Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Why you should vote to LEAVE* the European Union Watch

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    I have said it multiple times, just because I couldn't be bothered to find the exact percentage.

    ONS

    The EU in 2014 accounted for 44.6% of UK exports of goods and services,

    http://webarchive.nationalarchives.g...t-/sty-eu.html

    I should also point out that the figure of 44.6% does not include exports that have come as a result EU negotiated agreements with Non EU countries such as South Korea.

    Tbh, he is just grasping at straws. 50 vs 45% is irrelevant. The point is that we are far more dependent on EU exports than Vice versa.
    Didn't the latest figures show its gone into the 30's now and of course there is still an 80 billion trade deficit


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    Didn't the latest figures show its gone into the 30's now and of course there is still an 80 billion trade deficit


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Doubt it, considering that this was in June 2015.

    On a month to month basis. it may dip into the high 30's. Not through the year.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    Doubt it, considering that this was in June 2015.

    On a month to month basis. it may dip into the high 30's. Not through the year.
    Perhaps but it still doesn't change that it's dropped 10% in a decade it's a continuing trend and we have a huge trade deficit meaning we buy far more from them than they do from us


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    No, we should stay.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    We should stay there is no benefit with leaving now Cameron has made a deal with Donald Tusk.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    I don't understand your optimism with the conservatives seeing as they've had 6 years to sort out immigration and have either failed or made things worse...not to be implying that labour/lib dems are better - they're still worse.
    I thought right wing libertarians were supposed to be against protectionism, which is what borders basically are. You shouldn't be stopping people seeking out work in different countries. Cracking down on migration is anti free market.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    I thought right wing libertarians were supposed to be against protectionism, which is what borders basically are. You shouldn't be stopping people seeking out work in different countries. Cracking down on migration is anti free market.
    how many immigrants, theoretically, are enough though? ten thousand? a hundred thousand? a million? ten million? more? also, we're talking about a government creating more citizens. immigration is fine but not too many people. if I was in favour of free markets, which I am, I wouldn't be doing what some people do and argue for *no* immigration, seeing as it's what is best for competition (more so for the businesses though over the native workers of the countries in question in the west). also, if you have too much immigration, wages do go down - the thing about capitalism is that it tends to make wages over time go up, but immigation is against that. besides, I'd be more in favour of immigration if we had no welfare state, but we do have a welfare state. are we going to have no welfare state before we have less immigration? or the other way around? so how does it make sense to argue for more immigration on libertarian grounds right now when there is an anti-libertarian welfare state? I know most immigrants arent welfare leeches but it is obviously an attraction for people from, say, ethiopia, to come here if we have a generous welfare state that will pay them more in welfare than work ever did in their native country.

    also I could say "I thought you liberals were in favour of freedom but you don't like freedom when it comes to people's own money" etc I would say though that immigration is just one policy, whereas socialism is a whole range of policies against liberties for people. I mean, you might tell me "oh you're talking about freedom of the individual - I'm wanting freedom for the collective" - well, gay marriage isn't. nor is something like the liberty to use certain drugs. collective liberty would be the limitation of those things via democratic processes based on the collective liberty of the mob to get what it wants, just like the mob getting certain economic entitlements.at least people from other countries aren't voters though, or citizens with rights and liberties from the legal system any way (unless of course you're suggesting all people from all countries ought to have the same rights as national citizens, in which case, concepts like the "national" health service lose their significance to us. also, the NHS (which I am going to heavily assume you support) at least is concerned with positive consequences - how is excessive immigration about positive consequences?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    Perhaps but it still doesn't change that it's dropped 10% in a decade it's a continuing trend and we have a huge trade deficit meaning we buy far more from them than they do from us


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Even assuming it is a continuing trend, at present it still makes up almost half of the exports which we loose the instant we leave the EU. The trade deficit argument doesn't make sense, yes EU exports more to UK than vice versa but they have a much larger economy with more diversified trades so they can afford to loose that income if it means sending message to any countries thinking of leaving in the future.
    This is without mentioning there are several countries in EU who UK has a significant trade surplus with, and who can veto any proposed free trade deal.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    Perhaps but it still doesn't change that it's dropped 10% in a decade it's a continuing trend and we have a huge trade deficit meaning we buy far more from them than they do from us


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    The fact that we have a trade deficit is meaningless without any context.

