Europe should we stay in or get out?

[KM-Tiger]

We also hold MEP elections within our own country to elect the 73 Members of the European Parliament which represent us.

A proportion of the whole that has been falling as the EU expands.

Don't tell me you've really fallen for the guff. The EP has no power to propose or repeal legislation. Perhaps the only parliament in the world where that is so. Only the unelected commission can do that.

 

[simon field]

The first 'persuader' on the Remain campaign's page in the EC leaflet states:

'EU membership adds up to £91Bn a year to the UK economy - meaning more money to invest in the NHS'

Once again, a political football, playing on people's fears about their health! If it's been working so well, how come they've blown all their budgets and are in crisis then eh?

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

The first 'persuader' on the Remain campaign's page in the EC leaflet states:

'EU membership adds up to £91Bn a year to the UK economy - meaning more money to invest in the NHS'

Once again, a political football, playing on people's fears about their health! If it's been working so well, how come they've blown all their budgets and are in crisis then eh?

Because of austerity cuts imposed by the UK Government, and Jeremy Hunt's ambition to privatise the NHS whilst creating a "7-day service" which sneakily cuts the average hourly rate for doctors and nurses in the process.

The chief executive of the NHS has said it himself: Brexit is highly likely to just make a bad situation even worse. Why ignore the claims of the person who works in managing the NHS day in, day out?

And I still don't understand this criticism of "playing on people's fears". The basis of a well-reasoned debate is that you factor in the benefits AND the risks. There just happens to be a lot of risks involved in leaving which British people deserve to know.

It's like criticising someone for claiming that you shouldn't jump off a cliff because they're "spreading fear" and "scaremongering".

You cannot blame people for alerting others to the high probability of bad outcomes.

 

[KM-Tiger]

high probability of bad outcomes

You cannot say there will be a high probabilty. Nobody can forecast economically that accurately, and particularly not Osborne, what size is our deficit now?

There might be bad outcomes from Brexit. Equally there might be good outcomes. Most likely we will get some of both. Neither should stop the people of this country doing the right thing.

 

[roydmoorian]

Nobody can forecast economically that accurately, and particularly not Osborne,

The only thing Osborne HAS got right IMHO is that it won't be the campaigners who suffer if the UK leaves - it will be the lower paid.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

You cannot say there will be a high probabilty. Nobody can forecast economically that accurately, and particularly not Osborne, what size is our deficit now?

It's just common sense. Look into every potential risk and there are clear-cut, tangible reasons why those risks are likely to occur. I implore everyone to investigate these for themselves.

I frankly haven't listened too much to the remain or exit campaigns. I need more substance, and that substance is out there.

What alarms me about many Brexit supporters is that even they don't sound particularly confident of the country's outlook in the event of an exit. I hear the words "could", "maybe" and "we'll cope" more than any others.

It's just a complete leap in the dark. There is no consensus on a specific plan of action in the event of an exit to make this country better off than it was before.

However, these Brexit supporters tend to be those who simply hate the whole concept of the European Union and would vote to leave regardless of the damage it would cause.

Those people are entitled to their opinion and their vote, but personally, I'm more concerned about which situation would make this country safer, more stable, more prosperous and better off overall.

 

[KM-Tiger]

The only thing Osborne HAS got right IMHO is that it won't be the campaigners who suffer if the UK leaves - it will be the lower paid.

On the contrary, wages for the lower paid are likely to rise post brexit. That was stated by Lord Rose, the chairman of the Remain campaign.

 

[KM-Tiger]

It's just a complete leap in the dark.

Remaining is just as much a leap in the dark. It won't be the status quo. The EU will be hell bent on the USE with a single govt and single currency and there will be little if anything that we can do about it.

A lot of brexiteers are quite confident. Look at Steven Woolfe and Patrick O'Flynn.

 

[sirearl]

Far to much emphasise on the economy,the UK has one of the poorest qualities of life in Europe.

