Europe: In or Out

[Gwylan]

Half of a lot is still a lot .........................

True. But as I said, there will almost certainly be a treaty that will allow unlimited EU migration too. What it will stop is EU citizens claiming in-work benefits, something that's a sticking point for CMD. I've no idea how many people this would put off but it won't be hundreds of thousands.

 

[5ways]

Quite simply, no it wont.

http://www.theguardian.com/business...eave-uk-brexit-may-bolster-support-to-quit-eu

Jamie Dimon, the chairman and chief executive of JP Morgan, suggests his bank would quit the UK if Britain exits the European Union. “Britain’s been a great home for financial companies and it’s benefited London quite a bit. We’d like to stay there but if we can’t, we can’t,” he said.

Colm Kelleher, Morgan Stanley president, speaking in a personal capacity, told the FT’s banking summit in November: “Were Great Britain to leave the EU, you would see significant backlash against London as a global financial centre.”

One senior US investment banker said Brexit would mean “every single contract will have to be renegotiated — that means every credit default swap, every derivative, every loan agreement. It’s a nightmare.”

The banker said the UK had not negotiated an international trade agreement on its own for more than 40 years. He predicted that other countries such as the US would wait until the UK had agreed the terms of any exit from the EU — a process likely to last about five years — before starting bilateral negotiations. “Foreign direct investment would just stop until at least 2021.”

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/776f2c82-c031-11e5-9fdb-87b8d15baec2.html#axzz3xyC1uBm4

 

[Captain Sensible]

I'm in, partly for personal interest (I do a reasonable amount of work in Europe's public sector) and partly because I have no idea what 'Out' actually looks like, and what the benefits are.

For me, 'Out' could range from;
Maintaining access to the free market, in which case we continue to make financial contributions to the EU (without a rebate?) and still have freedom of movement (so it does nothing for immigration). How is this really different from what we have at the moment?
Breaking all ties; no free market access, causing serious economic problems in at least the short term (and probably the medium-term) while we we-arrange our economy to face new export partners. A substantially-changed arrangement, but at what cost?

The best-case scenario is probably access to the free market and 'repatriation' of powers; but from my standpoint I don't see the benefit of this. The EU is no less democratic than our own Parliament, as far as I can see (although I'm happy to be corrected) - the only perceived downside is that it covers a larger area and therefore there's less 'personal' representation, but it's not like there's a huge amount of this in our own Parliament, is there?

Nail...head...hit!! Well done. Sums up the situation 100% correctly and perfectly. For those reasons stated above I'm very much with staying In.

 

[beorhthelm]

True. But as I said, there will almost certainly be a treaty that will allow unlimited EU migration too. What it will stop is EU citizens claiming in-work benefits, something that's a sticking point for CMD. I've no idea how many people this would put off but it won't be hundreds of thousands.

EU citizens aren't supposed to be allowed to claim benefits in the first place! its come about by the back door, by the gradual creep of the european project. freedom of movement of labour != freedom of people to pitch up where they like in EU for benefits, it means they can work where they chose. this demostrates exactly the problem with EU, a rule a couple of decades ago is used to usher in various other clauses, rules and obligations that were never intended, they become working practice and take the authority of regulation and law without any oversight.

 

[Gwylan]

freedom of movement of labour != freedom of people to pitch up where they like in EU for benefits, it means they can work where they chose.

I'm talking about people working where they choose. If they're in a low-paid job, EU citizens can claim housing benefits, child-tax credits etc in the UK. There are very, very few people who come to the UK to claim unemployment benefit - it's the in-work benefits that Cameron is trying to stop

 

[pastafarian]

I'm fine with the principal but not with the reality. It's un-accountable, corrupt, un-democratic and seemingly un-reformable, so it's an out.

This in spades.
A workable trade agreement(as originally envisaged ) and return of full control of our sovereign and judicial laws would be perfect.
Its clear with EU expansion plans though this will never be on the cards even in the slightest form.
Out,especially as I have every faith trade will continue with Europe,even though people claim they will shut up shop against us and Out as I believe this great country will rise to the new challenge.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

True. But as I said, there will almost certainly be a treaty that will allow unlimited EU migration too. What it will stop is EU citizens claiming in-work benefits, something that's a sticking point for CMD. I've no idea how many people this would put off but it won't be hundreds of thousands.

