The ultimate REFERENDUM thread

[Biscuit]

Well it is a lot of money but it has to be put in context. Why are we in the EU in the first place? It is about jobs and trade. The EU gives us access to the European internal market. 2/3rds of small businesses operate in Europe without restrictions and do business easily through harmonised regulation about safety standards, workings rights and so on. A lot of the EU law we've adopted covers just this. The IN campaign argues that for every £1 we spend, we get £10 back. This is calculated on the basis of FDI, and trade in goods and services. Every day X many million goes out but 60 million comes in in the form of FDI. Would this evaporate if we left the EU? No, not entirely - but it is fundamentally linked. The ease of doing business with Europe makes us a major hub for European and international companies who want skilled UK workers, a good legal framework and access to Europe. Car manufacturers are a case in point. If we left the EU we would be subject to tariffs on car imports in the EU. The cost of business would rise and fewer companies would set-up here. The same is true of big corps like banks, Barclays and Goldman have said they'd move thousands of jobs to Paris, but it is also true of manufacturers.

Also being part of the EU lowers prices for your typical consumer; Spanish olive oil, French soap or German cars are all sold without tariffs. Why not a simple trade agreement? If you look at my previous posts this has been much discussed. The essential points are that :


Every alternative model proposed does not provide us unfettered access to the market. Or it gives us access to the market but no influence in the rules governing the laws and regulations that it operates by. This comes to the point about EU and UK law. The EU project is about closer Union, it is about a European ideal and identity. This makes us uncomfortable, and rightly. EU law does bypass UK law. But what is this law? It is law that regulates international trade, the quality of seas and river water, it is renewable energy targets. There is a democratic deficit here, and the PM’s ‘red card’ idea might offer some relief. But fundamentally and essentially we have opted out of ever closer Union. This is pragmatic; retain the substantial economic benefit and lessen the cloying federalism.

This doesn’t come without a cost. Free movement is one of those costs, if you’re inclined to see it that way. Free movement is in the EU’s DNA, it is essential that people, capital and ideas can flow freely from one to the other. This has actually enriched us; migrants pay more into the system than they take from it in benefits. This equally allows Brits to live abroad easily. We essentially import working age labour and export pensioners. This is a win-win for the treasury.

Let me know if any of this is unclear or you would like more info. Essentially to say that leaving the EU would save us money is a false economy. We would lose investment, we would lose jobs, and we would suffer severe economic uncertainty. The worst thing that could happen to a small business that exports to Europe, or in fact anywhere we have a trade agreement (because we negotiate FTA's as a bloc) would be brexit. In terms of writing our own migration laws; if you want access to the EU internal market it comes at the cost of free movement. This movement has been good for UK plc overall, but obviously this is a macro perspective and not a street level view.

Also the money we spend in the EU does go somewhere. It strengthens democracy in the Balkans, it supports job creation in the Welsh valleys, it coordinates cross-border police work, it tests the quality of air in London, the quality of seawater on Brighton beach, it funds science and technology projects in Cambridge. Yes is an aberration to many, but the core aim of promoting a prosperous, healthy and democratic European neighborhood remains a noble goal even after you strip away all the bureaucratic nonsense.

Thanks for taking the time to address my points, some nice economic certainties in there, which is reassuring,

But one thing that still sticks in my throat is that fact that big business benefits and therefore we do. I've no doubt the jobs and employment they bring are a good thing, but I'm already concerned about the influence big business exerts on our politicians. I'd be more than happy to see a number of energy giants up-sticks. That might make nationalising them easier! Am I alone in being left leaning and believing the net effect of being part of the EU is negative? It feels like it.

Also, I feel our political elite aren't being held to account. Where are the big infrastructure projects to generate jobs for our young people? Where are the apprenticeships for our young? We may be importing people of a working age and exporting pensioners, but doesn't this come at a cost? The young people of working age are doing jobs which our young people could be doing? Why? If there are skills shortages isn't it our responsibility to train our own instead of importing cheap foreign labour? The only people that benefit from this is big business, at our expense, surely?

 

[sten_super]

I never quite get how left-leaning folk (and I think I'm right in thinking both of you are) are quite happy when it comes to Europe to be led by what big business wants, first and foremost. Sod accountability and sod the electorate, lets be led by the peculiarly selfish needs of the very corporations that we moan about and distrust when it comes to domestic politics. Very strange indeed.

What makes you think that the EU is any more prone to regulatory capture than the UK government? There's plenty of evidence of both being strongly lobbied and influenced by big business.

