Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Whiggy)
    The leaflet distributed by the Government explaining why we should remain in the EU...
    I've got it right here in front of me. It's annotated a bit, but still here.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    I don't think you want to, but the tag in the AtCT thread might give you some indication perhaps :rofl:

    No worries though!
    Still no idea, I will just stay in the dark
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by james813)
    Corbyn has been calling for an EU referendum to leave for decades, and is only supporting remain for party unity (and even now he will only say it is worth staying in on proper reform (eg democratic accountability) which will never happen).
    Good to know, thanks!
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    I think it's definitely worth mentioning that people who come over as per EU laws must not be a burden on the state for 2 years before they have the right to stay so immigrants don't just come over here and live off of benifits which some people think.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Whiggy)
    The leaflet distributed by the Government explaining why we should remain in the EU...
    We're still waiting for your argument, or is the best you can manage "look at the leaflet, it must be true?"
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Queen Cersei)
    Still no idea, I will just stay in the dark
    Mmm, nah, he does want a response, I promise!! I've even got a response ready from him to give to you for when you respond :rofl: Can you just say anything so I can say what he wants me to say :rofl:
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Let's go then, I shall do this broadly in two parts, the first will be adressing the reasons why we should leave, as given in the OP (bar a couple where I'm not quite sure what they're about in any meaningful way), and then go on to argue against the Remainian position, this shall be done in a second post. Perhaps the easiest way to get some quotes would be a simple stimulation of debate.

    The first point in the OP is with regards to border controls and immigration. While it is true that we are not part of the Shengen meaning we do in fact still have physical border posts at our entry points from the EU where passport checks still take place the effect you're looking at when it comes to controlling legal migration is minimal; if you have a EU resident wanting to pass through the border it's pretty much flash the passport and let them in, the only help is when it comes to illegal migration and migration of non-EU residents as a whole, but here there is no difference between being in and out of the EU. The difference exists when we look at EU migration, if we leave we aren't necessarily obliged to maintain this free movement, which allows greater control on EU migration.

    The next point was cost, and I shall take this in conjunction with the part of free trade as they are ultimately tied together. What is the cost to the British tax payer to be in the EU? The net contribution is about £8.5bn, a little over one penny for ever pound of taxation at which point we look at the alternative. The absolute worst case scenario for trade agreements with the EU, or any other state, after an exit would be the standard WTO rules, they have a 5% tariff on most goods, 10% of cars and 26% on agricultural goods. We're looking at something in the region of £150bn in exports to the EU every year, so actually we're looking at exports being cheaper under these WTO rules than the cost of being part of the EU.

    Further we can look at the key sectors of our economy. The single market does not cover services; naturally we have been trying for decades to get it included but the rest of the EU simply don't want it, presumably due to our superior sector but that's mere speculation. As a proportion of our financial service exports 33% of it is to the EU where people pretend we have access to this single market, on the other hand with the US, where there is no illusion of a single market, 31%. The US alone consumes about as much of our financial services export as the EU despite not being in the common market. There is a reason that even the likes of the US use our services rather than their own, part of that is the quality that we offer, and that is greater than what Frankfurt has to offer.

    Why stop here, there is more to offer. The first is that there is some confusion between what the FTA is, the FTA is not the EU, it covers almost all of Europe, the EEA is the free trade area, the EU is merely part of it, but let's look at what little Switzerland all on its own has managed to negotiate when it comes to FTAs globally: their trade deals cover an area with a GDP of about £40tn, if we compare that to the EU we're only looking at £7tn. We can go further still and look at the EU as a negotiating body, frankly it is poor, and hardly surprising given they have 28 states to appease before even thinking about the negotiating partner(s).the EU FTA with Singapore took 7 years to conclude, and that's one that did actually finish, a great many do not, 7 long years all because on the EU end there were 28 states to keep happy, a near impossible task; small wonder we will likely never see TTIP.

    Finally it is suggested that we cannot possibly get a good deal, we have to take the Swiss, or the Norwegian model. Like many others I reject this suggestion on several grounds: the first is that we are a much larger economy than either of those nations, we have more clout to begin with, but the other reason is the more important one. We import more than we export to the EU, and the divide is growing, and in particular the divide is very large with France, and more importantly Germany. We have a major trade deficit with Germany and that gives us the upper hand in negotiations. If we go back to the WTO rules that 10% tariff on cars will not sit nicely with the Germans, one in five German made cars are exported to the UK and we're the second biggest export partner for the German automotive industry with annual exports of over 20bn Euros. Out trade deficit with the EU has just hit a new record, at current rates the annual deficit will be nearly £100bn, and that strengthens our negotiating position. The standard tariffs on our exports are not that severe, especially when we do not rely on exports like the Germans, and given the fluctuations in exchange rates we experience anyway we would arguably minimally feel the tariffs.

