Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    As if, prior to the EU, there was no equality, fairness, or freedom, for the people of the UK, and populations outside the EU live in the dark ages :mmm:

    ..and then be free to come as and when. We, the people of this country, feel that we have more than enough Third world/Muslim migrants as it is

    1) The Eurozone will stack when French/Italian banking crisis hits and/or South European nations rise up and revolt against crippling austerity

    2) We will never be part of any such political union

    3) The North Euroepan nations (Germany, in particular) will never share out the wealth with nations they hold in utter contempt (unfortunately many think of the Greeks as corrupt, lazy, and wasteful peasants)

    Hell no. The EU is a major part of the problem regarding the Ukrainian conflict. You lack depth and impartiality in your understanding of complex matters of international relations and strategy

    Which should be of grave concern to everyone. When was the last time Europeans tried to unite the continent under one flag? Clue: middle of the 20th century. And how did that work out? :rolleyes:

    The UK can't stop it, and it can scarcely stop its own armed forces being 'harmonised' and being sucked into 'progressive common defence policy'

    Correct

    Yup, through a combination of #ProjectFear and #StatusQuo apathy/myopia. They're absolute scoundrels/muppets (delete as appropriate)

    For the other (cogent, referenced) side of the debate, see this thread
    Fantastic post which i expect will be met with something along the lines of "Well weee caaant influence deeez fings without being in da EU"

    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    You said that the costs were at least equal to the tariffs levied on British goods exported to the EU; this is false, they are at most equal to the tariffs levied on British goods exported to the EU. At least, in your own logical framework.
    I think I said "probably", but even if I didn't the actual facts are unknown, because the tariff regime could be asymmetric - in the actual tariffs or the types of goods imported/exported.

    Actually you are more wrong than that because tariffs are not taxes levied on exporters, they are sales taxes levied by a country on its own citizens. Tariffs on British goods will be paid by EU consumers, not British companies (although the converse is also true - tariffs on EU goods will be paid by British consumers, not EU companies).

    The real cost of leaving the EU to British companies is the lost business due to their goods being made artificially more expensive in the EU minus the profits on the next-best alternative business they can do.
    I think you are not really understanding the point. if the EU imposes tariffs on UK made goods/services this is a competitive expense that UK companies have to bear. ie all things being equal, a UK made widget costs the same as a French made widget - but if there is a tariff on the UK made item the UK manufacturer has to reduce its factory gate prices (a direct cost) or concede that it will lose sales (an indirect cost).

    I am not saying that a tariff is something the UK company necessarily pays (although that may sometimes be pat of the deal - due to an arrangement with the buyer, or because the manufacturer is also the direct retailer in the state exported to).
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    No, it is a discussion about facts, and you aren't presenting any. Your claim was that the flag was to be adopted as part of the 2004 Constitution, and that in the face of opposition we were told that the flag wouldn't be adopted - but that was a lie and it still was.

    I have shown that your recollection has little merit, because the 12 stars are on euro coinage and banknotes, which date from, at the latest, 2002 - the banknotes also have the flag. I also gave you a reference that the flag was adopted, by a motion from the European Parliament, in 1985. Which, again, brings into doubt your recollection, or what you were paying attention to.
    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.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    I think I said "probably", but even if I didn't the actual facts are unknown, because the tariff regime could be asymmetric - in the actual tariffs or the types of goods imported/exported.



    I think you are not really understanding the point. if the EU imposes tariffs on UK made goods/services this is a competitive expense that UK companies have to bear. ie all things being equal, a UK made widget costs the same as a French made widget - but if there is a tariff on the UK made item the UK manufacturer has to reduce its factory gate prices (a direct cost) or concede that it will lose sales (an indirect cost).

    I am not saying that a tariff is something the UK company necessarily pays (although that may sometimes be pat of the deal - due to an arrangement with the buyer, or because the manufacturer is also the direct retailer in the state exported to).
    I am not disputing that there are deadweight losses when trade is disrupted by laws. I am disputing your estimate of the magnitude of those losses.