Far more important things than how much dough one has in the pocket need fixing in Britain.

Selling Japanese cars to Europe and importing german cars never seemed a good idea to me.

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2011/sep/29/uk-worst-quality-of-life-europe

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Remaining is just as much a leap in the dark. It won't be the status quo. The EU will be hell bent on the USE with a single govt and single currency and there will be little if anything that we can do about it.

Well, firstly, this "United States of Europe" is just a tinfoil hat conspiracy theory.

That being said, we already have a formal opt-out of the currency, the Schengen Area and the "ever-closer union", as well as an opt-out of the police and judicial cooperation where we can opt-in on a case by case basis.

Even Chris Grayling, a pro-exit campaigner, has admitted that we will remain permanently outside any closer integration.

People have taken this phrase, which has largely been in symbolic use for decades, and brewed up the theory that the EU is trying to move towards some sort of super-state despite zero evidence. Even the European leaders have formally stated the following:

"the concept of ever closer union allows for different paths of integration for different countries, allowing those that want to deepen integration to move ahead, while respecting the wish of those who do not want to deepen any further”

The phrase has no legal basis and does not give the EU any additional powers. It's only mentioned once in the original EU treaty of 1957, with its full context as follows:

"the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen"

It does not mention Governments or countries, and implies a closer union among the peoples of Europe only - which is the EU we have today.

Plus, the concept is just nonsense. 28 individual countries would not just give up their Governments, and every single one of those countries always has the ability to leave at any time, as we will also do in future even if we vote to stay.

 

[john1989]

 

[MBE1]

Sad to see the whole argument of the EU referendum being ruined by crazy claims from both sides. I think most people have made their minds up, a few ditherer's will wait until the last few days as usual.

Unfortunately IMO, the British people will be scared into non action by the Governments claims, so far World War 3, a bad recession, a small recession, house prices crashing, salaries reduced etc if they decided to vote out, all based on the current Gov not reacting to anything, a very realistic scenario.

How we as a nation need decent leaders, and how yet again we find ourselves finding our current ones falling badly short of the standard required.

The simple truth is no-one knows what will happen if we stay or leave, both carry serious risks, and potential benefits. I believe we can survive as a nation easily, there might be a small recession for a year or two, then again we could just as easily find a freed up country striking it's own deals around the world having a huge economic boost. The future is what you make of it, for my part I believe we will lose evermore control on our country, laws, policies etc as the EU moves forward with political and monetary union in the future. The EU's future is clearly mapped out, as more nations join all vetos will gradually be lost as majority voting will replace current methods.

Staying in carries just as much risk as leaving, but at least by leaving we gain our country back for our kids. I am amused at the confidence shown by so many in the predictions of the experts, who over the last four decades have shown over and over again they are terrible at their jobs.

 

[KM-Tiger]

I am amused at the confidence shown by so many in the predictions of the experts, who over the last four decades have shown over and over again they are terrible at their jobs.

Indeed. Remember when the economy was going to crash and burn if we did not join the Euro?

Needless to say it's the same people now exhorting us to stay in the EU.

 

[KM-Tiger]

These are the people that govern us if we vote to remain.

I presume everyone knows all the names and which ones you voted for?

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

The simple truth is no-one knows what will happen if we stay or leave, both carry serious risks, and potential benefits. I believe we can survive as a nation easily, there might be a small recession for a year or two, then again we could just as easily find a freed up country striking it's own deals around the world having a huge economic boost.

A "small recession" whilst every other country around us continues to grow is a serious problem which could have a detrimental impact for many years to come. FTAs usually also take around 5-10 years to negotiate with no guarantee that we will have the same benefits as we had before.

The EU is already negotiating major deals with world economic superpowers which we will benefit from as members, with ourselves having considerably more leverage due to the EU having the world's largest GDP.

Many FTAs also have serious risks of their own. For example, a free trade agreement with China could cheapen Chinese imports even more and further undermine the UK's manufacturing industry. It's just not as easy as it looks.

