UKC

So, Michael Gove is claiming Britain can help itself to all the benefits of the EU Single Market without making any membership contribution or having to follow any of the rules.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36074853

Is he for real?? Would any of us even run a climbing club on that basis?

Trouble is, I fear far to many gullible Brits will believe him.

This "Britain is so wonderful and so important they can't do without us, and the rest of Europe will roll over and give us any terms we ask for" rhetoric really disturbs me. Have none of them looked at the quality of life in Scandinavia or the standard of living in Germany or the Netherlands?? Don't they understand that other countries have some self-respect too??

Martin

In reply to Martin Hore:

Yes, he can't possibly know what sort of benefits we'll be able to negotiate. It's definitely an arrogant, presumptuous attitude, but he's got nothing to lose. If it doesn't work out well he can just blame Jonny Foreigner and the majority won't remember it was he who overstated the outcome (in a deliberately non-specific way).

In reply to Martin Hore:

I'll be very surprised if they sign him, but stranger things have happened I suppose...

In reply to Martin Hore:

He is basically right. Single market is good for Britain as well as for rest of Europe so there is no reason not to negotiate it. Even tiny Iceland or poor Macedonia have access to it. And out of the EU you can have other agreements which EU countries don´t have (like Iceland)

In reply to Martin Hore:

The biggest problem with this referendum is that neither side are able to present the facts. There is a very simple reason for this. There are no facts only opinions. As we haven't left Europe we don't know whether leaving will be a eureka moment or a disaster. Equally we have no idea really what staying in Europe means in the long term - Europe is on rocky ground at the moment and is due quite a lot of change - anything could happen.

In reply to pavelk:

Iceland is a bad example, I.e, a country that 100% of its energy comes from renewable environmentally friendly sources such as geothermal.

Unlike us which are reliant on the French, Chinese, Russians.....

The problem is we don't make anything on any scale anymore and turn out kids whom will be email and teleconference farmers, of which India and China once they get past the quality issues will out perform us and it's a race to the bottom.

I work in research and a huge amount of EU money comes to the UK, money our governments will most likely not set aside should we leave. Unfortunately these funds generate small tech companies which then in turn get bigger and generate specialist local jobs in places like Sheffield and Rotherham which in turn fund the coffee shops, art galleries, bars etc.

In reply to Martin Hore:

Can somebody point out that part of this EU 'Red tape' is a) ensuring a level playing field between competing countries, and b) ensuring that internationally agreed standards for environmental protection are adhered to.

If we left the EU, does anyone suppose that, say, DMM could start to sell gear in the EU without sticking to CE standards. 'Here, but a carabiner, because we've got rid of that pesky EU we can sell it for 10% of other models but trust us, it's safe enough.'

And does anyone really object to the fact that UK employers have to adhere to EU standards of working conditions etc to compete with other EU countries rather than 'competing' by running unregulated sweat shops?

In reply to alx:



Err I think the Aerospace and Defence Industries may beg to differ.

In reply to balmybaldwin:


Agreed to a point, but not all opinions should be granted equal credibility. Gove's "opinion" seems to be based on an assumption that other EU countries will allow UK to make zero financial contribution and opt out of all the rules that set a level playing field for the single market whist still enjoying all the single market's benefits. That's simply not a credible assumption. Put the ball on the other foot. If France or Germany were to request a deal like that would Britain happily continue to pay our way and play by the rules while they got the same benefits for nothing. Of course not.

Martin

In reply to pavelk:


The questionable claim isn't we'll be able to negotiate free trade with the European single market - I don't think that even the most fervent Europhile would argue that. It's that we'll be able to negotiate it without any obligations regarding free movement of people, or financial contributions, or Britain being subject to EU law.

It's fair to say that this would be subject to negotiations and that we don't know what the outcome of those negotiations would be. On the other hand, it seems that a) while Europe has got a lot to lose from less free trade with the UK, the UK has proportionately got a lot more to lose and that b) the EU has a great deal to lose from accepting that member states can walk away from any obligations of membership that they don't like while keeping any benefits that they do like, and hence it'd optimistic-bordering-on-batf*ck-insane to confidently assert that we're definitely going to end up with the have-our-cake-and-eat-it-too arrangement that Gove is claiming.

In reply to jim jones:

Yes, when one thinks that 47 (forty something) percent of our market is the EU while the UK is 7 percent of the EU's, though, it seems potentially self sabotaging to risk making things more complicated for an undetermined time by leaving the EU and spending time and money making sure we continue trading with it.

In reply to Martin Hore:



No. How could they? They have tory-sized intellects.

In reply to balmybaldwin:


Some opinions are just stupid though, I see no reason why the rest of the EU would give us unfettered access to the single market, without having to pay anything into the running of it or follow any of its rules, and welcome such a grossly unfair competition with open arms.

If France, or Germany said to us :

"By the way dear friends, starting from tomorrow we'll stop paying into the European budget, your citizens won't be able to work and live in our country, but you'll keep paying into the EU for us, and we'll also keep competing hard with your companies, on your market, without following any of its rules.
We fart in your general direction, your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries."

Surely we would have a good laugh, say no, and ignore them until they come back to their senses.
Well that's probably what they would do as well.

In reply to alx:

For clarity we are not directly reliant on Russia for fuel:
http://www.britishgas.co.uk/the-source/our-world-of-energy/energys-grand-jo...

In reply to Martin Hore:

Maybe you are the gullible one ?

The main benefit of the single market is not putting up any trade barriers.
That doesn't cost anything. It's implementing trade barriers and making up rules that costs.

In reply to alx:

May be Switzerland is better example. Or tiny Lichtenstein. Generally all comparable European countries perform better outside the EU than their counterparts inside.

In reply to pavelk:

Which European country, comparable to the UK, is doing better outside of the EU?

In reply to Martin Hore:


Sure, makes entire sense.

Why would the EU want to allow the UK to trade with the EU? Because they want to trade with us! They have a trade surplus with us, and their economies would be screwed by a trade war.

Why on Earth should some countries in a free-trade zone have to pay the others for the privilege of being in a free-trade zone? It's only the topsy-turvy world of the EU that makes you think that that makes sense.

