The Remain Argument

Again, you are assuming the supporters of the EU honestly presented the facts, even when their side was shown in a bad light, but that is precisely the point in dispute.

This capacity will not simply stand idle forever, it will be redirected to some other export activity or to internal consumption. The loss to the economy is the difference between the value of the export sale and the value of the alternative export or internal sale - which is probably at least an order of magnitude less than that 5%.

Note that when I say you're conflating two issues, I mean two issues with regards immigration. People are indeed concerned about immigration; but specifically, the main concern appears to be immigration from the Middle East and North Africa. Concerns about East European workers in Britain has most definitely taken a back seat to concern about those who have arrived in the Migrant Crisis.

And whilst illegally low wages are indeed illegal, it's far harder to prosecute than you give credit. Given as the business has no wish for the enforcement agencies to find out, and the employees likewise, it's hardly as simple as 'just prosecute them'. The only way to really eradicate this problem is to remove the downwards pressure on wages, which is coming predominantly from low-skilled foreign workers from poorer countries.

By integration, I mean ultimately some form of federal system where the lion's share of fiscal and political power would belong to a centralised government. And I am indeed focusing on the long term, because in the immediate aftermath of Brexit there will of course be an economic hit. That's unquestionable.

And I think it's naive to believe that the EU doesn't ultimately envisage such a union, because the single currency more or less demands it. The failings of the Euro are largely because you have lots of different countries, with lots of different types and sizes of economies and being governed by different legislation, all operating with the same currency. For a currency union to be effective, it's more or less required that some level of fiscal and political union exist.

Further, such a union will never be to Britain's benefit because our economy is so different to the other EU economies. The vast majority of continental Europe's economic output is based on industry and production. Britain's economy on the other hand is commanded by her services sector. The policies which would allow our economy to flourish are pretty much anathema to what the other European economies desire. And as there are more of them, a federalised EU's legislation would inevitable work against us.

That's ironic, because I would argue your stance is that which is short-sighted; I would argue the long-term view is decidedly anti-EU given the total lack of apparent solutions to the various issues it's facing. Whilst we obviously cannot fully insulate ourselves, a Britain outside the EU would not suffer near so much as one inside, if another calamity hit the EU.

I think you're half-right with the migrant crisis. There are two solutions. One is closer cooperation amongst the states, and the other is an entirely state-by-state solution. What we've seen stem the flow is not EU policy, but individual states declaring enough is enough and shutting their borders.

Whilst plenty of human rights groups and politicians are quick to condemn such actions, it is the decisions taken by the governments in Austria, Macedonia, Greece and others that have stemmed the tide, whilst the EU has achieved little and less - the deal with Turkey is looking pretty dead in the water. Which rather sums up the EU in general; success either requires ever closer integration, or complete disintegration. Now my opinion is that the former will be to our detriment as our economic needs differ with those of the rest of the EU, and so the latter is the best option.

The issue with Greece is most definitely being swept under the rug. The risk of Greece defaulting on her debts has been rumbling on for years now, with each 'solution' requiring more crisis talks a year or so later. The Greek economy is pretty much beyond saving; the IMF's stance that the Greek debt will never be repaid is especially telling. And the Greek economy could only get in so bad a state because it was being propped up by the eurozone for so long. It would likely have never reached so indebted a state if not for the eurozone, as investors would have stopped touching her long ago.

Again, these economies were only allowed to reach so perilous a state because the eurozone gave their economies more credibility than they merited.

Consider Britain in the 70s. Our economy was an utter mess, unemployment was rife and inflation was through the roof. We had no real EU to speak of, so we were on our own. We had to solve the problems within our economy, and love her or hate her, it's indisputable that Thatcher brought the economy back from the brink.

That's where we disagree I guess. I believe that our membership of the EU is certainly helpful for the other member states, but does very little to help us. And I believe that it's only a matter of time before the EU is sunk by the toxic economies it contains, and we would do well to avoid being dragged down with them.

The idea of unifying the market was the same.

Many of those who were involved in the WWII EEC were later those who designed the post WWII EEC.

.If we remain we will, eventually, lose self government…

What happened with the euro?

