Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    I have commented on the sovereignty argument before.

    Whilst close, Austria did not elect a far right president and elected a left wing candidate .

    Oh, and serbia isn't in the EU and won't be till at least 2020. Look at the rise if the far right in Norway and the US. This is a western trend arising from the economic fallout of 08. Brexit will not solve these problems, in deed it will probably exacerbate them.
    Slovenia and Croatia are part of the EU.

    The UK is famed for avoiding violent swings in politics. The BNP at their height only got 0.6% of the Parliamentary election vote. If the EU swings violently left or right we will just be brushed aside. You will be giving up your freedom as well as your independence if you vote Remain.

    Nations should find peace through mutual respect, not political union. The EEC, not the EU.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    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%.
    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Luke Kostanjsek)
    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.
    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).

    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.
    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?

    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.
    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.

    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.
    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.

    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.
    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).

    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 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 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.
    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.

    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.
    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.

    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.
    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.

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

    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.
    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.

    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.
    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    The idea of unifying the market was the same.
    There is no connection between invading countries and confiscating their industries and separate nation states wanting to cooperate in the interests of national security.

    Many of those who were involved in the WWII EEC were later those who designed the post WWII EEC.
    Yes, Churchill, de Gaul… :/
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    .If we remain we will, eventually, lose self government…
    You really don't do yourself any favours with this kind of nonsense - it's impossible to even have a rational debate with you when you're just so far off a realistic prediction of the future.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    What happened with the euro?
    Seems to be chugging along happily, despite the constant naysayers.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    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.
    Precisely. Wasn't an attack on your comment; just an observation.

    But yes, you are entirely right about this being an issue with conservatives (far too many of them). It really bothers me to see so many conservatives support Trump when his approach to government is about how he can solve all the issues; it sounds far too tyrannical.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    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.
    Indeed. It's a shocking idea that far too many people would rather trust the state than themselves. Problem is that this 'disease' also exists on the right (think Trump).
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    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.
    You didn't show it was false, you just asserted that it was, on grounds that EU supporters would never say anything illogical or strictly out of line with the historical record.

    You're right I didn't provide evidence, and I won't, because trawling decade old newspaper articles is time consuming and this debate frankly isn't worth the effort.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    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.
    No, this is a serious flaw in your whole model of the economy and the origin of our disagreement.

    Your view is that economic output has no relation to underlying resources available for production, it is purely a response to consumer demand. If consumers demand the moon and the stars, they will somehow be provided. Conversely, if consumers stop demanding something they demand now, the capacity currently used for those tasks will simply sit idle forever.

    This is backwards. It is underlying resources available for production that determine how much is produced. Consumer demand only determines where that limited production goes.

    Companies selling to the EU today implicitly view the EU as their best customer - they get the best price by selling to the EU. These companies will lose out if we leave the EU. But the resources they were using to produce goods for EU export won't just be thrown away, they will be dedicated to some other productive task. Selling goods to the EU was never the only possible use of those resources, just currently the best. The cost of leaving the EU is not the cost we would suffer if those resources were thrown away, it is the difference between the value of the best and the second best productive task for which they could be used.

    I estimate this is an order of magnitude less than the nominal value of the lost sale - although it could easily be two orders of magnitude. In either case, the cost is basically irrelevant. And this perfectly well matches what we see when comparing the relative success of different countries with different trade arrangements. Australia, Japan, Singapore, Taiwan, all do better than the UK despite having worse trading arrangements and worse locations. Trade just doesn't matter all that much!

    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.
    You can't count tariffs imposed by the UK on EU imports as a cost of leaving the EU, as the UK would have a choice not to impose tariffs on EU imports having left the EU.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    Seems to be chugging along happily, despite the constant naysayers.
    The Eurozone has 10.2% unemployment 8 years after the financial crisis. Note that the UK unemployment peaked at only 8.4%.

    If this is "chugging alone happily", do you recognise any definition of failure short of the currency being politically abandoned?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    .
    The only way these things will change is better cooperation in the EU and stability in countries like Libya (and Syria).
    Prior to the transfer of responsibility to Frontex EU border protection was in the hands of the Member States. In 2009 the Italians started repatriating migrants and migration and the death toll of migrants in the Med fell to zero (as we have seen with migration to Greece since the Turkey deal). After the EU appointed Mario Monti to govern Italy he ended repatriation and the deaths resumed.