As for other things such as free movement of people, what do they have to do with it? All the other free-trade zones around the world do not involve such things. Let's just have a free-trade zone!

In reply to pavelk:


Switzerland's economy focuses on the provision of luxury goods, investment banking and precision engineering. All high demand, all immensely profitable. Swiss success is far more to do with those choices and a certain Germanic work ethic than their independence from the EU. For what it is worth, their access to European markets from outside the EU depends on their acceptance of the free movement of labour and other conditions of membership of the EEA. Do you think it would be different for the UK?

In reply to Coel Hellier:
>

It's not paying other countries a "fee"; it's paying for the systems that make it work. Paying their share of the admin needed for it - rules, arbitration, standards etc.

In reply to Ramblin dave:

EU exports to Britain much more than Britain to EU. The share of British exports to EU is declining at the expense of exports outside EU anyway. I think your prospective negotiating position might not be bad at all.

If you assume some revenge from the EU you it would be better for you to leave anyway because revenge may come anyway and as an independent country you can face it better.
And there is - unfortunately - some chance of revenge as we from small EU countries know well

In reply to Coel Hellier:


But why would, say, France and Germany, agree to us having a better deal than they have?

In reply to Martin Hore:

Would you have posted if say Kate Hoey had made those comments?

In reply to jim jones:

And cars.

You mean the fact that we are sill one of the largest manufacturing countrys in the world - top 10 about 6th over all-.

peoples ideas of where we sit in manufacturing are weird.

of course if people say we no longer make anything it must be true.....

In reply to pavelk:


"Proportionately" was the key word that you seem to have missed...

In reply to Coel Hellier:

I just love this narrow minded argument about trade with the EU, and the fact that they want to trade with us, so that there will be no barriers.

Nobody from the brexit side ever addresses the simple fact that we also trade with the rest of the world and we gain benefits from being part of the EU block.

I export 90% of my products. I do very little business in the EU.They go all over the world.The EU and the deals they have negotiated as a block make it very easy for me to do this.

So the meassge from an exporter is - stay in the EU.

In reply to pavelk:

There is no logical link between the fact that they export more to us than we export to them and our negotiating position.

The EU has a even bigger trade surplus with many other countries around the world, and none of them has managed to get yhe kind of have your cake and eat it deal Gove is talking about.

What matters for our negotiating position is how important trade with us is to their economy, versus how important it is for us.
As it currently is, trade with the EU is about 6 or seven times more important to our economy than it is to theirs, so it's easy to see who would have the stronger hand in negotiations.

In reply to BnB:

Switzerland as an independent country (unlike Britain) has free trade agreement with China and some other countries so it can export without tariffs. It´s not also forced to meet all EU standarts for it´s production going oustide the EU so it can be more competitive.


Yes. Corea has access to European markets as well and does tot have to agree EU regulations.
Switzerland is not EEA member and does not have to agree all EU regulatins as well.

In reply to RomTheBear:

It´s much easier to compensate imports (Britain case) than exports (EU case)

In reply to Martin Hore:

The idea being pushed by the out camp that we'll have all the same perks as now and more without the costs and responsibilities is delusional. It's like listening to a 4 year old who believes the whole world revolves around them except I don't believe they believe it, I suspect they know full well it's nonsense and they're cynically exploiting the chance to push their own careers whatever the cost.

Being told by shits like Gove and Johnson the reason their government is running our essential services into the ground is because Europe is too expensive and that if we could just get out they'd properly fund them is insulting.

The promised bonfire of 'red tape' is as ridiculous as it is alarming. Which regulations can they actually tear up, we'll clearly still have to comply with European and other overseas national standards to trade with them so we're left with environmental protection, health and safety, worker's rights and they won't be torn up, they'll be rewritten creating yet more work in compliance, not less.

The whole thing would be hilarious if it wasn't so sickeningly serious.
jk

In reply to pavelk:

Surely everything sold in the EU has to have the CE mark, which can only be affixed if the manufacturer can prove that the product complies with all relevant EU regulation. I can't imagine that Hyundai woul be able to sell cars in the EU if those cars didn't meet EU safety and emmissions regulations.

Edited to add: Which brings another point forward: "Reducing red tape" and "being more competitive" may well mean less of that boring health and safety stuff, as well as working conditions, environmental stuff, yada yada. Getting rid of the red tape might well make life worse for ordinary people

In reply to pavelk:

You are kidding of course. Of course they have tariffs on their goods into China. Swiss manufacturers as a matter of good practise and common sense comply with CE standards.

Lets get real - the Swiss do not sell inferior products outside the EU- to lower costs.Its against their nature.

It also misses the point. There is anyway a gradual harmonisation of global standards anyway.

In reply to Andy Hardy:

But Hyunadi can produce and sell cars to non EU countries without meeting EU regulations. EU producers can´t (if they don´t build a plant outside EU)

In reply to jkarran:


It is rather odd. Whilst in Europe we have no power but as soon as we exit Europe will do everything we wish.

In reply to MG:


I remain completely unconvinced of that -- as oppose to the money disappearing into central EU coffers to pay for the CAP or whatever. Can you support your claim?

In reply to pavelk:

As far as I know, this is just plain factually wrong (as most of your posts so far) , we can build cars to any standard we want it's just that you wouldn't be able to sell them on the EU market if they don't meet eu standards, so it would really make absolutely no economic sense to build cars in Europe to then not sell any in Europe, hence why nobody does it.

In reply to Jim Hamilton:


Yes. It's possible Kate Hoey's comments would not have got the publicity that Gove's did, and I might therefore have missed them, but aside from that yes, definitely.

I'm not sure Kate Hoey would have made the comments though. Labour politicians have to take into account that "Free Trade without rules" as Gove and some posters on this thread seem to advocate would lead to a race to the bottom in workers rights, environmental protection, consumer protection, health and safety etc - all things that some Tories would relish. but hardly a Labour position I would have thought.