    You have now said that a tariff being levied on your goods is equivalent to being forced to charge a higher prices for them but not receiving a higher margin for them. This is correct. The error is assuming that if UK output of export goods to the EU drops by 5% due to lost sales caused by higher prices, the loss to the UK economy is 5% of its prior output directed to EU exports. 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%.

    So if we take UK exports (about $500bn) and then that proportion of exports that are EU exports (about 40%, or $200bn), and then say 10% loss from that ($20bn) as loss of trade due to GAT tariffs, and then 10% of that as actual deadweight loss to the UK economy ($2bn) we have a back of the envelope estimate of expected GDP loss due to leaving the EU even with the establishment of no bilateral relationship at all, and it turns out to be about 0.07% of the current GDP.

    Frankly I do not think that the details of international trade matter very much to national prosperity unless you are dealing with a sole supplier of a certain good or if someone can cut you off from all suppliers and not just their own market (e.g. due to being at war and imposing a blockade).
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    for perhaps the only time in my life i find myself agreeing with D:dolphin:wk:dolphin:ns

    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/yo...n-eu-fhd90jvxt
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    Illegally low wages are illegal. That is not really an argument about immigration, it is an argument about UK enforcement of labour laws. And, I think you are wrong about people's focus on this issue. Look at the poll information on this page:

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...oll-referendum

    Something like 55% of people are saying the immigration is one of the most important issues affecting the UK (and it is the top ranking issue). IPSOS MORI says that the issue is not so important, but still 27% say this is the issue that will sway them (I think this is "single" issue):

    https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchp...eferendum.aspx



    I think you may be the exception, all I seem to see on the news is people going on about immigration all the time.
    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.

    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.

    (Original post by typonaut)
    I don't really know what you mean by "integration" - what you might mean will be interpreted as different things by different people. However, I think the problem with this argument is that you are focusing on things in the future which may or may not happen, and which also may trigger another referendum. While I think it is reasonable to think about such things, I do believe that there is too much focus on such issues.

    What the referendum is about is deciding whether the UK wants to be a member of the EU today, knowing what we know of it and how definite treaty obligations in place will change it. ie we know that most member states are committed to joining the eurozone at some point. What we don't know is if they will ever meet the criteria, or in fact whether future treaty changes will remove that obligation.

    Let's say they all do meet the criteria - it might take 20 or 30 years to get to that stage.
    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. But in the mid-long term, I believe we would be far better off outside. 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.

    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.



    (Original post by typonaut)
    I think this is somewhat short-sighted in many ways. The most obvious of these is that even if the UK were not a member of the EU we can't actually detach ourselves from Europe and sail off into the North Atlantic. Members or not, if there are external migrant issues in Europe then these probably have to be solved on a Europe-wide scale. We can see this now, with people managing to get across the channel from mainland Europe even though we supposedly have border controls. Trying to avoid these issues just makes them worse - a concerted European effort is required, not a piecemeal, state-by-state approach.

    There are always political movements - the idea is to try to take their power away with national government policy. That's effectively why we are having a referendum - the Conservative party is trying to de-claw UKIP.

    I disagree that the problem of Greece is being swept under the carpet. The bigger issue that you are missing is that Greece is in debt because Greece spent a lot of money it did not have. If Greece were not in the eurozone, and the Greek people have voted on this issue, its economy would be unstable for years, probably decades. They would have extremely high inflation and a constantly devaluing currency, and the Greek people know what that is like because they have suffered it in the past.

    The position of Greece in the eurozone is not ideal, but it is far from the worst outcome.

    The same is more or less true for Italy, Spain and Portugal - these economies would be very unstable without the benefit of the euro. You might want to wish that on those states, but I'm pretty sure that sentiment is not shared In Rome, Madrid or Lisbon.

    As previously, we cannot fully decouple from these issues, I'm not sure we can even partially decouple.

    Personally I believe that the time effort and money the UK puts into the EU is well worth the price if it establishes economic stability across the member states - and that is what it appears to be doing.
    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 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. 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.

    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.

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

    Now Greece is in a much worse state than we were in the 70s. And the only reason it could get into such a state was because the EU kept it afloat, when really it should have been forced to confront the issues within its economy much sooner.