The future is what you make of it, for my part I believe we will lose evermore control on our country, laws, policies etc as the EU moves forward with political and monetary union in the future. The EU's future is clearly mapped out, as more nations join all vetos will gradually be lost as majority voting will replace current methods.

This is just based on no credible evidence at all, though, and is unrealistic. All 28 nations have an interest in making the EU successful, but every country also has its own self-interest in ensuring they get the most benefits of being a member - just as we do.

The voting process is enshrined in law. Why would all 28 EU members choose to sacrifice their ability to veto?

Look at the Treaty of Lisbon, the latest set of amendments to the original treaties.

The initial attempt at a new treaty actually failed because of public referendums in France, the Netherlands and Ireland. A new treaty based on amendments was then brought to the table and discussed, and after further concessions for a number of nations, all 28 countries then voted unanimously in favour, which is required for any amendment to the main EU treaty.

For any major change which would remove vetoes, force currency adoption or create some sort of "super state", unanimity would still be required as it is to make any change to the EU treaty.

There are a number countries within the EU which have a degree of Euroscepticism, including the UK. This is a good thing, as it provides balanced reasoning to all arguments. It's clear that whilst the UK has historically favoured being in the EU, we have always been against deeper integration and have more opt-outs than any other member, and if we stay, we can single-handedly prevent any such change to the EU treaty (as other members would do as well).

Plus, let's not forget that at all times, any country has the self-determined right to leave at any point - including ourselves if we do remain in.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

These are the people that govern us if we vote to remain.

I presume everyone knows all the names and which ones you voted for?

Except none of those people have any individual powers whatsoever. They merely chair meetings, encourage cooperation, assist negotiations and file reports for the European Parliament.

So no, they will not "govern" us. THAT is scaremongering as it's simply untrue.

But let's look at some of the UK's cabinet ministers.

George Osborne - Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Theresa May - Secretary of State for the Home Department.
Michael Gove - Secretary of State for Justice.
Michael Fallon - Secretary of State for Defence.
Jeremy Hunt - Secretary of State for Health.
Chris Grayling - Lord President of the Council.
Nicky Morgan - Secretary of State for Education.

Each one of these has numerous individual powers on departmental levels, with many decisions bypassing Parliament entirely.

Who did you vote for in these roles? Oh yes, none of them, because the cabinet is only decided by the Prime Minister after he comes to power.

I would also presume that the vast majority of British people do not know the names of all 118 ministers the Government appoints. Do you?

 

[KM-Tiger]

The EU is already negotiating major deals with world economic superpowers which we will benefit from as members

Yes, like TTIP which will put corporations above national govts and probably lead to the privatisation of the NHS, as corporations will be able to sue govts for "unfair competition".

I wonder why it is being negotiated in total secrecy? Even our elected MEPs don't have free access to documents and are forbidden from disclosing if they are allowed to see.

What sort of crap is that?

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Yes, like TTIP which will put corporations above national govts and probably lead to the privatisation of the NHS, as corporations will be able to sue govts for "unfair competition".

I wonder why it is being negotiated in total secrecy? Even our elected MEPs don't have free access to documents and are forbidden from disclosing if they are allowed to see.

What sort of crap is that?

Here's an article worth reading about this particular topic:

https://www.euractiv.com/section/trade-society/opinion/ttip-is-no-reason-to-leave-the-eu/

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...hief-arron-banks-nhs-privatised-a7022306.html

"If it were up to me, I’d privatise the NHS,” he said in comments reported by Bloomberg News.

Mr Banks also claimed his strategy to win the referendum campaign was to “bore the electorate into submission” in the hope that turnout was low – which he believed would help the leave cause.

"If turnout is low, we win. If it’s high, we lose," Mr Banks said. "Our strategy is to bore the electorate into submission, and it’s working."