Martin

In reply to neilh:

They do pay tarriffs, sorry for misguided post. But they have direct access to Chinese market, and their tarriffs are lower.
Fo example swiss exports of milk products to China increased by 60% in the first year

In reply to Dave Garnett:


Oh right, so the rest of the EU stuff is a bad deal is it? France and Germany don't actually want the rest of the EU rules, but put up with them in order to get free trade? Really?

So who actually does want the EU (other than the free-trade aspects)? There I was thinking that France and Germany actually *wanted* "ever closer union" etc! So, wouldn't they then regard what they have as a *better* deal than the UK would have? Would they then regard the UK as missing out if we only participated in the free-trade aspects?

In reply to Martin Hore:

All of the information being used by the politicians is based on information made on assumptions for which there is little or no reliability. There is no way of knowing what impact there will be, economic or otherwise, we don't know what the long term impact on the Sterling will be, we don't have trade agreements in place, we don't know the impact on food production, population or a hundred other things.

The only thing that I have concluded myself is that the Treasury recently released a series of figures which were calculated to give them the result they want and I don't trust them as far as I can spit into the wind at Stanage.

In reply to neilh:


The whole world is gradually moving towards more extensive free-trade deals. There would be nothing to stop the UK joining in with these, indeed we'd be freer to do so without having get EU-wide agreement to do so.

The EU is actually one of the biggest impediments to wider free-trade deals, since it clings to agricultural subsidies and won't phase them out.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Some numbers for Norway here
http://www.eu-norway.org/eu/Financial-contribution/#.VxdGSoZ4WrU

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Crap. The world is moving into globalised blocks which makes it easier to put those deals together.So you have NAFTA, EU, China and the Asian block.

EU agricultural subsidy has nothing on USA agricultural subsidies.

By the way - do you actually in your personal capacity sell anything overseas. Do you know what you are talking about?Do you live and breathe it?Interested to find out.

In reply to neilh:



And so what is the TTIP then?

In reply to pavelk:

So do we. I think everybodys milk products increased into china... there is a big demand for it.

How long did it take them to negotiate that deal? or did they just piggy back on the back of the EU negotiations any way?Bet it was the latter.

In reply to Big Ger:

An excellent idea.It brings the USA and EU toether to take on China.

In reply to MG:


And that says that Norway is *not* just paying a share of admin costs for the single market, it is paying for the EU budget more generally. E.g.:

"The European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement includes a goal to reduce social and economic disparities in the European Economic Area. Thus, the EEA EFTA States Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway have contributed to European cohesion efforts through various financial mechanisms since the EEA Agreement entered into force in 1994.

"For the period 2014 – 2021, Norway’s annual contribution to 15 beneficialry states through the current EEA and Norway Grants scheme will be 388 million euro, pending ratification of the agreement."

In reply to neilh:

LOL!! That's nice. So you'd allow US healthcare firms access to the NHS to "take on China"? You'd decease environmental laws, in order to "take on China"? You'd see massive exodus of manufacturing jobs to the US where unions are weaker and H&S is less, in order to "take on China"? You'd ceed a proportion of our democracy to the US in order to "take on China"?

In reply to pavelk:


That is news to me. The CE mark only means that the goods meet EU regs. If you don't comply (or can't be bothered to prove that you comply) you would still be free to hawk your wares around the globe. Of course you would have to prove that your car (for example) met the local regulations (say in the US). Which would be ..... red tape

In reply to Big Ger:

China is the biggest threat to both the USA/ Europe economically. there is an economic war going on. UK will not be able to afford an NHS unless you get to grips with that.

There is in reality little difference between USA and Europe on most standards - despite popular misconceptions- and the spin of big bad corporate USA.

And on the H & S believe it or not American companys have no interest in killing their employees.

In reply to neilh:


Try this; http://ensia.com/features/banned-in-europe-safe-in-the-u-s/

The US also has far laxer restrictions on the use of pesticides. It also uses growth hormones in its beef which are restricted in Europe due to links to cancer. US farmers have tried to have these restrictions lifted repeatedly in the past through the World Trade Organisation and it is likely that they will use TTIP to do so again.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


As I understand it, the money we pay in is used as follows:

1 - To fund EU supported projects eg in infrastructure development, science research, education exchanges etc, We benefit from these in the UK but possibly don't get back as much as we put in. Because we are one of the richer countries, part of what we contribute assists development in poorer regions (which include parts of the UK but are predominantly outside the UK). I happen to think it's right we should do this, just as I think it's right that UK taxes collected in, say, London support development in, say, NE England. Helping development of poorer regions is in everyone's interest in the long term as it increases the purchasing power of people who buy our goods. (Why did the US introduce Marshall Aid after WW2?)

2 - To fund policies such as the CAP. UK farmers of course benefit from this and it would still be an expense to be borne if we leave. Do you think UK farmers could continue to produce food without subsidy - or if they did, we wouldn't have to pay more for our food? I suppose we could import most of our food from low-wage economies, but that would hardly be a safe and secure option for the UK.

3 - To fund the democratic and bureaucratic institutions of the EU. The same people who complain that the EU isn't democratic complain about funding the democratic institutions - strange. As for the bureaucracy, much of what the EU currently does (eg on consumer protection) would have to be done in Britain if we leave (or we would have to abandon the protections).

But the main point of course is that regardless of how much of what we pay in actually comes back to the UK directly, we benefit hugely from being able to trade freely within the single market. In terms of jobs and household income this massively outweighs our financial contributions.

By the way, do you know how much you personally paid into the EU in the last tax year. I do. It's available on the HMRC website for all of us who complete self-assessment. £19 for me, if I remember correctly, in 2014/15. (OK, I'm a pensioner with low taxable income, and, yes, a proportion of VAT and other taxes also goes towards our EU contribution, but it's still a lot less than most people imagine).

Martin

In reply to neilh:


Fine, so let's join in with these other blocs, or with the inter-bloc agreements. Small trading countries like New Zealand manage to join free-trade agreements without needing to sign up to all the other stuff entailed in the EU.

(And, no, I am not involved in exporting anything.)

In reply to pavelk:


Sorry I meant EFTA of which CH is a founder member and through which it allows the free movement of EU citizens, which for the Brexiters appears to be the a significant bugbear. Surely you knew that though?

