Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Da Boss wrote:
The Calais threat comes from some centre right French politicians. It's not Hollande threatening this.

And all they are suggesting is to move UK border controls to the UK, rather than doing the border checks in France as they are now.

But whatever, explaining this stuff to you guys is like pissing into the wind - you've already made up your minds.

It would suit France a lot to move border controls back to the UK. Once people arrive illegally on British soil from Calais the French will raise hell about taking them back and make a fight of it, even if they did come through France they'll somehow claim we have to send them all the way back to their home nation, which migrants aren't forthcoming about specifically to prevent this.

International Blackmail?!?
This could get quite weird - why would you try to convince someone to do something by threatening them first? In my experience incentives are far more powerful than threats.

Perhaps britain leaving genuinely will collapse the whole idea and France have just grown attached to the support for agriculture the EU offer.

 TheMeanDM wrote:
Curious:

What does the EU do that the G8, G20, UN, NATO, etc doesn't already do?

I saw something today about the French president(?) discussing consequences and border issues...as well as affecting an exclusive French/UK agreement.

Basically the EU is an intergovernmental organization that allows it's member states to operate as one single economy, which requires far greater coordination and deeper involvement than trade talks common on the level of the G8/20 and the UN.

NATO is a defense pact and still pretty much the corner stone of western defense. EU military initiatives so far mostly concern small scale border operations and peacekeeping.

Lot of mud being slung about, cries of "scaremongering" are pretty loud right now. Well this is one problem that needs addressing.
Is it scaremongering to highlight potential problems that could arise?

The out campaign have it a bit easier here, they have nothing to lose by getting what they want, conversely, the in campaign are trying to point out what will be lost.
It's identical to the Scottish Independence campaign in that respect.

It is easier to put a positive slant on forging a brave new world, and it is much harder to make a case for maintaining the status quo, particularly when so many things are obscure, unclear, or taken for granted.

Personally, if I was in charge of the in campaign I would be highlighting, everywhere, the positives of being a member of the EU, how it directly affects and benefits every single person in the UK. That then leaves out campaigners to either come up with a reason why we would get the same or better if we leave, or try and deflect the campaign with rhetoric about foreigners.

So with that in mind, I have sourced some interesting, verifiable articles from respected organisations and will try to make a positive case for EU membership. But only one post at a time.

[The positive IN Campaign} "Just think if we remain in Europe your right to vote no matter how many crimes you are convicted of will be untouchable!"

Err, yeah thanks.

I suppose the question is then, was that actually an EU thing, or an ECHR thing? I'm probably guessing the latter.

It still seems to me that there should be someone in the political classes that realises that, it's actually in their own personal benefit (because, well, politicians), to say, "look, I've had staff and think tanks do research. Here's the pros and cons."

[Positive OUT Campaign] "No more MEPs, that is to say Nigel Farage will lose his job!"

Finally something I can get on board with!

I never thought I'd live to see the day when a British Prime Minister stands by and says nothing, whilst a French President threatens Britain, but I suppose that sums up David Cameron to a T.

Now that I've calmed down a bit and thought this out, the French threats are so impractical as to be worthless.

Any attempt by France to pass on migrants to the UK, could be easily countered by Eurostar, Ferry Companies et al refusing to take them on health and safety ground/lack of proper documentation.

And of course, the UK could always sends them back to France.

If the UK played hardball, they could always suspend cross-channel traffic and shut down the channel tunnel for a while, for 'maintenance work.'

I'm sure French farmers and industry will be happy with that.

Not for the first time, the French government are peddling a load of gak!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
... snip ...

Not to mention, I'm sure the EU will frown on France deporting migrants from its borders to a country outside the EU.

The first aspect of the In and Out campaign I've looked at is boringly, but importantly, Economics.

Does it make financial sense to stay in the EU?

I've tried to ensure that my sources do not comprise opinion, but are directly attributable to official Govt, or recognised official Trade or Industry organisations. Please be aware, I am no economist, and I may make incorrect assumptions or statements based on poor knowledge. If you know better, please offer a correction.

Briefly I think that Britain is considerably richer as a member of the EU, infact I estimate, as a nation we are £1190.38 Million a Week better off.
I based this from the figures offered in the House of Commons Briefing Paper Number 06091, 19 January 2016. You can have a look HERE to see from where I've made my assumptions.

