Europe: In or Out

[GT49er]

Looking to re-open the poll vote next Monday. See ya then......

Make it four options this time, eh? In; out; was 'out' but have moved to 'in'; was 'in' but have moved to 'out'. Five options if you really feel the need for an undecided option.

 

[Soulman]

Not at all. I am positive financial clout will seep away in time. A shorter-term outcome is that new banks and companies will choose not to set-up HQ's in London if they haven't done so already.

Boris Johnson "Outgoing Mayor of London says the capital will 'flourish in or out' of the EU"


Boris Johnson has said the UK has a "great, great future" outside the EU if it doesn't secure the reform it needs.

The London Mayor said his preference was to remain part of a reformed EU but is waiting to see the outcome of David Cameron's current renegotiation.

He said: "If we can't get the reform we need Britain has a great, great future elsewhere and outside."

Asked if he could campaign on the opposite side to the prime minister, he said "let's see what happens".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35247504

Keeping his options open in an interview today, Mr Johnson said Britain would survive outside of the EU because of the increasing number of its exports going to non-EU countries.
JUST ONE IN FIVE VOTERS BELIEVE THE PM WILL GET A GOOD EU DEAL
Six in ten voters have no faith in David Cameron, pictured, getting a good deal from the EU this week
+6

Six in ten voters have no faith in David Cameron, getting a good deal from the EU this week

Just one in five voters believe David Cameron will bring back a deal that is good for Britain when he travels to Brussels for his crunch Brussels summit this week.

Six in ten believe he will fail, according to a ComRes poll for the Independent on Sunday.

A week after Mr Cameron warned that a Brexit could see thousands of migrants arriving from Calais 'overnight', the poll finds that 47 per cent of Brits believe Britain would be better able to manage migrants trying to come to the UK from Calais if it left the EU,

Just 29 per cent believe Britain would best be able to manage migration by staying in the EU.

And in a blow to Mr Cameron's personal ratings, less than a third of people now look on him favourably - a drop of seven points in the last three months.

'I'm going to wait until the Prime Minister does his deal and I will then come off the fence with deafening eclat; whatever happens you will hear a lot from me,' he told the BBC. 'You don't have long to wait.

'The salient point is this: London is now doing unbelievably well.

'People thinking about Britain in Europe, Britain out of Europe should recognise that a lot of the investment we attract now is from places outside the EU.

'We export increasingly outside the EU. There is no reason to be afraid.'

Mr Johnson, who is stepping down as Mayor of London in May, insisted the capital would 'flourish' in or out of the EU.

 

[The Rivet]

Agree with you but at the time it wasn't the EEC but a Common Market. It became the EEC and then their actual goal. The European Union.

I salute the Pedant in you. Honestly not sarky

 

[Soulman]

Not at all. I am positive financial clout will seep away in time. A shorter-term outcome is that new banks and companies will choose not to set-up HQ's in London if they haven't done so already.

Hmm, well some beg to differ.
The long-term benefits of a Brexit could outweigh the short-term costs, according to a study by Capital Economics. "A British exit from the EU would probably hurt the City in the short term, but it would not spell disaster," Vicky Redwood, an economist at Capital Economics, said in a research note.
"The City's competitive advantage is founded on more than just unfettered access to the single market. And an EU exit would enable the UK to broker trade deals with emerging markets that could pay dividends for the financial services sector in the long run," she added.

London was recently rated as the world's leading financial centre, according to an index published by Z/Yen Group. Britain's financial services sector could retain this position even if voters opt to leave the European Union, as per a leading economics consultancy.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

The system is so flawed when a load of people can jump on a coach and arrive in the UK with,

1) No proper security or criminal record check on individuals
2) No check on their own financial situation and how they are going to support their stay in the UK
3) No proper checks on whether they have a proper job to go to, and whether that job pays enough so they don't need to claim benefits in the UK
4) No check on where they are going to stay, and how that will impact on the local area services such as doctors, hospitals, schools
5) No proper checks on skills and qualifications

Because even if people score 0/5 here, they are still allowed to stay because of the stupid EU rules on free movement.
This isn't xenophobia, it is common sense. It's not too much to ask for to make sure things work for everyone.

 

[Gwylan]

Agree with you but at the time it wasn't the EEC but a Common Market. It became the EEC and then their actual goal. The European Union.