Mr Banks was in Washington speaking to more than a dozen policy experts at the Cato Institute, a think tank dedicated to limited government and free markets.

Controversially, Bloomberg reported that Mr Banks conceded there would be economic pain if the UK were to pull out of the EU. But he said it was a price worth paying for independence.

I see.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Also, for anyone who wants more information about trade deals, this video hits the nail on the head:

 

[KM-Tiger]

Here's an article worth reading about this particular topic:

https://www.euractiv.com/section/trade-society/opinion/ttip-is-no-reason-to-leave-the-eu/

Which neatly evades my questions.

Why is it being negotiated in secret?

Does it or does it not put the interests of corporations above those of elected govts?

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Which neatly evades my questions.

Why is it being negotiated in secret?

Because a trade agreement negotiation is exactly that: a negotiation. There are multiple parties involved who are trying to get the best deal for themselves, with thousands of small concessions involved on both sides as they move towards agreement. You take a concession here, so you can gain an advantage there, and so on.

As MP Chris Bishop once said regarding these matters "You don’t go into a poker game with your cards laid out on the table".

Is it ideal? No. Is it transparent? No. However, trade deals have always been done in this way, and if the UK were to negotiate their own trade deals, the exact same thing would happen (although this time we would make far more concessions because we wouldn't be within the world's largest economy by GDP and would lose that massive leverage).

What people certainly shouldn't assume is that the discreetness of the negotiations means that there's some big, bad evil going on. It's just an unfortunate by-product of a negotiation process where parties are trying to compete for the best deal.

 

[sirearl]

Since Britain joined the EU the crime rate has gone up by x6,a major factor on quality of life.

People seem far to concerned with money as the only factor in this referendum.

The quality of life in Britain is one of the lowest in Europe although we earn more than most.?

 

[Cobby]

Since Britain joined the EU the crime rate has gone up by x6,a major factor on quality of life.

Hmm, so crime has increased in proportion to the soaring wealth inequality of the last ~40 years? Interesting hypothesis.

Don't forget also that global temperatures have gone up in correlation to the decrease in pirates. Those pesky buccaneers!

 

[Thermodynamic Man]

There hasn't been a decrease in pirates. They have just moved from the high seas to Westminster

 

[MBE1]

A "small recession" whilst every other country around us continues to grow is a serious problem which could have a detrimental impact for many years to come. FTAs usually also take around 5-10 years to negotiate with no guarantee that we will have the same benefits as we had before.

The EU is already negotiating major deals with world economic superpowers which we will benefit from as members, with ourselves having considerably more leverage due to the EU having the world's largest GDP.

Many FTAs also have serious risks of their own. For example, a free trade agreement with China could cheapen Chinese imports even more and further undermine the UK's manufacturing industry. It's just not as easy as it looks.



This is just based on no credible evidence at all, though, and is unrealistic. All 28 nations have an interest in making the EU successful, but every country also has its own self-interest in ensuring they get the most benefits of being a member - just as we do.

The voting process is enshrined in law. Why would all 28 EU members choose to sacrifice their ability to veto?

Look at the Treaty of Lisbon, the latest set of amendments to the original treaties.

The initial attempt at a new treaty actually failed because of public referendums in France, the Netherlands and Ireland. A new treaty based on amendments was then brought to the table and discussed, and after further concessions for a number of nations, all 28 countries then voted unanimously in favour, which is required for any amendment to the main EU treaty.

For any major change which would remove vetoes, force currency adoption or create some sort of "super state", unanimity would still be required as it is to make any change to the EU treaty.

There are a number countries within the EU which have a degree of Euroscepticism, including the UK. This is a good thing, as it provides balanced reasoning to all arguments. It's clear that whilst the UK has historically favoured being in the EU, we have always been against deeper integration and have more opt-outs than any other member, and if we stay, we can single-handedly prevent any such change to the EU treaty (as other members would do as well).

Plus, let's not forget that at all times, any country has the self-determined right to leave at any point - including ourselves if we do remain in.