Unlikely, one of the biggest issues contributing to the no vote is unlimited EU migration. It would be electoral suicide for any government negotiating such a treaty after an out vote.

There seems to be a general misapprehension that we can only get a deal similar to Norway. I'm not sure what this is based on as our economic, political and military clout places us in a far stronger negotiating position.

But saying that I think we will probably vote to stay. Fear of the unknown combined with an imbalance in money and organisational muscle for the 'in' campaign playing on those worries should prevail.

 

[beorhthelm]

I'm talking about people working where they choose. If they're in a low-paid job, EU citizens can claim housing benefits, child-tax credits etc in the UK. There are very, very few people who come to the UK to claim unemployment benefit - it's the in-work benefits that Cameron is trying to stop

you're missing the point that they were not supposed to under the original treaties. if you are in so low paid work that you cant afford your housing, you would be expected to move to a employment/residence situation that's more suitable. tens of thousands are claiming benefits in this country they shouldn't, child benefit in particular is being abused with the child not resident. in-work benefits is just the latest of a line of holes in the system, and addressing it on its own wont solve the underlying problem.

 

[Gwylan]

Unlikely, one of the biggest issues contributing to the no vote is unlimited EU migration. It would be electoral suicide for any government negotiating such a treaty after an out vote.

There seems to be a general misapprehension that we can only get a deal similar to Norway. I'm not sure what this is based on as our economic, political and military clout places us in a far stronger negotiating position.
.

All western non-EU countries have negotiated a deal with the EU. I can't see us wanting to negotiate separate agreements with 30-odd countries, we'd want one with the EU as a whole. A condition of that will be acceptance of EU migration, something that Norway and Switzerland are happy to accept.

I'm 99.9% certain that will be the case, I really can't see us wanting the hassle of individual country agreements.

 

[Notters]

I imagine pulling out of the EU would be INCREDIBLY expensive, as the whole legal and parliamentary system would have to be overhauled.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

All western non-EU countries have negotiated a deal with the EU. I can't see us wanting to negotiate separate agreements with 30-odd countries, we'd want one with the EU as a whole. A condition of that will be acceptance of EU migration, something that Norway and Switzerland are happy to accept.

I'm 99.9% certain that will be the case, I really can't see us wanting the hassle of individual country agreements.

Yes we would probably negotiate on an EU level but there are many more options than just allowing unlimited EU migration. Norwegian and Swiss governments were happy to accept not so much the people, see Swiss referendum results for their opinions.

In truth the free movement of peoples across Europe is disintegrating as member states belatedly react to the migrant crisis introducing border controls and restrictions.

I am 100% sure a future UK government would not sign up to unlimited EU migration after an out vote.

 

[sten_super]

Unlikely, one of the biggest issues contributing to the no vote is unlimited EU migration. It would be electoral suicide for any government negotiating such a treaty after an out vote.

There seems to be a general misapprehension that we can only get a deal similar to Norway. I'm not sure what this is based on as our economic, political and military clout places us in a far stronger negotiating position.

But saying that I think we will probably vote to stay. Fear of the unknown combined with an imbalance in money and organisational muscle for the 'in' campaign playing on those worries should prevail.

Practically every major player on the "Out" side (I think apart from UKIP) has conceded that, at least in the short term (who knows how long that is?) freedom of movement is more or less unavoidable, because unfettered access to the single market and freedom of movement go hand-in-hand. No-one has access to the single market without it, and it's perceived as a massive EU red line in any negotiations. This is not being alarmist, or trying to paint a negative picture, it's simply the only realistic outcome of any negotiation. The "Out" campaigners state that after an initial agreement on leaving the EU, which would include this, was completed, they'd then look to renegotiate again to give us as close as possible to free access to the EU without freedom of movement. I'm genuinely not sure to what extent this is realistic or otherwise.

 

[Guinness Boy]

http://www.theguardian.com/business...eave-uk-brexit-may-bolster-support-to-quit-eu








http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/776f2c82-c031-11e5-9fdb-87b8d15baec2.html#axzz3xyC1uBm4

Also someone very senior at UBS was on the Today programme this morning discussing Brexit. He was less than enthusiastic about us coming out of Europe.

