Should We Leave the EU?

[DynamicSpirit]

After a lot of debate, this thread could do with a poll being attached imo. I think the results could be interesting.

Is that something the mods/ OP could do?

I'm the OP, and I can, and am happy to, attach a poll to the thread. But I'm guessing it would be difficult to modify any poll once it was attached, so it would be good to know what question/responses people want before I do anything.

My initial thought would be something like.
Question: How are you intending to vote in the referendum (if you're not eligible to vote in the referendum, answer as if you were eligible to vote)?
And 4 answers: Stay In / Leave / WontVote / DontKnow

Is that sufficient or does anyone see any reasons to do something different?

 

[Gutfright]

I'm the OP, and I can, and am happy to, attach a poll to the thread. But I'm guessing it would be difficult to modify any poll once it was attached, so it would be good to know what question/responses people want before I do anything.

My initial thought would be something like.
Question: How are you intending to vote in the referendum (if you're not eligible to vote in the referendum, answer as if you were eligible to vote)?
And 4 answers: Stay In / Leave / WontVote / DontKnow

Is that sufficient or does anyone see any reasons to do something different?

That sounds good to me. I have jumped the gun a little and posted a poll of my own, but I'm more than happy for it to be deleted in favour of a poll on this thread.

 

[Barn]

That's actually not a bad argument. My first thought when I read your post was something like, "Wow - at last, someone, apparently in the 'out' camp who actually appears to understand sovereignty issues"

However, there's one problem: You said "We simply do not feel...". Who do you mean by "we"? I suspect what you actually mean is that you personally do not feel that way. Personally, I have no problems with sharing sovereignty with Estonians or Danes etc., on issues for which it's appropriate - and reading this thread, it's evident that a lot of people here feel the same way.

It's my view, yes, and it's my opinion of the country's view as a whole. That's only my opinion, of course, and I could be wrong, but I do not think I am.

Remember I wasn't talking about the idea of sharing sovereignty per se (which can take a number of forms) but rather I was talking about the idea of whether we would be willing as a country to take part in a fully 'democratic' European parliament with legislative initiative.

The people of a British town or county do, as a rule, accept that they might be bound by a measure if it is approved by the representatives of the country as a whole, even if their own MP(s) do not agree.

I don't think that the British would be happy if law after law were proposed by other countries' MEPs and passed by an EU parliament in circumstances where a clear majority of UK MEPs were opposed to the measure.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

That sounds good to me. I have jumped the gun a little and posted a poll of my own, but I'm more than happy for it to be deleted in favour of a poll on this thread.

I'm happy to attach a poll to this thread, and I suspect that would be better, because otherwise we'll end up with two EU threads discussing the same things. However, I'd prefer to wait a day or two before posting it, just to give time for anyone to chime in about questions/responses, and point out if there's anything awkward about my suggested wording (because I'm guessing that once the poll is up, it'd be hard to change if there's something problematic about it). If you're happy to delete your poll (or to ask a mod to delete it) on that basis, the go ahead - I'll promise to attach a poll here in a couple of days

 

[miami]

It's my view, yes, and it's my opinion of the country's view as a whole. That's only my opinion, of course, and I could be wrong, but I do not think I am.

I don't think it's the country's view at all. It may be that 40% agree with the view, or 40% disagree, but I doubt that the figures will be much off that. Either way a divided country with many disapointed people.

 

[Barn]

I'm not talking about support for/against Brexit - I'm talking about the specific point we were discussing above regarding EU parliament legislative initiative. I don't know what you mean about disappointed people because that isn't on the table at the moment (although I think a vote to stay will lead that way in time).

 

[yorksrob]

That's actually not a bad argument. My first thought when I read your post was something like, "Wow - at last, someone, apparently in the 'out' camp who actually appears to understand sovereignty issues" .

And presumably that makes you, and the in campaign, the only other people to understand issues of national sovereignty?

 

[yorksrob]

My pro-European side would be tempted to support a European Community as a bulwark against a resurgent nationalist Russia, and to show solidarity with secular Europe against the unwelcome global resurgence of religious dogma.

If only we could be rid of the common market and it's interference.