As so many before, you consider the potential of recession only, yet ignore the potential of an energised economy freed from the EU bringing faster than average growth. I mentioned both as a possibility, but no-one can say for sure which will happen, the only definite is things will change as they always do.

As for every other country around us growing whilst we contract, I doubt that scenario would ever happen, since many of our trading partners rely on the trade they do with our country, so just as we suffer if european countries do badly, they will also suffer if the UK does badly. One fact that is hard to argue against is the EU nations are stagnating and growing very slowly, much slower than most comparible sized countries around the world, with huge unemployment problems throughout europe with very little job creation. One reason so many immigrants head to the UK is down to job opportunities.

FTA's can take as long or as little time as the nations concerned decide, just because they have taken many years up to now doesn't mean that has to be the case in the future, does anyone truly believe for instance the Germans will not wish to sell cars in the UK anymore? It is in everyone's interests to work a deal out quickly.

My point regarding voting in the EU in future was based that as the EU enlarges, the chance of getting 30 or more countries to agree all the time is highly unlikely, so majority voting will creep in IMO. This point illustrates one reason why the EU is so slow to reform though, and explains the lack of FTA's negotiated by the EU.

I agree all countries look after themselves, which is another argument for leaving, to free ourselves from constant compromise, and look after ourselves wholesale.

Simple fact is the EU is under performing compared to the growth shown by other major nations, and IMO we would still be able to negotiate decent FTA's as the worlds fifth largest economy. There is life and a future in or out of the EU, each person has to decide what they prefer.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

As so many before, you consider the potential of recession only, yet ignore the potential of an energised economy freed from the EU bringing faster than average growth. I mentioned both as a possibility, but no-one can say for sure which will happen, the only definite is things will change as they always do.

The critical flaw in your argument is that you imply that the EU is restricting our growth, when it's actually one of the key reasons why we've grown to have such a large economy in recent decades.

"Energised" is a meaningless word. How are we "energised" when we leave or restrict our access to the EU's single market? You cannot get a more favourable deal with the EU than what is currently available to members. It's completely open and tariff-free.

How will we be "energised" if we leave the EU's free trade agreements with other superpowers, which have been negotiated with the EU's leverage as the world's second largest economy, to create our own FTAs with a GDP almost 6 times smaller and a market size 8 times smaller?

Do you even understand Switzerland and China's FTA, for example? China has completely open access to Switzerland's market now, and in exchange, China will open up their market to Switzerland in 15 years.

Whilst we are bigger than Switzerland, we are very small compared to the overall EU and their ability to leverage FTAs. We will be leaving the EU, and over 60 FTAs which we currently benefit from as a member, to try and negotiate trade deals with the majority of the same countries, but this time with significantly less negotiating power.

We will become the rule-taker, not the rule-maker - especially regarding the most important economic superpowers. Just look at the logic. It's physically impossible for us to end up in a more favourable trading arrangement with the world by going it alone as it would be by staying in the EU.

We'll have less favourable trade deals without the EU's immense bargaining power, and the UK's appealing investment position as a gateway into the EU's 500million strong single market will be gone. How on earth is that supposed to "energise" the UK economy? It makes absolutely no sense at all.

 

[sirearl]

The critical flaw in your argument is that you imply that the EU is restricting our growth, when it's actually one of the key reasons why we've grown to have such a large economy in recent decades.

You are joking of course?

Britain has twice the debt of its nearest rival in europe.

Personal debt is at a record high.

So how does this alledged huge economy benefit your average Joe.

 

[MBE1]

We'll have less favourable trade deals without the EU's immense bargaining power, and the UK's appealing investment position as a gateway into the EU's 500million strong single market will be gone. How on earth is that supposed to "energise" the UK economy? It makes absolutely no sense at all.