Anyhow, you asked for something that proves Britain would be better off out of Europe, I posted this earlier but I'll repost here. It's an article by a very eminent and neutral economist who argues that Brexit would probably NOT leave Britain any worse off than if it stayed despite the fearmongering by the IN campaign. And so, taking the economy out of the equation, I think greater autonomy and accountability can be achieved with a Brexit.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...s-johnson-is-right-about-europe-a6909811.html

You probably won't be surprised by this, but I don't find the Mody article very convincing. The Bruegel paper's summary on their website basically states that removing barriers is difficult without assistance from national governments, but of course the Brexit position is firmly against 'ever greater union', which would presumably achieve more conducive national policy. He also misrepresents Bhagwati's position, which is that free trade is massively beneficial. What Mody asserts is that trade with a particular group of countries (i.e. nearest neighbours) is not essential, that growth can be bought about by trade with anyone - but clearly a Brexit vote would very suddenly change the nature of our trading relationships; we're not talking about evolution of trade (i.e. a gradual shift away from the EU towards others) but a revolution (a sudden movement as costs of EU trade increase immediately).

Some of his broader points, that the European 'project' is struggling to make progress, and that it may be reaching it's end, resonate, but those aren't the bits that justify his support for Boris and Brexit, IMHO.

 

[beorhthelm]

The days of nations deciding what is best for themselves is long gone. I think i prefer the idea of Estonian and Greek Bureaucrats making decisions for the Uk than leaving it solely up to multinational corporations, international banking interests and global oil giants. The UK is always going to be answerable to someone why not make it a cooperative collection of nations from the same continent?

Having said that i would like nations to go back to providing food, goods and services for themselves. I think a simplified economic system would be beneficial both economically and environmentally. However this is cloud cuckoo land and we are too far into the neo liberal extremist capitalism to go back now........ well not till after the meltdown anyway.

Cuckooland indeed. Those bureaucrats are career politician and civil service types being wined and dined by those multinationals to steer policy. Lobbying in Brussels is an industry, with thousands employed. Policy is driven by business then a public concern is derived to give it some justification. Very rarely is there a ground swell popular cause that the EU takes forward or initated the machinery of Brussels. They may be a few but I can't think of one, so I'd love inners to provide and example. It's top down rule.

Also, once upon a time we were answerable to no others, that's sovereignty, and the loss of that is treated far too lightly by inners. It used to be something we held dearly, we went to war to retain, or gain. That how power is usually obtained and while kudos for EU managing such a grab peacefully, however the risk emerges of how people's and countries will reclaim it one day when they decide the rules are no longer in their interests.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Facts are, we know how much the EU is worth to the UK and vice versa, how much membership costs verses how much capital is generated through trade. This info is freely available from multiple sources. Surely you know this?
Now the facts on a Brexit please? Or even if there are no actual facts as its a hyperthetical at this point. Independant estimated costs (including estimated job losses, company losses, exchequer losses, and then projections on the gains that HAVE to follow otherwise what is the point of a Brexit)?
Oh...sorry you mean I have to search through the Internet for an independently sourced projections based on facts. Well I don't think I need to.
I know how much staying in is worth to the UK, I believe it's enough to warrant staying even with the EU's obvious issues. It's up to those that want out to present me with the alternative view that I find A) credible and B) worth leaving for.
As I said, I'm all ears. Or is it eyes?

Ah I see where you are coming from (I think?). I thought your comment “The facts and stats back up that remaining is in the economic benefit of the U.K.” suggested it is a certain fact that our future economic performance will be better if we remain in the EU. Where as your position seems to be you would only consider leaving if a better credible economic performance could be assured outside the EU. Is this right? If it is, isn't that an impossible threshold to reach as we cannot predict how the European economy will look in a years time even if we stay in.

I also thought there was some dispute about your “how much the EU is worth to the UK and vice versa, how much membership costs verses how much capital is generated through trade” facts.

For instance this recent Government (vested 'staying in' interest?) briefing paper on EU UK economic relations says ..

Various studies have attempted to quantify the benefit or cost to the UK of its membership of the EU. This is a very difficult exercise and depends on a wide range of assumptions. Estimates vary significantly For example, a 2005 study by the Institute for Economic Affairs found a cost of between 3% and 4% of GDP while a 2013 study by the CBI found a net benefit of between 4% and 5% of GDP. A 2015 study by Open Europe found that the cost of the 100 most burdensome EU regulations was £33.3 billion a year

www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN06091.pdf

Not sure if your all eyes or all ears but your certainly not forthcoming in facts.

