Europe should we stay in or get out?
- Thread starter Funding for Communities
- Start date
Sure, but in some situations it's extremely difficult.
Europe is comfortably the most conflict-torn continent in human history, even more so than Asia and the Middle East area. I sometimes get the impression that Europeans look at modern conflicts in those areas with a holier-than-thou attitude, but we've been far worse.
A few hundred years ago, people would have thought of Europe coming together in a peaceful union in the same way that we think of the Middle East coming together in a peaceful union today. It's equivalently that far-fetched and seemingly impossible, but it happened.
There are people alive today who were there when the UK and France were battling Germany and Italy in World War 2, and look at us now. I'm amazed that some people don't appreciate the EU for the remarkable feat of human achievement it is.
It's not perfect, but considering the nationalist war-torn past of Europe, it's a very impressive step forward.
Upvote
0
J
john1989
ShirleyM says they are, you say they aren't. It's almost like the supporters of the Leave campaign aren't sure quite what they're arguing against.
Government issue, not an EU issue.
It is both.
We wouldn't need more housing if there will less immigration.
Just like the NHS doesn't need more money, it just needs less people using it.
Upvote
0
Because companies can enjoy the UK's solid business framework whilst having an open gateway to the EU single market and it's 500million consumers. It's the best of both worlds.
Take that single market away, and you will find a lot of companies doing exactly what you have suggested. Jobs will be lost, GDP will go down, tax revenues will go down and a recession will follow with years of further austerity ahead.
When 9 out of 10 economists believe that Brexit will damage the UK economy, it isn't based on some madcap theory. It's pretty basic common sense.
Upvote
0
Scott, I don't know how old you are, but I think you are probably under 40? If so, most (all?) of your life will have been lived since the fall of the Berlin Wall (1989)
Before that time, we lived under the very real and constant possibility of war in Europe, between "the West" and the Soviet Bloc. It was the presence of a major, major super power on our Eastern border that focused the minds of western leaders and put paid to any thoughts of war between Western European nations. Had, say, France and West Germany gone to war with each other ( as they have done so throughout the centuries) the Soviet pact would have exploited this and rolled across the German plains, and probably not stopped until they reached the Atlantic coast.
As I say, I remain undecided, but this myth that it is the EU (and not NATO nor the presence of the Soviet Bloc) that has led to peace in Europe since 1945 is just that, a myth, on a par with the myth that we will be overrun by immigrants if we remain in the Eu.
The remain campaign has enough arguments to support its position. To my mind - as someone who lived through the Cold War, and was, at one point, the tiniest cog in the machine - saying that it was the EU that has secured peace in Europe since 1945 is wrong and undermines its (the remain group's) many other valid arguments.
Upvote
0
S
ShirleyM
[
But those companies TAKE from the UK, not contribute. We would be financially (and socially) better off if they DID take their business to another country. We want more jobs, but not if they can only be filled by immigrants on minimum pay. We want jobs that take people off the dole. We don't want jobs that only exist because of mass immigration and taxpayers support. Also the pressure on public services, etc. WHERE do we find the money to pay for new hospitals, etc?
The 9 out of 10 economists .... they will be proven wrong, yet again!
But those companies TAKE from the UK, not contribute. We would be financially (and socially) better off if they DID take their business to another country. We want more jobs, but not if they can only be filled by immigrants on minimum pay. We want jobs that take people off the dole. We don't want jobs that only exist because of mass immigration and taxpayers support. Also the pressure on public services, etc. WHERE do we find the money to pay for new hospitals, etc?
The 9 out of 10 economists .... they will be proven wrong, yet again!
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 59730
Well Boris Johnson has been responsible, as mayor of London, for a massive building programme. Most of the property he let happen is owned by immigrants many of which didn't even bother moving to London at all. Its all a big investment scam to attract dirty money.
So when Boris unseats Cameron we can only expect more of the same.
