As an EU supporter I think the UK needs to leave the single market

Announcements Posted on
How helpful is our apprenticeship zone? Have your say with our short survey 02-12-2016
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    I never said they weren't



    I never contradicted this!



    never spoke against that!



    do you even know what I think about this? I think the UK should leave the EU straight away so it can deal with these nations a lot sooner



    ...did I ever say this? :| are you confusing me with another user?



    okay?
    C'mon man - you said the UK will prosper out of the EU on the basis of trade. These points are interlinked to what you said. You can't have trade deals without leaving the EU, and the trade deals will be worse than what they are now. My comments are in reply to what you said about the UK having better trade deals.

    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    I didn't claim that at all - but generally if we freely trade with such nations, trade will at the very least increase, and considering a global context, that is significant
    The UK will never trade freely outside of the EU. That is the point I'm trying to make. It will always be faced by tariffs and, if not, geographical distances will work negatively as if it has.


    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    purely short-termism you're dealing with here. you cannot tell me that just because we are getting bad consequences *now* we aren't going to get good outcomes later. are you really suggesting that to leave the EU will cause us to be in a bad state forever even with all of the possibilites of free trade with other nations whom we never freely traded with before while within the EU? if anything this will hit the accellerator for our trade when the EU *tariffs* trade comparatively! these are growing pains for us.
    Again, the UK will never have the tariff-free trade you believe it will. The EU has the leverage and no one will choose the UK over it, ever. Don't think that because you're leaving the Union you'll be able to trade freely. Even after 10 years, which is the minimum it'll take to conclude all and any trade deals, you won't just happily trade with one another happily ever after.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The single market is an intrinsic part of the EU. Remaining a member of it means we would still be subject to having the ECJ reign supreme over British law and still subject to all EU regulations, essentially still being in the EU. The single market isn't about free trade; it masquerades as being so despite being a protectionist customs union binding members to political union. We should clearly negotiate a bilateral FTA with the EU to benefit both ourselves and them. It's up to the EU whether or not they want to harm themselves with petty politics and not agree to mutually beneficial FTAs to save their inept project.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    C'mon man - you said the UK will prosper out of the EU on the basis of trade. These points are interlinked to what you said. You can't have trade deals without leaving the EU, and the trade deals will be worse than what they are now. My comments are in reply to what you said about the UK having better trade deals.
    and it will do - I didn't say it wouldn't - just because we wouldn't have *as good* trade with the EU that isn't to say that, in the future, our situation with the globe would be much better

    The UK will never trade freely outside of the EU. That is the point I'm trying to make. It will always be faced by tariffs and, if not, geographical distances will work negatively as if it has.
    by "free trade" I don't mean an absolutist interpretation of "free" - tariffs and non-tariff barriers are inescapable and to some degree permitted by the WTO - I am saying that the free trade the UK will be able to secure will be "as good as free", essentially, when tariffs and protectionism as concepts would be put aside from the principle of "largely free" trade benefitting both countries

    Again, the UK will never have the tariff-free trade you believe it will. The EU has the leverage and no one will choose the UK over it, ever. Don't think that because you're leaving the Union you'll be able to trade freely. Even after 10 years, which is the minimum it'll take to conclude all and any trade deals, you won't just happily trade with one another happily ever after.
    "10 years"? why are you being so short term like this? 10 years is a very short amount of time concerning trade. I am talking about the next 100 years.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    and it will do - I didn't say it wouldn't - just because we wouldn't have *as good* trade with the EU that isn't to say that, in the future, our situation with the globe would be much better

    by "free trade" I don't mean an absolutist interpretation of "free" - tariffs and non-tariff barriers are inescapable and to some degree permitted by the WTO - I am saying that the free trade the UK will be able to secure will be "as good as free", essentially, when tariffs and protectionism as concepts would be put aside from the principle of "largely free" trade benefitting both countries
    Fine, let's assume you are right (I still disagree, but whatever). Is all of that worth it over the strongest economy in the world? Considering how close the UK and EU are in terms of trade, is it logical to just abandon one another?