    I hate to tell you this, but the UK has a trade deficit and the services sector is not helping that.
    The UK trade deficit is almost entirely with EU Countries:


    It is not the result of failure of UK companies to export to the EU but is due to the vast flight of investment from the EU to the UK that raises the value of the pound vs the Euro and leads to companies like EDF and LIDL importing products from their corporate sources in the EU.

    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?
    Yes, the Remain policies will result in the UK having a regional rather than a national economy. National economies have strategic industries and planning - for instance steel and a manufacturing sector. Regional economies do not need strategic industries.

    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.
    A typical Remain statement - of course ALL 43% would not be at risk! In fact as the UK regionalises its economy it will lose exporting capacity and Remain is a bigger risk.

    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.
    ..
    It was Goldman Sachs, the financial backer of "Britain Stronger In Europe" that began the Greek crisis with a dodgy loan that it sold to the Germans and other corruption. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-10381926.html
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    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.
    But you want the UK to lose self-government, to quote you from this thread:
    "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."
    In previous threads you are even more explicit about your love of a uniform globe with the diversity of nation states destroyed and have extolled the virtues of the EU as a move towards your nightmare of global government. This disingenuous approach to the debate is what the OP was about.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    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.
    The typical remain perspective:
    Hardly any of the laws affect the EU, where do you get that from?? Depending on who you believe anywhere from about 30-75% of our laws are directly from or influenced by the EU.

    We cannot live without the laws protecting human rights etc if we leave?? So you are suggesting if we leave we will instantly go back a century in all these areas? The EU was useful establishing these, but leaving wont send us back to the darkages. If it would wouldnt any country outside the EU still be primal homophobic slavers??

    We can protect our borders?? We have to let in anyone from the EU. Not being in Schengen just means they have to prove they are an EU citizen, aka flash a passport, we cant refuse them entry. While migration isnt high on my list of reasons to vote, it effects lots of people on lower incomes. Wage compression and rising house prices to name a couple of issues with mass immigration.

    The Eurozone will succeed if we integrate further. Yeah, that is the typical loony left arguement, something isnt working, the only solution must be to keep pushing a failed project harder and harder. Its not like the Eurozone is failing, its already failed, Greece, Spain, Ireland. The Euro was fundamentally flawed and its fallen apart. Best to move on and abandon a failed project like the Eurozone.

    And im not even going to go into your defense arguement its so niave. Thanks for sharing your pro-EU message so everyone on TSR can see why we need to leave.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    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 would agree to an extent, that there is a certainly bizarreness in how much more difficult it is for commonwealth nationals to enter Britain. And maybe I am in the minority, but I certainly don't mind people migrating to Britain to work in principle. The problem with the EU is that it doesn't allow such discrimination between those who come to work and those who don't, or at the least it makes it far harder. And then there is the additional issue of their effect on wages. But I'll concede that the distaste for foreigners coming to Britain on principle may be more widespread that I gave credit. It certainly isn't the basis on which I wish to leave the EU though.

    (Original post by typonaut)
    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?
    I'm talking low-skilled migrants from poorer nations in general. They have the effect of forcing down wages. But the EU provides a mechanism for low-skilled migrants from poorer nations to enter Britain with ease, which is the primary cause of the downwards pressure on the wages in low-skilled occupations.

    (Original post by typonaut)
    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.
    I think you need a bit more cynicism. Of course they're talking down the chances of a federalist system; we're having a referendum on our membership and euroscepticism is rife across the continent. They can hardly keep banging the drum for closer integration right this moment. But if you look back on what they've said previously - especially Juncker - it's pretty clear what their views are. They both support federalism, and if the euroscepticism ever fades away they'll revert to their true colours.

    For me at least, it's absolutely about the long term. This vote is about whether you believe Britain is better off within the EU or outside, precisely because we don't know if we'll have another vote or not. If the EU pushes integration whilst we have a Labour government in office, I highly doubt we'd be given another chance to have our say.

