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

if Turkey and Iceland have free trade deals with the EU, why wouldn't we? Watch

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    no they don't - they entered schengan voluntarily. schengan =/= the EU, or else we would also have had to enter schengan.
    Turkey isn't in Schengen.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    As the 5th largest global economy I very much doubt that the UK would suffer from a Brexit. We import massively more from the EU than we export to it, and the EU is the only worldwide trading block that in in a steady decline. In the meantime, we are missing out on free trade with the most rapidly growing economies which just happen to be (for the most part) our former partners in the Commonwealth.
    It seems that some people on here are unaware of the fact that under the terms of the Lisbon Treaty, any country that holds a referendum on membership of the EU and subsequently votes to leave, will be granted "Preferred trading partner status" and will be given preferential terms on all trade deals. This is enforceable by the WTO which, incidentally, Britain would be allowed to reoccupy our seat at.
    When we consider that major manufacturers have already pledged to remain in the UK if/when we vote to leave, and that Germany currently export almost a million more vehicles to the UK than we export to the EU, you get some idea of the ridiculousness of the claim that these countries would hamper trade with us - it would be economic suicide to do such a thing.
    The last point I will make for now concerns the idea that we would be forced to abide by all EU regulations without having a say in the legislation. This is such a ridiculous idea that I can barely bring myself to explain but, here goes; the simple fact is that on the last 71 occasions that British MEP's have voted against potentially damaging legislation in the European Parliament, we have been outvoted on ...wait for it.... 71 occasions! We have NO influence in that establishment because Britain needs to be kept weak if the EU are to keep us subdued enough to be good little Europeans.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    I wasn't talking about turkey.
    here's the context:


    (Original post by sleepysnooze)

    (Original post by asmuse123)
    Iceland has to give free migration to EU members, and Turkey would, if it wasn't so poor. But as they get poorer and the Northern EU countries get richer off global warming, Turkey probably won't have these FTA deals any more.
    no they don't - they entered schengan voluntarily. schengan =/= the EU, or else we would also have had to enter schengan.
    Looks like you were talking about Turkey, or you weren't reading what you were commenting on.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Craig J S)
    …and the EU is the only worldwide trading block that in in a steady decline.
    Can we have some data to back-up this claim?

    In the meantime, we are missing out on free trade with the most rapidly growing economies which just happen to be (for the most part) our former partners in the Commonwealth.
    The point you are missing here is that they are indeed our former partners, they are also our former colonies - there's no going back. These countries are now in trade arrangements of their own making, rather than depending on the Mother Country to decide their economic affairs for them.

    It seems that some people on here are unaware of the fact that under the terms of the Lisbon Treaty, any country that holds a referendum on membership of the EU and subsequently votes to leave, will be granted "Preferred trading partner status" and will be given preferential terms on all trade deals. This is enforceable by the WTO which, incidentally, Britain would be allowed to reoccupy our seat at.
    Can you give us a list of the EU's preferred trading partners? I think that you will find that it is a very long list, and that they all pay tariffs to import their goods into the EU. Is that really the position that you want the UK to compete in?

    When we consider that major manufacturers have already pledged to remain in the UK if/when we vote to leave, and that Germany currently export almost a million more vehicles to the UK than we export to the EU, you get some idea of the ridiculousness of the claim that these countries would hamper trade with us - it would be economic suicide to do such a thing.
    One German manufacturer (BMW) has already told its workforce in the UK that the UK leaving the EU is a risk to jobs. Large manufacturers are not going to leave the UK overnight, but when it comes to modernising or rationalising their manufacturing base they are going to be more inclined to cut a UK workforce than one in the EU, and more so one in the Eurozone. The UK is already at a disadvantage in terms of investment being outside the Eurozone (because this stabilises costs across their businesses - no fluctuating exchange rates, reduced costs in moving money around), you can add to that disadvantage by taking us outside the EU and adding tariffs to all our goods (and probably tariffs to imports, which will increase the cost of living).

    The last point I will make for now concerns the idea that we would be forced to abide by all EU regulations without having a say in the legislation. This is such a ridiculous idea that I can barely bring myself to explain but, here goes; the simple fact is that on the last 71 occasions that British MEP's have voted against potentially damaging legislation in the European Parliament, we have been outvoted on ...wait for it.... 71 occasions! We have NO influence in that establishment because Britain needs to be kept weak if the EU are to keep us subdued enough to be good little Europeans.
    Can you tell us over what period these 71 defeats have taken place? Can you tell us what those votes were about? Can you tell us how many votes, over the same period, have gone our way? Just for a bit of balance on the facts of course?