In reply to Martin Hore:


Well yes, so why don't we just make free-trade deals without all the other stuff?

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Because it takes two to make a free-trade deal of course. For the rest of the EU (and for many of us in the UK) "all the other stuff" is pretty important.

Martin

In reply to Martin Hore:
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/no-more-sex-if-we...

Probably says it all really

In reply to Greenbanks:
Rubbish.... it's an amusing little skit on the Tory remain's current negative campaign tactics (tactics which worked pretty well in the GE), says bugger all about the actual issues.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

That's the cost of the EEA, which at least some brexiters support joining. Of course we could be outside that too, but the we would start to lose free trade arrangements.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

They have their own block in the Pacific Rim.. That one is also linked to the USA, Australia, etc.No doubt there were lengthy negotiations on that.

I love this view - oh we will easily negotiate it. Apart from the fact that these things are horrendously complicated and take years to put together.There is the civil srvice need to do it. I doubt our foreign office has enough experienced people anyway. But let us not worry over these minor insignificant "admin" issues ( sarcasam).Mere detail.

In reply to Big Ger:

You have still not addressed the overriding issue if you do not understand the economic war going on with China.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

NZ doesn't though, they've been struggling to get an FTA with the US, who aren't that bothered (probably because they wanted to deal with them as part of the TPP).

Your general argument is like a bloke thinking of leaving his wife and looking round going, 'well I could marry her, or her , or her'...... a little too optimistic, a case of an over inflated ego.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

You can, but they'll be much more limited in nature.
Trade deals of good is easy, but for modern economies what matters is trade of services and that implies a lot of common regulations and an even playing field.
I'd rather have these common regulations set within what is after all a fairly democratic political process, in which we have quite a lot of votes and veto on most important issues, rather than it being imposed on us by the EU and enforced through some unnacountable dispute settlement court.

In reply to neilh:

>.There is the civil srvice need to do it. I doubt our foreign office has enough experienced people anyway.

It is just as well that the Civil Service isn't been slowly shut down then. Oh, hold on a minute, 90,000 gone 2010-2015 and tens of thousands more going

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

My partner joined the European-specialist track of the Civil Service Fast Stream last year. One of the questions that she asked during the recruitment process was whether she'd be out of a job if we left the EU. The answer was that if anything she'd be more in demand, because loads of stuff that we currently get sorted more-or-less automatically through being in the EU would suddenly need explicitly hammering out.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Because (as one example) the completely reasonable condition for access to the free trade area is compliance with the EU rules on standards and regulation, and restrictions on unfair subsidies that disadvantage other members. Gove seems to be saying that he wants the UK to have all the advantages but none of the responsibilities (rather odd, given his philosophy on that kind of thing generally).

Why would current EU members want that - so that we can compete with them on the basis of lower standards and overheads and maybe government subsidies?

Why would we want it - so we can join the race to the bottom in terms of consumer and environmental protection?

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Oh, and I visit France and Germany quite a lot and I've never noticed that they were in any danger of ever closer union culturally, or any other way that you'd notice. If they aren't bothered I really don't understand we would be, given our far greater cultural isolation.

In reply to Ramblin dave:

I am sure that those remaining will have lots of work to do but it doesn't change the fact that 90,000 jobs were shed in 2010-2015. BIS have just 'announced' (ie let slip) that 4,000 are going including 249 in Sheffield (which includes my partner who is a grade 7)

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

Sorry, yes, not disagreeing with that.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Just a little fun on how long it takes to negotiate trade agreements:
http://voxeu.org/article/why-do-trade-negotiations-take-so-long

In reply to damhan-allaidh:


everyone likes us though so it will be knocked out before lunch. Unlike the EU who will take years to negotiate anything (dont try to be smart and ask whether the negotiations we will have with the EU will take the morning or years).

In reply to Dave Garnett:


I don´t live i Britain so maybe I don´t undersatnd it well but as far as I read and heard the leave side just wants more free and flexible relationship with other Europiens countries like Switzerland or Corea have. As a citizen of one small EU coutry I totally understand it, maybe because we feel the negatives here much stronger.


EU is the slowest growing area in the world, it´s in long economic decline mainly because of it´s overregulation probably. This is not the great win be on the sinking boat

In reply to pavelk:

'EU is the slowest growing area in the world...' What nonsense is this? That's a pretty strong statement with absolutely no basis in fact.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


Judging by this thread that seems to be his style.

Each to his own; I prefer reality.

In reply to john arran:
And as he seems to think that Corea is in Europe, he either:
1) Knows of a country I don't, or
2) Can't spell Korea, and
3) Isn't aware that there are 2 Koreas, one of which is very highly regulated but in a very bad way, and
4) Both of the Koreas are in Asia.

So yes reality doesn't seem his strong point. Unfortunately reality doesn't always have a bearing during voting, witness last year's GE here

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

Maybe he means the democratic republic of Corsica.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:Growth_rat...

This one is a bit of a shocker !
http://www.worldeconomics.com/papers/Commonwealth_Growth_Monitor_0e53b963-b...

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/10/is-europe-outperforming-the-us/

In reply to neilh:


You're just being silly now.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Not sure I understand the point you are making here except that different statistics can be used to support different arguments.

The first link is quite difficult to understand I felt. The second one is easier. But both seem to show that developing countries starting from a poorer position have higher growth rates - not really news. The figures in the second link are I think per country rather than per head - in which case it's not surprising that commonwealth countries (hugely skewed presumably by India with its high population growth) have higher growth rates than the EU.

The only really sensible comparison is between the EU and the US - both large developed economies with historically high living standards - and the third link seems to show that the EU has generally performed better for the greater number of its citizens than the US over the period considered, particularly when you take into account the benefits that EU countries afford their citizens such as universal health care.

Martin

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


if you compared the Euro nations collectively to any individual G20 nation, then it is probably true. But that isn't what was said.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Really?

http://www.worldeconomics.com/papers/Global%20Growth%20Monitor_7c66ffca-ff8...

