense to me that being out of the club means never being able to trade again with the EU.

Do any of the people that promote this opinion seriously think the UK market would be ignored because we were not a member of the club?

Imagine the scenario where we never joined in the first place,The EU would still want access to our markets and us likewise.The big capitalists would have made sure this happened. I cant imagine the EU money men would all say .....nah not interested in the UK.

I think the problem is that it's the argument reduced to a soundbite - the truth is rather more complex than that.

At the moment, we operate in a free trade area. If we ceased to have membership of that free trade area, business operational costs would increase; some of this may come about through tariffs, but I'd imagine most of it would be what businesses often complain about - 'red tape' costs, as paperwork would be required for importing from and exporting to the EU. It would therefore either increase costs or encourage those companies (particularly those inside the single market) to look elsewhere for their imports/exports.

On the second point, job losses. There would be some job losses from the above reduction in trade. However the majority (IMHO) would come from international investors. If you are looking to set up a (say) car manufacturing plant in Europe, do you do it inside the free market (where you can freely export/import across the market) or outside (where paperwork is required)? These impacts might not be particularly apparent in the short term (Nissan aren't likely to suddenly close their operations in Sunderland), but in the longer term, when looking to expand their operations, or considering upgrading existing facilities, it may start to make a difference.

The answer, then, might be to adopt a Swiss or Norweigan position, where we're part of the single market but not the EU. Except that both pay fees to the EU for that privileged position, still have to adhere to EU standards, and don't get any voting rights. They seem happy with it, and maybe it would work for the UK, but I'm struggling a bit to see where the benefit lies versus our current position.

 

[cunning fergus]

I think the problem is that it's the argument reduced to a soundbite - the truth is rather more complex than that.

At the moment, we operate in a free trade area. If we ceased to have membership of that free trade area, business operational costs would increase; some of this may come about through tariffs, but I'd imagine most of it would be what businesses often complain about - 'red tape' costs, as paperwork would be required for importing from and exporting to the EU. It would therefore either increase costs or encourage those companies (particularly those inside the single market) to look elsewhere for their imports/exports.

On the second point, job losses. There would be some job losses from the above reduction in trade. However the majority (IMHO) would come from international investors. If you are looking to set up a (say) car manufacturing plant in Europe, do you do it inside the free market (where you can freely export/import across the market) or outside (where paperwork is required)? These impacts might not be particularly apparent in the short term (Nissan aren't likely to suddenly close their operations in Sunderland), but in the longer term, when looking to expand their operations, or considering upgrading existing facilities, it may start to make a difference.

The answer, then, might be to adopt a Swiss or Norweigan position, where we're part of the single market but not the EU. Except that both pay fees to the EU for that privileged position, still have to adhere to EU standards, and don't get any voting rights. They seem happy with it, and maybe it would work for the UK, but I'm struggling a bit to see where the benefit lies versus our current position.

But there is already red tape and conditions imposed by the EU for trading within the "free market" and these are not unequivocally in the interests of businesses or consumers. The reality with such costs are that ultimately the consumer picks up the tab. The CAP is a perfect example of this, but also the way the EU works can mean it is diametrically opposed to some businesses. Tate and Lyle is a good example as the EU restricts the amount of cane sugar the UK can import, as they favour EU grown beet sugar. This policy has lead to the closure of sugar refineries and thousands of jobs.

Talking of job losses, the EU is no protection of jobs, far from it. Ford recently shut down a number of EU plants (the Transit factory in Southampton included) to move production to Turkey. That's right non EU member Turkey.

They evidently didn't worry about tariffs and export/import red tape, neither did they care about tens of thousands of EU jobs. More worrying was the contribution the EU provided to Ford to build their factory in Turkey...........

So, if you are rolling out the truth don't forget both sides of the coin.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I think the problem is that it's the argument reduced to a soundbite - the truth is rather more complex than that.