Your flaw as before is simply seeing the EU and nothing else, the majority of trade and countries lies outside the EU, the British have traded around the world for centuries, and negotiating for ourselves would probably be a lot quicker than trying to get universal agreement between 28 different countries, soon to be even more in number.

The EU is failing most of it's citizens, hence the rise is far right support and mass immigration throughout the southern countries. There is a real risk in staying in the EU that the UK will be dragged down with it, I am all for trade with neighbours, but sometimes more important things matter to some. When the UK cannot decide how many people can come here to live from the EU, despite it being universally agreed current immigration rates are unsustainable in the long term, then the country no longer deserves to be called a country anymore.

Now many people might be happy living under EU control, I prefer to at least vote for the people making and implementing our laws with the option of removing them if I wish every few years, but we now have 70% of all laws eminating from the EU, not all are bad, but one size will never fit all.

We obviously disagree on this matter of the EU and membership, but no-one can say whether we would have less favourable deals with the world outside the EU, that would come down to how both parties negotiated the deal, it is such sweeping statements that reduce the remain argument into project fear. I see the UK being energised by being able to negotiate direct with countries, and responding quicker and faster than the EU ever could or would.

A great EU deal with say China is one thing, but if that deal is still being negotiated it is not of much use. The EU is still negotiating various FTA's, with Palestine being a noteable success but most major economies still to be agreed terms. Few decent FTA's have been concluded in the last twenty years by the EU, the UK would have to really be inept to do worse.

 

[MikeJ]

but we now have 70% of all laws eminating from the EU, not all are bad, but one size will never fit all.

Keep repeating a lie often enough, it becomes... well, still a lie.

https://fullfact.org/europe/uk-law-what-proportion-influenced-eu/

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Keep repeating a lie often enough, it becomes... well, still a lie.

https://fullfact.org/europe/uk-law-what-proportion-influenced-eu/

Here's another one, as well:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...mpaign-over-350m-a-week-eu-cost-a7051756.html

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

We obviously disagree on this matter of the EU and membership, but no-one can say whether we would have less favourable deals with the world outside the EU, that would come down to how both parties negotiated the deal, it is such sweeping statements that reduce the remain argument into project fear. I see the UK being energised by being able to negotiate direct with countries, and responding quicker and faster than the EU ever could or would.

We can. We really, really can. It's just basic common sense.

The speed of a trade deal has nothing to do with how fast you respond. The reason they take so long is because of negotiations as both sides try to gain the most favourable terms to benefit most from the deal. There are thousands of products, services, industries and trade routes to look at and negotiate over, which is why they often take years.

It almost sounds like you want the EU to stop playing hardball and accept worse trade terms just to get the deals done faster, which is insane. These trade deals will be in place for many decades, if not indefinitely, so all sides will naturally haggle for the best terms now to benefit from them long-term.

How would you feel if the UK short-changed our industries and cut corners just to speed up the implementation of trade deals which ultimately won't be as beneficial to us?

It's very obvious why we will ultimately end up with less favourable trade deals. The biggest market is naturally the rule-maker, and the bigger the market is, the more leverage it has to negotiate better arrangements for itself.

The UK gaining trade deals as part of the EU:

GDP - $16.2 trillion
Population - 500million

The UK on its own:

GDP - $2.8trillion
Population - 64million

Please read this carefully and tell me, how are we supposed to negotiate more favourable trade deals with world economies by ourselves compared to being part of the EU?

It's not only size. As part of the EU, it is much more appealing to a much wider range of countries with different industries. The manufacturing sector in the EU, for example, is $3.8trillion of GDP. That means the manufacturing sector of the EU is larger than the ENTIRE UK economy. With this, the EU can negotiate much better trade deals with more countries where manufacturing is their main focus (the same trade deals we benefit from directly as members).

If we leave the trade deals the EU has negotiated with these countries, to continue on by ourselves with a manufacturing industry which is only 8% the size, many of these countries won't even look twice at us. It's not just manufacturing as well. The same applies to services, agriculture, construction, financial services and everything else.