My calculation is based from the figures presented there. The CBI claim that our economic partnership with the EU is worth £3000 per household per year. Vote Leave state that we pay £350 million a week to the EU. ONS states that, in 2014, there are 26.7 million households in the UK.
So,
26.7 million x £3000 = £80100 million
£80,100 million / 52 weeks = £1540.38 million per week (Gross)
£1540.38 million - £350 million = £1190.38 million per week (Net)

So how do the CBI come up with the £3000 per household per year figure? That's when it gets very complicated, and TBH it tests my ability to be able to definitely say. However, for those of you with the wherewithal you can read the CBI Press release from 04th November 2013 HERE

Discuss.....

I'm going to be having a look at legislation, immigration and migration, and National Sovereignty as separate issues a bit later on, but I do have other stuff to do.

That assumes that we loose all trade with Europe upon leaving the EU; which is a false assumption. We will carry on trading with Europe and vis versa.

There is a question of Tariffs but that will also work both ways. I think pragmatism will prevail over petty vengeance here.

Exactly. At the end of the day, money speaks and the UK imports from the EU far more than it exports. I can't see any business who'd stand by and let their government engage in petty tit for tat trade wars at the expensive of their customers in the UK. It makes no sense. Remember, the UK is one of the richest nations on the earth and outside of the EU it will then be free to engage in free trade with anyone we like and we'd regain our WTO seat to boot. We'd be able to do what we like:
"Hey, USA, we got cash and the EU is being stubborn, fancy selling to us?" "No problem, buddy, step right this way."
"India, EU's not selling these goods. Fancy selling to us? We'd give you preferential treatment and maybe even ease our immigration controls to Indian nationals." "No problem friend, lets have a talk?"
"Brazil? We got cash, and want to buy things the EU won't sell us."
etc etc. Besides, I'd have thought that an US economic partner, regardless of scale, on its doorstep would be an EU nightmare.

Also, I'd hardly call the CBI an unbiased source as they are adamant in remaining regardless of anything that happens. They are project fear incarnate.

This article (So what would the economic effect of leaving the EU be?) is an interesting read in the fact that the economic impact would be pretty much zero. We'd loose some things, but we'd game some things. Worth a read at the very least.

That article is a tad optimistic, methinks. If there's a problem with unemployment as-is, how is unilateral free trade with the entire world going to make things better?

I agree with the article that EU is a constraint both on stupidity and excellence, but I'd rather have a system that minimises the awful. It really comes down to risk-aversion vs. profit maximisation.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
That article is a tad optimistic, methinks

I will say this, regardless of the stance the reader takes with the article, it's nice to read an optimistic piece. They're rare as gold at the moment...

 notprop wrote:
That assumes that we loose all trade with Europe upon leaving the EU; which is a false assumption. We will carry on trading with Europe and vis versa.

There is a question of Tariffs but that will also work both ways. I think pragmatism will prevail over petty vengeance here.

The question is, what will change? The UK is outside of Schengen and the Eurozone which means no changes to there if the UK leaves. The UK financial, service and industrial sectors are well integrated in the European economy. A contribution fee and freedom of movement is part of the common market package, as is accepting most if not all of the regulations.

The only change I can see is at the political level: Westminster loses it's direct influence on EU decision making but gains the freedom to pursue its own foreign policy and make individual deals with other nations. This may or not be beneficial in the long term but who knows.

I think'd probably harm the EU more than it harms us. The UK is probably one of the three BIG EU Member states besides Germany and France. If Britain leaves, thats gonna be a huge blow to the EU, if not a death blow. German and French taxpayers would have to pick up the slack, and shoulder even more of the burden of paying for the Mediterranean nations like Greece.

Merkel's reputation and popularity is already in tatters after all the German funded bailouts and out of control immigration.

Interesting thought. I wonder what the actual impact would be to the EU should the UK leave?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I think'd probably harm the EU more than it harms us. The UK is probably one of the three BIG EU Member states besides Germany and France. If Britain leaves, thats gonna be a huge blow to the EU, if not a death blow. German and French taxpayers would have to pick up the slack, and shoulder even more of the burden of paying for the Mediterranean nations like Greece.

Merkel's reputation and popularity is already in tatters after all the German funded bailouts and out of control immigration.