The European numbers without non EU countries would be even worse

In reply to pavelk:

The reality is the Non Euro nations in the EU, EEA and EFTA are bank rolling the Euro. As they all put in more than they get out and the stronger nations within the Euro(Germany and the Benelux countries) can't put sufficient money into the EU on their own to hold up the struggling nations. Countries which are struggling could do better without being tied to the Euro and ECB.

Without the non euro nations in the EU it would probably collapse as there would be very little substance left. The question is for the sake of better economics within mainland Europe and possibly to prevent wars, do these nations want to keep funding the EU officials little dream.

Juncker is starting to worry a little, on Tues he was admitting there were problems with the EU etc..

In reply to summo:


Non Euro nations in the EU are: Sweden, Denmark, UK - all presumably net contributors - plus Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Croatia, Romania and Bulgaria - all presumably net recipients*.

So where did you get your idea that "Non Euro nations...all put more in than they get out". I'm not sure either side in this argument has a monopoly on "facts" but we can all do better than that I feel.

(*I can't be absolutely certain none of these are net contributors without checking - but did you?)

Martin

In reply to Martin Hore: Non Euro nations in the EU are: Sweden, Denmark, UK

Switzerland/Norway/Iceland/Lichtenstein as well?

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:



These are not in the EU (though they are in EEA/EFTA) - Anyway, Summo said they "all" put in more than they get out. I just pointed out that this is wrong.

I'm not sure that highlighting that 4 fairly rich non EU countries make a net contribution to the EU in order to have access to the single market boosts the BREXIT case - but perhaps you're on my side?

Martin

In reply to summo:

Indeed he has, not sure if the timing of this and what he is asying will keep us in or make us leave though.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/662542/Brussels-interfere-EU-faces-r...

Edit
“We will eventually end up with the ruins of this ideal,” he said.

In reply to Martin Hore:


All 3 of these are net contributors, I've lived in two, neighbour to the other. All the others you list in joining the EU have automatically signed up to eventually go into the Euro, they had no choice.


I know to reasonable certainty, unless the press and more unbiased articles has been lying for the past 4 or 5 years. (not impossible).

Why hasn't the EU or Juncker said bye bye UK, if it would be better off without it, or perhaps it's the EU that needs the UK?

In reply to Martin Hore:


Strange how all the better off nations in terms of growth, lower unemployment etc.. compared to the EU average are all not Euro nations though? Could be just chance of course.

In reply to summo:


The 2015 IMF figures for GDP per head at purchasing power parity are here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

EU countries in the Eurozone are at 2, 11, 14, 17, 18, 23, 24, and 26

EU and EEA/EFTA countries outside the Eurozone are at 6, 9, 19, 20, 25 (UK).

That's 7 Eurozone members above the UK, including Germany and France. Even Norway and Switzerland (6 and 9) are outplaced by Luxembourg (2). Doesn't seem to support your statement.

All other countries in the top 30 are outside Europe. All other European countries (Eurozone or not) are outside the top 30.

Martin

In reply to Jim Hamilton:

Here's Kate Hoey trying to support her side of the argument. Not convincing.

youtube.com/watch?v=zu_1gHps92A&

Come on Brexiteers - put up some evidence.

Martin

In reply to Martin Hore:


purchasing power per capita, has nothing to do with how much each country funds the EU by and how much it benefits in return. Your might support something, but it isn't that.

In reply to Martin Hore:


That was an honest answer to a one-dimensional question. Nobody can definitively say whether or not we'll be 'economically better off' if we do or don't leave the EU. Nor is the debate about that single one-dimensional question.

Posing the issue in those terms reminds me of the (miserable) squabbling before the Scottish referendum about whether or not each family would be 500 quid per year better off, one way or the other ...

In reply to Martin Hore:
Without wanting to get into the debate because I don't really have time. It's worth considering that not everyone cares about the trade/cost impact. It goes beyond that to just the thought of independence. All the spreadsheets in the world wont persuade someone who prefers local sovereignty to empire building. Now you might think this is nonsense, and who's to argue? but that's what you're up against. When the Irish fought for independence, do you think it was about money or democratic national self-determination? Why do you think Obama, Cameron, all the global mega banks, all the transnational corporations (TTIP), the IMF, CBI, the farmers etc.. want the UK to stay? For our own financial well being or their own unfettered self interest? Maybe you think, their success will result in us being richer? That's a point of view worth debating, a very Tory point of view as well. What I find interesting is the odd bed fellows this referendum has thrown up.

As I said a while ago, many see independence from the EU as a luxury, and understand it will be priced as such. Plenty don't share that view, but the economic case is not necessarily the best argument to counter them. The fence sitters/swing voters definitely though.

In reply to Martin Hore:

What is it that you want evidence for? If you mean support for the first para of the op then it's not going to happen, the all the benefits none of the costs line is just a straw man.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
As clinton said " it is the econonomy stupid". If anybody thinks that the economic questions are not critical to this whole debate then they are not being realistic. Try telling that to the UK employees of companys like Airbus etc.

It has nothing to with with it being a Tory argument. Its just plain common sense.

A

In reply to neilh:


The economic questions are one important part of the argument; but, as mentioned above, they are not the entire thing: principles of self-determination are also important - and might be more so to any particular individual.

In any case: *nobody* can say whether or not the UK as a whole would be economically better off inside or outside the EU. People making such claims on either side are merely saying what they want to hear.


The interesting political aspect of the EU referendum is that there is no conventional left/right analysis to which to cling. 'Tory argument'? The Tories themselves are (very obviously) split.