So when Boris unseats Cameron we can only expect more of the same.
Upvote
0
S
ShirleyM
No. I am asking why they built their warehouses in small communities and then shipped in thousands of migrants to those small communities for minimum pay jobs.
Why not build them in Poland?
Upvote
0
Leaving the EU will not expel the 3 million or so EU citizens that have settled here, nor will it halt population growth. We will still need more housing.
*fewer
And what are you basing that upon? The cost of EU visitors and other 'health tourists'? That's around £300 million per year in the £120,000 million budget (that's 1/5th of a percentage point).
Upvote
0
Are you implicating Sports Direct as people traffickers? Or asking why they running a business in this country at all? Or are you enquiring about corporate abuse of employment law?
And for what it's worth, Sports Direct do operate in Poland, soooo...
Upvote
0
S
ShirleyM
Good heavens! I ask a simple question and this happens. There is no wonder that many 'don't knows' say the debate is a waste of time.
You are looking for insults to throw at me instead of helping me understand why Sports Direct and Next plc do something that appears to be unhelpful to our country.
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 59730
Because the UK government lets them. In the same way the UK government let major companies operate in the UK without paying their correct proportion of tax. Amazon, Facebook, Starbooks, Macdonalds etc etc.
Now there just happens to be one organisation in the whole world who have policies in place, and are planning more, to bring these businesses to heel. The EU of course.
Upvote
0
J
john1989
Those companies have paid the right amount of tax legally required.
It's a dangerous road to implement a tax system based on morals and pressuring companies through the media.
Upvote
0
See, you keep saying you are interested in answers, but you ignore them when they're given and then keep repeating the same sound bites (like Gove's instruction to disregard economic experts that you snuck in at the end there).
Can you provide some evidence, or even at a push, some detail and logic behind your own thinking, as to why the UK would be better off without companies like Next or Sports Direct?
You say 'we don't want jobs that only exist because of immigration' - lots of jobs exist because of it: immigrants require services and goods, and as such create demand and contribute to the economy in doing so. My own businesses serve a small percentage of immigrated citizens. And remember their contribution is a NET POSITIVE to the economy, regardless of those in the Leave camp that simply dislike them.
I'm not throwing insults at you at all, but you didn't ask "a simple question". You are asking loaded questions. You are, deliberately or not, conflating separate topics that legitimises them as targets for anti-immigration rhetoric.
Upvote
0
Oh dear.
So you honestly believe that the UK would be better off if all these companies pulled their productivity, jobs and trade out of the UK, along with the tax revenue of those companies, the supply chains of those companies and the direct and indirect tax revenue of those employees?
When a company sets up in the UK, even if it does employ immigrants, it's creating jobs, providing trade, increasing productivity, paying other UK businesses as part of the supply chain, and paying salaries to workers who are in-turn taxed through income tax, NI, VAT, duty etc. How on earth is that taking more than it's contributing?
I'll tell you where the money comes from to fund the NHS, schools and housing. It comes from tax revenue which is directly correlated to economic output. If you take that away and the UK falls into a recession, just watch how much worse they will get.
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 59730
Are you now saying that the EU is dangerous for trying to get multinationals to pay tax in the countries where they trade?
Far better to have the big boys paying their share into the country that provides them with the infrastructure to run their businesses.
Upvote
0
17% from a field of 4,000 is not an insignificant sample size. It's quite reasonable to extrapolate the results to the rest of the field.
Are you suggesting that in addition to every "pro brexit" response (~1 in 10) every non-reply also counts as a "pro brexit" response? Will you only accept a figure based on the reply of every single economist asked?
This is why the Leave group keep getting labelled as misleading and disingenuous - because they are.
All taxation is based on morals.
Upvote
0
J
john1989
All taxation is based on morals.
Nonsense. It's based on legislation.
Far better to have the big boys paying their share into the country that provides them with the infrastructure to run their businesses.