One of four, the Italians pay a similar gross amount (around 15billion euro). The effect on the EU budget is limited as the UK would also lose the money it receives back from EU spending. According to the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8036097.stm#start) the net amount the UK contributes to the EU is a little under 4 billion euro. That is hardly difficult to compensate.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
In Germany there is some resistance to the idea that the government should lock up undesirable people in camps.

So they don't have prisons?

Illegal immigrants are not just undesirables, they're criminals by definition.

Careful. Texas started deporting illegals from Mexico and other countries when they were pulled over for minor traffic violations. The whole world went ape-gak, and came down on the state for breaking up families.

You can't deport people that are here illegally. That's against the law!


Edit: off-topic: Having known some kids that were here illegally, but basically their whole lives, A-B students in High School, and now can't get into college, WTF do you do?

 Antario wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I think'd probably harm the EU more than it harms us. The UK is probably one of the three BIG EU Member states besides Germany and France. If Britain leaves, thats gonna be a huge blow to the EU, if not a death blow. German and French taxpayers would have to pick up the slack, and shoulder even more of the burden of paying for the Mediterranean nations like Greece.

Merkel's reputation and popularity is already in tatters after all the German funded bailouts and out of control immigration.

One of four, the Italians pay a similar gross amount (around 15billion euro). The effect on the EU budget is limited as the UK would also lose the money it receives back from EU spending. According to the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8036097.stm#start) the net amount the UK contributes to the EU is a little under 4 billion euro. That is hardly difficult to compensate.

Without chipping in anywhere else, you've linked to figures from a decade ago there (when we were in a recession), which undermines your point somewhat. In 2015, we actually contributed a net sum of about 10.4 billion pounds, with deductions/rebate/everything else taken into account. It's been heavily on the rise since our economy got better (for example, it was only eight and a half billion in 2013). Generally speaking, the better our economy gets, the more the EU takes.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I never thought I'd live to see the day when a British Prime Minister stands by and says nothing, whilst a French President threatens Britain, but I suppose that sums up David Cameron to a T.

Now that I've calmed down a bit and thought this out, the French threats are so impractical as to be worthless.

Any attempt by France to pass on migrants to the UK, could be easily countered by Eurostar, Ferry Companies et al refusing to take them on health and safety ground/lack of proper documentation.

And of course, the UK could always sends them back to France.

If the UK played hardball, they could always suspend cross-channel traffic and shut down the channel tunnel for a while, for 'maintenance work.'

I'm sure French farmers and industry will be happy with that.

Not for the first time, the French government are peddling a load of gak!

Not at all.

Essentially, we have border posts in France. This means if we don't want someone, they never get to the UK. That will change if our relationship with France suffers, which it will if we take our toys and go home.

The Out campaign needs to start assembling real plans rather than xenophobia from the tabloids. Like how they'd renogatiate thousands of trade treaties and get a good deal. Because IDS and Boris Johnson are plainly incapable of doing so - the initiatives they've been in charge of have generally been disasters, delivered years late.

 Ketara wrote:

 Antario wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I think'd probably harm the EU more than it harms us. The UK is probably one of the three BIG EU Member states besides Germany and France. If Britain leaves, thats gonna be a huge blow to the EU, if not a death blow. German and French taxpayers would have to pick up the slack, and shoulder even more of the burden of paying for the Mediterranean nations like Greece.

Merkel's reputation and popularity is already in tatters after all the German funded bailouts and out of control immigration.

One of four, the Italians pay a similar gross amount (around 15billion euro). The effect on the EU budget is limited as the UK would also lose the money it receives back from EU spending. According to the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8036097.stm#start) the net amount the UK contributes to the EU is a little under 4 billion euro. That is hardly difficult to compensate.

Without chipping in anywhere else, you've linked to figures from a decade ago there (when we were in a recession), which undermines your point somewhat. In 2015, we actually contributed a net sum of about 10.4 billion pounds, with deductions/rebate/everything else taken into account. It's been heavily on the rise since our economy got better (for example, it was only eight and a half billion in 2013). Generally speaking, the better our economy gets, the more the EU takes.

That is a fair addition although it changes little to my point as every west European country pays more in an upswing. The gross amount hasn't changed much over time which was +/- 19 billion euro for the UK last year. Without the UK the EU would lose a little over 10% of it's annual budget. Given the small sums relative to GDP, losing the UK contribution would be a minor worry.