    20% of EU Exports go to the UK. 3% of EU GDP consists of UK Exports.
    45% of UK Exports go to the EU. 8% of UK GDP consists of EU Exports.

    Therefore, trade tariffs would affect us far worse.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    how many immigrants, theoretically, are enough though? ten thousand? a hundred thousand? a million? ten million? more? also, we're talking about a government creating more citizens. immigration is fine but not too many people. if I was in favour of free markets, which I am, I wouldn't be doing what some people do and argue for *no* immigration, seeing as it's what is best for competition (more so for the businesses though over the native workers of the countries in question in the west). also, if you have too much immigration, wages do go down - the thing about capitalism is that it tends to make wages over time go up, but immigation is against that. besides, I'd be more in favour of immigration if we had no welfare state, but we do have a welfare state. are we going to have no welfare state before we have less immigration? or the other way around? so how does it make sense to argue for more immigration on libertarian grounds right now when there is an anti-libertarian welfare state? I know most immigrants are welfare leeches but it is obviously an attraction for people from, say, ethiopia, to come here if we have a generous welfare state that will pay them more in welfare than work ever did in their native country.

    also I could say "I thought you liberals were in favour of freedom but you don't like freedom when it comes to people's own money" etc I would say though that immigration is just one policy, whereas socialism is a whole range of policies against liberties for people. I mean, you might tell me "oh you're talking about freedom of the individual - I'm wanting freedom for the collective" - well, gay marriage isn't. nor is something like the liberty to use certain drugs. collective liberty would be the limitation of those things via democratic processes based on the collective liberty of the mob to get what it wants, just like the mob getting certain economic entitlements.at least people from other countries aren't voters though, or citizens with rights and liberties from the legal system any way (unless of course you're suggesting all people from all countries ought to have the same rights as national citizens, in which case, concepts like the "national" health service lose their significance to us. also, the NHS (which I am going to heavily assume you support) at least is concerned with positive consequences - how is excessive immigration about positive consequences?
    That's for the rational market to decide. Polish workers will stop coming here when the market no longer incentives them to do so. You are advocating some kind of state planning to step in. Goes against the free market philosophy.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by swanderfeild)
    Even assuming it is a continuing trend, at present it still makes up almost half of the exports which we loose the instant we leave the EU. The trade deficit argument doesn't make sense, yes EU exports more to UK than vice versa but they have a much larger economy with more diversified trades so they can afford to loose that income if it means sending message to any countries thinking of leaving in the future.
    This is without mentioning there are several countries in EU who UK has a significant trade surplus with, and who can veto any proposed free trade deal.
    I would also add that we would automatically lose the Free Trade Deals between the EU and Non EU countries.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    That's for the rational market to decide. You are advocating some kind of state planning to step in. Goes against the free market philosophy.
    is "libertarianism" anti-government or is it anti restrictions of liberty? is it libertarian to oppose a police department or a national military? surely "citizenship" isn't a market issue when it involves making choices as to who is safe (etc) to come here? should the free market really decide such matters when it is purely looking at economics and not security matters?
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    is "libertarianism" anti-government or is it anti restrictions of liberty? is it libertarian to oppose a police department or a national military? surely "citizenship" isn't a market issue when it involves making choices as to who is safe (etc) to come here? should the free market really decide such matters when it is purely looking at economics and not security matters?
    I'm for a capitalist free market libertarian though. I'm allowed to support rigid borders if I like or say that the philosophy is flawed.

    What you are pushing for seems to me to be the standard we will use the state to enforce markets into everything, but only the "correct markets" and once markets start doing things we don;t like we bring in the state again to put a stop to it. It's not libertarian.

    I support the NHS since I'm not rigidly opposed to any kind of state planning or provision of things. I also thing it creates more individual freedom than it removes. I reject the kind of freedom you talk about on the basis it results in tyranny for a load of people. When you have no leverage in the market the market dictates your life and denies you an existence compatible with humanist values.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    I'm for a capitalist free market libertarian though. I'm allowed to support rigid borders if I like or say that the philosophy is flawed.