This is the whole point of the European Union. Smaller countries can band together to be a much, much bigger player on the world stage for the benefit of all members within it.

As part of the EU, we have economic clout which is similar to the United States and much larger than China. How are we supposed to fair better if we branch off, leave the single market and continue on at a fraction of the size? It makes absolutely no sense.

 

[KM-Tiger]

tell me, how are we supposed to negotiate more favourable trade deals with world economies by ourselves compared to being part of the EU?

Perhaps the same way as Iceland that have a free trade deal with China?

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Perhaps the same way as Iceland that have a free trade deal with China?

Every Brexit supporter I come across doesn't seem to understand how trade deals work.

Switzerland has a trade deal with China as well. However, the terms of the deal are that China gains free market access to Switzerland now, and then Switzerland can have free access to China's market in 15 years time.

The Iceland-China FTA is the same. If you look into the details, you will find that China has free market access into Iceland immediately, and in exchange, China's tariffs on Iceland will be gradually removed over a 10 year period.

Do you know why? Because China is the largest economy in the deal, and thus they are able to dictate the terms and come out with a trade deal which is far more favourable for them, not Iceland.

This does not happen as part of the EU, because as part of the world's second largest economy by GDP, we have the most leverage over the vast majority of countries, including China, and we can rival the United States directly.

Plus, no trade deal is truly free (except the EU's single market, which Brexiteers want to leave). The China and Iceland FTA, for example, excludes certain products and sectors from complete tariff removal indefinitely. Again, China are able to dictate the terms of these as well.

It's very alarming that the Brexit argument appears to be based on such a profound misunderstanding of how trade deals work.

I'll top this post off with a recent survey of 639 economists:

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/eu-referen...ists-say-brexit-will-damage-uk-growth-1562596

 

[Newchodge]

You're missing the fundamental point here, Scott.

We need to get back control of our country.

Whatever the f*** that means. Without defining 'we'; without defining 'control'.

It's just so obvious we will be better off outside. Please don't ask why, it is OBVIOUS. Or not.

 

[simon field]

You're missing the fundamental point here, Scott.

We need to get back control of our country.

Whatever the f*** that means. Without defining 'we'; without defining 'control'.

It's just so obvious we will be better off outside. Please don't ask why, it is OBVIOUS. Or not.

Sorry, but that post just seems to be pandering to your interpretation of what the daily screams are saying - almost as if that's representative of what some the 'outers' are actually asking.

Which is a perfectly pertinent question in my opinion; Is uncontrolled immigration a good thing for the UK?

 

[sirearl]

You're missing the fundamental point here, Scott.

We need to get back control of our country.

Whatever the f*** that means. Without defining 'we'; without defining 'control'.

It's just so obvious we will be better off outside. Please don't ask why, it is OBVIOUS. Or not.

Afraid the damage has alredy been done.

http://britishfamily.co.uk/is-britain-for-sale-the-true-cost-of-foreign-ownership-to-us-all/

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Which is a perfectly pertinent question in my opinion; Is uncontrolled immigration a good thing for the UK?

Economically, yes.

An increase in the working-age population increases the workforce, GDP, consumer spending and tax revenue.

It has been shown that EEA migrants have made a positive net fiscal contribution to the UK economy. There is also absolutely no correlation between net migration and the UK's unemployment rate. In fact, despite continued net migration, the UK's unemployment rate is amongst the lowest it has been for the past 40 years.

However, what a lot of people don't seem to realise is that the majority of migration to the UK is made up of people from outside of the EU. In the year ending September 2015, for example, the net migration of EU citizens was 172,000, compared to 191,000 non-EU citizens.

In fact, in that year alone, net migration from non-EU countries was 4 times higher than migration from the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungry, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia.

Leaving the EU will do nothing to curb that number of non-EU citizens, and if we end up joining the EEA to maintain access to the single market like Norway and Switzerland (which has a high probability of happening), the free movement of people to and from the UK will have to remain the same as well.

