Turn on thread page Beta

EU referendum: Where does your vote lie? watch

  • View Poll Results: In or Out of EU?
    In
    62.00%
    Out
    37.00%
    I won't vote.
    1.00%

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    That is subtly different to what you have said, which is that as an external trade partner Britain would still be bound by EU rules. In this case, the EU and South Korea are both bound by rules to which both had to give unanimous consent and which cannot be changed at the discretion of one party. In other words in the case of the South Korea-EU free trade agreement, Brussels is as much bound by Seoul as vice-versa, and Brussels has no power to force Seoul to change or expand the agreement.

    South Korea seems to provide a good argument why we should ultimately seek to be in neither the EU nor the EFTA.
    My apologies, I was assuming the position being discussed was that the UK would be part of EFTA rather than as an external country with a trading arrangement.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jammy4041)
    In...and fully in. As a fully functioning member of the EU within the EU framework. Yes, ECHR, Euro, respecting free travel for ALL EU Citizens and EU Citizens' rights to work and live abroad. With Britian's population and economy, Britain should have as much impact on the EU as Germany and France. It's disgusting that our politicians seem to pick and choose which policies they want to follow.

    Fully in or not at all. The UK benefits so much from the EU, it would be a disaster if we left.
    You seriously want us to join the Euro?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    My apologies, I was assuming the position being discussed was that the UK would be part of EFTA rather than as an external country with a trading arrangement.
    The EFTA is a hybrid position; while it absolutely privileges the EU over the other signatory states, it does withdraw EU control over some important areas. EFTA members are not members of the EU's customs union, for instance, so they can agree other trade deals with non-EU states, as Iceland has done with the PRC. I don't believe the EU has any right to interfere with those agreements or alter their terms.

    It is not clear to me how extensive the burden of EFTA regulations emanating from the EU is, but your post at least seemed to imply that it was equal to that of being a member of the EU.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    That is subtly different to what you have said, which is that as an external trade partner Britain would still be bound by EU rules. In this case, the EU and South Korea are both bound by rules to which both had to give unanimous consent and which cannot be changed at the discretion of one party. In other words in the case of the South Korea-EU free trade agreement, Brussels is as much bound by Seoul as vice-versa, and Brussels has no power to force Seoul to change or expand the agreement.

    South Korea seems to provide a good argument why we should ultimately seek to be in neither the EU nor the EFTA.
    Is there anything that EFTA provides which an agreement like South Korea would not?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RFowler)
    You seriously want us to join the Euro?
    In and fully in, means just that. Britain cannot be full member of the EU without the Euro. The Euro is too important to the affairs of the EU.

    The Euro would have more credibility if every EU nation joined -- yes even Britain. Having the Sterling has been important, and Britain would lose financial sovreignity, but it's about time some of the commitments in Europe were realized. Furthermore, if Britain is a full and participatory member of the Eurozone, some of that financial sovreignity can be clawed back. Britain would have been part of the Euro were it not for Black Wednesday, and the fact that the Major government took Britain out of ERM.

    Britain has to be a full and participatory member of the EU to get maximum benefit.

    Contrast this position. If the UK was to leave the EU, there would be a run on the Pound, since investors would be spooked to such an extent, that I really do not think it would be worth having the Pound anyway.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jammy4041)
    In and fully in, means just that. Britain cannot be full member of the EU without the Euro. The Euro is too important to the affairs of the EU.

    The Euro would have more credibility if every EU nation joined -- yes even Britain. Having the Sterling has been important, and Britain would lose financial sovreignity, but it's about time some of the commitments in Europe were realized. Furthermore, if Britain is a full and participatory member of the Eurozone, some of that financial sovreignity can be clawed back. Britain would have been part of the Euro were it not for Black Wednesday, and the fact that the Major government took Britain out of ERM.

    Britain has to be a full and participatory member of the EU to get maximum benefit.

    Contrast this position. If the UK was to leave the EU, there would be a run on the Pound, since investors would be spooked to such an extent, that I really do not think it would be worth having the Pound anyway.
    We can be an EU member without having the Euro, and we have done exactly that for years. It's a bloody good thing we decided against joining the Euro all those years ago, when you look at how well it's worked out for other European countries.

    Joining the Euro is a completely unnecessary risk. Exactly what benefits would the UK get by joining the Euro that it can not get if it keeps the pound? How big are these supposed benefits?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Switzerland status


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    That is subtly different to what you have said, which is that as an external trade partner Britain would still be bound by EU rules. In this case, the EU and South Korea are both bound by rules to which both had to give unanimous consent and which cannot be changed at the discretion of one party. In other words in the case of the South Korea-EU free trade agreement, Brussels is as much bound by Seoul as vice-versa, and Brussels has no power to force Seoul to change or expand the agreement.