Not true. The EEC was formed in 1957 after the six founder countries signed the Treaty of Rome: that's what we joined in 1973. The Common Market was the colloquial name for the EEC - it wasn't a different entity

 

[JC Footy Genius]

A few things, Putin would love Brexit because it weakens the EU's ability to stand up to him in Syria and Ukraine. It is a lovely distraction for him. I think it does matter in terms of European and Middle Eastern geopolitics.

This seems a bit vague. Can you give a specific example of how it would weaken the EU's ability to stand up to him? As our geopolitical interests will remain broadly the same we would almost certainly still have a common position. The diplomatic pressure would not diminish and the EU would still want our voice added to theirs because of our UN permanent member security council seat and military capability.

When I talk about ISIS etc I mean ideologically more than physical security. They see the West as one big target. After the Paris attacks Cameron said words to the effect of an attack on France is an attack on us, our "brothers and sisters". It would give our enemies a big boost.

This is nonsensical. Ideologically ISIS does as you say view the west as one big target which shows it doesn't matter which political grouping any of us belong to. They will be far more aware of the RAF and French air force bombing them on the ground day in day out, that's true solidarity.

In terms of shackling ourselves to these declining powers, we too are in relative decline (and have been since post- WW1). And what is at stake is our way of doing business - democratic, capitalist, more-or-less free trade types. Those who have not had the same historical experience as the Western (colonial) powers take a rather different view. Sticking together is about amplifying our way of doing business and strengthening it. Demographics are not in our favour we have to adapt to a less Western world, we are able to do that better together. Yes this means have some state capabilities, a currency, an anthem and so on - it needs the transparency that should go with it. And a border. To achieve this we need to engage with it, the referendum debate might do this which is a good thing, and a reason why I disagree with Herr Tubthumper who opposes referenda as a form of governance.

I was talking more of the EU having declining status. I would also say we are out performing most of our EU counterparts economically which is one reason why so many people from Europe want to come here to escape their stagnating domestic markets. The whole global capitalist system is built from western influences and is the only game in town. We can still promote our way of doing business and wider values as an independent nation in fact we would have a clearer distinct voice when we regain our seat at the WTO. Just to remind you Britain is the fifth largest economy in the world, the fourth military power, a leading member of the G7 and one of five permanent seat-holders on the UN Security Council. If only your wishes for more transparency/ increased democratic legitimacy and secured borders were even likely to come true then you may have a point. But there not.

I do think there is a threat that the EU could unravel following Brexit. Donald Tusk said just today the risk of brake-up is real "what is broken cannot be mended". This would have a plethora of negative consequences. http://www.theguardian.com/politics...up-is-real-tusk-warns-ahead-of-crucial-summit.

Can't argue about the border point, the EU needs one. See http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/02/10...-nation-on-earth-sweden-syria-refugee-europe/

Donald Tusk is hardly an unbiased source, of course he doesn't want to lose access to the UK wallet. Looking at the polls it would appear this constant scaremongering is having the opposite effect perhaps they should stick to accentuating the positves.

You agree about the border/ immigration issue as you say the facts speak for themselves but this doesn't give you pause for thought. How bad does it have to get?

 

[melias shoes]

Not true. The EEC was formed in 1957 after the six founder countries signed the Treaty of Rome: that's what we joined in 1973. The Common Market was the colloquial name for the EEC - it wasn't a different entity

Thanks for that. It's just that I always knew it as the Common Market.

 

[5ways]

This seems a bit vague. Can you give a specific example of how it would weaken the EU's ability to stand up to him? As our geopolitical interests will remain broadly the same we would almost certainly still have a common position. The diplomatic pressure would not diminish and the EU would still want our voice added to theirs because of our UN permanent member security council seat and military capability....

Russia currently is under sanctions because it invaded Crimea. A weak EU means weaker enforcement of these sanctions, or better yet they are lifted all together. A weaker EU cannot follow a collective energy policy which puts heavy emphasis on green and renewable energy, less reliance on Russian gas is obviously bad for Russia. The expansion of the EU and NATO to the East upsets Putin who considers it Russia's sphere of influence. To weaken the EU Putin has followed a programme of funding far-right parties, cultivating EU politicians, and giving biased coverage to divisive politicians through Russia Today. See: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/08/russia-europe-right-putin-front-national-eu and http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ca-to-investigate-Russian-meddling-in-EU.html.