I agree. AS Orwell said

“The real division is not between conservatives and revolutionaries but between authoritarians and libertarians.”

I said "many" conservatives, not conservatives as a whole. You get socialists who are anti-democratic.

Liberals are becoming prone to favouring repression. The utopian "liberal" government of the future will monitor your position at all times, your purchasing patterns, internet interests and political views and will haul you in before you endanger the "liberal" consensus. If the EU and US get their way they will spread this disease globally.

You have not posted any facts that are in dispute. You made a claim about the flag, that has been shown to be a false claim. If you have another claim whereby you believe EU supporters have told lies, then please post it - you haven't done so thus far.

These are hypothetical questions that cannot be answered. I think it is most likely, if UK exports are less competitive in the EU, that EU state will buy less, and that capacity will be lost. If manufacturers/services providers could easily reallocate those lost sales elsewhere they would just try to make larger sales anyway. If they could export 5% more to the USA or Brazil they would already be trying to do that.

My only point is that, should the UK leave the EU, it is likely that tariffs will be introduced - this will increase the costs of goods imported from the EU and make UK manufacturers/service providers less competitive.

I don't think there is any real dispute in that statement.

Seems to be chugging along happily, despite the constant naysayers.

.
The only way these things will change is better cooperation in the EU and stability in countries like Libya (and Syria).

I hate to tell you this, but the UK has a trade deficit and the services sector is not helping that.

Do you think that the economy of Wales is different to that of the South East of England, or to London? Or Aberdeen's economy different to Newcastle's? Look at it in bigger terms - is New York's economy different to California's or Florida's?

I don't know what problems you are referring to, so I can't really respond to this point. But, if 45% of our exports are going to the EU now, and the Brexiteers say this will not change, then 45% of our exports are at risk if any EU economic problems emerge - in or out of the EU.

I agree that Greece was buoyed-up by the euro - but this is a case of mismanagement by the Greek government, not a fault per se in the euro.
..

You really don't do yourself any favours with this kind of nonsense [that the UK would lose self-government] - it's impossible to even have a rational debate with you when you're just so far off a realistic prediction of the future.

I have now had many debates on the EU and can present the pro-EU argument:

On sovereignty: Hardly any EU laws affect the UK
On sovereignty: EU laws guarantee equalty, fair pay for women, freedom of movement.., we could not be without them

On migration: We can protect our borders, we are not members of Schengen
On migration: All EU citizens have a right to come to the UK just as we have the right to go there, yes refugees will become EU citizens

On the eurozone: The Eurozone will succeed when it achieves political union and shares out the wealth fairly and is about to enter Stage 2 of political union
On the eurozone: The Eurozone will never operate as a single political union and so govern the EU

On defence: We need to be part of the EU so that we can stand up to the large countries such as Russia and guarantee the Baltic, Balkans and Ukraine. The EU Defence force is already being formed
On defence: Dont worry, the UK will never let the EU have an EU army.

The average Remain supporter has self contradictory arguments. Time and again they will say "It will never happen" and then give examples of how they want it to happen. Oh for an honest debate where the Remain supporter says "in 30 years we will be a political union in the EU, they will make nearly all the laws and we'll be spending Euros". Are they hoping to catch people out and make them vote for the EU when they do not really want to? How creepy.

I think you are 100% wrong on this. All I see on the TV is people complaining about Eastern European workers coming to the UK and taking jobs, or clogging-up our services. This is in fact a major spoke of Farage's argument, as I have posted before: EU migration is unfair on our "Commonwealth" migrants and their families. This has featured a number of times in the media, I think Priti Patel is rabbitting it as well, and I've seen several news articles with "curry shop owners" saying how they are all going to vote "out" because of it. To their credit I saw some Sikhs interviewed about it and one of them described the whole thing as a "sham argument".

While people are concerned about refugees and economic migrants from outside the EU, I think we have to recognise that this is not an EU issue - ie this would still be going on whether the UK was in or out of the EU. We'd still have people, who could claim asylum in France, sitting in Calais hoping that they can get to the UK on the back of a lorry. You'd still have people jumping in dinghies in Libya hoping they get picked-up and taken to Italy.