    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    This is not a cooperative effort by independent states to work together to build security for their industries, this is Germany invading those countries and organising those industries to serve its war efforts.

    I'm not really sure how you can conflate the ECSC with Germany's invasion of its neighbours and the confiscation of their industrial assets.
    The idea of unifying the market was the same. Many of those who were involved in the WWII EEC were later those who designed the post WWII EEC.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    ....
    Frankly I do not think that the details of international trade matter very much to national prosperity unless you are dealing with a sole supplier of a certain good or if someone can cut you off from all suppliers and not just their own market (e.g. due to being at war and imposing a blockade).
    Well said! As David Cameron put it before the "Remain" campaign started spreading lies:



    In fact the entire Remain campaign is about diverting attention from the fundamental issue, which is that within 10-20 years we will lose self government in the UK if we remain. This Remain strategy has been spotted elsewhere - see Why is the EU Referendum Happening?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    Well said! As David Cameron put it before the "Remain" campaign started spreading lies:


    And that still remains Camerons opinion. We could survie outside the EU just as Scotland could survive outside the UK, but economically we will be poorer.

    If you want to see hypocrisy and dishonest opportunitism, behold:


    Name:  13131491_1165834936790162_2316116555588256512_o.png
Views: 46
Size:  359.3 KB
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    And that still remains Camerons opinion. We could survie outside the EU just as Scotland could survive outside the UK, but economically we will be poorer.

    If you want to see hypocrisy and dishonest opportunitism, behold:


    Name:  13131491_1165834936790162_2316116555588256512_o.png
Views: 46
Size:  359.3 KB
    No he said the argument wasnt about economic survival. Even the Treasury could only concoct an imagined lack of gain in prosperity by of a couple of hundred pounds a family a year over 15 years! Of course, no-one can see economics 15 years into the future anyway.

    The economic argument is just a diversion and the Leave side should point this out at every opportunity. The real issue is that we will lose self-government if we Remain and be at the mercy of the vicious swings in European politics, swings that have not happened in the UK for centuries.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    No he said the argument wasnt about economic survival. Even the Treasury could only concoct an imagined lack of gain in prosperity by of a couple of hundred pounds a family a year over 15 years! Of course, no-one can see economics 15 years into the future anyway.

    The economic argument is just a diversion and the Leave side should point this out at every opportunity. The real issue is that we will lose self-government if we Remain and be at the mercy of the vicious swings in European politics, swings that have not happened in the UK for centuries.
    No but we can make predictions based on what we know. The Eurozone has actually outperformed the US and UK economies this year. I would love to stop talking about economics but Brexiters keep telling porkies and need to get their facts straight.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    No but we can make predictions based on what we know. The Eurozone has actually outperformed the US and UK economies this year. I would love to stop talking about economics but Brexiters keep telling porkies and need to get their facts straight.
    The economic arguments are simply a Remain campaign tactic. The Leave campaign is crazy to take part. Brexit will make little difference in the scale of the UK economy and all this talk about tariffs and contributions usually revolves around amounts that are a tiny fraction of the cost of projects such as HS2.

    Remain and Leave should stop the economic BS and focus on sovereignty. If we remain we will, eventually, lose self government. I believe this will happen sooner than later. So who cares about self government? The Austrian Presidential elections should be a warning, one day we can be happily minding our own business and the next we could find ourselves in the hands of a fascist EU.

    I find it astonishing that Remain voters believe that the EU is just like the UK and by voting Remain they will not be exposed to very dangerous political changes. For goodness sake, it is only 20 years since they were "ethnic cleansing" in the Balkans! As part of an EU political union, with only about 10% of the vote in the EU Council and Parliament the people of the UK will just be swept aside.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    The economic arguments are simply a Remain campaign tactic. The Leave campaign is crazy to take part. Brexit will make little difference in the scale of the UK economy and all this talk about tariffs and contributions usually revolves around amounts that are a tiny fraction of the cost of projects such as HS2.