    We can now take a look the democratic side. Out of the 28 EU member states there are only three who have not been a dictatorship in living memory, two of them are considering leaving; there is us, the UK, Sweden, who are likely to follow us if we do leave, and Ireland. Is it surprising then that the EU isn't as democratic as our standards dictate it should be, for most of Europe that level of democracy is seen as the route to dictatorship, Franco, Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin; these are all people who rose to power by the will of the people, clearly it is democracy that is the problem to most of the EU, in the same way that lack of is a problem to us. Of course, the EU commissioners are appointed by each individual nation, and seem to be one of the few bodies in the world where the requirement to be appointed is to have been rejected by the electorate, and we can't get rid of these people. These people who spawn all of the laws, who have already been rejected by the electorate, cannot be removed by the electorate, something that is fundamentally undemocratic. If we want to get rid of Cameron and the Tories, we can do in just under 4 years now, potentially sooner.

    But even then, we still haven't talked about who runs the EU. If you drive from the airport in Brussels I have been told that you will see offices of corporation after corporation, the rules are made by the highest bidder. Is it surprising that big business want to remain in the EU when their return on investment from lobbying the EU is estimated to be about 800%. Europe was one of the few places in the world where diesel was promoted over petrol, with the German manufacturers pushing for it, and tests being created that favour diesel, and as we know even those tests weren't followed, Germany are very good at breaking the rules and getting away with it, but more on that later. When Dyson came along with a brilliant new vacuum design, what did the competition do? Lobbied the EU to create a test that removes that advantage leading to the absolutely absurd case of vacuums being tested in dust free environments.

    But things don't stop there, as the Eu continues to consolidate power we are having a great many edicts passed on that we must enact, many of these are over irrelevances to continue the consolidation of power, others don't take into regard the differences between nations. Shortly before Easter a directive was passed requiring internal competition in ports, brilliant but only if you're looking at mainland Europe where there are fewer but larger ports, the whole point is to introduce internal competition to the mega ports on the continent such as Rotterdam. There is, naturally, one small problem and that is that Britain, and I imagine we aren't alone, operate in completely different conditions, we don't have a small number of mega ports, we have lots of smaller ports that all compete with each other, but they're included too and it is damaging for the British shipping industry, and exemptions wouldn't have been hard to write in.

    The OP talks of tax control and living standards, I'm not sure what this is referring to, but I assume that for the tax control it is talking about thinks like VAT. It's quite well known that sanitary products and utility bills and the like all have 5% VAT on, and that it cannot be decreased despite them being "necessities" given this misconception that VAT rates are to do with necessity. This is all because of the EU VAT Directive Number 6 which controls VAT, pretty much everything must be at least 5% and I imagine there are other tax restrictions forced upon us from above, but these are things that nothing can be done about while remaining in the EU.

    Finally we get Agriculture, by which I assume the intention is to talk about the Common Agricultural Policy. It's a rather horrid policy, pretty much no matter where you stand, unless you're a recipient. The whole point of CAP is to take an ineffective industry that cannot sustain itself, and make us pay to sustain it with minimum pricing, large subsidies and massive tariffs on imports from outside the area covered by CAP. On top of this it encourages over production given that the bigger the farm and the more you produce the bigger your subsidy. All in all it make us pay more taxes and increases food prices so we can pay for European farmers who cannot compete to overproduce.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    We're still waiting for your argument, or is the best you can manage "look at the leaflet, it must be true?"
    Definitely not. It should be noted that we do have full control of our borders, although we do have to allow some sort of immigration in order to access the European Single Market.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Whiggy)
    Definitely not. It should be noted that we do have full control of our borders, although we do have to allow some sort of immigration in order to access the European Single Market.
    But then we come to the question: is the cost of access to the single market in the incomplete form that exists worth it? For instance it is cheaper for us to trade with the EU on WTO rule basis, which is the worst deal possible, it doesn't get worse than that, than it is to remain in the EU, about £7.5bn vs £8.5bn.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by banter_lad_m8)
    Global influence could also be a reason to leave given that we forfeit our seat on the UN Security Council by being EU members.
    This is not true, at all!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I'm not sure i saw you mention study in the remain bit.