The only way these things will change is better cooperation in the EU and stability in countries like Libya (and Syria).

I'm not really clear what you are talking about here. Are you meaning low-skilled EU workers, or illegal immigrants from outside the EU?

Tusk and Juncker have both been quoted recently saying that there is no appetite for federalism. I don't think it is worth arguing about what will happen in the long term - because things change. The referendum is about the UK's relationship wit the EU right now, or with foreseeable changes that come into force due to existing treaty commitments. If there is significant change in future treaties it is likely that these will trigger further referenda.

Probably what happened with the euro was a little bit too much, a little bit too quickly - at least for some states. There was probably a lack of preparation and a lack of realisation that sharing a currency meant sharing significant sovereignty - particularly in terms of budgetary constraints. It's clear that the EU was not prepared for what the euro meant, because it did not have the mechanisms in place to deal with the reality.

Ultimately, the goal of the EU, with or without the euro, is to bring the economies of the member states into parity with each other - that they are all fiscally well managed and able to trade on an equal footing.

If you look at the states that have suffered the worst (Greece, Spain and Portugal), these are also the countries that probably had the most money sloshing around prior to the 2007/2008 financial crisis. So really, it is more about poor fiscal policy in those states than anything else. And there is no appetite in those states for exit from the EU or from the euro - they know their histories and they know where they are better off. The Greeks have democratically proven this by voting to stay in the eurozone.

I think it is likely that there will be more pooling of sovereignty in the EU, but that real political federalism is a long way off, requires referenda amongst all the member states and probably requires some kind of crisis in order for the member states to consider that option.

Some time ago someone asked on TSR if I supported a world government. My response then was that it seems an unlikely scenario given the disparate needs of the peoples of this planet - but I wouldn't rule it out if those need can be aligned and there is some impetus to make that happen. Someone more recently wrote that some things that may lead to that outcome are global catastrophes or external threats.

I hate to tell you this, but the UK has a trade deficit and the services sector is not helping that.

Do you think that the economy of Wales is different to that of the South East of England, or to London? Or Aberdeen's economy different to Newcastle's? Look at it in bigger terms - is New York's economy different to California's or Florida's?

Having a different kind of economy may actually be a benefit to the UK in the EU, particularly if we can get the single market in services working. Either way, we are further away than most of the other member states from any federalism because we are not in the euro and we are not committed by any treaty to join the euro (personally I think we should have been a founding member - but time will have to be the judge on that).

I don't know what problems you are referring to, so I can't really respond to this point. But, if 45% of our exports are going to the EU now, and the Brexiteers say this will not change, then 45% of our exports are at risk if any EU economic problems emerge - in or out of the EU.

This isn't really true. What we've seen stem the flow is non-member states closing their borders (Macedonia/Greece), EU states securing the external border (Bulgaria/Turkey and Hungary/Serbia) and the EU negotiating a solution with Turkey to discourage migrants.



You are wrong on this. It is absolutely the deal between the EU and Turkey that has stopped the crisis in the Eastern Mediterranean. Why would a Syrian refugee care if they got stuck in Greece - ultimately they might gain EU citizenship and get to go wherever they like. But the fact that they are going to be sent back to Turkey has slowed the flow to a trickle.

I agree that Greece was buoyed-up by the euro - but this is a case of mismanagement by the Greek government, not a fault per se in the euro. The Greek people recognise the position they are in, but they also know what the alternatives are. Consequently, as previously, they have voted to remain in the euro. Whatever happens in Greece will not bring down the EU, or the eurozone, or show the euro to have been a mistaken folly.



This is mismanagement by the governments running those economies and a lack of diligence by the investors involved. It is not an intrinsic problem with the euro.

Please! Thatcher oversaw, and caused, at least two significant recessions in the 1980s. The one she caused at the end of the 80s saw interest rates in the mid-teens and the worst housing repossession crisis this country has ever seen. We also managed to divulge ourselves of much of our heavy industry, which has gone on to be a significant problem in our balance of trade.

A stable Europe is best for the UK, and we should be active in promoting that - not doing a runner because we think the weather is getting a little heavy for our delicate stomachs.