Europe: In or Out

[Soulman]

No. This is from UCL. https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/1114/051114-economic-impact-EU-immigration




damn immigrants, coming over here, subsidising us and saving us money.

Very few people that want out of the EU accept that many immigrants have been good for the country etc, but you come up with this tired cliche that all immigration is wrong.
Perhaps try to accept that it is CONTROLLED immigration, not open door and a net figure of 330,000 a year that most find a problem with. That apart from other EU problems (although you and others always seem to bring up immigration) that many do not like.

 

[pastafarian]

I literally have no clue to vote in or out.

A good start for you would be to ignore some of the scare claims by the IN camp
Here are 10 Myths you may hear.

10 Myths


1. BRITAIN WOULD LOSE THREE MILLION JOBS IF WE LEFT THE EU

– 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.



2. BRITAIN WILL BE EXCLUDED FROM TRADE WITH THE EU BY TARIFF BARRIERS

-The EU has free trade agreements with over 50 countries to overcome such tariffs, and is currently negotiating a number of other agreements.
-EU now exempts services and many goods from duties anyway. In 2009 UK charged customs duty of just 1.76% on non-EU imports. This is so low that the EU Common Market is basically redundant as a customs union with tariff walls.



3. BRITAIN CANNOT SURVIVE ECONOMICALLY OUTSIDE THE EU IN A WORLD OF TRADING BLOCS

-Major economies eg. Japan (one of the world’s largest) are not in a trading bloc.
-The EU is not the place where most economic growth is occurring. The EU’s share of world GDP is forecast to decline to 22% in 2025, down from 37% in 1973.
-Norway and Switzerland are not in the EU, yet they export far more per capita to the EU than the UK does; this suggests that EU membership is not a prerequisite for a healthy trading relationship.
-Furthermore, Britain’s best trading relationships are generally not within the EU, but outside, i.e. with countries such as the USA and Switzerland.
-The largest investor in the UK is not even an EU country, but the US



4. THE EU IS MOVING TOWARDS THE UK’S POSITION ON CUTTING REGULATION AND BUREAUCRACY

-EU directives are subject to a ‘rachet’ effect – i.e. once in place they are highly unlikely to be reformed or repealed.
-Less than 15% of Britain’s GDP represents trade with the EU yet Brussels regulations afflict 100% of our economy (the 5th largest in the world)
-Over 70% of the UK’s GDP is generated within the UK, but still subject to EU law.
-In 2006 it was estimated that EU over-regulation costs 600bn Euros across the EU each year.
-In 2010, Open Europe estimated EU regulation had cost Britain £124 billion since 1998.
-Whilst red tape savings are not direct cash savings, deregulation would result in a true ‘bonfire of regulations’ that could fund either sizeable tax cuts or additional public spending.



5. IF WE LEAVE, BRITAIN WILL HAVE TO PAY BILLIONS TO THE EU AND IMPLEMENT ALL ITS REGULATIONS WITHOUT HAVING A SAY

-We have very little say within the EU, and would have far more leverage outside EU as an independent sovereign nation and the world’s 5th largest economy.
-The UK currently has only 8.4% of voting power ‘say’ in the EU, and the Lisbon Treaty ensured the loss of Britain’s veto in many more policy areas.
-Britain’s 73 MEPs are a minority within the 751 in the European Parliament.
-With further enlargement (Croatia, Turkey’s 79 million citizens), British influence would be further watered down.
-As for continuing contributions by an independent Britain, Swiss and Norwegian examples show that the UK would achieve substantial net savings.

SWISS CASE STUDY:
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 CASE STUDY:
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.



6. THE EU HAVE BROUGHT PEACE TO THE EUROPEAN CONTINENT

The Reality:

-Even now, the EU is only 28 nations of the 47 European nations listed as national members of the Council of Europe.
-The forerunner to the EU, the Common Market, didn’t come into existence until 1958, and then only with 6 nations, and yet there was no war between European countries from 1945 to 1956 (except the Hungarian revolution). Whilst peaceful international cooperation is welcomed at all levels, to say the EU is the sole guarantor of peace is an extreme exaggeration that is dishonest in its application.
-It is NATO, founded in 1949 and dominated by the USA, and not the EU, that has actually kept the peace in Europe, together with parliamentary democracy. Both of which are being undermined by the EU.
-The former German President Herzog wrote a few years ago that ‘the question has to be raised of whether Germany can still unreservedly be called a parliamentary democracy’. This was owing to the number of German laws emanating from the EU- which he assessed at some 84%.
-The break up of Yugoslavia was a major test of the EU’s ability to keep the peace. It was EU interference that helped trigger a major civil war and its dithering contributed to deaths of some 100,000 people. It was only decisive action by the US/NATO forces that stopped the violence. Peace was established by the US-brokered Dayton Agreement.