At the moment, we operate in a free trade area. If we ceased to have membership of that free trade area, business operational costs would increase; some of this may come about through tariffs, but I'd imagine most of it would be what businesses often complain about - 'red tape' costs, as paperwork would be required for importing from and exporting to the EU. It would therefore either increase costs or encourage those companies (particularly those inside the single market) to look elsewhere for their imports/exports.

On the second point, job losses. There would be some job losses from the above reduction in trade. However the majority (IMHO) would come from international investors. If you are looking to set up a (say) car manufacturing plant in Europe, do you do it inside the free market (where you can freely export/import across the market) or outside (where paperwork is required)? These impacts might not be particularly apparent in the short term (Nissan aren't likely to suddenly close their operations in Sunderland), but in the longer term, when looking to expand their operations, or considering upgrading existing facilities, it may start to make a difference.

The answer, then, might be to adopt a Swiss or Norweigan position, where we're part of the single market but not the EU. Except that both pay fees to the EU for that privileged position, still have to adhere to EU standards, and don't get any voting rights. They seem happy with it, and maybe it would work for the UK, but I'm struggling a bit to see where the benefit lies versus our current position.

This.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Nice to see the (current) NSC position is to stay within.

 

[5mins-from-amex]

Nice to see the (current) NSC position is to stay within.

Rather close thought.

 

[Tricky Dicky]

Not read the thread at all, but voted to stay in. I have wavered on the subject of late, but still on balance opt to remain in.

Stronger together is one theory, though with yesterdays EU vote, we don't sound too together. The EU is far from perfect, but you can only change anything from the inside. I suspect one of the upshots of the refugee migration might be a change in the tenet of free movement within the EU, which will please DC no end.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

which will please DC no end.

He'll be happy as a pig in muck.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Not read the thread at all, but voted to stay in. I have wavered on the subject of late, but still on balance opt to remain in.

Stronger together is one theory,.

This.

 

[Captain Sensible]

But there is already red tape and conditions imposed by the EU for trading within the "free market" and these are not unequivocally in the interests of businesses or consumers. The reality with such costs are that ultimately the consumer picks up the tab. The CAP is a perfect example of this, but also the way the EU works can mean it is diametrically opposed to some businesses. Tate and Lyle is a good example as the EU restricts the amount of cane sugar the UK can import, as they favour EU grown beet sugar. This policy has lead to the closure of sugar refineries and thousands of jobs.

Talking of job losses, the EU is no protection of jobs, far from it. Ford recently shut down a number of EU plants (the Transit factory in Southampton included) to move production to Turkey. That's right non EU member Turkey.

They evidently didn't worry about tariffs and export/import red tape, neither did they care about tens of thousands of EU jobs. More worrying was the contribution the EU provided to Ford to build their factory in Turkey...........

So, if you are rolling out the truth don't forget both sides of the coin.

No doubt, the labour and running costs are considerably lower in Turkey than the UK, as anywhere else in the EU. Thus being costs effective versus the relinquishing free trade rights within the EU. It's no different to call centres moving to India etc. So the UK's labour/production costs should drop to well below the EU, so we should then leave the EU and drop our standards of living down to the level of Turkey to attract multinational corporations such as ford?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

No doubt, the labour and running costs are considerably lower in Turkey than the UK, as anywhere else in the EU. Thus being costs effective versus the relinquishing free trade rights within the EU. It's no different to call centres moving to India etc. So the UK's labour/production costs should drop to well below the EU, so we should then leave the EU and drop our standards of living down to the level of Turkey to attract multinational corporations such as ford?

I think it also needs to be pointed out that there are many additional factors which probably contributed to their decision. Turkey is the source of most of the parts for the Transit. And the Transit is a true global success story; whilst it is manufactured elsewhere the Turkey plant supplies a significant amount of non-EU sales. Whilst there are huge benefits to the EU, it isn't always the over-riding issue for every global business....as Cunning Fergus' single and isolated case demonstrates.