 

[Steveman]

Where's the poll gone?

 

[TheKnightWho]

My pro-European side would be tempted to support a European Community as a bulwark against a resurgent nationalist Russia, and to show solidarity with secular Europe against the unwelcome global resurgence of religious dogma.

If only we could be rid of the common market and it's interference.

Why do you dislike the common market? That's one of its largest advantages.

 

[Gutfright]

Where's the poll gone?

It was deleted because we already have an EU referendum thread. I think DynamicSpirit has plans to attach a poll to this thread in a day or two.

 

[yorksrob]

Why do you dislike the common market? That's one of its largest advantages.

Firstly, I believe it interferes in countries rights to decide how their public services are managed and owned. See the latest rail package as an example.

Secondly, I believe that state aid rules mitigate against us achieving an element of self sufficiency in our economy. What assistance we are allowed to put towards the steel industry may make for an interesting example of this, although we have yet to see how it pans out. Cast your mind back to the immediate aftermath of the financial crisis in 2008. Remember all of that talk about a development bank to invest in industry to orientate the economy away from the City of London? My suspicion is that it was quietly binned because they didn't think they could get it past the state aid rules. Of course, the frustrating thing is that I won't be able to prove anything because the decision will have been made behind closed doors before it even reached a court. However, my worry is to what extent our government is already self-editing the policy options that are put to us because they don't think some options will be allowed.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Firstly, I believe it interferes in countries rights to decide how their public services are managed and owned. See the latest rail package as an example.

Secondly, I believe that state aid rules mitigate against us achieving an element of self sufficiency in our economy. What assistance we are allowed to put towards the steel industry may make for an interesting example of this, although we have yet to see how it pans out. Cast your mind back to the immediate aftermath of the financial crisis in 2008. Remember all of that talk about a development bank to invest in industry to orientate the economy away from the City of London? My suspicion is that it was quietly binned because they didn't think they could get it past the state aid rules. Of course, the frustrating thing is that I won't be able to prove anything because the decision will have been made behind closed doors before it even reached a court. However, my worry is to what extent our government is already self-editing the policy options that are put to us because they don't think some options will be allowed.

That rail package was designed and created with input from all of those countries. It isn't imposed without consultation, and so was desired by those who implemented it.

Self-sufficiency isn't something our economy should be striving for either. It leaves us producing things sub-optimally and without training people in what we do best. Why prop up failing industry, when the best thing is to train people in something that can actually be productive and economic? Plus, we're kidding ourselves if we think the current government would prop up our own industry: the Tories are hardly known for their protectionism given their record.

Also, the idea that the UK should be self-sufficient apart from Europe makes no sense. There is no likelihood of a European war, and integration makes that more and more unlikely. Preparing for an event that should never come only makes it more likely that it will come, because it disincentives co-operation. Mutual dependence is what prevents countries from going to war. European countries also have little to gain from screwing the UK over: deals aren't zero-sum games (unlike, sometimes, in business). The French fighting for a good deal for themselves does not necessarily mean that they want it at the expense of other countries (just as the UK is the same): there is no point being in the EU if you simply do over your neighbours, and governments understand this because it simply weakens those who are your primary dependence for trade etc.

 

[yorksrob]

The rail package might have been agreed by the elites, but it doesn't reflect the way I think the country should be run.

I agree with you to the extent that a certain level of interdependence is desirable for the reasons you've stated - I just don't think that we should completely depend on external supply lines.

Take steel as an example. Suppose the Chinese economy picks up and the price of steel rockets and we end up competing with every other country in terms of all the industries which rely on it. They would be at a disadvantage compared to similar industries in other countries that have a capacity to produce it, so we lose again. Classical economic theory would suggest that it would then become cost effective to produce our own steel again. But classic economic theory is wrong because we will have lost the expertise and capital investment to produce steel. The cost of re-entering the market will be too high. We lose again.

Or take nuclear power stations. Once upon a time, we had the expertise to design and build them. Then it was decided that we didn't need to maintain that expertise because "the market will sort it all out" and we can just buy electricity /power stations from wherever. Of course, now that we actually need to build a nuclear power station, we've lost the expertise and we have to go "cap in hand"(a favourite phrase of the Tories) to a country which still has the expertise for an inflated price. And, if the papers are to be believed, there's no guarantee that it will actually get built anyway. We lose again, twice over.