    Remain and Leave should stop the economic BS and focus on sovereignty. If we remain we will, eventually, lose self government. I believe this will happen sooner than later. So who cares about self government? The Austrian Presidential elections should be a warning, one day we can be happily minding our own business and the next we could find ourselves in the hands of a fascist EU.

    I find it astonishing that Remain voters believe that the EU is just like the UK and by voting Remain they will not be exposed to very dangerous political changes. For goodness sake, it is only 20 years since they were "ethnic cleansing" in the Balkans! As part of an EU political union, with only about 10% of the vote in the EU Council and Parliament the people of the UK will just be swept aside.
    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.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the bear)
    for perhaps the only time in my life i find myself agreeing with D:dolphin:wk:dolphin:ns

    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/yo...n-eu-fhd90jvxt
    That's democracy yes. It also applies when electing representatives.

    If you think it is such a problem go look to places like China for inspiration on how to do things differently.

    I think scientists and academics in general have a bit of a bias for technocracy under the false understanding that everything would be much better if we just gave all the relevant power to relevant intellectuals.

    What Dakwins says also applies to the economy. Yet what happened when we listened to the experts? What happened with the euro?

    I suspect Dawkins wants an answer on the EU that has been tested in a lab, like what can be done with DNA. That isn't going to happen.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    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.
    The rise of the right-learning populist parties, think FPOE, is more to do with declining sovereignty and increased federalism. Economic hardship, for example high youth unemployment, is due to increased centralised government, who impose unnecessary regulation on business. For example, although it's a relatively straight forward process to start a new company in France, hiring talent remains a long legal process with multiple stages and avoidable bureaucracy.

    More than the economic fallout of 2008, it's frustrating to see more and more people think that increased public involvement in what should be individual affairs, is the solution. It hasn't been in the past and it won't be now.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    That's democracy yes. It also applies when electing representatives.

    If you think it is such a problem go look to places like China for inspiration on how to do things differently.

    I think scientists and academics in general have a bit of a bias for technocracy under the false understanding that everything would be much better if we just gave all the relevant power to relevant intellectuals.

    What Dakwins says also applies to the economy. Yet what happened when we listened to the experts? What happened with the euro?

    I suspect Dawkins wants an answer on the EU that has been tested in a lab, like what can be done with DNA. That isn't going to happen.
    Well stated.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    Well stated.
    It's bizarre how many conservatives have that view of democracy when a really good example of a technocracy going so wrong is Leninism... Handing absolute power to Marxists who think they know precisely what is wrong with the world and how to go about fixing it is the example of why technocracy can be so dangerous.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    It's bizarre how many conservatives have that view of democracy when a really good example of a technocracy going so wrong is Leninism... Handing absolute power to Marxists who think they know precisely what is wrong with the world and how to go about fixing it is the example of why technocracy can be so dangerous.
    This is based on a bi-polar view of the political spectrum (socialism vs. conservatism). This, in my opinion, is no longer the case with classical liberalism becoming a dominant force in global politics. In nations such as the U.S. or the U.K., although such individuals are indeed associated with the conservative movement, there is significant conflict between the two, especially in regards to economic and social policies. Therefore, it's very important to state that not all movements associated with conservatism are necessarily identical and therefore don't share this view of the world.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    This is based on a bi-polar view of the political spectrum (socialism vs. conservatism). This, in my opinion, is no longer the case with classical liberalism becoming a dominant force in global politics. In nations such as the U.S. or the U.K., although such individuals are indeed associated with the conservative movement, there is significant conflict between the two, especially in regards to economic and social policies. Therefore, it's very important to state that not all movements associated with conservatism are necessarily identical and therefore don't share this view of the world.
    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    This is based on a bi-polar view of the political spectrum (socialism vs. conservatism). This, in my opinion, is no longer the case with classical liberalism becoming a dominant force in global politics. In nations such as the U.S. or the U.K., although such individuals are indeed associated with the conservative movement, there is significant conflict between the two, especially in regards to economic and social policies. Therefore, it's very important to state that not all movements associated with conservatism are necessarily identical and therefore don't share this view of the world.
    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.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
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.