From what I could find quickly the net payment was 8.5 billion pound last year (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/483344/EU_finances_2015_final_web_09122015.pdf#page=44) page 14 of the doc, it has fluctuated quite a bit over the years.

 zedmeister wrote:
Exactly. At the end of the day, money speaks and the UK imports from the EU far more than it exports. I can't see any business who'd stand by and let their government engage in petty tit for tat trade wars at the expensive of their customers in the UK. It makes no sense. Remember, the UK is one of the richest nations on the earth and outside of the EU it will then be free to engage in free trade with anyone we like and we'd regain our WTO seat to boot. We'd be able to do what we like:
"Hey, USA, we got cash and the EU is being stubborn, fancy selling to us?" "No problem, buddy, step right this way."
"India, EU's not selling these goods. Fancy selling to us? We'd give you preferential treatment and maybe even ease our immigration controls to Indian nationals." "No problem friend, lets have a talk?"
"Brazil? We got cash, and want to buy things the EU won't sell us."
etc etc. Besides, I'd have thought that an US economic partner, regardless of scale, on its doorstep would be an EU nightmare.

One problem you've overlooked is that, if we choose to leave, the EU will immediately become a competitor. A large, multi national competitor who's business interests may hamper, or even cripple the UK, and over which we will have the most negligible of influence. If China can choose between trading between the vast economy of the EU, with it's millions of citizens, or the UK, it may choose the larger market. The EU will continue to offer the Germans, French, Italians bargaining powers which the UK would struggle to match.
The same goes for trade with the US. The "Special Relationship" that the UK and the US share is mostly a feel good nicety. We may share a common history and language, but on the world stage it's a very different matter. If it's in the USA's best interest to make deals with the EU that may freeze out, or even harm the UK, they will almost certainly do it. Not out of spite, but because it's just business, nothing personal.

 zedmeister wrote:
Also, I'd hardly call the CBI an unbiased source as they are adamant in remaining regardless of anything that happens. They are project fear incarnate.

Well, the CBI, the Confederation of Business Industry is an independent lobbyist group, Nationally recognised they actively seek, to quote from their mission statement...

"... to promote the conditions in which businesses of all sizes and sectors in the UK can compete and prosper for the benefit of all. To achieve this, we campaign in the UK, the EU and internationally for a competitive policy landscape."

They represent around 190'000 UK business'. If you have any interest in how leaving the EU will effect business, then you can't do much worse than listen to what they have to say. I'd certainly trust their instincts and evaluations over those of Boris Johnson, or any of the other Political "Heavyweights" who are coming down on the out side.

I am not arguing that the UK cannot survive outside of the EU, we most certainly can, however, I am arguing the case that we are much better off staying in the Union. It is in our National interest to remain economically engaged in the EU.
There would unlikely be a financial Armageddon if we go, but we would definitely have less money to play with.

 Antario wrote:


From what I could find quickly the net payment was 8.5 billion pound last year (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/483344/EU_finances_2015_final_web_09122015.pdf#page=44) page 14 of the doc, it has fluctuated quite a bit over the years.

That's probably because the EU recalculated that we owed another large chunk of cash due to improvements in the economy mid last year. There was a whole political wrangle, with George Osborne attempting to pretend we weren't paying extra by reclassifying half of it, and kicking half of it into next years payment (or somesuch thing). Ergo, the actual figure is higher then that document would suggest.

I feel I should note here I'm making no statement as to how easy it is 'replace' ten billion pounds in income, more just pointing out the actual figures.

 r_squared wrote:

One problem you've overlooked is that, if we choose to leave, the EU will immediately become a competitor. A large, multi national competitor who's business interests may hamper, or even cripple the UK, and over which we will have the most negligible of influence. If China can choose between trading between the vast economy of the EU, with it's millions of citizens, or the UK, it may choose the larger market. The EU will continue to offer the Germans, French, Italians bargaining powers which the UK would struggle to match.
The same goes for trade with the US. The "Special Relationship" that the UK and the US share is mostly a feel good nicety. We may share a common history and language, but on the world stage it's a very different matter. If it's in the USA's best interest to make deals with the EU that may freeze out, or even harm the UK, they will almost certainly do it. Not out of spite, but because it's just business, nothing personal.

Like everything else, we'll always be competing inside or outside the EU. We still compete with Germany, France and all the rest even though we're in the EU and that won't change. In terms of trading globally, why would (choosing your example) China choose one or the other and not both? Again, we're one of the richest nations. It'd be crazy for any business not to want a piece of the cashpile. As for the US special relationship, well, that's only special in a certain limited set of heads in the UK government

 r_squared wrote:
... snip ...