    I think the interesting thing about regulation is that no one from the LEAVE campaign seems to be seriously suggesting that this demon you complain about will actually go away. ie, no one is saying that we will get rid of this list of regulations, or that legislation. Politicians don't want to get rid of regulations, creating them is their raison d'etre - the only change is that the regulations will be created by the UK on it's own (none will disappear). Oh, but actually, they probably won't be created by the UK on its own because to export to the EU we'll have to meet their standards, and their regulations, so we'll just be doing the same thing anyway!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    here's the context:




    Looks like you were talking about Turkey, or you weren't reading what you were commenting on.
    okay apparently I was, but I don't remember even saying it - that was incorrect then - iceland and norway are though, I assumed I was talking about that but maybe I wasn't
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    To answer the initial question this thread poses, it isn't obvious to me that there is a free trade agreement between the EU and Turkey, The UK government says this:

    3.8 Do tariff quotas affect imports from Turkey?
    Yes. Tariff quotas still apply on some commodity codes, mainly agricultural products
    https://www.gov.uk/government/public...de-with-turkey

    Which indicates that there are at least some restrictions and tariffs in place.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by typonaut)
    To answer the initial question this thread poses, it isn't obvious to me that there is a free trade agreement between the EU and Turkey, The UK government says this:



    https://www.gov.uk/government/public...de-with-turkey

    Which indicates that there are at least some restrictions and tariffs in place.
    That's just because of the EU being stuck in the past an being protectionist in areas, aka CAP.

    Anybody who suggests that free movement would be a necessity of a deal might want to look at the nations with FTAs, pretty sure the likes of South Korea and Mexico don't have free movement for instance. It's worth noting that we may well get less than favourable terms which are then changed further down the line, they don't want to make brexit too easy to try to stop others doing the same, but they will also want a decent deal, which will make things difficult. It is also worth considering that according to somebody I was talking to at the EU Parliament the other day we could in theory have a FTA with America in about a year after the actual exit, the EU will probably still bebyears off at that point.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    That's just because of the EU being stuck in the past an being protectionist in areas, aka CAP.
    Could be, but this is the body you're talking about having a free trade agreement with…!?

    Anybody who suggests that free movement would be a necessity of a deal might want to look at the nations with FTAs, pretty sure the likes of South Korea and Mexico don't have free movement for instance. It's worth noting that we may well get less than favourable terms which are then changed further down the line, they don't want to make brexit too easy to try to stop others doing the same, but they will also want a decent deal, which will make things difficult. It is also worth considering that according to somebody I was talking to at the EU Parliament the other day we could in theory have a FTA with America in about a year after the actual exit, the EU will probably still bebyears off at that point.
    Please cite the free trade agreements in place, and that these allow for the free movement of all goods, services and capital.

    Frankly you are living in la-la land if you believe that we can, in short measure, have a free trade agreement with the USA, and that this will have no affect on UK sovereignty or legislation. The USA is notoriously aggressive in getting what it wants, you can see this in the UK's acquiescence in the widely criticised UK-USA extradition treaty:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK–US_...treaty_of_2003

    There are other examples, including US agreements with Australia and New Zealand which have involved those countries changing their laws.

    Look at the progress of the TTIP "free trade" treaty between the EU and USA, here's what the Independent says about it:

    TTIP is about reducing the regulatory barriers to trade for big business, things like food safety law, environmental legislation, banking regulations and the sovereign powers of individual nations… Since before TTIP negotiations began last February, the process has been secretive and undemocratic.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...u-9779688.html
    Real talks about this thing have been going on since 2011 (with around 15 years of background talk prior to that) and it's estimated that the discussions won't be over until 2020 (let alone ratification and implementation).

    Or, let's take a look at the much vaunted free trade agreement between the EU and Canada. For a start, as our wonderful prime minister has told us, this agreement does not cover financial services - which is a significant part of the UK economy. It also does not cover all goods:

    Nearly 92% of EU agriculture and food products will be exported to Canada duty-free.

    http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ceta/
    Negotiations over this treaty have been going on since 2009, with background discussion prior to that, and it still is not ratified nor implemented. As far as sovereignty and ability to make one's own laws go, take a look at this section of the Wikipedia article covering CETA, and the changes in legislation required by Canada:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compreh...ght_provisions

    Note in particular the references to WIPO. Here you can see that such agreements have force under international supranational organisations (like WIPO and the WTO). These organisations have no democratic oversight. You may be able to take potshots at the EU over issues you do not like, but at least we have a democratically elected European Parliament.