On Isis it is not nonsensical. Damaging the EU damages the West, which gives succor to those who want the death of both. Not arguing that joint bombing is not a statement of solidarity and friendship.

In terms of decline, yes we are out-performing our European peers. But our capitalist model is not the only game in town. There is state-led authoritarian capitalism which is doing pretty well in China, and less well in Russia. This is an attractive model to other rising countries that want the benefits of capitalism without the political debate that we associate it. We can still promote our values but we will do so with a smaller voice, and shyly having caused a recession following Brexit. Not a great start. We are the 5th biggest economy but where will we be in 2030? 2050? The weight of demographics will catch up with us. There are 500 million people in Europe, 300 in the US and a handful in Aus/NZ. The rest are non-Western and will want a world that reflects that - political and economic power currently does not. Look at the makeup of Davos attendees. Consider the long-term.

With regards to borders / immigration - we are not in Schengen zone which has been a great boon. It is going to get worse before it gets better but if you want a solution that favours the UK you have to make your case for it. Otherwise the EU will make policy we will be impacted by simply by dent of proximity.

 

[5ways]

Hmm, well some beg to differ.
The long-term benefits of a Brexit could outweigh the short-term costs, according to a study by Capital Economics. "A British exit from the EU would probably hurt the City in the short term, but it would not spell disaster," Vicky Redwood, an economist at Capital Economics, said in a research note.
"The City's competitive advantage is founded on more than just unfettered access to the single market. And an EU exit would enable the UK to broker trade deals with emerging markets that could pay dividends for the financial services sector in the long run," she added.

London was recently rated as the world's leading financial centre, according to an index published by Z/Yen Group. Britain's financial services sector could retain this position even if voters opt to leave the European Union, as per a leading economics consultancy.

Big banks don't seem to want Brexit: https://next.ft.com/content/7290a3ba-c033-11e5-9fdb-87b8d15baec2 . JP Morgan boss said at Davos he is weighing up a donation too.

 

[Don Quixote]

Russia currently is under sanctions because it invaded Crimea. A weak EU means weaker enforcement of these sanctions, or better yet they are lifted all together. A weaker EU cannot follow a collective energy policy which puts heavy emphasis on green and renewable energy, less reliance on Russian gas is obviously bad for Russia. The expansion of the EU and NATO to the East upsets Putin who considers it Russia's sphere of influence. To weaken the EU Putin has followed a programme of funding far-right parties, cultivating EU politicians, and giving biased coverage to divisive politicians through Russia Today. See: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/08/russia-europe-right-putin-front-national-eu and http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ca-to-investigate-Russian-meddling-in-EU.html.

On Isis it is not nonsensical. Damaging the EU damages the West, which gives succor to those who want the death of both. Not arguing that joint bombing is not a statement of solidarity and friendship.

In terms of decline, yes we are out-performing our European peers. But our capitalist model is not the only game in town. There is state-led authoritarian capitalism which is doing pretty well in China, and less well in Russia. This is an attractive model to other rising countries that want the benefits of capitalism without the political debate that we associate it. We can still promote our values but we will do so with a smaller voice, and shyly having caused a recession following Brexit. Not a great start. We are the 5th biggest economy but where will we be in 2030? 2050? The weight of demographics will catch up with us. There are 500 million people in Europe, 300 in the US and a handful in Aus/NZ. The rest are non-Western and will want a world that reflects that - political and economic power currently does not. Look at the makeup of Davos attendees. Consider the long-term.

With regards to borders / immigration - we are not in Schengen zone which has been a great boon. It is going to get worse before it gets better but if you want a solution that favours the UK you have to make your case for it. Otherwise the EU will make policy we will be impacted by simply by dent of proximity.

By 2050 this country is on course to be the richest in Europe and in the top ten in the world. We won't be losing any influence by leaving the EU.

 

[brighton fella]

i would like to think that if we do decide to pull out then other EU countries would follow suit, it's about time the whole thing was binned.for good.

it would also be nice to see a true figure of who want out in other EU countries as well, i would imagine if a proper census (not rigged) were done in other countries such as greece the overwhelming majority would opt out.

would be interesting to hear some real figures for a change instead of figures which only benefit the status quo.