I dislike the CBI in that they claim to speak for business but of that 190,000, most are indirect members (represented by various trade bodies and loose associations). And Farming makes up a quarter of that number at least. Who in that bunch has the most to loose from leaving the EU? Farming. So, I count CBI as a biased source.

And again, should we Leave, we will still be engaged with the EU but outside of it's crappy political structures and we'd loose some definitely but we'd also game some and a lot more besides. There is no unique advantage to staying in the EU that couldn't be achieved through some other means.

That was my thought too:

Just becausr the UK is in the EU it doesn't mean thaGermany, Italy, Franfe, etc automatically stop manufacturing and exporting similar stuff that the UK manufactures and exports (or even sells internally).

The ability to effect EU regulations is not going to be replicable outside of the EU.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The ability to effect EU regulations is not going to be replicable outside of the EU.

Just how much influence do we have really?

More influence from the inside, than from the outside.

Also, I feel I need to restate something.

The EU would become a direct competitor with virtually every market we would attempt to enter into.

As long as we are part of the EU, they can act on our behalf, and secure better trade deals with other large non-EU states. It's obvious why, it's a large, internationally recognised organisation, with considerably more clout than we have on our own.

In a nutshell, the EU has more to offer in order to secure preferential trade agreements for its members.

The UK is a lot of things, and has a great deal to offer, but it simply cannot compete on the same scale, we simply don't have the influence anymore. Haven't had for quite a while.
If we leave, we will be a wealthy, but small nation, sidelined on the world stage, and will most likely be left in the wake of the rest of Europe as they team together to draw on shared resources and structure.

 r_squared wrote:
More influence from the inside, than from the outside.

Also, I feel I need to restate something.

The EU would become a direct competitor with virtually every market we would attempt to enter into.

As long as we are part of the EU, they can act on our behalf, and secure better trade deals with other large non-EU states. It's obvious why, it's a large, internationally recognised organisation, with considerably more clout than we have on our own.

In a nutshell, the EU has more to offer in order to secure preferential trade agreements for its members.

You're mixing up concepts here. There's being a 'competitor', and there's 'negotiating trade agreements'. Not only that, you're talking in generalities, and your summary begins to fall apart when we consider the specifics.

For example, to focus on 'competition' aspect, what are we competing to do, buy or sell? If it's buying, there's no particularly scarce product made in China/America/Japan that isn't either available elsewhere (negating any monopoly problems), and no country would be willing to extend trade terms to the EU they wouldn't be equally willing to extend to us if they wanted to keep our custom. If it's selling, we run a services based economy. There's nowhere else in this part of the world that can begin to compete with the City of London, and the EU is only a small part of that (other aspects include the default business language of the world being English, a convenient neutral ground between the Continent, America, Russia, Asia, etc). Much as places like Vienna might love to jump on that one, it won't change any time soon. Our stability as a political system (making our property extra valuable) isn't something that can be replicated elsewhere, and things like our educational sector's reputation isn't going to be affected by EU participation. The high tech sector? Hardly exclusive here to begin with, and I daresay we can support that well enough. The EU as a whole doesn't sponsor 'industries' in that way anyway due to anti-competitive laws built in. If you're not talking about any of those though, well, the above covers a goodly chunk of what we 'sell'. If it's alright, we probably will be.

The UK is a lot of things, and has a great deal to offer, but it simply cannot compete on the same scale, we simply don't have the influence anymore. Haven't had for quite a while.
If we leave, we will be a wealthy, but small nation, sidelined on the world stage, and will most likely be left in the wake of the rest of Europe as they team together to draw on shared resources and structure.

We haven't been competing in agriculture and manufacturing (which is what most of the EU offers) since the 1970's. We dropped those balls a long time ago. Chalk and cheese really. You're also assuming the EU won't collapse and burn after we exited, or morph into a totalitarian regime. As for being on the 'world stage', we still retain a level of military strike power unmatched by most and a nuclear deterrent. I don't think we'll be exiled from the big boy's table anytime soon.

Don't get me wrong, the concepts you're bandying about have a good solid place in economics, but when it comes to this particular scenario, they're really not overly relevant. We'd be more akin to Japan than Finland.