    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    "10 years"? why are you being so short term like this? 10 years is a very short amount of time concerning trade. I am talking about the next 100 years.
    So, let the country go to hell in the meantime?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    Fine, let's assume you are right (I still disagree, but whatever). Is all of that worth it over the strongest economy in the world? Considering how close the UK and EU are in terms of trade, is it logical to just abandon one another?
    yes! the level in which we'd have less trade with the EU wouldn't be higher than the level in which we'd start trading with other countries in the world

    So, let the country go to hell in the meantime?
    potentially - we aren't in hell but good things aren't without some cost
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    Fine, let's assume you are right (I still disagree, but whatever). Is all of that worth it over the strongest economy in the world? Considering how close the UK and EU are in terms of trade, is it logical to just abandon one another? *
    Ask that to the EU. We have made it explicitly clear that we want the closest trading relationship with the single market via bilateral arrangements. We meet all of their regulatory standards; not agreeing to one would be a very irrational thing to do, harming the continent more than it would harm us. The EU faces this essential dilemma; risk other countries demanding looser trade and political arrangements in light of the Brexit leeway, or risk significant economic damage to their markets in the midst of present economic turmoil.

    On the balance of things, I believe our strategy will be to fully secure strong bilateral arrangements by offering the EU further payments to their budget for the forseeable future. It seems clear that the EU does in some way have to punish us to save face, and having an obligatory budget contribution seems the obvious way to do this whilst avoiding economic harm to both markets. On our side, we will have gained sovereignty and self-government whilst providing payments to ensure that our most important market continues to recover and become stronger, and in doing so mitigates any harm to our economy. I believe this would be enough to secure an agreement.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    yes! the level in which we'd have less trade with the EU wouldn't be higher than the level in which we'd start trading with other countries in the world



    potentially - we aren't in hell but good things aren't without some cost
    Well, let's see then. The reality will realise itself when the UK actually leaves the EU. Those months will show whether it will thrive or, as I think, be devastated.

    (Original post by midnightice)
    Ask that to the EU. We have made it explicitly clear that we want the closest trading relationship with the single market via bilateral arrangements. We meet all of their regulatory standards; not agreeing to one would be a very irrational thing to do, harming the continent more than it would harm us. The EU faces this essential dilemma; risk other countries demanding looser trade and political arrangements in light of the Brexit leeway, or risk significant economic damage to their markets in the midst of present economic turmoil.On the balance of things, I believe our strategy will be to fully secure strong bilateral arrangements by offering the EU further payments to their budget for the forseeable future. It seems clear that the EU does in some way have to punish us to save face, and having an obligatory budget contribution seems the obvious way to do this whilst avoiding economic harm to both markets. On our side, we will have gained sovereignty and self-government whilst providing payments to ensure that our most important market continues to recover and become stronger, and in doing so mitigates any harm to our economy. I believe this would be enough to secure an agreement.
    No indication points to that, however. The threat of other countries following suit is real and cannot be downplayed. Don't expect the EU to simply let this through.For now, this is just wishful thinking.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    Well, let's see then. The reality will realise itself when the UK actually leaves the EU. Those months will show whether it will thrive or, as I think, be devastated.

    No indication points to that, however. The threat of other countries following suit is real and cannot be downplayed. Don't expect the EU to simply let this through.For now, this is just wishful thinking.
    Once we leave, the UK will be the EU's largest export market. Imposing tariff barriers to such an important market will do more harm to the EU project than securing a prosperous bilateral agreement that, prospectively speaking, might induce more eurosceptic attitudes. Other members are not significant net contributors to the budget, having substantially less bargaining power and much more to lose.*