Then there's the balance of payments implications of all this "relying on the kindness of strangers" to use the Governor of the Bank of England's phrase.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
You're right about the Tories of course. It's just seems easier to change our government than to reach agreement to change policy between twenty eight of them.

 

[SouthDevonian]

Just checked on Google how much our net contributions to the EU have been. A House of Commons briefing paper (sources HM Treasury & OBR) lists gross amounts, rebates, net amounts per annum. Since 2009, the UK net payments have been £56.1B. That seems a devil of lot of money to me - I much rather it had been spent on the NHS, education, social housing, other good causes.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Just checked on Google how much our net contributions to the EU have been. A House of Commons briefing paper (sources HM Treasury & OBR) lists gross amounts, rebates, net amounts per annum. Since 2009, the UK net payments have been £56.1B. That seems a devil of lot of money to me - I much rather it had been spent on the NHS, education, social housing, other good causes.

The EU is not a zero-sum game. Paying money in generates additional wealth that we recoup (and more) through trade (literally hundreds of billions in that time), EU investment and wealth generated that would otherwise not have been through co-operation. We cannot just look at outgoings, and assume that that is money lost that we'll never get back.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The rail package might have been agreed by the elites, but it doesn't reflect the way I think the country should be run.

I agree with you to the extent that a certain level of interdependence is desirable for the reasons you've stated - I just don't think that we should completely depend on external supply lines.

Take steel as an example. Suppose the Chinese economy picks up and the price of steel rockets and we end up competing with every other country in terms of all the industries which rely on it. They would be at a disadvantage compared to similar industries in other countries that have a capacity to produce it, so we lose again. Classical economic theory would suggest that it would then become cost effective to produce our own steel again. But classic economic theory is wrong because we will have lost the expertise and capital investment to produce steel. The cost of re-entering the market will be too high. We lose again.

Or take nuclear power stations. Once upon a time, we had the expertise to design and build them. Then it was decided that we didn't need to maintain that expertise because "the market will sort it all out" and we can just buy electricity /power stations from wherever. Of course, now that we actually need to build a nuclear power station, we've lost the expertise and we have to go "cap in hand"(a favourite phrase of the Tories) to a country which still has the expertise for an inflated price. And, if the papers are to be believed, there's no guarantee that it will actually get built anyway. We lose again, twice over.

Then there's the balance of payments implications of all this "relying on the kindness of strangers" to use the Governor of the Bank of England's phrase.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
You're right about the Tories of course. It's just seems easier to change our government than to reach agreement to change policy between twenty eight of them.

Saying that things are decided by "the elites" is an argument that can just as easily be used for Westminster. It doesn't change the fact that, if we were to leave, things would be just as out of the hands of the ordinary person. Our government has considerable input into all EU dealings, and we ensure that they suit us well; leaving, and still being beholden to EU regulations anyway (as we would be in many cases), would just mean we no longer have that input, which would be madness.

Plus your argument about self-sufficiency and keeping skill-sets only works if we insist on employing British people for jobs, which isn't necessary. We'd be far better off not being so monolingual in this country, and then opportunities abroad would be much more lucrative for British people.

However, in the short term, yes, we should not lose all of our industry because of a temporary slump. Except the slump isn't temporary - steel has become increasingly uneconomical to produce, and the fact that Tata steel invested hundreds of millions and don't foresee an increase in the future says a lot.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Of course, now that we actually need to build a nuclear power station, we've lost the expertise and we have to go "cap in hand"(a favourite phrase of the Tories) to a country which still has the expertise for an inflated price.

Would that "cap in hand" phrase be the same one that was used in relation to the Labour Government under James Callaghan in November 1976 having to accept the terms of the loan imposed by the IMF and where the political journalists of the time coined the phrase..."To go cap-in-hand to the IMF" ?

 

[deltic]

Just checked on Google how much our net contributions to the EU have been. A House of Commons briefing paper (sources HM Treasury & OBR) lists gross amounts, rebates, net amounts per annum. Since 2009, the UK net payments have been £56.1B. That seems a devil of lot of money to me - I much rather it had been spent on the NHS, education, social housing, other good causes.