 

[jgmcdee]

For instance this recent Government (vested 'staying in' interest?) briefing paper on EU UK economic relations says ..

The House of Commons Library is neutral, being for the benefit of all MPs (not parties or governments).

But yes the economic case for being in the EU isn't proven because of the complexity of the equation (tariffs, free labour, goodwill, strategic positioning of companies, regulation). If (generic) you have the time then reading the source reports that paper references might give you a better feel for any bias in the reports and/or what they do and do not take in to account.

 

[Buzzer]

What makes you think that the EU is any more prone to regulatory capture than the UK government? There's plenty of evidence of both being strongly lobbied and influenced by big business.

Oh, I don't think there's much difference. My point was that we have grown extremely distrustful of big business lobbying with regards to their UK interests especially from the Left but when they do similarly about Europe, it's seen as something positive and to be lauded. Maybe it's just me but I struggle to see why.

 

[5ways]

Thanks for taking the time to address my points, some nice economic certainties in there, which is reassuring,

But one thing that still sticks in my throat is that fact that big business benefits and therefore we do. I've no doubt the jobs and employment they bring are a good thing, but I'm already concerned about the influence big business exerts on our politicians. I'd be more than happy to see a number of energy giants up-sticks. That might make nationalising them easier! Am I alone in being left leaning and believing the net effect of being part of the EU is negative? It feels like it.

Also, I feel our political elite aren't being held to account. Where are the big infrastructure projects to generate jobs for our young people? Where are the apprenticeships for our young? We may be importing people of a working age and exporting pensioners, but doesn't this come at a cost? The young people of working age are doing jobs which our young people could be doing? Why? If there are skills shortages isn't it our responsibility to train our own instead of importing cheap foreign labour? The only people that benefit from this is big business, at our expense, surely?

Big businesses setting up in the UK I think is a good thing.It brings in revenue. What being part of the EU does is actually prevent a 'race to the bottom' type scenario. If labour laws are the same in Romania as they are in Sunderland you cannot as easily abuse workers rights or bring the working conditions of Eastern Europe to Western Europe. Although we've opted out of the working time directive these labour regulations actually even the playing field. There is a reason the union's support in. The same is true of pollution or air quality. If you cannot create productivity increases through through labour or environmental exploitation you best way to do so is through the quality of your workers.

In terms of big business one tax avoidance is a big issue. The double Irish or Dutch sandwich etc. Individually there is not much we can do about this. Capital is easy to move, taxes are easy to shift. Yet if these tax laws are organised at a European level if you want to do business in Europe you will have to pay taxes in the country in which the profit is generated. This has had a shaky start because it is so complicated, but the EU now is investigating companies such as Apple and Google who exploit the system and shift profits from one European country to another. If we leave the EU it is much harder for us to pin down this tax revenue. In the US the IRS has the reach to track you down, HMRC depends much more on cooperation with its international partners.

This is from earlier this month:

Pierre Moscovici, the EU tax commissioner, said the proposals meant “the days are numbered for companies that avoid paying tax at the expense of others”.
“I am convinced that we will make decisive progress, even within the first half of this year,” he said.
The push was a “major step towards creating a level playing field for all our businesses, for fair and effective taxation for all Europeans”, he said, and would address a status quo where small companies in Europe had an overall tax burden 30 per cent higher than that of multinationals.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e7c430d6-c5c2-11e5-808f-8231cd71622e.html#axzz42J9UkcTT

Leave the EU and we could be left out in the cold. Collectively we can regulate international business much better.

In terms of accountability, this is probably true. Brussels has become a magnet for political lobbying and I have no idea how that works. The EU does support apprenticeships, and also invests in infrastructure but mainly in ex-Eastern bloc countries. If you go to Romania and drive out of Sophia you'll see road signs with the EU flag on it telling you about schools, hospitals and motorways they've funded. But largely this is an issue for domestic governments.

In terms of the movement of people think about it this way: a kid from the Czech Republic or Sweden goes to a good public uni or becomes a doctor. Moves to the UK. The UK has basically had the training paid for by another member and now reaps that persons skills and economic output. This also allows unskilled labour to enter but this hasn't seemed to have damaged employment levels in this country - it is the lowest it has been for a long time.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

The House of Commons Library is neutral, being for the benefit of all MPs (not parties or governments).