 

[Soulman]

If Britain withdrew from the EU it would preserve the benefits of trade with the EU by imposing a UK/EU Free Trade Agreement.

– The EU sells a lot more to us than we sell to them. In 2014 there was a trade deficit of over £50bn, with a current account deficit of nearly £100 billion. It seems unlikely that the EU would seek to disrupt a trade which is so beneficial to itself.

– Moreover, the Lisbon Treaty stipulates that the EU must make a trade agreement with a country which leaves the EU.
– World Trade Organization (WTO) rules lay down basic rules for international trade by which both the EU and UK are obliged to abide. These alone would guarantee the trade upon which most of those 3 million jobs rely.

Official Swiss government figures conclude that through their trade agreements with the EU, the Swiss pay the EU under 600 million Swiss Francs a year, but enjoy virtually free access to the EU market. The Swiss have estimated that full EU membership would cost Switzerland net payments of 3.4 billion Swiss francs a year.

Norway only had to make relatively few changes to its laws to make its products eligible for the EU marketplace. In 2009, the Norwegian Mission to the EU estimated that Norway’s total financial contribution linked to their EEA (European Economic Area) agreement is some 340 mn Euros a years, of which some 110mn Euros are contributions related to the participation in various EU programmes. However, this is a fraction of the gross annual cost that Britain must pay for EU membership which is now £18.4bn, or £51mn a day.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

No, I like quoting people though. The Director of Europol said we would have to leave the Europol system and rejoin as one of these non-EU partners. This will be "more costly" and "much less effective."

And equally nor can the IN campaign but you seem to over look that. You claim we'll have to leave Europol - care to provide the evidence ? Care to provide the facts around what will happen to the UK whilst the Eurozone becomes politically and financially one ? And I mean with evidence ( which of course you can't as neither side can ). You, me, NSC nor the politicians can predict what will be the reality of either case but the IN camp seem hell bent of scaring people into voting in - you only need to look at Cameron's utterly bollocks suggestion around the Calais camps ( something the French have refuted ) to see how desperate the IN camp are to scare people to vote for the status quo.

Yet no data based response to this post though ..... strange ..... in particular the Calais issue ??

 

[cunning fergus]

Big banks don't seem to want Brexit: https://next.ft.com/content/7290a3ba-c033-11e5-9fdb-87b8d15baec2 . JP Morgan boss said at Davos he is weighing up a donation too.

Big banks dont want a lot of stuff but sh*t happens...........just because the BBC doesn't report on the macro challenges that the euro faces just to survive at the moment, doesnt mean they are not going to happen.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...vernment-bonds-risks-blowing-up-the-euro.html

This is happening now..............and the consequences are that the poorer EZ countries fiscal sovereignty will be ground into the dust.

How long do you think the euro can hold together?

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Russia currently is under sanctions because it invaded Crimea. A weak EU means weaker enforcement of these sanctions, or better yet they are lifted all together. A weaker EU cannot follow a collective energy policy which puts heavy emphasis on green and renewable energy, less reliance on Russian gas is obviously bad for Russia. The expansion of the EU and NATO to the East upsets Putin who considers it Russia's sphere of influence. To weaken the EU Putin has followed a programme of funding far-right parties, cultivating EU politicians, and giving biased coverage to divisive politicians through Russia Today. See: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/08/russia-europe-right-putin-front-national-eu and http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ca-to-investigate-Russian-meddling-in-EU.html.

......................

I am having difficulty following your line of reasoning such as it is. Are you really suggesting our exit will so weaken the EU that sanctions against Russia will suddenly diminish/disappear plus automatic disintegration of a collective EU energy policy? What is this based on? This seems absurdly apocalyptic ...why not the Moon falls in to the Sea ?

Your links show how Russia seeks to undermine the EU this supposedly happened while we were members, if it happens when we're in why would our leaving make any difference. As I said previously we would still have shared political interests and cooperate to oppose Russia's agenda. As we will on the broader issues of global trade and western values.

If any of your apocalyptic claims were true you would think the EU would be desperate to keep us as members and offer Cameron a wide range of significant concessions. The fact that he is struggling to cobble together a very meagre package should tell us that they're not overly bothered if we leave. The only real damage I can foresee is if the EU decides to play hardball during the renegotiation process but economic necessity should hopefully out-way any political enmity.