All in all, there is a real chance that those voting Brexit on the grounds of immigration could be leaving the EU for nothing.

Interestingly, the majority of EU migrants also arrive from some of the EU's wealthiest countries. In that same year, double the number of net migrants arrived from Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Republic of Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and Sweden, compared to the 8 countries I mentioned above.

Plus, let's not forget that around 130,000-150,000 British people leave the UK every year to move into other countries within the EU and elsewhere around the world. Us Brits take advantage of the free movement of people just like any other country.

 

[boring-friday]

Economically, yes.

An increase in the working-age population increases the workforce, GDP, consumer spending and tax revenue.

It has been shown that EEA migrants have made a positive net fiscal contribution to the UK economy. There is also absolutely no correlation between net migration and the UK's unemployment rate. In fact, despite continued net migration, the UK's unemployment rate is amongst the lowest it has been for the past 40 years.

However, what a lot of people don't seem to realise is that the majority of migration to the UK is made up of people from outside of the EU. In the year ending September 2015, for example, the net migration of EU citizens was 172,000, compared to 191,000 non-EU citizens.

In fact, in that year alone, net migration from non-EU countries was 4 times higher than migration from the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungry, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia.

Leaving the EU will do nothing to curb that number of non-EU citizens, and if we end up joining the EEA to maintain access to the single market like Norway and Switzerland (which has a high probability of happening), the free movement of people to and from the UK will have to remain the same as well.

All in all, there is a real chance that those voting Brexit on the grounds of immigration could be leaving the EU for nothing.

Interestingly, the majority of EU migrants also arrive from some of the EU's wealthiest countries. In that same year, double the number of net migrants arrived from Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Republic of Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and Sweden, compared to the 8 countries I mentioned above.

Plus, let's not forget that around 130,000-150,000 British people leave the UK every year to move into other countries within the EU and elsewhere around the world. Us Brits take advantage of the free movement of people just like any other country.

I never understand that whole argument. If we leave the EU then it just means we get to pick and chose who we want in so how does your answer mean that its better to be uncontrolled rather than controlled? Unless Polish nurses and Austrian bankers aren't going to want to come anymore for some strange reason?

Find your stats for 2x as many people coming from Spain etc than Poland etc. Can't remember the last time I heard someone speaking Spanish, I hear Polish multiple times every day though.

and lol at trade deals. It didn't do China too much harm not having a trade deal as they took the majority of wholesale to the UK/US and now are taking a big chunk out of retail.
Oh and theres no import duty to Germany but I have to pay 20% VAT. Cheers for that then.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

I never understand that whole argument. If we leave the EU then it just means we get to pick and chose who we want in so how does your answer mean that its better to be uncontrolled rather than controlled? Unless Polish nurses and Austrian bankers aren't going to want to come anymore for some strange reason?

I'm simply stating that uncontrolled EU immigration has been beneficial to the UK economy overall.

Is it absolutely perfect? No. No system ever is. However, the question is whether leaving the EU and taking the many negative impacts of an exit is a price worth paying for more immigration control. That's for individual voters to decide, but immigration is only a very small part of the picture of an EU exit.

Plus, as I mentioned before, leaving the EU is absolutely no guarantee that we will be able to pick and choose who we want. With such an overwhelmingly pro-EU Government, and with the EU's single market being an integral part of our existing trade, there's a very high likelihood that we'll just join the EEA and still be obliged by the free movement of goods, services and people.

I would take the suggestions of Brexit campaigners with a pinch of salt. They have a big voice in this referendum but very little power in Parliament, where post-EU decisions will be made. Anyone who is voting to leave on the assumption that we'll be able to just "close our borders" are mistaken. There's a very good chance that EU immigration will remain as it is, and it will do nothing regarding the 180,000+ net migration of non-EU citizens every year (which we have control over right now and have done this entire time).