    I understand that there are people who do not like the EU. At the same time there are people that do not like government, and in the USA there are still ongoing arguments about the role of the federal government with regard to the sovereignty of the states. But, these structures are the consequence of ongoing democratic process and globalisation. There are a raft of politicians out there, who frankly I don't really understand (ie I don't really know what their underlying agenda is, other than craving more power and publicity for themselves - but perhaps that is their raison d'etre), arguing for an exit from the EU. These people are largely using populist arguments that have little substance in fact, or which are inflated well beyond their true position in the great scheme of things.

    A good example here is that buffoon Boris Johnson. Yesterday he was telling people how great it would be for the UK if we had "Brexit" (I don't understand this term to start off with, because the UK ≠ Britain). One of his motivations for this is that "we shouldn't be dictated to about the age at which young children can blow up balloons". This seems not to be an issue, to me, upon which the future of this country should be based - even if it were true.

    And guess what, it turns out that it is not true to start with:

    …Several media have falsely claimed that the Directive would ban children under 8 from inflating balloons without adult supervision… Other inaccurate reports have stated that children under 14 would be banned from using paper blow outs… Information reported by the media is not correct.

    http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release....htm?locale=en
    You'll note that the press release linked to is from October 2011. Surely Boris does a little research before he starts spouting off his examples, the information is readily available!?

    This measure is just akin to the warnings on toys that contain small parts.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    we're the 5th richest country in the world, too. how is the claim that the UK wouldn't remain to trade freely with the EU if we leave anything more than a scare tactic, or fear mongering?! surely the EU would be telling turkey and iceland "we're not having a free trade agreement with you unless you join us politically/federally"? I understand that we need the EU countries more than they need us (seeing as there is less of us and more of them), but is that *really* going to convince the EU that it is a good idea to not freely trade with the 5th richest country in the world just because, for very logical reasons, we left their political mechanisms?!

    if the EU doesn't respect us enough to trade freely simply because we decided to self-determine in our own rational national interest, why on earth should we respect them enough to remain in?! this makes no sense! all this talk of jobs being connected to our membership is totally baseless! if the EU really did block free trade with the UK for the reason of politics, *surely* this would be absolutely terrible for the EU's international reputation? it would be pure imperialism and aggression to do that to a liberal democracy like the UK - it's the message that the UK doesn't deserve both its democracy *and* its free trade with the EU
    Its stupid scaring twatheads, they said britain wouldn't get what we want, WE DID. Both area bit biased but overall we will remain as not an average person concludes and won't want to change so we'll stay anyway one way or another.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    The US and China are the first and second richest countries in the world and they don't have FTAs.
    It's an interesting observation.

    The EU has few FTAs with large, rich economies and a lot of FTAs with small, poor economies.

    The biggest and richest countries the EU has FTAs with are the likes of South Korea, Turkey, Mexico, Chile.

    So if having an FTA with the EU is really important for wealth, how come all these rich countries don't have FTAs with the EU? Why is Mexico poor but Australia and Japan rich?

    Could it be that having an FTA with the EU, while probably nice to have, just ain't very important?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The EU could cut off its nose to spite it's face by refusing a trade deal and possibly raising tariffs, but imo that would just speed up the demise of the EU as European corporates would then join their respective Euroskeptic lobbies, and we have the high ground as we have a trade deficit with the EU, and any lost trade can be made up for with domestic consumption.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    It's an interesting observation.

    The EU has few FTAs with large, rich economies and a lot of FTAs with small, poor economies.

    The biggest and richest countries the EU has FTAs with are the likes of South Korea, Turkey, Mexico, Chile.

    So if having an FTA with the EU is really important for wealth, how come all these rich countries don't have FTAs with the EU? Why is Mexico poor but Australia and Japan rich?

    Could it be that having an FTA with the EU, while probably nice to have, just ain't very important?
    A free trade agreement isn't the same as being part of the single market.