Question is how much would we continue to have to pay to the EU to retain our trading position with it if we were to leave. Norway which has a population less than a tenth of the UK makes annual contributions to the EU of over €800m a year -http://www.eu-norway.org/eu/Financial-contribution/#.VwlAVvkrKM8 - which is broadly equivalent to our net contribution once you factor up by population size.

 

[yorksrob]

Would that "cap in hand" phrase be the same one that was used in relation to the Labour Government under James Callaghan in November 1976 having to accept the terms of the loan imposed by the IMF and where the political journalists of the time coined the phrase..."To go cap-in-hand to the IMF" ?

Yes , it most certainly would Paul I'm glad somebody gets my historical references.

 

[NSEFAN]

Self-sufficiency isn't something our economy should be striving for either.

This is an important point. Our population is currently at such a level that we are not physically able to self-sustain even if we wanted to. Even if we had zero future immigration we wouldn't be able to feed every current British citizen if we tried to do it with 100% British food. If we really wanted self-sufficiency, we would need to reduce the population size one way or another, probably back to early industrial levels to make sure everyone is well fed and looked after. I'd rather not turn Britain into a Logan's Run dystopia!

 

[yorksrob]

The EU is not a zero-sum game. Paying money in generates additional wealth that we recoup (and more) through trade (literally hundreds of billions in that time), EU investment and wealth generated that would otherwise not have been through co-operation. We cannot just look at outgoings, and assume that that is money lost that we'll never get back.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Saying that things are decided by "the elites" is an argument that can just as easily be used for Westminster. It doesn't change the fact that, if we were to leave, things would be just as out of the hands of the ordinary person. Our government has considerable input into all EU dealings, and we ensure that they suit us well; leaving, and still being beholden to EU regulations anyway (as we would be in many cases), would just mean we no longer have that input, which would be madness.

Plus your argument about self-sufficiency and keeping skill-sets only works if we insist on employing British people for jobs, which isn't necessary. We'd be far better off not being so monolingual in this country, and then opportunities abroad would be much more lucrative for British people.

However, in the short term, yes, we should not lose all of our industry because of a temporary slump. Except the slump isn't temporary - steel has become increasingly uneconomical to produce, and the fact that Tata steel invested hundreds of millions and don't foresee an increase in the future says a lot.

Agree about Westminster, which is why I also believe in a high degree of devolution within the United Kingdom.

With regard to language skills, I think it's asking a lot to expect vast numbers of people to up sticks and work elsewhere. This will suit some people but not others. The country should be governed just as much for people who want to live and work in their own country and language as it is for those very talented people who can live and work elsewhere.

With regards to steel, it's currently cheap for one reason. China is churning out a lot of it. That's an awfully long supply chain, and we shouldn't expect them to automatically be able to fulfil our needs whenever we want. As Mark Carney says "the kindness of strangers".
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

This is an important point. Our population is currently at such a level that we are not physically able to self-sustain even if we wanted to. Even if we had zero future immigration we wouldn't be able to feed every current British citizen if we tried to do it with 100% British food. If we really wanted self-sufficiency, we would need to reduce the population size one way or another, probably back to early industrial levels to make sure everyone is well fed and looked after. I'd rather not turn Britain into a Logan's Run dystopia!

Yes, that would be rather an extreme outcome. I just think we should aim to be less dependant than we are (although as I've said somewhere else, I think relying on population growth to boost economic growth is tantamount to a pyramid scheme).

 

[SouthDevonian]

Why would we have to pay anything to the EU to continue trading when the 2014 figures show that we imported £34B more from the EU than we exported to them. It's in their interests to keep the status quo. I listened to an Italian banker being interviewed on Radio 4 yesterday and he said trade will be no different whether or not the UK leaves the EU because the Germans wouldn't permit otherwise. Presumably the likes of Mercedes & BMW would put pressure on Angela Merkel for fear of jeopardising one of their best export markets. Also, Spanish & French farmers & wine producers come immediately to mind.