Totally agree but it needs to be done through changing legislation. Relying on pressure by demonising them in the media is lazy and dangerous.
Nonsense. It's based on legislation.
Far better to have the big boys paying their share into the country that provides them with the infrastructure to run their businesses.
Totally agree but it needs to be done through changing legislation. Relying on pressure by demonising them in the media is lazy and dangerous.
Upvote
0
That is an utterly awful and flawed attempt to try and re-position the figures.
Of course you only take the data from those who actually responded. Other economists who haven't responded have provided no input, so you cannot claim that they do not oppose Brexit.
Considering that 561 of those economists out of 639 economists said it would be bad for the economy, you can extrapolate that with a huge degree of confidence. Unless, of course, the 16.7% of those who voluntarily replied just happened to be the entire number who believe Brexit will be bad, and with the odds of one in a billion, the majority of the 3179 who didn't respond happen to be all of those who believe Brexit will be good for the UK.
Is that your stance on this?
If so, I guess the entire democratic election system must be flawed too, right? After all, a lot of elections only get 50%-60% turnout.
For this EU referendum, around 50million are registered to vote. If this referendum gets 60% turnout, then that's only 30million people, and if 51% vote to leave, that's 15.3million.
But wait, that's only 30% of those who were able to respond. Presumably this means that you will believe the outcome is flawed and that the leave result should be scrapped, right?
Upvote
0
I know I will regret saying this, however:
If an economic union required that all businesses operating within the union paid the same percentage of corporation tax, say 20%, then there would not be tax havens within the EU which allowed predatory organisations to be based in the lowest taxed country, while still having full and free access to all the markets within that union.
If an economic union required that all businesses operating within the union paid the same percentage of corporation tax, say 20%, then there would not be tax havens within the EU which allowed predatory organisations to be based in the lowest taxed country, while still having full and free access to all the markets within that union.
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 59730
That is what the EU is doing and what the oligarchy which the UK has become is patently not doing. The UK do not even charge these big guys what the legislation says. According to the French the UK should have charged Google 16 times more than the cosy deal we allowed.
Upvote
0
It's regulated and enforced (sometimes) with legislation. It is based on morals. This is more of a philosophical argument though and a bit off topic.
Why is it dangerous? Applying public pressure to get companies to meet their public obligations when the government themselves will offer 'sweetheart' deals so the companies don't have to - that seems quite worthwhile as it applies pressure to both parties.
Upvote
0
J
john1989
It's regulated and enforced (sometimes) with legislation. It is based on morals. This is more of a philosophical argument though and a bit off topic.
Why is it dangerous? Applying public pressure to get companies to meet their public obligations when the government themselves will offer 'sweetheart' deals so the companies don't have to - that seems quite worthwhile as it applies pressure to both parties.
How would you feel if the government dragged your business through national media in a negative light because they thought morally you should have paid an extra few quid that had no basis in law?
Upvote
0
Eh, if I were deliberately evading the spirit of the law (what is set out as the clear intent of the law) to save money by word of the law ('loopholes', if you will), I'd consider it a cost to the risk of doing it. As they do.
And the public is largely unconcerned with dragging a company through the media for claiming back a few extra petrol receipts when the government is letting corporations discard tax bills that would pay to build a hospital and fund it for a decade.
Companies aren't just wealth creators, they have obligations to the societies they operate it, just the same as the people who live there. But again, this is off-topic.
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 59730
Why do you brexiters make out that the tab is so big? Its about a cup of coffee a fortnight. Are you really that stingy?
And if all those Tory brexiters really cared about getting more funds to the NHS why don't they just do it. They are the government for goodness sake and some of them are even Cabinet Ministers.
Upvote
0
J
john1989
They didn't evade tax (well they might have done). The issue has been about tax avoidance which is perfectly legal.
How many directors have been using tax avoidance for years? Think small salary topped up by dividends.