    In a free trade agreement imports are still subject to some import duty just greatly reduced and it doesn't mean everything will be covered too.

    There is a reason why vast majority of Hyundais and Kias sold in EU are actually made or assembled within the EU rather than imported directly from S.Korea. Huge oppositions from Italy and France in allowing the Korean makes from being imported into the EU.

    It certainly would be the case that Ford, Vauxhall and possibly Nissan and Toyota would seriously reconsider the future of their production plants in UK should it no longer be part of the single market.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    *snip*
    Just wanted to say, PRSOM. All brilliant stuff, this.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alfissti)
    A free trade agreement isn't the same as being part of the single market.

    In a free trade agreement imports are still subject to some import duty just greatly reduced and it doesn't mean everything will be covered too.

    There is a reason why vast majority of Hyundais and Kias sold in EU are actually made or assembled within the EU rather than imported directly from S.Korea. Huge oppositions from Italy and France in allowing the Korean makes from being imported into the EU.

    It certainly would be the case that Ford, Vauxhall and possibly Nissan and Toyota would seriously reconsider the future of their production plants in UK should it no longer be part of the single market.
    This doesn't have anything to do with what I have written. I have not argued that the UK would easily get a free trade agreement with the EU, I have argued that it is not very important whether we have free trade with the EU or not.

    You say that Italy wants to place tariffs on Kia to protect Fiat. Assuming that is true, the effect of the EU in this regard is to make Britons pay more for Kias in order to subsidise Fiat. Why is doing that in our interest? Even if we wanted to subsidise losers, which unlike most continental countries we generally don't, Fiat isn't even our loser. If we were independent of the EU we could drop tariffs on Kia and stop subsidising Fiat.

    Now, maybe there are other huge benefits to being inside the EU that would counter this benefit of leaving. But if that's so, why is it that South Korea is richer than Italy and Japan is richer than France? These countries aren't in trade blocs, have few natural resources, little military power, and until recently with the rise of China have been a long way from trade partners. What is more likely is that membership of a trade bloc is not an important factor in economic prosperity.

    I see no practical evidence, nor theoretical reason to believe that all this horse-trading over trade agreements makes anyone richer, other than politically-connected private interests like Fiat at the expense of other EU citizens.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    One German manufacturer (BMW) has already told its workforce in the UK that the UK leaving the EU is a risk to jobs. Large manufacturers are not going to leave the UK overnight, but when it comes to modernising or rationalising their manufacturing base they are going to be more inclined to cut a UK workforce than one in the EU, and more so one in the Eurozone. The UK is already at a disadvantage in terms of investment being outside the Eurozone (because this stabilises costs across their businesses - no fluctuating exchange rates, reduced costs in moving money around), you can add to that disadvantage by taking us outside the EU and adding tariffs to all our goods (and probably tariffs to imports, which will increase the cost of living).
    Uh huh... the Eurozone has 10.3% unemployment, the UK has 5.2% unemployment. You think being outside this bloc is a threat to jobs? There's an old joke about the economist who looks at the data and says, "Sure, it doesn't look good in practice, but how does it work out in theory?".


    Encore: According to HMG the UK has not only the largest inward foreign direct investment stock in Europe, it has the second largest in the world



    https://www.gov.uk/government/public...t-2013-2014--2

    Sure, the Euro doesn't seem important in practice, but just look at the theory!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    Uh huh... the Eurozone has 10.3% unemployment, the UK has 5.2% unemployment. You think being outside this bloc is a threat to jobs?
    I think it is generally pretty stupid to look at the entire eurozone and make any conclusions about anything. If you want to compare the UK to parts of the eurozone, then sure, let's do that: (Google says) unemployment rate in Germany: 4.7%, France: 10.5%, Netherlands: 7.0%, UK: 5.4%, Denmark: 6.3% (because the Krona is tied to the euro), Belgium: 8.5%…

    I think we all know that UK rates are skewed, due to the government not wanting to register the unemployed. But either way, Germany's employment rate is better than the UK's.

    Let's try growth (World Bank, 2014) http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG:
    UK: 2.9%, Ireland: 5.2%, France: 0.2%, Germany: 1.6%, Denmark: 1.1%, Netherlands: 1.0%, Belgium: 1.3%, Italy: -0.4%, Spain: 1.4%.

    Hmm, what does that tell us about the eurozone - probably that there's nothing uniform about the eurozone.