    It also brings up the question of why someone would support the EU if it purposefully shows its intolerance and ignorance to a nation's interests. It just shows how much of a self-serving racket it is.*
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by midnightice)
    Once we leave, the UK will be the EU's largest export market. Imposing tariff barriers to such an important market will do more harm to the EU project than securing a prosperous bilateral agreement that, prospectively speaking, might induce more eurosceptic attitudes. Other members are not significant net contributors to the budget, having substantially less bargaining power and much more to lose.*

    It also brings up the question of why someone would support the EU if it purposefully shows its intolerance and ignorance to a nation's interests. It just shows how much of a self-serving racket it is.*
    No - the UK in current terms may be the largest export market. Once tariffs are imposed, there won't be anything special compared to other countries. EU leaders have made it absolutely clear that they won't allow a Norway style agreement, so what makes you think they'll offer an even better alternative? Any indication towards that has been rejected, and that is after the vote(!). They will never place the benefits of the UK trading with the EU above the EU itself - for obvious reasons.

    That is entirely false, and it can be reversed as a question. The EU will obviously do whatever it can to protect itself - if that means walking over the UK, it will. It's only logical and has nothing to do with ignorance and intolerance. The UK would, and actually does, the same.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    No - the UK in current terms may be the largest export market. Once tariffs are imposed, there won't be anything special compared to other countries. EU leaders have made it absolutely clear that they won't allow a Norway style agreement, so what makes you think they'll offer an even better alternative? Any indication towards that has been rejected, and that is after the vote(!). They will never place the benefits of the UK trading with the EU above the EU itself - for obvious reasons.

    That is entirely false, and it can be reversed as a question. The EU will obviously do whatever it can to protect itself - if that means walking over the UK, it will do. It's only logical and has nothing to do with ignorance and intolerance. The UK would, and actually does, the same.
    PRSOM
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    No - the UK in current terms may be the largest export market. Once tariffs are imposed, there won't be anything more special than other countries. Leaders have made it absolutely clear that they won't allow a Norway style agreement, so what makes you think they'll offer an even better alternative? They will never place the benefits of the UK trading with the EU above the EU itself - for obvious reasons.

    That is entirely false, and it can be reversed as a question. The EU will obviously do whatever it can to protect itself - if that means walking over the UK, it will do it. It's only logical and has nothing to do with ignorance and intolerance. The UK would, and actually does, the same.
    So you believe the EU will willingly agree to make itself significantly weaker by doing the following:
    - Insisting that no compromise with FoM and free trade can exist, thereby imposing WTO terms on our trading relationship, hitting EU exports to the UK, resulting in a likely loss of tens of thousands of jobs throughout the continent.
    - Insisting that such a compromise is not possible with us offering budget contributions, resulting in an annual black hole of £10bn, further degrading its prosperity.
    - Demanding that other EU members must now pay more to the budget to make up for this black hole, creating new political conflicts in likely national referendums held on the issue.**
    - Sending a clear message to all EU members that the aim for political integration trumps any attention to securing economic strength for all members.

    This can only be a lose-lose scenario for the EU.*
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by midnightice)
    So you believe the EU will willingly agree to make itself significantly weaker
    The UK willingly made itself significantly weaker too - no questions on that? You also over-exaggerate UK's importance. It doesn't even have the euro.

    (Original post by midnightice)
    by doing the following:
    - Insisting that no compromise with FoM and free trade can exist, thereby imposing WTO terms on our trading relationship, hitting EU exports to the UK, resulting in a likely loss of tens of thousands of jobs throughout the continent.
    - Insisting that such a compromise is not possible with us offering budget contributions, resulting in an annual black hole of £10bn, further degrading its prosperity.
    - Demanding that other EU members must now pay more to the budget to make up for this black hole, creating new political conflicts in likely national referendums held on the issue.**
    - Sending a clear message to all EU members that the aim for political integration trumps any attention to securing economic strength for all members.
    -It has already said so. I don't believe anything - just read/listen to the speeches of all leaders. They said no compromise and that's it. You may think that's 'scaremongering', but that's how it is nonetheless.
    -The EU spends A LOT on the UK. Currently only second to Germany. Don't think it's just the UK giving money, because that's not true.
    -No, for reason as above.
    -How so? Europe has a very dark history, if that means having to force political integration, then so be it (in my opinion of course).