Upvote
0
I think Brexit supporters underestimate the EU's willingness to play hard-ball with us in the event of an exit.
Just look at the EU-India free trade agreement. Negotiations started in 2007 but have been completely stalled since 2015 due to disputes within the negotiations.
And if you think that's much different to our situation, we have the 5th largest economy in the world whereas India has the 7th largest, which is bigger than every EU economy apart from the UK, France, and Germany.
When the EU's economy is almost 6 times larger than ours, they simply won't give in before we do. They can soak up losing a chunk of UK trade much easier than we can soak up losing a chunk of 45% of our entire global exports.
Just look at the EU-India free trade agreement. Negotiations started in 2007 but have been completely stalled since 2015 due to disputes within the negotiations.
And if you think that's much different to our situation, we have the 5th largest economy in the world whereas India has the 7th largest, which is bigger than every EU economy apart from the UK, France, and Germany.
When the EU's economy is almost 6 times larger than ours, they simply won't give in before we do. They can soak up losing a chunk of UK trade much easier than we can soak up losing a chunk of 45% of our entire global exports.
Upvote
0
It's ridiculous, isn't it?
Our Government has made huge cuts to the NHS, privatised large pieces of it and tried to force staff to work for less per hour.
Yet in the event of Brexit which is virtually certain to cause an economic slowdown or even a recession, Brexit supporters honestly believe that the Government will deal with that by taking the EU money and pumping it into the NHS.
Do people not realise what right-wing Governments do? Their whole agenda is to reduce the size of government, reduce public spending and reduce the size of the public sector by increasing the private sector through privatising national institutions.
Yet in the event of Brexit, they expect this right-wing Government to start using left-wing policies by expanding public sector spending?
Every element of every institution the Government has privatised, including schools, the NHS and everything else, are now far less dictated by Government public spending and far more dictated by economic performance as every other private sector business is. Any economic damage caused by Brexit will cripple them.
Upvote
0
Err, did you mean to make the case to leave and negotiate our own trade deal? India is a growing market.
Upvote
0
When the UK votes on the winning side of over 95% of EU decisions, why do you think that we will not have the same problems with the negotiations as the EU does?
Have a read, if you wish:
http://thediplomat.com/2014/06/whats-holding-back-the-india-eu-fta/
Perhaps this will also further highlight just how complicated and time consuming free trade agreements actually are.
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 59730
And we can only shudder to think who they will be playing hard ball with.
Boris Johnson was a journalist writing for the Telegraph about the EU and had a nasty habit of making up lies about the officials and commissioners. So many and damaging were his lies that the EU published a correction running to 16 pages.
His insults and lies about the EU during this campaign will not be forgotten in a hurry.
Upvote
0
Let me guess. You didn't bother to read a word of that article I posted, did you?
If you did, you would find that a lot of the sticking points would apply to the UK negotiations just as much as the EU negotiations.
Every time I debate with Brexit supporter I notice they have a tendency to grossly oversimplify matters to the point where it doesn't even make any sense any more.
There are dozens of tangible sticking points in these negotiations which are clear for all to see, including Mode 1, Mode 4, intellectual property rights, car tariffs, alcohol duties and agriculture tariffs. Yet your proposed solution to this problem is "history, language and law".
Upvote
0
Latest Articles
-
What I Wish I'd Known Before Using AI in My BusinessSomewhere between the headlines promising AI will transform everything...- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
Is AI Making the Internet Worse?It started with a comment about music. @JEREMY HAWKE , a courier...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
The AI Divide: What UKBF Members Really Think in 2026Every few months on UK Business Forums, a thread appears that refuses...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
When the Algorithm Gets It Wrong: What eBay's AI Moderation Problem Tells Us About Platform RiskA thread appeared on UKBF this week that, on the surface, looks like a...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
Should you crowdfund? A framework for UK founders in 2026Three articles into a series on what crowdfunding actually costs, the...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