    I'm sure any country in the EU are allowed to have student study wherever they want right ?
    So a UK student could go study in Germany with the same fees and accommodation prices right?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Which leaflets are we talking about, there are a great many.
    The ones with pizza offers on them.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Maker)
    The ones with pizza offers on them.
    Chatting **** basically...
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    I shall now move on to criticisms of the arguments of the remain campaign, and I will again broadly follow the points lined out in the OP, doing a bit of grouping together and ignoring bits that I'm not sure what is meant, by which I mean the "future" one.

    I'll start off by talking about the economy, jobs, and trade all together as ultimately they are very closely linked. Our trade is hardly going to grind to a halt with the EU if we left, things would likely keep going as they are for some time actually, and as explained above I believe we will be in a strong negotiating position, most of what I have to say on the matter has been outlined already. Unlike many Brexiters I accept that there will likely be a short term hit to the economy, and we're likely to remain in the EEA anyway.

    On the matter of travel and work I shall focus here more on the travel side where we have heard claims that we could need a visa to visit the EU, and the EHIC will no longer be valid. I would question both of these claims. The first just takes a look at the list of nations that require a visa to visit the EU, and more importantly the nations omitted. It would be absolutely insane for the UK to be added to the list given that nations such as America, Canada, Australia, South Korea, Japan etc are permitted visa free travel, along with the likes of Norway and Switzerland. On the matter of the EHIC it must be remembered that with so many things attributed to the EU, membership clearly is not an absolute requirement, Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, Lichtenstein are all covered by the EHIC card, and you should have travel insurance when travelling anyway, even if also covered by an EHIC.

    Security and terrorism is again a rather moot argument. First of all one would hope that nobody wants to play political games with it out of spite and not continue working with us if we left, and much like so many other things many of the structures that we would apparently no longer be able to be part of are not exclusive to EU member states. But perhaps more important to remember is that intelligence sharing tends to work on bilateral, not multilateral bases. At the end of the day the first and foremost important thing is not saving civilians, it is keeping operatives safe because they are how you get the information, and how you keep allies willing to share information. If, say, there were a US mole that found out plans for a terrorist attack in London the Americans would tell us and us alone, they wouldn't tell the French, Germans, Greeks etc, and nor would we, it's all on a need to know basis. And the Brussels attacks show that this happens even within a nation, the most important thing is to protect the mole because if you don't then you might not get the information the next time because others do not want to share the information and risk their people. It's also has to be remembered that we are a member of, among other things, the five eyes intelligence sharing group.

    When it comes to influence the Remainians like to talk about things where we did something with the EU, but not necessarily because of the EU. We hear about the Iranian deal, something that we would have been invited to without being in the EU the negotiating team was the P5+1, i.e. the 5 permanent members of the UNSC, Germany and the EU; we were not there because of the EU, we were there because we are a permanent member of the UNSC because we are considered one of the Big Five, the winners of the second world war, and we are one of the 5 recognised legal nuclear states (which is arguably more important than being WWII winners these days). The other one I hear a lot is sanctions against Russia. Are the Remainians seriously suggesting that without the UK in the EU the EU would not have levied sanctions against Russia, and we would not have levied sanctions against Russia? It isn't only Eu member states that have levied sanctions either, last I checked the USA, for instance, is not in the EU but has levied sanctions against Russia.

    I am again somewhat unsure what is meant for the prices section, but there are several price related suggestions being offered. One is that CAP will lead to increased food prices because the subsidies will be gone and farmers will have to increase prices accordingly. There are two sides to this, the first is that there isn't necessarily a real net increase in cost because it's just shifting the subsidy cost to the ticket price, but we then save anyway because we aren't subsidising above and beyond our consumption given we are a net CAP contributor; the other side is that we can reduce trade barriers with the rest of the world allowing cheaper imports from places like Africa and South America and allow these markets to be able to compete again rather than pricing them out of the market with massive tariffs. Another price related argument thrown about is air travel, claims that the EU have made air travel cheaper despite it being a general trend world wide for air travel to become cheaper and as was said on Question Time last week, this is heavily due to budget airlines coming about, it's a case of correlation vs causation. And the final one often talked about is roaming charges, which the government itself admitted last year, and I believe more recently, too, would not be affected by brexit, the removal of roaming charges would still be there. We also have to consider that this is something that the WTO, OECD and ITU have been pushing for for quite some time and if anything the EU got in the way and we have Three that offered roaming charge free usage without the EU legislation.

    As for services, I feel I have already addressed this in the first half of my ramblings; first of all the single market still does not cover services, despite having pushing for it for decades (what was that about having influence?) and we sell just as many financial services to the US without the illusions we do with the EU as we do to the EU.