    South Korea seems to provide a good argument why we should ultimately seek to be in neither the EU nor the EFTA.
    Not really. The EU are not going to have a free trade agreement eliminating tariffs with a country next it that just decided to leave.

    They might as well tell everyone that you can do what you like.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    Not really. The EU are not going to have a free trade agreement eliminating tariffs with a country next it that just decided to leave.

    They might as well tell everyone that you can do what you like.
    Why not?
    At the end of the day they don't trade with us because we're in the EU, they do so because we want their goods and they want our. What benefit is there to them to start charging duties?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    Not really. The EU are not going to have a free trade agreement eliminating tariffs with a country next it that just decided to leave.

    They might as well tell everyone that you can do what you like.
    German Car manufacturers are not going to stop selling stuff to the entire British market just because we are not in the EU.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    In.

    We're already deeply entrenched in the EU, and the EU brings us a lot of business and connections. Why would we want to isolate ourselves and create a whole load of new trade deals which may or may not happen, and may or may not cost us more? No sane international business would want to sit here whilst we burn all our bridges and then see if we can re-build them again. It's all well and good saying that Norway and so on do it on their own, but they have different economies and revenue streams to us (Norway is king of natural gas, whereas we actually rely on finance and services), and when they opted out they weren't already up to their ears in it with the EU.

    Basically I think leaving is dangerous for the country and all for the sake of no real gains. We'd save some money on our EU membership, but the EU also paid out to us, so we'd lose money for important things (like scientific research which receives loads of EU grants in this country - and is another big source of money in our economy!). That combined with the hits on all the things the EU used to provide us which we may or may not be able to independently negotiate back up to EU levels if we're lucky... just why. Why even do that to ourselves.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    none of the people on here have any idea what it was like before we joined the EU with border controls, import duties etc on everything.

    Deutshe Bank is already planning an exit strategy in case we leave the UK and I would expect most of the key financial organisations to move.
    Nissan and Honda are here because of our position in europe

    it's easy to suggest that we would just negotiate a position so that all this doesn't matter but actually the ball is in the EU's court and they have us by the nuts
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    Not really. The EU are not going to have a free trade agreement eliminating tariffs with a country next it that just decided to leave.

    They might as well tell everyone that you can do what you like.
    That is an argument from specific circumstances. It might be that the EU decides to punish Britain; on the other hand, Britain has a large net trade deficit with the EU, so if you believe protectionists the EU would be mainly hurting itself and benefiting us by doing so.

    However what L i b said was not an argument from specific circumstances. He said that a free trade agreement intrinsically requires a submission of sovereignty on par with that required by the EU, and so no better arrangement was possible even principle. I said that the example of South Korea shows that that is, to put it mildly, dramatically overstated.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    German Car manufacturers are not going to stop selling stuff to the entire British market just because we are not in the EU.
    Who says anything about stopping selling stuff?

    The Germans will move their production to central Europe where they have access to a larger single market and British consumers will pay higher prices.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    definitely in.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Why not?
    At the end of the day they don't trade with us because we're in the EU, they do so because we want their goods and they want our. What benefit is there to them to start charging duties?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Why would they care when they know that Business will move to the EU in the long term? It is a competition.

    At the end of the day, Business will move to single market if there is more money for them. They just need to hop across the border to Ireland with a 14% Corp Tax and an excellent infrastructure.

    The EU understand that access to several Hundred million people will entice business more than 60 million. Especially when Britain is unlikely to impose significant tariffs on imports.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by domonict)
    Deutshe Bank is already planning an exit strategy in case we leave the UK and I would expect most of the key financial organisations to move.
    It might surprise you to learn that Deutsche Bank is based in Germany, not the UK.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    The EU understand that access to several Hundred million people will entice business more than 60 million.
    Hence Indonesia being richer than Singapore, PRC being richer than Japan, Russia being richer than Sweden, Nigeria being richer than Israel, etc. etc.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    That is an argument from specific circumstances. It might be that the EU decides to punish Britain; on the other hand, Britain has a large net trade deficit with the EU, so if you believe protectionists the EU would be mainly hurting itself and benefiting us by doing so.
    .
    Yes, they will punish Britain.

    They also understand that in the long term and short term that Businesses will just move or set up in the single market than in Britain. So, I don't think they would really care too much.

    It makes even less sense to make a Free Trade deal with Britain. It leaves no incentive for the major countries such as France and Germany to stay within the EU.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    Hence Indonesia being richer than Singapore, PRC being richer than Japan, Russia being richer than Sweden, Nigeria being richer than Israel, etc. etc.
    Try being sensible. If you want to compare access to Europe being akin to having access to Nigeria then you are trying to be dishonest.
 
 
 

954

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.