    What you are pushing for seems to me to be the standard we will use the state to enforce markets into everything, but only the "correct markets" and once markets start doing things we don;t like we bring in the state again to put a stop to it. It's not libertarian.
    what markets are you talking about? criminal markets? because I'm notopposed to regular markets. I am against immigration for the sake of immigration, though. immigration is about consequences, not rights, seeing as there is no objective right or anybody to immigrate here. it's our (or our government's) right to choose, based on this.

    I support the NHS since I'm not rigidly opposed to any kind of state planning or provision of things. I also thing it creates more individual freedom than it removes.
    you don't understand individual freedom then. how does it create more freedom for the individual when, say, a millionaire is taxed 45% of their money to only go to the doctor a few times a year, if that? it creates more freedom or most people? see, "most people" isn't the individual. and even talking about "most individuals" isn't "individual liberty" - is a millionaire an individual? yes. is "most people" an individual? no.

    I reject the kind of freedom you talk about on the basis it results in tyranny for a load of people. When you have no leverage in the market the market dictates your life and denies you an existence compatible with humanist values.
    immigrants don't have a right to live here in principle. rights aren't about consequences. they are about entitlements (and I hate that term). a person from a country like kenya or ecuador do not have a right to live here - immigration, being a state managed state of affairs, would have to have the decision on consequentialist grounds therefore seeing s they can't make the choice on indiidualist grounds when there is no right in principle for one person to come and live here beause it would mean that everybody would also have that right.

    (sorry my keyboard is broken so my messages might be occasionally difficult to read)
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    The fact that we have a trade deficit is meaningless without any context.

    20% of EU Exports go to the UK. 3% of EU GDP consists of UK Exports.
    45% of UK Exports go to the EU. 8% of UK GDP consists of EU Exports.

    Therefore, trade tariffs would affect us far worse.
    And?

    It's still a huge deficit, and tariffs will be mirrored so it is simply about the amount of trade. We buy more than we sell so a tariff will always cost the eu more than the uk.

    The U.K. Is the biggest export market for the eu.

    It's fanciful in the extreme that trade won't carry on as before.




    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by swanderfeild)
    Even assuming it is a continuing trend, at present it still makes up almost half of the exports which we loose the instant we leave the EU. The trade deficit argument doesn't make sense, yes EU exports more to UK than vice versa but they have a much larger economy with more diversified trades so they can afford to loose that income if it means sending message to any countries thinking of leaving in the future.
    This is without mentioning there are several countries in EU who UK has a significant trade surplus with, and who can veto any proposed free trade deal.
    Well it is a continuing trend the figures show that.
    You lose all credibility by saying trade will stop.

    You're a comic


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    And?
    (Original post by paul514)
    We buy more than we sell so a tariff will always cost the eu more than the uk.
    That means that the UK will be worse affected by Trade Tariffs.

    The EU is not going to worse affected by tariffs when 50% of our Exports depend on the EU and only 20% of EU Exports depend on UK.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    Well it is a continuing trend the figures show that.
    You lose all credibility by saying trade will stop.

    You're a comic


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    And yet you can't point out a reason why Italy with its trade deficit of $12.3 Billion would want a free trade deal with UK.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)



    you don't understand individual freedom then. how does it create more freedom for the individual when, say, a millionaire is taxed 45% of their money to only go to the doctor a few times a year, if that? it creates more freedom or most people? see, "most people" isn't the individual. and even talking about "most individuals" isn't "individual liberty" - is a millionaire an individual? yes. is "most people" an individual? no.


    No. We just have different subjective philosophies. There is no empirically correct answer. I'm fine with limiting someone's freedom if their freedom oppress someone else. It;s a balancing act where no formulaic dogmatic response is adequate.

    "Freedom in general may be defined as the absence of obstacles to the realization of desires." ~ Bertrand Russell


    If you are a wage slave that can just not psychosocially accumulate enough capital or money to do anything meaningful with their life they are not free. Your system of choice would create an army of wage slaves.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by swanderfeild)
    And yet you can't point out a reason why Italy with its trade deficit of $12.3 Billion would want a free trade deal with UK.
    I can actually.

    Italy doesn't make its own trade deals as it is part of the eu.

    Lol

    So it has something like 9 or 10% of the say on the matter

    Must try harder


    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
  • 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?
    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

    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.