But yes the economic case for being in the EU isn't proven because of the complexity of the equation (tariffs, free labour, goodwill, strategic positioning of companies, regulation). If (generic) you have the time then reading the source reports that paper references might give you a better feel for any bias in the reports and/or what they do and do not take in to account.

Fair point I was unsure if government had commissioned the paper or who the authors were. Completely agree the economic case for remaining in the EU is not proven and any claim to the contrary is untrue. To further quote the paper ..

There is no definitive study of the economic impact of the UK’s EU membership or the costs and benefits of withdrawal. Framing the aggregate impact in terms of a single number, or even irrefutably demonstrating that the net effects are positive or negative, is a formidably difficult exercise.This is because many of the costs and benefits are subjective or intangible. It is also because a host of assumptions must be made to reach an estimate. If the UK were to leave the EU, assumptions must be made about the terms on which this would be done and how Government would fill the policy vacuum left in areas where the EU currently has competence. If the UK were to remain in the EU, assumptions would need to be made about how policy in the EU would develop. Estimates of the costs and benefits of EU membership are likely to be highly sensitive to such assumptions.

 

[pb21]

Policy is driven by business then a public concern is derived to give it some justification. Very rarely is there a ground swell popular cause that the EU takes forward or initated the machinery of Brussels. They may be a few but I can't think of one, so I'd love inners to provide and example. It's top down rule.

I'm surprised you take issue with this!

 

[heathgate]

The legislation that the Parliament votes on, comes from the Commission...29 members who are sworn to uphold European Union dictats ahead of their respective national interests.

When you tot up the employees of the various EU agencies (the Court of Auditors, the European Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions, the European Ombudsman, the European Data Protection Supervisor, the European Central Bank etc) as well as the various Euro-quangoes (the European Food Safety Authority, the European Agency for Safety & Health at Work, the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market and so on) you get to 170,000 staff...... all an extra layer above the national governments. Waste in the extreme.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I've said this before on other topics, but I'm not particularly nationalistic (and I don't mean that in the negative sense of the word). I have as much (in fact in my experience more) in common with other middle-class Europeans than I do with a lot of the British population. Language is not the barrier that it once was (thanks to the creeping anglicisation/americanisation of society), and actually my world view is (seemingly) more likely to be shared by others from a similar background across Europe as it is by all segments of the British people. So while others might view our independence and sovereignty as something to be protected at all costs, I don't.

Same with me. Although I would remove the middle-class reference.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I never quite get how left-leaning folk (and I think I'm right in thinking both of you are) are quite happy when it comes to Europe to be led by what big business wants, first and foremost. Sod accountability and sod the electorate, lets be led by the peculiarly selfish needs of the very corporations that we moan about and distrust when it comes to domestic politics. Very strange indeed.

Anyhow, you asked for something that proves Britain would be better off out of Europe, I posted this earlier but I'll repost here. It's an article by a very eminent and neutral economist who argues that Brexit would probably NOT leave Britain any worse off than if it stayed despite the fearmongering by the IN campaign. And so, taking the economy out of the equation, I think greater autonomy and accountability can be achieved with a Brexit.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...s-johnson-is-right-about-europe-a6909811.html

Yes, probably he's right. Or probably not. Who knows? That's my concern and as you will have seen from my previous posts I just don't see a strong convincing argument eaither way. In view of that I am still inclined to vote 'stick' rather than 'twist.

As for my leanings, conventional lefties like one of my brothers, tend to think I'm very right wing. On the other hand, some tories I know think I'm a commie *******. I have almost always voted labour, sure, but like lots of folk I rub up against (if you'll pardon the expression), whether in academia or business, I was much more comfortable with the Mr Tony era than any other.

It is all a balance sheet, in the end, and if issues of freedom and control were black and white then I would acknowledge them. But in this discussion issues of freedom and control have been presented in emotional terms, backed jup (or gainsayed) by carefully selected opinion pieces and back of the envelope calculations (by BOTH sides).

Given all that, yes, I am most concerned about financial projections. The possibility (or even probability) that Brexit won't do us much harm in the long term is far from justification to vote 'change' as far as I am concerned. But I don't deny the sense of excitement that voting 'change' inspires, even in me. It is very much akin to 'yes, why not, I WILL have another glass of wine'. Yes, more freedom, yay! Fingers up to the Frogs - what's not to like. And in the morning I find that I'm sober again . . . .

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

The legislation that the Parliament votes on, comes from the Commission...29 members who are sworn to uphold European Union dictats ahead of their respective national interests.