In reply to Rob Parsons:


Up to a point, although it's a bit depressing that on the Remain side, the Tories are using tax scare stories, while it's left to Labour, the LibDems and Greens to raise the issues of workers rights and employment law, and environmental legislation. It would make a refreshing change for the Tories to be supportive of the protections given to employees under EU legislation, and for a PM who once claimed to lead the greenest government ever, it would nice to hear something from Cameron saying good things about the strengths of environmental legislation resulting from EU actions.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


Nice quote from the Economist on this:

"The flaw in this case lies in the tradition's idealistic definition of sovereignty. For Mr Johnson and Mr Gove, being sovereign is like being pregnant—you either are or you aren’t. Yet increasingly in today’s post-Westphalian world, real sovereignty is relative. A country that refuses outright to pool authority is one that has no control over the pollution drifting over its borders, the standards of financial regulation affecting its economy, the consumer and trade norms to which its exporters and importers are bound, the cleanliness of its seas and the security and economic crises propelling shock waves—migration, terrorism, market volatility—deep into domestic life. To live with globalisation is to acknowledge that many laws (both those devised by governments and those which bubble up at no one’s behest) are international beasts whether we like it or not. If sovereignty is the absence of mutual interference, the most sovereign country in the world is North Korea."

In reply to seankenny:

This sovereignty thing is so crazy. For God's sake, if we don't wake our ideas up we're in danger of having Boris Johnson as PM with Farage as foreign secretary, Gove at the Home Office and Mad Frankie Fraser as Chancellor of the Exchequer. The more 'sovereignty' we dispose of to people who aren't bonkers* the better.

I've been warming to Dominic Grieve, I must say.

I had lunch with a Tory MP recently (not a habit). I mused aloud to him that it always surprised me how effective politicians found lying, and quoted one of Gove's recent pronouncements. My friend's no fool, but he's also a diplomat. 'Well, people sometimes say silly things', he replied. I pointed out that they also sometimes say mendacious things for effect, but he wasn't to be drawn.

Grieve on the other hand has been going a little further in pointing out that Gove has simply ceased to say things that are true, although he does stop just short of saying it's deliberate by suggesting that the problem is that Gove simply doesn't understand international law (no doubt also true, to be fair).

*Boris, to be fair, is not bonkers. Nasty, irresponsible and clever, but not bonkers.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


Let's see what a few years of power would do to him.

In reply to seankenny:



Thanks Sean. Excellent quote that. Really encapsulates the flaw in the sovereignty argument.

Martin

In reply to Martin Hore:


The problem might be the fetishization of the word 'sovereignty' - in which case we should just drop it.

Nobody can argue that being in the EU means we have surrendered 'sovereignty' - for the precise reason that, should we choose to, we could leave the EU at any time. On the other hand, for example - and as a detail which is important to some - it is correct to say that leaving the EU would give the UK more control of immigration from the rest of the EU.

The quote above - in its finale regarding North Korea - reads like a high-school debating piece.

In reply to Martin Hore:

Yes, I thought the study sample of ukc thread respondents would agree that Gove is a nutter (as is anyone who is not for 'Remain', obvs.), - with the welcome articulate exception of Coel - So glad you've not confined your debates to physics, philosophy, and the like... so, I've nothing to add....

...Unlike the good people of Exeter (including 4/5ths of the panel) on Question Time last night! Cracking episode. The Leave campaign smashed it!

In reply to Rob Parsons:

Some might say 'surrendered', I'd say 'shared' for mutual benefit

In reply to Martin Hore:

Brexiters say to me, essentially it's about Democracy.
Think: Police Commissioners, Schools Commissioners, Imposed Contract on doctors, Compulsory Academisation, overriding of local planning when Fracking is involved, forcing Housing Associations to sell off their properties, etc...
Democracy? Wouldn't that be lovely!

In reply to Rob Parsons:


Might, not would. The devil being in the details.

In reply to seankenny:


I don't want to get hung up on the immigration question, but I think it's a 'would' rather than a 'might.' Specifically, if we're not a member of the EU, we're not bound by the existing and future immigration rules of that organization.

Of course, were we to leave the EU, we would then have to negotiate related agreements with the remaining EU countries. How those would turn out and what form they would take - who knows?

In reply to Just Another Dave:


Actually I don't think Gove is a nutter. I think he's an idealist. He's smart and he's well-meaning (and by all accounts, very personable and amusing). His problem is that he does tend to see things as rather black and white terms and, in his haste to improve things, has a habit of latching on to the 'obvious' solution and driving it though without properly thinking about it.

Most obviously, he's done this in education with schools currently struggling to implement poorly thought-through and premature changes on unrealistic deadlines. I think he has an instinctively libertarian Eurosceptic point of view (with which I happen to disagree) and simply hasn't troubled to understand the details. As a result I think he has, with the best of intentions, simply come to the wrong conclusion.

Oh, and I suppose there might be some sort of political calculation involved too...

In reply to seankenny:

"A country that refuses outright to pool authority is one that has no control over the pollution drifting over its borders"

From those nasty German VW cars? It's a nice quote, I understand why you liked it. N.Korea of course has no control over the pollution over it's skies or the cleanliness of it's seas either so absent from interference? not really.

Without doubt the future appears to be headed towards more globalization, more powerful conglomerates, more centralization of power. Whether we like it or not? (as the economist says) what if you don't like it? Suck it up? Agree..this oil tanker isn't turning around.Deal with it and embrace it (I know I have and have done extremely well out of it) In my view, the only thing that will bring this down is another financial crisis like 2008. They are trying desperately to put this off, they might be successful. Is this UK ref just the beginning of more countries deciding that the EU isn't really working for them? Will there be growing dissent (with loss of sovereignty being a main gripe?) I don't know. Will globailization stops working for the masses?
a bit of a rambling post that reflects my mood this morning...I can't see us partying like it's 1999 again

In reply to Rob Parsons:


No, it is most definitely a might. Since we haven't decided what option we are going to be given...

In reply to Rob Parsons:

It annoys me that Labour are being very weak on the whole issue... a sign of things to come I am afraid.

We barely hear the Labour party at all on it. One small speech from JC and that really has been it.

In reply to Just Another Dave:


I made the mistake of watching 'Question Time' last night - I really must get over that - and my fundamental conclusion was that, just as the 'Out' campaign have done a clever job in minimizing the divisive contributions of Nigel Farage in the current campaign, it might be a *very good idea* for the 'In' campaign to put a muzzle on Paddy Ashdown.

Mr Ashdown has never been knowingly undersold on self-regard - but what a pompous, prententious, patronizing windbag he seems to have become in his dotage. If he carries on as he did last night, he will have people voting 'Out' in their droves.