7. THE EU HAS A POSITIVE IMPACT ON THE BRITISH ECONOMY

-British industries such as fishing, farming, postal services and manufacturing have already been devastated by Britain’s membership of the EU.
-EU membership costs UK billions of pounds and large numbers of lost jobs thanks to unnecessary and excessive red tape, substantial membership and aid contributions, inflated consumer prices and other associated costs.
– The Common Fisheries Policy has cost British coastal communities 115,000 jobs (Lee Rotherham, 10 years on)



8. BRITAIN WILL LOSE VITAL FOREIGN INVESTMENT AS A CONSEQUENCE OF LEAVING THE EU

-In a 2010 survey on UK’s attractiveness to foreign investors, Ernst and Young found Britain remained the number one Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) destination in Europe owing largely to the City of London and the UK’s close corporate relationship with the US. EU membership was not mentioned at all in their table of key investment factors, which were (in order of importance): UK culture and values and the English language; telecommunications infrastructure; quality of life; stable social environment, and transport and logistics infrastructure.
-In any case, open access to the EU market would continue through a Free Trade Agreement in the manner of Switzerland and Norway whilst the UK would gain from higher growth, less regulation, more public spending and/or lower taxes and more suitable trade deals.



9. BRITAIN WILL LOSE ALL INFLUENCE IN THE WORLD BY BEING OUTSIDE THE EU

-Britain has a substantial ‘portfolio of power’ in its own right, which includes membership of theG20 and G8 Nations, a permanent seat on the UN Security Council (one of only 5 members) and seats on the International Monetary Fund Board of Governors and World Trade Organisation.
-The UK also lies at heart of the Commonwealth of 53 nations. Moreover, London is the financial capital of the world and Britain has the sixth largest economy. The UK is also in the top ten manufacturing nations in the world.
-Far from increasing British influence in the world, the EU is undermining UK influence. The EU is demanding there is a single voice for the EU in the UN and in the IMF. The EU has also made the British economy and City of London less competitive through overregulation, and negotiates more protectionist and less effective trade deals on behalf of the UK.
-The European External Action Service (EEAS) and its EU ‘Foreign Minister’ Federica Mogherini are undermining national diplomatic representation and the furtherance of British political and commercial interests through British embassies, which are being closed or downsized around the world.
-The Commonwealth is increasingly discriminated against by the EU policy on visas, so that non-EU Commonwealth citizens face having to obtain visas whilst citizens of even new EU entrants have automatic entry. Historic Commonwealth bonds with Britain are being lost.



10. LEGALLY, BRITAIN CANNOT LEAVE THE EU

-Technically, Britain could leave the EU in a single day. Legislatively, this would be achieved simply by repealing the European Communities Act 1972 and its attendant Amendment Acts through a single clause Bill passing through Westminster.
-If the British people voted to leave in an In/Out referendum or by voting in a party with EU withdrawal on its manifesto, Parliament would have to respect the will of the British people and there would be no justification for delay or obstruction in either House.
-However, the process of setting up a replacement UK/EU Free Trade Agreement will take longer, though there would be no need for time-consuming negotiation of tariff reductions if the UK/EU Free Trade Agreement merely replicated existing EU trade arrangements.
-In addition, even the Lisbon Treaty’s Article 50 enshrines the right of member states to leave the Union, albeit in an unattractive manner. The same article requires the EU to seek a free trade deal with a member which leaves. Greenland established a precedent for a sovereign nation by leaving the EEC in 1985, and is prospering well outside of it. With Westminster still sovereign (for the moment), it is the British Parliament who will decide how and when Britain leaves the EU.

http://www.betteroffout.net/the-case/10-eu-myths-about-withdrawl/

 

[pastafarian]

Overall my take is that I want the 4 EU freedoms for the opportunities it provides to those in the UK and those outside. Let's not forget the people in the UK, especially the younger generation and how the EU enables them to travel abroad, work abroad, live abroad, study abroad (where's it's much cheaper) with total and absolute freedom. I don't want to deny those after me these same opportunities which my generation have benefited from. I don't buy the idea that outside the EU we will agree the same total freedom with 27 other countries.

I would be interested to know how leaving the EU would deny young people the opportunities of not only travelling but working,living and studying in the EU also.
Uk(and EU) citizens seem to have no problems travelling,working,living and studying in countries outside the EU

 

[GT49er]

A good start for you would be to ignore some of the scare claims by the IN camp
Here are 10 Myths you may hear.

10 Myths

All excellent stuff. Unfortunately, great gullible swathes of the British public, when asked to choose between this and dodgy Dave coming back from Europe waving a piece of paper even more worthless than the one Chamberlain brought back in 1938, will fall for the spin and the scare stories and vote for dodgy Dave.