    -------------------------

    If more topics are added I shall amend the posts accordingly, and I'm sure you can find plenty of quotes Queen Cersei
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tengentoppa)
    Remaining in the EU ensures that we retain passporting rights, which allow us to trade in financial services throughout the whole of the EU. This goes some way to ensuring multinational banks have their European headquarters in London, which subsequently helps secure London's status as the pre-eminent financial centre in the world. Without these passporting rights, financial institutions would likely move some, if not all, their business to another EU capital like Frankfurt.

    The EU has a global regulatory reach due to its market power, and British businesses which operate in Europe will be following EU regulations regardless of whether we stay in or not. By staying in we ensure that we have a say in how the single market operates, rather than merely complying with its regulations.

    This is especially important because there is a clash between certain countries (UK, Germany, Nordic countries) who want market liberalisation, and other countries (France and the Southern states) who favour subsidies and protectionism. As of now there is a general trend towards favouring free-market economics, but if the UK left a leading voice for that would be lost and we could see a tilt towards more restrictive regulations, which would subsequently have a negative effect on our trade with the EU.
    At the moment regulations cover 100% of UK exports across the world. If we were to leave we would only have to comply with EU regulations when selling to EU markets. Additionally, we have had decreasing say over the regulations. when we joined we had approximately 20% of MEP's in a club of 9 and now we have less than 10% of MEP's in a club of 28.

    The EU is actually very protectionist to all outside its borders such as a 10% tariff on cars and even clothes which increases the cost of living. Moreover, if we have been such "a leading voice" in the EU for libertarian change and free market economics then why does the EU put some many regulations on us.

    My final point is that the EU is hopeless a signing trade deals because, while it does have 500 million consumers. It also has to satisfy all 28 nation's demands and this has slowed or even grinded to a halt trade deals with China and India.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by elliottls97)
    At the moment regulations cover 100% of UK exports across the world. If we were to leave we would only have to comply with EU regulations when selling to EU markets.
    That's not how it tends to work in practice though. If a multinational company needs to comply with EU regulations when selling to EU markets, it will comply with the same standards across the board.

    It is too expensive to have 2 different ways of manufacturing and selling the product, and so most companies will comply with EU regulations even when not trading in the EU.

    So in practice any company doing any business in the EU would not truly be free of EU regulation.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by tengentoppa)
    That's not how it tends to work in practice though. If a multinational company needs to comply with EU regulations when selling to EU markets, it will comply with the same standards across the board.

    It is too expensive to have 2 different ways of manufacturing and selling the product, and so most companies will comply with EU regulations even when not trading in the EU.

    So in practice any company doing any business in the EU would not truly be free of EU regulation.
    And only about 5% of British businesses trade with the EU, and it's something like 9% of regulations are applied to Norway, take these together and you get the picture, only one in every 20 businesses now complying with the regulations will still have to comply, and even then only to one in eleven of the regulations.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    But then we come to the question: is the cost of access to the single market in the incomplete form that exists worth it? For instance it is cheaper for us to trade with the EU on WTO rule basis, which is the worst deal possible, it doesn't get worse than that, than it is to remain in the EU, about £7.5bn vs £8.5bn.
    Should we leave the EU, the trade deals that the UK manages to make will be more restrictive and less cost-effective than our access to the Single Market.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    And only about 5% of British businesses trade with the EU, and it's something like 9% of regulations are applied to Norway, take these together and you get the picture, only one in every 20 businesses now complying with the regulations will still have to comply, and even then only to one in eleven of the regulations.
    But as trade has globalised, so has regulation. The Brussels Effect means that the EU unilaterally dictates what global standards are, because export-led companies lobby their governments to standardise their regulations with EU ones so as to level the playing field with non-export oriented competitors.

    So even when 2 non-EU businesses do business in 2 non-EU countries, the Brussels Effect means there is a fair chance they are still meeting EU standards. The reach of EU regulation is inescapable, whether we leave or not.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Big Moisty)
    I'm not sure i saw you mention study in the remain bit.

    I'm sure any country in the EU are allowed to have student study wherever they want right ?
    So a UK student could go study in Germany with the same fees and accommodation prices right?
    Anyone can study for free in Germany (and France). It has nothing to do with being in the EU. American students and students from other continents all study in Germany for free.
    You could also argue that students in other EU countries tend to learn English as a second language from a young age. The same is not true for most British students who are monolingual. Meaning that this agreement advantages them more than it advantages us.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
  • 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

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