On immigration I agree it will get worse but can't see any prospect of it getting better while we remain in the EU.

 

[WonderingSoton]

I find the silence of the IN campaign regarding the positive benefits of staying to be rather telling. You have to wonder when all the IN campaign can seemingly offer is scare stories.

I was pretty undecided a few weeks back, but I am leaning more and more towards leaving as time goes on.

 

[5ways]

I am having difficulty following your line of reasoning such as it is. Are you really suggesting our exit will so weaken the EU that sanctions against Russia will suddenly diminish/disappear plus automatic disintegration of a collective EU energy policy? What is this based on? This seems absurdly apocalyptic ...why not the Moon falls in to the Sea ?

Your links show how Russia seeks to undermine the EU this supposedly happened while we were members, if it happens when we're in why would our leaving make any difference. As I said previously we would still have shared political interests and cooperate to oppose Russia's agenda. As we will on the broader issues of global trade and western values.

If any of your apocalyptic claims were true you would think the EU would be desperate to keep us as members and offer Cameron a wide range of significant concessions. The fact that he is struggling to cobble together a very meagre package should tell us that they're not overly bothered if we leave. The only real damage I can foresee is if the EU decides to play hardball during the renegotiation process but economic necessity should hopefully out-way any political enmity.

On immigration I agree it will get worse but can't see any prospect of it getting better while we remain in the EU.

I never said immediate disintegration of a sanctions regime or an energy policy. I am talking about weakening an organisation that is already battered and bruised. A sanctions programme, which harms some states (Greece) more than others (Portugal) requires political will. Brexit will damage the standing of the EU and its political authority. This in turn weakens the ability to push through tough measures. If Russia can unpick the threads of European unity it can begin to dismantle pan-European policy. For example Greece has cosied up to Russia hoping for economic relief in exchange for Greece delaying the ratification of EU sanctions against Russia related to Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. A weaker Europe is a stronger Russia.

On the periphery this will have longer-term consequences. For example the European accession process in Serbia will be delayed and it will instead look for aid from Russia. A stronger Europe can be more coherent on these issues and look forward rather than fighting a constant rear-guard action. Moldova is another country that needs European help to implement reforms, a distracted Europe has not been able to deliver the technical support to ensure these reforms are successful. This pulls Moldova back into the Russian orbit as people become dissatisfied with the failure of pro-Western parties.

Like with all policy our approach can be amplified through Europe. As a country with frozen relations with Russia us leaving weakens a pro-sanctions policy - there are plenty of Russophiles (Schroeder et al. ) in Germany who will try to shift the wider European debate.

In terms of significant concessions let's remember that as a starting point we have a lot of concessions and special treatment already: no commitment to joining the Euro, no Schengen, justice opt-outs, the rebate. Now we are asking for more. It is not just the Commission we have to convince but the other member-states - obviously Poland is going to be tougher to convince than the Netherlands. It is about compromise and on that score I think Cameron has done fine.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

I find the silence of the IN campaign regarding the positive benefits of staying to be rather telling. You have to wonder when all the IN campaign can seemingly offer is scare stories.

I was pretty undecided a few weeks back, but I am leaning more and more towards leaving as time goes on.

That is probably just predisposed to hear the arguments that way. People on here are saying that staying in the EU is positive for national security, positive for the environment, positive for trade, and it would be bad for all these things if we left. You are clearly choosing to hear these arguments as 'scare stories' and not as 'positive benefits', which suggests to me you have always been predisposed to leaving. Which is of course absolutely your right, but its not fair to say that the IN crowd aren't trying to talk about positive benefits.

Here's another positive reason for staying in. If we stay in the EU then Inigo Calderon, Bruno and Anthony Knockaert can carry on playing for Brighton but if we leave the EU they'll have to go.

 

[pastafarian]

Here's another positive reason for staying in. If we stay in the EU then Inigo Calderon, Bruno and Anthony Knockaert can carry on playing for Brighton but if we leave the EU they'll have to go.

Go on then,why would they have to leave.? Seems rather dramatic
If we left the EU will there be no avenues to pursue or circumstances at all where it would be possible for them to remain playing for the club?

seems you are trying to say everyone from Europe will have to pack their bags and go home,no questions asked.