In reply to neilh:


I agree; I would definitely expected to have heard more from the Labour Party on aspects like employment legislation, and workers rights.

But when I wrote that 'there is no conventional left/right analysis to which to cling', I didn't particularly have the UK Labour/Tory distinction in mind; I was trying to make a more general point: I don't think there *is* an accepted left/right analysis of all of this.

In that regard, I was interested to read the views of Yanis Varoufakis. As a member of the most radical leftist Government in recent European history - and one which was screwed over in an anti-democratic way by the EU bureacrats - I might have expected him to be 'anti' the project. But his fundamental point was that the UK referendum should not be viewed as a binary question of the UK being 'in or out' of the EU; rather, he considers it decision which could affect the very existence of the EU. I won't try to paraphrase him here but, for example, see http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/07/brexit-would-be-the-worst-of-a... for more.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

On the Farage theme, I'm not convinced he and Boris playing the race card against Obama was wise

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/president-obama-has-a-grudge-against-...

I mean, the race card in general, obviously - it's the essence of their campaign, after all - but the blacks-hate-us card? Really?

Still, no doubt they know their customers better than I do.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:



Bollox. It's not a "race card" anymore than saying that Joe Kennedy didn't like the Brits because of his Irish heritage, and you know it. Feeble smear.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Come on! You can spin it that way but it wasn't a casual remark. It's a dog whistle call to UKIPs, err, less progressive wing, clearly appealing to racism.

In reply to MG:


Have it your way. Commentators have been making the point ever since he was elected.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Yes, but you really Obamas remarks were motivated in any way by his background. Or that Boris or Farage do?

In reply to MG:

Unlikely. Blindingly obviously Boris/Farage were trying to discredit Obama's remarks by attributing them to anti British prejudice, but that's not the issue. The question is whether they are suggesting his supposed prejudice is derived from the colour of his skin or from the experiences of his grandfather and many others at the hands of the British in Kenya.

In reply to Postmanpat:

"Sadiq Khan will follow anti-British policies. His grandparents came from Pakistan and they all hate Britain because they're from a former colony".

"Chuku Umunna will follow anti-British policies because his parents were from Nigeria and they all hate Britain because they're a former colony."

"Diane Abbott will follow anti-British policies because her parents were West Indian and they all hate Britain because they're a former colony."

Sounds like the race card to me. But like I said, evidently he knows the audience he's targetting better than me.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


Now you've gone off on one. Well, three actually. To the best of my knowledge none of the above's grandparent's were tortured by the British. You don't think that some inhabitants of Britain's former empire might feel a little less than enamoured of Britain on the basis of its imperialist behaviour. Or is it just because of the colour of their skin?

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Farage sounded even more peevish and hysterical when he was accusing Obama of reading from Cameron's script on the basis of the 'back of the queue' comment.

Does he really think that someone as articulate and mindful of language as Obama is incapable of adapting his vocabulary for a British audience? If I can remember to talk about lines and gas stations and rest rooms when I'm in the office in San Diego, I'm sure Obama can remember (or have pointed out to him) the vernacular for what he wants to say in London.

In reply to Rob Parsons:


Have to say that I've been quite impressed by what I've heard from him since he left office. I guess I should know by now that when someone attracts the sort of piss-taking from the press that he did, it's probably worth checking out what he really thinks rather than accepting the caricature.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Good point, how many white people are discredited for their ethnicity/nationality? There's absolutely no proof to link Obama to anti-British sentiment, Boris is trying to persquade others to disregard Obama's arguments due to his ancestry.

In reply to FreshSlate:

>
It's taken for granted that the views of politicians and diplomats from, amongst many, countries such as France, Germany and Ireland are coloured by the long and difficult relationships that their countries have had with the British. Last time I checked most of them were white.

The same is true, of course, with Britsh politicians' attitudes to those and other countries.

In reply to Big Ger:

It's a terrible idea.

In reply to Timmd:
Very debateable considering the already huge amount of trade done both ways between the States and the EU.never mind the investments done between the uk and USA.

In reply to neilh:
My understanding is it's the power which companies will have to sue governments (similar to the attempts made by tobacco companies when branding is taken off the packets of cigarettes) if they take steps to restrict the sale of anything harmful, which makes TTIP a bad idea.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Johnson didn't say Obama hates us because his grandfather was tortured by the British. He said it was because he was part-Kenyan.

jcm

In reply to Timmd:
It's primary objective is to develop further trade links. Listen to what Obama said when asked about it.

Bear in mind the already huge level of investment here in the uk by USA company's , it really is a red herring. Just think how long the likes of Kellogg's , ford, gm and others have been here?

In reply to Timmd:


I don't see how freer trade is a terrible idea in itself. I agree the secret nature of negotiations and potentially the power companies may gain over government are concerns though.

In reply to Postmanpat:



It is? Can't say I have noticed, with the possible exception of Ireland.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


Which is about the equivalent of me hating Germany and Germans because of WW2. Absurd.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:



Nor did Johnson say it was because he is black. I'd never suspected that you'd be living on Mars for the past ten years and missed the back story and supposed implications of Obama's Kenyan heritage, but being a generous chap I'll help you out: http://theweek.com/articles/510116/why-obama-may-not-like-britain

In reply to MG:


You honestly think that Anglo-French relations are not influenced by their history? I mean, really?

In reply to Postmanpat:


Yes, exactly. If they're white it's taken for granted.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Not really, no, since De Gaulle anyway. I can't see Hollande rubbing his hands in glee at a chance to avenge Agincourt.

In reply to MG:


Up yours Delors!

In reply to FreshSlate:


So, to be clear.If they are white it's taken for granted, but if they are not white it is racist to acknowledge it?

Why?

In reply to Postmanpat:

Will the last person in Britain turn the lights out!


I don't think the Sun is too interested in nationality. it's also not a politician or diplomat.

In reply to Postmanpat:
If they're white they don't have speculative bullshit written about how that they hate x, y, z. Yes everyone has slightly different views of people and cultures, that's self evident or even 'taken for granted'. Who's writing about the nationalities that Boris might dislike due to his ancestry, and what does it have to do with the issue at hand?