    (Original post by typonaut)
    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 think you're underselling the Euro's part in facilitating the collapse. Greece could not have got into the state it did without the shared currency. It could not have built up anywhere near the scale of liabilities that it currently has. And of course Greece doesn't want to leave now, it's using the EU to fund its mess of an economy. Which is rather the point. The EU is doing plenty of favours for the countries which are in a piss-poor state and unable to prop themselves up, but that is at the expense of the richer nations which are doing the propping up.

    Pooling of resources is a diplomatic way of saying taking resources from the richer countries and giving them to the poorer countries. It's a communist ideal, I'll give you that. But it certainly isn't an idea that I agree with. And what's more, it wouldn't even work. Throwing more money at the problem isn't going to do anything without fixing the economies that are already broken. And these countries quite clearly lack the appetite to make the changes that are required; hell, the French are unwilling to make even slight concessions with regards their labour laws! And I fundamentally disagree with tying our economy to those of countries like these, who are so opposed to doing what needs to be done.

    (Original post by typonaut)
    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).
    A trade deficit is not necessarily indicative of a failing economy, by any stretch of the imagination. So long as the economy is growing and investors have confidence in that economy's eventual ability to repay their deficit, then it's by no means an issue.

    Fundamentally, not really. All over Britain the services sector is dominant these days. And I agree that in theory, Britain being the centre of the services sector in the EU is an attractive proposition. But the practice just doesn't work out like this. The EU is pushing for tighter regulations of the financial sector in particular, which if we get caught up in will make us a far less attractive proposition for international business.

    You think we should have joined the Euro? Now that is a ludicrous assertion, given that the pound has been the consistently stronger currency and the current state of the eurozone. I doubt you could find many economists who think we should join the euro.

    (Original post by typonaut)
    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.
    Currently, 45% of our trade is with the EU, which is in no small part because we have to whack tariffs on anything from outside the EU. It's reasonable to presume that once we no longer have to impose said tariffs, our trade with other countries will increase, which in turn reduces our vulnerability to eurozone jitters.

    (Original post by typonaut)
    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'd be interested to know how you reached this conclusion. The slowdown started in February this year, and the deal with Turkey wasn't 'reached' until March. Not to mention that the deal with Turkey is dependant on granting the Turks working visas, which is dependant on Turkey jumping through some hoops that it will never manage to do whilst they're fighting the PKK, on account of all the human rights violations.

    As to why they would care where in the EU they end up, I'm sure that the syrian refugees don't care. But the vast majority of those coming are not refugees. They're economic migrants, and Greece is hardly an appealing choice for an economic migrant. The true refugees will keep coming, but the economic migrants won't, which is rather what we're aiming for. And that is absolutely down to individual states shutting borders; the EU has taken an age to reach a 'deal' which will never actually be enacted, because Turkey will fail to meet the conditions laid out, and so the deal will be retracted.

    (Original post by typonaut)
    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.
    Which is the point. When a country goes belly-up, we all take a hit; that's the nature of a global economy. But when you tie 28 countries economies together, the vulnerability is multiplied a hundredfold. It's suicidal to have a state of affairs where the fourth and fifth largest economies are this vulnerable to the economic happenings in a country like Greece. It's absurd. The only way you can justify it is if you believe there is an inherent benefit to propping up weaker nations with stronger ones, which rather points to the almost communist ideal of the EU.

    (Original post by typonaut)
    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.
    You can argue that she was too heavy-handed, but you cannot possibly argue that she didn't solve many of the economic problems we faced. She slashed inflation when it was crippling the country, more than halved the size of Britain's deficit and repealed the power of the trade unions (and we need only look to France to see why that was a good idea). And you say divulge ourselves of much of our heavy industry; that would be the same heavy industry that had to be subsidised by the government and was making repeated, year on year losses right? Got to be honest, pretty sure that's a good thing. The repealing of state ownership and ending of state-sponsored monopolies is also something she can be credited with.

    (Original post by typonaut)
    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.
    We should be active in promoting stability, but not to our own detriment. And most the arguments you've presented show the ways in which we benefit the EU, which I don't contest. I just fail to see where the benefits are returned.

    We aren't going to convince each other, I don't think It was an interesting discussion, so cheers fam.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.