    (Original post by midnightice)
    This can only be a lose-lose scenario for the EU.*
    No - the UK will suffer multiple times more than the EU for deciding to leave. Multiple. It will hurt the EU too, but it will easily absorb the damage (don't forget there's no shared currency!). The UK, on the other hand, is already suffering major blows without having even initiated the exit process.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    x
    Well, until we see GDP figures we cannot determine whether we have made ourselves weaker or not. If we have, which I think will be relatively likely to a minor extent in the form of a reduced rate of expansion rather than any contraction, it will obviously be the result of this short-term uncertainty in postponement of major investment decisions, albeit we have already seen the go-ahead of major investments in recent months e.g. Apple @ Battersea. It's pure conjecture at the moment to say we have willingly imposed significant weakness to our economy. The weakening of the pound is a red herring many like to bring up; in similar events, such as after Black Wednesday, this has led to substantial economic growth. If I recall correctly, Gerard Lyons was one of a few economists predicting this at the time, and he has made the same prediction again.

    It isn't over-exaggerating the UK's importance when you point out that we are presently their most important market for trade. The supposed exaggeration is more a reflection of that reality. I'm not sure where you're coming from regarding the Euro; trade is trade regardless of currency. If they want to ensure that the Euro succeeds, supporting jobs throughout the continent reliant on UK exports would obviously be a no-brainer.*

    Yes, call me naive but if I think this is the expected posturing from the politically pious Commission and not a reflection of national leaders subjected to industry lobbying. The chief of the German business industry wants associate status for the UK, for example. Then again, I wouldn't put it past the dogmatic Commission to be so stubborn and recklessly pursue a severance of economic ties. It's incomprehensible to think how this would actually benefit them economically.

    Yes, the EU does 'spend' a lot on us, but I gave you the net figure that they will be losing out on. There will be a £10bn annual hole in their finances that they will need to fill somehow or else suffer in consequence. It's an important bargaining chip that we can utilise to secure our economic ties whilst attaining the benefits of independence.*

    Yes, Europe has a dark history, but I'm not sure why you think hurting continental jobs and investment through the imposition of tariff barriers will do anything to help that. It will show primacy of supranational politics over general prosperity for the people of Europe out of principle. In light of the crises of Schengen and the Euro, further integration is becoming increasingly unpopular outside of the Brussels bubble.

    A lot of the economic forecasts that have predicted a full blown meltdown of the UK economy if we leave make very far-fetched assumptions determining their variables. Many suggest, e.g. the prominent Treasury forecast, that we will arrange NO trade agreements outside of the customs union and willingly stand back and accept WTO terms over a 10-year period. That's clearly nonsensical. Many also suggest that there will be significant damage from the prospect of UK firms relocating to the continent, ignoring that Theresa May is not exactly some pious libertarian and protectionism is an obvious policy she would advocate. The only realistic prospect in this light is if we impose unfavourable regulatory environments now outside of EU jurisdiction, including the stripping of financial services passporting, but again this is also a red herring and would prove to be an insignificant loss in light of what we can gain from gaining control over our own external trade policy and regulatory regime.

    I just hope common sense will prevail and a mutually beneficial relationship will be reached. Even Verhofstadt wants one!
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    The idea that the brexit vote wasn't also a vote on the single market (and freedom of movement which comes with it) is an idea at least as stupid if not more so than what Vote Leave were promising.

    At least half of the pro EU parliamentarians have the sense to see this and are now rightly trying to follow Mays plan of getting the best deal possible with the caveat of no free movement. It may be the case that such a decision will be against the UKs interests but that's democracy for you- it could well be the case that John McDonnell would be an awful chancellor and that he should be precluded from power etc but that would not be in the spirit of democracy.