    The reason I say the UK is at a disadvantage being outside the eurozone, is because the swings in currency exchange rates, and the costs associated with such, give a built-in extra cost for the UK economy in exporting to the EU. If you think in terms of the large vehicle manufacturers serving the EU market where would you prefer to manufacture your cars? In an area with variable exchange rates that buys 10% of your output, or an area with no currency fluctuation that buys 70%+ of your output? I think that's a pretty easy question to answer, al other things being equal.

    Encore: According to HMG the UK has not only the largest inward foreign direct investment stock in Europe, it has the second largest in the world
    And do you think that would be positively or negatively affected by the UK being in the eurozone and/or exiting the EU? I think it would be positive if we were in the eurozone (ie we would have even greater inward investment) and decrease if we left the EU.

    Sure, the Euro doesn't seem important in practice, but just look at the theory!
    You're going to have to explain that one - just not getting your point.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    A Free trade deal is not the same as having unrestricted access to the EU.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    I think it is generally pretty stupid to look at the entire eurozone and make any conclusions about anything. If you want to compare the UK to parts of the eurozone, then sure, let's do that: (Google says) unemployment rate in Germany: 4.7%, France: 10.5%, Netherlands: 7.0%, UK: 5.4%, Denmark: 6.3% (because the Krona is tied to the euro), Belgium: 8.5%…

    I think we all know that UK rates are skewed, due to the government not wanting to register the unemployed. But either way, Germany's employment rate is better than the UK's.

    Let's try growth (World Bank, 2014) http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG:
    UK: 2.9%, Ireland: 5.2%, France: 0.2%, Germany: 1.6%, Denmark: 1.1%, Netherlands: 1.0%, Belgium: 1.3%, Italy: -0.4%, Spain: 1.4%.

    Hmm, what does that tell us about the eurozone - probably that there's nothing uniform about the eurozone.
    The European Union's own statistics show that the UK has the 4th lowest unemployment in the EU and lower unemployment than every Eurozone state except Germany and Malta. Now, does this prove that the Euro causes unemployment? Not necessarily, but it does mean that the Euro can't be an important factor in causing low unemployment. Either:

    1. the Euro causes unemployment, explaining why the group average and 89% of individual members underperforms the UK on this measure

    or

    2. the Euro reduces unemployment, but its effect is so small that it is overwhelmed by other factors

    Now personally I find #1 more likely - the Euro means that a lot of countries with different needs must adopt the same monetary policy, which in this case has been overly hawkish to accommodate Germany, resulting in huge avoidable unemployment in Spain, Italy, Greece and France, which needed expansionary policy instead - but even if it's #2, the argument for being a member is very weak. Why should we take a big risk, and give up a lot of sovereignty, for a small benefit?

    The reason I say the UK is at a disadvantage being outside the eurozone, is because the swings in currency exchange rates, and the costs associated with such, give a built-in extra cost for the UK economy in exporting to the EU. If you think in terms of the large vehicle manufacturers serving the EU market where would you prefer to manufacture your cars? In an area with variable exchange rates that buys 10% of your output, or an area with no currency fluctuation that buys 70%+ of your output? I think that's a pretty easy question to answer, al other things being equal.
    Swings in currency exchange rates are not an unmitigated bad thing. We used to have a system in which currency exchange rates were essentially fixed relative to one another: the gold standard. It was a deliberate decision to abandon this system. Free floating exchange rates do mean that there is exchange rate risk - which imposes some cost although not a large one as it can be hedged - but they also decrease the risk of e.g. the currency becoming permanent overvalued, as the market will correct that sort of mispricing. The Euro is a hybrid policy: it's a free-floating currency so its value does respond to market pressures, but it responds to market pressures acting on the whole Eurozone. As you point out the Eurozone is inhomogeneous, so policy that is right for the Eurozone on average can be wrong for large areas for long periods of time.

    And do you think that would be positively or negatively affected by the UK being in the eurozone and/or exiting the EU? I think it would be positive if we were in the eurozone (ie we would have even greater inward investment) and decrease if we left the EU.
    I think if we were Eurozone members we would have higher unemployment as we would be forced to adopt German monetary policy, which is not optimum for the UK. This would damage us much more than currency conversion cost reductions would help (and note, that for most of our investment partners currency conversion costs would remain - why shouldn't we unilaterally adopt the US dollar?!).