 

[pastafarian]

All excellent stuff. Unfortunately, great gullible swathes of the British public, when asked to choose between this and dodgy Dave coming back from Europe waving a piece of paper even more worthless than the one Chamberlain brought back in 1938, will fall for the spin and the scare stories and vote for dodgy Dave.

Camerons EU legacy

 

[beorhthelm]

No. This is from UCL. https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/1114/051114-economic-impact-EU-immigration

nowhere in there does it support your claim on the benefits to taxes ratio. the article is talking about net financial impact, of A10 (recent EU) and EU15 (old school EU) immigrants. there is a line about EU15 countries contributing 64% more than taking, and A10 contributing 12% more. either way, theres a large consolidation of people involved with most the EU15 presumably contributing as much as if they were native and belies the point that those taking benefits shouldn't in the first place. the main point however is the preposterous notion that £1 in payments from government can create £1.34 in return.

 

[jgmcdee]

A pedantic point, I meant Letta is of the mindset, the establishment that we are now dealing with, who perfectly articulated their goals and viewpoints having worked within that framework. Rather than being specifically the person we are negotiating with.

"their" goals and viewpoints. Who is they? You're making a bunch of assumptions here about Letta and his associations, none of which are proven. It's a good example of why the debate is so muddied.

Clearly Latta wouldn't have been able to give that talk, if he was still directly involved.

Clearly? Why is it so obvious that Letta wouldn't have been able to give the talk if he wasn't directly involved? He talked about his personal view of what he thinks Europe should become, which is the prerogative of every person. Giving it the credence of being some unspoken-but-obvious design of "them" is so far beyond what is visible here, or by looking at Letta's own background, to be incredible.

 

[jgmcdee]

A good start for you would be to ignore some of the scare claims by the IN camp
Here are 10 Myths you may hear.

10 Myths

1. BRITAIN WOULD LOSE THREE MILLION JOBS IF WE LEFT THE EU

Who knows? I don't see how Britain would gain jobs, but then we can all find cost/benefit analysis that support any position at all.

I'm not going to go through all of these, but just on this first one:

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

Can you explain exactly how the UK will be in a position to impose anything on the EU after it has left? There are multiple assumptions here: that we can obtain an agreement, that the agreement would be suitably favourable that it wouldn't impact on our jobs, that the time taken to negotiate the agreement wouldn't be a period during which businesses either withdraw from the UK or decide to set up elsewhere, etc.

– 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.

"seems unlikely." And regardless, the biggest concern here is that the jobs would be lost by the financial centre of gravity of Europe moving away from the UK. There's no guarantee that it would happen, of course, but the EU as a financial entity would be significantly bigger than a standalone UK so it's not unreasonable to think it might.

– Moreover, the Lisbon Treaty stipulates that the EU must make a trade agreement with a country which leaves the EU.

This is categorically untrue. Article 50 states "the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union." It says nothing about trade agreements. Feel free to read it if you don't believe me http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-European-union-and-comments/title-6-final-provisions/137-article-50.html

– 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.

This is not even relevant. The issue is that jobs would move out of the UK and on to mainland Europe due to our loss of influence in Europe which follows as not being part of the EU.


I'm not saying that none of these things would happen, nor am I saying that they definitely wouldn't. Absolutes on either side don't help unless they can be backed up, and the above is a great example of a combination of guesswork and outright lies that again just make it harder for people to have a clear view of what it all means.

 

[5ways]

nowhere in there does it support your claim on the benefits to taxes ratio. the article is talking about net financial impact, of A10 (recent EU) and EU15 (old school EU) immigrants. there is a line about EU15 countries contributing 64% more than taking, and A10 contributing 12% more. either way, theres a large consolidation of people involved with most the EU15 presumably contributing as much as if they were native and belies the point that those taking benefits shouldn't in the first place. the main point however is the preposterous notion that £1 in payments from government can create £1.34 in return.

Why is it preposterous? It is simply untrue to deny that EU citizens take more out of the UK then they put in. You quoted the percentages yourself. They will take even less if Cameron is able to limit child benefits to new arrivals.

 

[5ways]

A good start for you would be to ignore some of the scare claims by the IN camp
Here are 10 Myths you may hear.

10 Myths

...../[/url]

This is almost entirely nonsense. Purposefully ignorant a best, deceptive at worse. I lack the strength to go point by point but if there's any particular 'myth' you want dispelling I will have a go on a case by case basis.