When you tot up the employees of the various EU agencies (the Court of Auditors, the European Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions, the European Ombudsman, the European Data Protection Supervisor, the European Central Bank etc) as well as the various Euro-quangoes (the European Food Safety Authority, the European Agency for Safety & Health at Work, the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market and so on) you get to 170,000 staff...... all an extra layer above the national governments. Waste in the extreme.

Do you actually know what any of these agencies do? Why they were set up? What their mission is? And what benefit they deliver? And also I'll ask you what inefficiencies they cause?

I'm reminded of one of [MENTION=12825]cunning fergus[/MENTION] posts where he was rambling on about the red-tape of some rule which required business to collect X pieces of data instead of Y. He had absolutely no idea what this ruling was about, why it came into effect and if this increase was beneficial or not. And if it was beneficial (or not) who it affected. And knowing something about data I'd actually suggest the impact was minimal anyway. It's all very well making these statements but you need to provide some back ground and context. In my view some are very well worth having.

 

[sten_super]

Same with me. Although I would remove the middle-class reference.

My aim wasn't to sound snooty (although with hindsight I accept that it does!) but that there's some commonality of background which is just as valid as the (IMHO rather arbitrary) notion that I should feel some shared bond or world-view with people just because I was born on the same island as them.

 

[heathgate]

Do you actually know what any of these agencies do? Why they were set up? What their mission is? And what benefit they deliver? And also I'll ask you what inefficiencies they cause?

I'm reminded of one of [MENTION=12825]cunning fergus[/MENTION] posts where he was rambling on about the red-tape of some rule which required business to collect X pieces of data instead of Y. He had absolutely no idea if this increase was beneficial or not. And if it was beneficial (or not) who it affected. It's all very well making these statements but you need to provide some back ground and context.

I don't know of course, nor does anybody on this planet I'll wager.

I just see plain and simple overlaps with national governmental departments and civil servants cohorts, in any organisational structure, duplication is considered waste and surplus.

 

[Buzzer]

My aim wasn't to sound snooty (although with hindsight I accept that it does!) but that there's some commonality of background which is just as valid as the (IMHO rather arbitrary) notion that I should feel some shared bond or world-view with people just because I was born on the same island as them.

That's a remarkable degree of detachment where you can discount the way that an entire shared heritage and culture has shaped us as a people "as rather arbitrary". Fair play if that's what you believe but from the inside looking out I'd say you are one of the exceptions to the rule.

 

[brighton fella]

Whilst the phoney tough-talk is grating I have to say it's pleasing to see Cameron finally working with his European counterparts to find a solution to the refugee crisis; he is finally realising it's a crisis which won't just go away without real thought, understanding and cooperation being given to the solution. Is this the start of a new Europe where the UK plays its part? I hope so.

the EU find a solution for the refugee crisis are you for real
do you honestly think any of them sat around that table care a t*ss what happens, . the extent of how much your beloved EU care's was announced by merkel' when she invited the entire population of syria over to europe.

the only way to solve this crisis for good would be to stop bombing the living shit out of syria followed by stop inviting every f*cker in. . now these joker's sat around that table are either plain f*cking nut's, lack in common sense or are intentionally preventing an end to this crisis. i'd say all 3. . . ,

 

[sir albion]

the EU find a solution for the refugee crisis are you for real
do you honestly think any of them sat around that table care a t*ss what happens, . the extent of how much your beloved EU care's was announced by merkel' when she invited the entire population of syria over to europe.

the only way to solve this crisis for good would be to stop bombing the living shit out of syria followed by stop inviting every f*cker in. . now these joker's sat around that table are either plain f*cking nut's, lack in common sense or are intentionally preventing an end to this crisis. i'd say all 3. . . ,

It seems you can add many countries to that list and it beggers belief what that hideous woman has created.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I don't know of course, nor does anybody on this planet I'll wager.

I just see plain and simple overlaps with national governmental departments and civil servants cohorts, in any organisational structure, duplication is considered waste and surplus.

Of course people know. For example I have a very good understanding of how the European Medicines Agency works, how it dove-tails with local legislation and local agencies etc etc etc. Unless you know what they do you cannot simply dismiss them as waste or surplus. And if you don't know what their roll is, which is what you've stated, how on earth can you say there's overlaps?

 

[brighton fella]

It seems you can add many countries to that list and it beggers belief what that hideous woman has created.

she's been put up to it mate she's only a puppet. all the same she is still a hideous sour faced bitch.