    If we leave the EU, I can't really say. It depends entirely on the policies we would adopt thereafter. I think that if leaving the EU leads to further liberalisation of the economy, this will help us much more than leaving the EU might hurt, but that might not happen.

    You're going to have to explain that one - just not getting your point.
    You're proudly claiming benefits for membership of EU institutions that, on inspection of the evidence, show opposite trends. Countries in the Eurozone have higher unemployment and lower foreign direct investment than the UK. Now for sure, these matters are complicated and maybe the UK just has some other huge advantages (which?) that simply more than outweigh the huge advantages of the Euro and the EU. But if you want to make that case I think you need to offer a bit more meat - justify that that is what is actually going on, and at least acknowledge the problem with your case - rather than just asserting that Euro membership "obviously" has employment and investment benefits, based on theoretical arguments. It's also possible that your theoretical arguments are just wrong, and that EU institutions tend to reduce employment and competitiveness.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    The European Union's own statistics show that the UK has the 4th lowest unemployment in the EU and lower unemployment than every Eurozone state except Germany and Malta. Now, does this prove that the Euro causes unemployment? Not necessarily, but it does mean that the Euro can't be an important factor in causing low unemployment. Either:

    1. the Euro causes unemployment, explaining why the group average and 89% of individual members underperforms the UK on this measure

    or

    2. the Euro reduces unemployment, but its effect is so small that it is overwhelmed by other factors

    Now personally I find #1 more likely - the Euro means that a lot of countries with different needs must adopt the same monetary policy, which in this case has been overly hawkish to accommodate Germany, resulting in huge avoidable unemployment in Spain, Italy, Greece and France, which needed expansionary policy instead - but even if it's #2, the argument for being a member is very weak. Why should we take a big risk, and give up a lot of sovereignty, for a small benefit?
    I believe that there are other issues. General competitiveness in the economy for a start. Being in the eurozone doesn't increase unemployment, it's just that those member states had poor economies in the first place. Span, Greece and Italy could devalue their currencies, but that wouldn't really help their underlying problems - it's a relatively short-term fix for a long term problem. Currency stability is better for those member states and for any investor.

    For the UK the benefits would be relatively small, but cumulative. Manufacturers would be more willing to take the long-term risks required to set up large plants.

    Swings in currency exchange rates are not an unmitigated bad thing. We used to have a system in which currency exchange rates were essentially fixed relative to one another: the gold standard. It was a deliberate decision to abandon this system. Free floating exchange rates do mean that there is exchange rate risk - which imposes some cost although not a large one as it can be hedged - but they also decrease the risk of e.g. the currency becoming permanent overvalued, as the market will correct that sort of mispricing. The Euro is a hybrid policy: it's a free-floating currency so its value does respond to market pressures, but it responds to market pressures acting on the whole Eurozone. As you point out the Eurozone is inhomogeneous, so policy that is right for the Eurozone on average can be wrong for large areas for long periods of time.
    You cannot hedge exchange rate risks over long periods, decades is what is really required. There's a cost associated with that hedging too.


    I think if we were Eurozone members we would have higher unemployment as we would be forced to adopt German monetary policy, which is not optimum for the UK. This would damage us much more than currency conversion cost reductions would help (and note, that for most of our investment partners currency conversion costs would remain - why shouldn't we unilaterally adopt the US dollar?!).
    I think you are wrong, for the reasons stated above. There would be little point in adopting the USD, as 45% of our exports go to the EU.

    You're proudly claiming benefits for membership of EU institutions that, on inspection of the evidence, show opposite trends.
    That's just your speculation, not evidence.

    Countries in the Eurozone have higher unemployment and lower foreign direct investment than the UK. Now for sure, these matters are complicated and maybe the UK just has some other huge advantages (which?) that simply more than outweigh the huge advantages of the Euro and the EU. But if you want to make that case I think you need to offer a bit more meat - justify that that is what is actually going on, and at least acknowledge the problem with your case - rather than just asserting that Euro membership "obviously" has employment and investment benefits, based on theoretical arguments. It's also possible that your theoretical arguments are just wrong, and that EU institutions tend to reduce employment and competitiveness.
    You are talking about a homogenous lump again, and we know that the eurozone, and the EU for that matter, is not a homogenous lump. If we think about it wed also have to acknowledge that the UK is not an homogenous lump - different regions will benefit in different ways.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Brussels sprouts
    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

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