 

[beorhthelm]

Why is it preposterous? It is simply untrue to deny that EU citizens take more out of the UK then they put in. You quoted the percentages yourself. They will take even less if Cameron is able to limit child benefits to new arrivals.

i have never said EU citizens take more out of the UK, i am not anti-immigration and well aware of their net economic input. it is preposterous to pretend that you can gain more in tax than the government give in benefits, its economic over-unity (false promise of more energy out than put in). maybe a misunderstanding, even so an example of the false information the IN brigade will pull. (should have stuck to the headline economic net contribution, safer ground for you there)

 

[pastafarian]

Who knows?

You posted a link yourself
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06091/SN06091.pdf
Where it clearly states Britain would NOT lose 3 million jobs if we left the EU as "some trade with EU countries would take place even if the UK withdrew from the EU."

This is categorically untrue. Article 50 states "the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union." It says nothing about trade agreements. Feel free to read it if you don't believe me http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-European-union-and-comments/title-6-final-provisions/137-article-50.html
.

Badly worded by the betteroffout campaign perhaps. However Negotiations for the establishment of a new ‘framework’ of a ‘future relationship’could well involve trade negotiations in a new framework.It certainly isnt ruled out by Article 50.Plenty of commentators agree Article 50 is so legally ambiguous it would certainly allow for this exact scenario
http://www.maastrichtjournal.eu/pdf_file/ITS/MJ_20_02_0209.pdf

 

[jgmcdee]

You posted a link yourself
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06091/SN06091.pdf
Where it clearly states Britain would NOT lose 3 million jobs if we left the EU as "some trade with EU countries would take place even if the UK withdrew from the EU."

For what it is worth no I don't think that Britain would lose 3 million jobs if we left the EU but my opinion is worth as much as the next person you'd walk past in the street.

Badly worded by the betteroffout campaign perhaps. However Negotiations for the establishment of a new ‘framework’ of a ‘future relationship’could well involve trade negotiations in a new framework.It certainly isnt ruled out by Article 50.Plenty of commentators agree Article 50 is so legally ambiguous it would certainly allow for this exact scenario
http://www.maastrichtjournal.eu/pdf_file/ITS/MJ_20_02_0209.pdf

"isn't ruled out" is hardly the same as "the Lisbon Treaty stipulates that the EU must make a trade agreement". There's an option there, certainly, but that's hardly saying anything as there is always an option.

There is FUD on both sides, of that there is no doubt. But an article that states it is dispelling myths should do a hell of a lot better at being honest and accurate.

 

[5ways]

i have never said EU citizens take more out of the UK, i am not anti-immigration and well aware of their net economic input. it is preposterous to pretend that you can gain more in tax than the government give in benefits, its economic over-unity (false promise of more energy out than put in). maybe a misunderstanding, even so an example of the false information the IN brigade will pull. (should have stuck to the headline economic net contribution, safer ground for you there)

Sorry maybe I'm misunderstanding, surely what the £1 to £1.34 figure shows that you get more in tax than is withdrawn in state assistance?

 

[Deleted member 22389]

Who says the UK cannot stand on it's own two feet? Vote OUT before the EU get their hands on the Gatwick Gusher
www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-3449455/Gatwick-Gusher-oil-bonanza-cards-UKOG-says-crude-bubbling-surface.html

 

[Soulman]

This is quite interesting.

80 community and business leaders from Commonwealth backgrounds have written an open letter to the Prime Minister to call for the UK to take ‘back its autonomy in the fields of migration and commerce’. They argue that the UK ‘should secure a free-trade-only deal with the EU, and re-establish our global role’ if the UK’s EU renegotiation does not bring back powers over immigration and trade policy.

Signatories include Pasha Khandaker, President of the UK Bangladesh Caterers Association UK, Moni Varma, owner of Veetee, MOBO award winner Rachel Kerr, Gurmail Singh Mahli, President of Shri Guru Sing Sabha Southall and Tariq Usmani, CEO of Henley Homes plc.

Perhaps scroll down and see the Signatories.

http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org..._c_news&utm_medium=email&utm_source=voteleave

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Europe's masters decide Britain's fate

'Heads or tails'

 

[melias shoes]

'Heads or tails'

Don't you just love all the posturing from all sides. The Deal cameron gets won't be worth the paper it's written on.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Don't you just love all the posturing from all sides. The Deal cameron gets won't be worth the paper it's written on.

It'll certainly be worth anyone who wants to leave EU telling everyone it's not worth the paper it's written on, regardless of the content

 

[sir albion]

Pointless demands from Cameron....The EU is holding us up and the sooner we're out the better.
If we stay in we will continue to fund other countries with France and Germany and will also have to find room for 350,000 EU migrants year after year.
If the EU actually worked you wouldn't get mass migration within the EU and why do certain countries have 35/40% unemployment.
How can migrants fleeing be good for their countries?