 

[deltic]

Why would we have to pay anything to the EU to continue trading when the 2014 figures show that we imported £34B more from the EU than we exported to them. It's in their interests to keep the status quo. I listened to an Italian banker being interviewed on Radio 4 yesterday and he said trade will be no different whether or not the UK leaves the EU because the Germans wouldn't permit otherwise. Presumably the likes of Mercedes & BMW would put pressure on Angela Merkel for fear of jeopardising one of their best export markets. Also, Spanish & French farmers & wine producers come immediately to mind.

Trade is complex - we buy more goods from overseas than we sell - agreeing trade deals involving goods is relatively straightforward and can be expected to continue as before.

However we sell more services to the EU than we import and deregulation and a move to a free market in services has been slow and is still not complete. It is unlikely that the EU would continue to allow the UK to benefit from the freeish market in EU services without some concessions. Switerland has a similar problem. Hence the reason Switerland also contributes to the EU budget.

Overall we have a trade deficit with the EU and the world as a whole. This deficit can only be continued because we attract investment from overseas. [The balance of payments has to balance - flows of goods, services and money into the country must equal the outflows. The reason why many of our assets are foreign owned it to support our import habits]. If we are outside the EU there is a risk we will be less attractive to foreign investors - if foreign investment falls it means we cant afford to buy so much - and hence we are less attractive a partner to EU countries. All these factors will be taken into account by the EU in negotiating a deal with the UK.

 

[SouthDevonian]

I fully agree on our current worldwide trade deficit as the latest figures were even worse than expected. This is largely due to the run down of our manufacturing industries over decades, although we still export more goods than services.

Foreign investment is a mixed blessing.The main downside being that profits go overseas and the corporation tax that would have been paid in this country is lost.

 

[deltic]

I fully agree on our current worldwide trade deficit as the latest figures were even worse than expected. This is largely due to the run down of our manufacturing industries over decades, although we still export more goods than services.

Foreign investment is a mixed blessing.The main downside being that profits go overseas and the corporation tax that would have been paid in this country is lost.

I was surprised to see that the UK has run an annual surplus in manufactured goods only in six years since 1946 - and a surplus in both goods and services only in 19 years out of the 70 since 2015.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

It was deleted because we already have an EU referendum thread. I think DynamicSpirit has plans to attach a poll to this thread in a day or two.

I've now attached a poll to this thread. Go ahead and vote if you want to, everyone!

 

[krus_aragon]

Would that "cap in hand" phrase be the same one that was used in relation to the Labour Government under James Callaghan in November 1976 having to accept the terms of the loan imposed by the IMF and where the political journalists of the time coined the phrase..."To go cap-in-hand to the IMF" ?

Thank you for giving some historical context for us younger ones.

I fear that, in the proposed case, it may be more of going "wallet in hand" as well.

 

[fowler9]

Why would we have to pay anything to the EU to continue trading when the 2014 figures show that we imported £34B more from the EU than we exported to them. It's in their interests to keep the status quo. I listened to an Italian banker being interviewed on Radio 4 yesterday and he said trade will be no different whether or not the UK leaves the EU because the Germans wouldn't permit otherwise. Presumably the likes of Mercedes & BMW would put pressure on Angela Merkel for fear of jeopardising one of their best export markets. Also, Spanish & French farmers & wine producers come immediately to mind.

So we leave the EU, suppose they start putting the prices up for us to buy their products. Where else are we going to go to try and find the products we need cheaper.

I am not sure being a net importer is a position of strength. Its not like EU countries will be short of people wanting to buy their products, if anything we are probably getting mates rates.

 

[Barn]

(A) There's plenty of supply capacity in the rest of the world (hence why there are tariffs to protect EU suppliers)

(B) If, against their own interests, they rose prices just to spite us, are these the sorts of countries we actually want to share sovereignty with??

 

[furnessvale]

So we leave the EU, suppose they start putting the prices up for us to buy their products. Where else are we going to go to try and find the products we need cheaper.

I am not sure being a net importer is a position of strength. Its not like EU countries will be short of people wanting to buy their products, if anything we are probably getting mates rates.

That has to be the best comment so far in favour of staying in!