    Another referendum isn't undemocratic as the Neanderthal faction of the Leave vote continually bleat out, (in the same way another general election isn't undemocratic) but it would be counterproductive and stupid- and paint those of us who support the idea of the EU in a worse light.

    Instead we should focus on what parts of the EU we wish to remain in (not even Farage wants to leave everything) and which parts e.g. CAP we wish to leave. Once that is done ( and it should be done ASAP) we should immediately trigger article 50 and formally begin negotiations with our European brethren.
    I disagree with politicians claiming 'people who voted to leave voted that way because of x or y'.
    The fact is we do not know why people did. Unlike a general election, there were no manifestos.

    The referendum was about membership of the EU. We voted to rescind our membership and we must do so. After that however it should be up to Parliament to determine the terms of the exit.

    I have a great deal of respect for the many conservative leave MPs criticising May for trying to bypass Parliament in the most important set of negotiations in many generations. As they said, we didn't vote to reclaim our sovereignty from the EU only to allow our executive to power grab it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I disagree with politicians claiming 'people who voted to leave voted that way because of x or y'.
    The fact is we do not know why people did. Unlike a general election, there were no manifestos.

    The referendum was about membership of the EU. We voted to rescind our membership and we must do so. After that however it should be up to Parliament to determine the terms of the exit.
    If there was a referendum or s general election on staying in the single market at the cost of free movement it would lose. I don't think that's at all controversial.


    I have a great deal of respect for the many conservative leave MPs criticising May for trying to bypass Parliament in the most important set of negotiations in many generations. As they said, we didn't vote to reclaim our sovereignty from the EU only to allow our executive to power grab it.
    Yes but these are generally the muppets like dan Hannan and carswell who thought that brexit would lead to more pro immigration and globalisation.

    May is trying to get the best deal possible in regards to the single market but also knows that a majority of the people in the U.K. Want to Substantially decrease immigration where this has been the driving force in the last three major election (eu ref, GE and EU elections) by forcing her hand the pro single market lot are jeopardising her position.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    midnightice


    By that same logic the UK would never leave the EU or the single market because the overwhelming majority of business would be against that.

    You are ignoring political will. Governments fear angry voters more than angry businesses because in the long term it is is the voters keeping them in power. According to Eurostat there has been a rise in pro EU sentiment across the continent.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SHallowvale)
    It's fine to be skeptical but unless you are to provide surveys which suggest otherwise then that's all we have to work with. I believed that immigration was the main reason but that was just a personal opinion. I hadn't been aware that a survey was done.

    You cannot compare a referendum to an election because the way we vote is different. You don't vote on a yes/no question in an election. What I have looked at are the main reasons behind the votes for a specific issue. Within those votes is another issue, the single market, which we can measure support for regardless of what the overall vote said. You could perform the same exercise if we had a referendum on whether should have a Tory government.
    And the difference with an election is you vote for the party that has the best policies, but after 5 years you can vote for another party if you get fed up with the party you voted for. It's not for ever. With the referendum there is no second chance if we get fed up of Brexit.

    But we can't dare criticise Brexit or we'll upset the Brexit mafia which is a powerful force on here of at least 90% of forum members.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ambitious1999)
    And the difference with an election is you vote for the party that has the best policies, but after 5 years you can vote for another party if you get fed up with the party you voted for. It's not for ever. With the referendum there is no second chance if we get fed up of Brexit.

    But we can't dare criticise Brexit or we'll upset the Brexit mafia which is a powerful force on here of at least 90% of forum members.
    That last part is BS there are more pro remain tsr members on here than leavers it's just that the leavers tend to be more vocal.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    What we need simply is not to be bound by EU law/fees, except where: A) Necessary; and B) It doesn't contradict #TakeControl
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    What we need simply is not to be bound by EU law/fees, except where: A) Necessary; and B) It doesn't contradict #TakeControl
    So have the pie and far it too...

    Talk about being realistic eh.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: October 21, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Today on TSR
Poll
Would you rather have...?
Useful resources

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.