 

[beorhthelm]

I imagine pulling out of the EU would be INCREDIBLY expensive, as the whole legal and parliamentary system would have to be overhauled.

so what you're saying is its too late, we are irretrievably tied into the EU and where ever they want to take us? we are defacto a satellite state or the EU superstate, sovereign in name only. i fear this may be the case. when i hear how difficult it is to leave, i sense that we've been boiled like the proverbial frog. I see JP Morgan and an number of other US banks donating to the In campaign, so they are in favour along with many other international businesses (local businesses not so much). maybe this just shows the outers are wrong, we should give in to the inevitable.

 

[5ways]

I imagine pulling out of the EU would be INCREDIBLY expensive, as the whole legal and parliamentary system would have to be overhauled.

The lawyers are salivating already. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7f12a510-bf62-11e5-9fdb-87b8d15baec2.html

 

[5ways]

Unlikely, one of the biggest issues contributing to the no vote is unlimited EU migration. It would be electoral suicide for any government negotiating such a treaty after an out vote.

There seems to be a general misapprehension that we can only get a deal similar to Norway. I'm not sure what this is based on as our economic, political and military clout places us in a far stronger negotiating position.

But saying that I think we will probably vote to stay. Fear of the unknown combined with an imbalance in money and organisational muscle for the 'in' campaign playing on those worries should prevail.

Please see this for reference. http://news.cbi.org.uk/campaigns/ou...rship-offers-better-balance-of-pros-and-cons/

Our negotiating position is stronger than Norway but the hard numbers are not in our favour.

A bespoke UK-EU free trade agreement would fail to secure vital benefits

"The EU would have substantially greater clout than the UK in any such negotiation. The price of deep market access is likely to be regulatory cooperation, and the UK is likely to be at a relative disadvantage in the negotiation:

The EU28 (excluding the UK) has a 445m population, compared to the UK’s 63 million, and it economy is almost seven times the size of the UK’s.
The UK is more dependent on the EU for its trade than the EU is on the UK. Around half of the UK’s total trade is with the EU, while just 11% of EU trade is with the UK.
The fact that Britain runs a deficit in exports with the rest of the EU is of much less relevance."

 

[Grombleton]

On the fence, but leaning in.

 

[beorhthelm]

The UK is more dependent on the EU for its trade than the EU is on the UK. Around half of the UK’s total trade is with the EU, while just 11% of EU trade is with the UK.
The fact that Britain runs a deficit in exports with the rest of the EU is of much less relevance."

so the fact that the value of that 11% EU-UK trade is greater than ~50% UK-EU trade is not relevant? i wonder if the member countries and businesses impacted by that would feel the same. in reality it is the value of the trade, not the relative size, that matters. it would be in both sides interest to have a free trade agreement. regulations that whould be required to satisfy that trade agreement would be the same as present on those that trade with EU (no net loss), while not applying to those not trading with EU (net gain to us).

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Please see this for reference. http://news.cbi.org.uk/campaigns/ou...rship-offers-better-balance-of-pros-and-cons/

Our negotiating position is stronger than Norway but the hard numbers are not in our favour.

A bespoke UK-EU free trade agreement would fail to secure vital benefits

"The EU would have substantially greater clout than the UK in any such negotiation. The price of deep market access is likely to be regulatory cooperation, and the UK is likely to be at a relative disadvantage in the negotiation:

The EU28 (excluding the UK) has a 445m population, compared to the UK’s 63 million, and it economy is almost seven times the size of the UK’s.
The UK is more dependent on the EU for its trade than the EU is on the UK. Around half of the UK’s total trade is with the EU, while just 11% of EU trade is with the UK.
The fact that Britain runs a deficit in exports with the rest of the EU is of much less relevance."

The CBI speaks for big business so no great surprise they favour maintaining the Status quo as their overriding concern is making a profit.

We agree that our negotiating position is far stronger than Norway but yes the whole EU has more negotiating clout than we do. It is in our and other member states self interest to come to a mutually advantageous agreement.There seems to be a view that the EU will play hardball leading to UK economic collapse which is scaremongering nonsense.

We are the second largest economy in the EU with a vast thriving market with 66+ million consumers. Our European friends and partners know it is as much in their interest as ours to facilitate a smooth grown up settlement especially considering the relative weakness and many underlying economic problems facing the Eurozone and the wider EU .

Lack of democratic accountability and the ongoing migration crisis leading to the numerous societal problems are also big negative in continued unreformed membership.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/polit...n-banks-EU-referendum-Goldman-Sachs-JP-Morgan