In reply to MG:


I think your in lala land on this one. Any political or diplomatic relationship is deeply influenced by the history of that relationship. It would be weird if they weren't. Often current imperatives will overule the history, sometimes not.
You don't think Putin's views are rooted in Russian folk memory, or you think that Israel has forgotten the holocaust. Is it racist to acknowledge this?

In reply to neilh:



It is anything but a red herring. The TTIP negotiations are being conducted in secret, by EU bureaucrats. We don't know what the details of the negotiations are, nor what the final conclusions might be - but money and big business will be talking, so don't assume that all changes which might eventually arise will be benign.

It's true that any final deal will need to be ratified by the governments of all 28 EU member states - but, if the deal is done, it *will* then be a done deal, and it will very difficult for any individual member state to escape what might be unforeseen consequences. That's a very different proposition from the UK negotiating a deal on its own.

In reply to Dave Garnett:


Here's a more comprehensive link to Varoufakis's thoughts on this than the one I gave above: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/05/yanis-varoufakis-why-we-must-s...

In reply to FreshSlate:


Of course they do. Read any history of the Franco German rapprochment and founding of the Common market. Read any analysis of Russian relationships with Western Europe, India with the UK or China or Japan with the West.

Regarding Boris, exactly, what does it have to do with the issue at hand so why should anyone be writing about his prejudices ?

In reply to Postmanpat:


It is if you're say that I hate Germany because I'm a jew.

In reply to FreshSlate:


A Jew whose family was tortured by German Nazis? So you are saying that holocaust survivors and their descendants who are not enamoured of Germans are racists?

In reply to Postmanpat:

You don't meet many holocaust survivors who hate all Germans, in my experience. In the general way the Jews have more sense than to hate a great body of people on account of events which happened before most of that mass of people were born.

jcm

In reply to Postmanpat:
You're really struggling with this one.

Jews who are several generations removed from the people who suffered to holocaust and the perpetrators should not be treated with suspicion by the likes of Farage and Boris if they wish to talk about the interests of Germany. Should we dismiss the views of native Indians, Jews, and black people because 'they have a chip on their shoulder'. I'm assuming Boris and Farage believe Obama's urge for the UK to stay in Europe is part of some master revenge plot to punish the UK for its colonial past.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
>
True. But you don't meet many whose views aren't influenced by the holocaust either. Who suggested Obama hates all Brits? Did I miss this bit?

In reply to FreshSlate:



You are struggling with this one. The issue is not whether Boris is right or wrong, either about Obama's supposed anti British views or the basis for Obama's views on Britain , or the reason for Obama's views on Brexit. Boris may well be talking bollocks on all three counts.
The issue is whether suggesting that the experiences of a person's grandfather and his country may affect that person's views is racist.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

Great article. But he's right, his "solution" is utopian. Rather depressing.

In reply to Postmanpat:

>The issue is whether suggesting that the experiences of a person's grandfather and his country may affect that person's views is racist.

Not may. Does.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:




And.....?

In reply to Postmanpat:

Obama's an American. He's being discredited because he's black man with ancestry in Kenya, why you think that's appropriate I don't know. There's no proof that Obama is anti-British. What's next? Obama bears a grudge against Britain for the slave trade? Were he white he wouldn't be singled out for this nonsense.

In reply to FreshSlate:


Why are you avoiding the issue? I'll repeat it to you: it's not whether Obama has a prejudice against Britain. It's not why he has such a prejudice (if he does). It's not whether his supposed prejudice influences his views on brexit. It's not whether it's "appropriate" to claim that he does. It's whether it is racist to suggest that somebody's views (in this case Obama's) might be influenced by the experiences of his grandparent's and their countrymen.

In reply to FreshSlate:


Of course not, there is not a shred of evidence
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/9436526/White-House-a...

Edit ( at least not both of them)

In reply to Postmanpat:


Yes it's racist to throw baseless accusations at black people because of their heritage.

In reply to FreshSlate:


And racist to throw accusations at white people because of their family history and heritage presumably?

In reply to Postmanpat:


You clearly haven't spent much time with people whose parents or grandparents were from ex-colonies.

Anyhow I look forward to hearing from the Sun or whoever why Boris Johnson's Turkish ancestry makes him ineligible to talk for Britain on European matters.

In reply to seankenny:


Well actually, yes i have and their views are quite mixed. What point are you making?

In reply to Postmanpat:

I think it's stupid either way to make these baseless assumptions. I think it's racist when black people's ancestry is dug out in order to smear their opinions and discredit them.

Is it racist to attack a white man?

Is it racist to attack a black man?

Maybe, maybe not. Attacking someone in itself is not racist. The problem is, that there are many, many, pro EU advocates in Europe making speeches and arguments all the time. A black person does the same and we start asking what oppressed african country his grandparents are from? It would be nice for Obama to be criticised solely on the strength on his arguments, but he's black, so probably got grudge of some kind right?

In reply to FreshSlate:





You are avoiding the point again. It is you who seem to be obsessed with the colour of peoples's skin. Either you believe that peoples' views are not influenced by the experience of their grandparents and their country or you don't.
Either way, you still haven't explained whether it is OK to acknowledge this in the case of white people, but not of black people

Ofcourse it would be better to attack Obama's arguments but, for the umpteenth time, that is not the issue

In reply to FreshSlate:

Indeed.

Apart from anything else, it's such a stupid argument.

"Well, of course, this fellow hates us because we used to torture his grandparents".

Jeez. And this is the guy some people want as Prime Minister.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


>

Of course it is. You could have saved a lot of time by just saying that in the first place!

In reply to Postmanpat:

They do not experience their grandparents experiences, they experience their own. Pretty simple stuff this, lots of people take opposing views from their grandparents because they are different people...


It's racist if this examination is directed at black people inproportionately. If black people are stopped and searched by the police proportionately more often than white people - that's racist. This obsession with the history of Obama's grandad's country is motivated by his race.


Of course it is, rational argument is the victim of Farage's own cheap exploitation of voter prejudices. That's the bigger picture you want to place off limits.