Should We Leave the EU?

[deltic]

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.

Who would be putting up prices - there are generally import tariffs not export tariffs -UK may impose tariffs on some EU produced goods but I'm not sure that is likely. We may go back to using imperial weights and measures which may make it more costly for EU countries to sell to us - but again cant see that happening.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Interesting first reading of how the new attached poll is showing stated preferences.

 

[fowler9]

Who would be putting up prices - there are generally import tariffs not export tariffs -UK may impose tariffs on some EU produced goods but I'm not sure that is likely. We may go back to using imperial weights and measures which may make it more costly for EU countries to sell to us - but again cant see that happening.

Ah right. am with you on that now. I'm an engineer not a business man, ha ha. I still don't get how being a net importer could be a position of power though, the financial services we provide could be done elsewhere really easily surely?

 

[Barn]

I still don't get how being a net importer could be a position of power though

If the UK and the EU failed to reach a tariff free arrangement and trade reduced between us, the EU would have lost a good customer and we'd have lost suppliers.

It's generally easier to find another supplier than to replace a good customer, especially when we'd be able to reduce import tariffs from other countries. If the French, Italian and German industries stupidly priced themselves out of the market, we might just buy more Japanese, American, Korean (or even in time British) cars in preference to the now more expensive Peugeots, Citroens, Renaults, Fiats, VWs, etc.

In practice, the tariff point is less of an issue than many believe as most WTO tariffs are low single figure percentages and domestic influences like minimum wage legislation probably have much bigger effect.

 

[fowler9]

If the UK and the EU failed to reach a tariff free arrangement and trade reduced between us, the EU would have lost a good customer and we'd have lost suppliers.

It's generally easier to find another supplier than to replace a good customer, especially when we'd be able to reduce import tariffs from other countries. If the French, Italian and German industries stupidly priced themselves out of the market, we might just buy more Japanese, American, Korean (or even in time British) cars in preference to the now more expensive Peugeots, Citroens, Renaults, Fiats, VWs, etc.

In practice, the tariff point is less of an issue than many believe as most WTO tariffs are low single figure percentages and domestic influences like minimum wage legislation probably have much bigger effect.

Cheers for the info, it is really much appreciated.

 

[backontrack]

Should we leave the EU?

Yes, you know this discussion is going to start sometime soon on railforums, so I thought I may as well get in and be the person who starts it

To put an unusual twist on it...

I personally am completely undecided which way I'd vote in the upcoming referendum, and I'm so far unimpressed by the arguments on either side.

I want to see a World in which countries, as far as practical, cooperate for the good of humanity - for all the people in the world. That seems to me to give a very good argument for having an organization like the EU. The fact that so much business is multinational, and so many problems (such as pollution and crime) ignore national boundaries and therefore cannot be solved by individual Governments working in isolation gives - to my mind - strong argument in favour of national Governments allowing some decisions to be made at an international level - which again seems to imply that an organization like the EU would be a good thing.

On the other hand, what I see in the EU looks more like almost every country squabbling and trying to look after its own interests, without much thought for those outside its own borders (the response to the current migrant crisis is an obvious example). If that's what the EU has become, is it really a force for good any more? And the recent experience of Greece suggests to me that it is important for national Governments to be able to control their own economies - their levels of economic growth, and of public spending etc. - rather more than is permitted by the free market and the Euro.

What do the pro- and anti- campaigns say? Well both seem to be adopting a very nationalistic tone. On the pro-EU side I see lots of scaremongering about jobs that supposedly depend on EU membership - but without any clarity on precisely why those jobs depend on EU membership - which makes me suspect that in fact, leaving the EU would make very little difference to most people's jobs. And there are also warnings that we'll (supposedly) be financially worse off outside the EU, which are also not backed up - as far as I can see - by any hard evidence that would make those warnings convincing.

On the anti-EU side, lots of scaremongering about immigration and (supposed) EU bureaucracy, and a rather emotional theme of taking back control of our country, which I suspect would not stand up to rational analysis (Do the anti-EU camp really believe having regulations made by English[1] people instead of foreigners is going to magically make everything better?).

I find the nationalist tone on both sides rather concerning because, while I recognize that the primary concern of the British Government must be the welfare of people in Britain, I also want to make my decision in the referendum from the point of view of whether us being in or out of the EU is better for humanity as a whole.

The arguments on both sides seem to me to be completely lacking in hard information about what the EU actually does, and how it works etc. That leaves me feeling insufficiently informed to make any decision (and based on what's been said so far, I can't see that changing between now and whenever the referendum takes place )

Based on that, I invite anyone to try to persuade me on the merits for either staying in the EU or leaving it

[1] I deliberately used 'English' not 'British' because that seems to me to better reflect the tone of the anti-EU message.

You beat me to it! You have some very good sentiments here.

The number one priority is to ensure that we retain our rights to live, work and retire anywhere in the EU/EEA. If that right is lost I will emigrate as soon as possible and acquire another nationality in order to retain that right.

Indeed. This comes first, before anything else.

 

[Carlisle]

We may go back to using imperial weights and measures which may make it more costly for EU countries to sell to us.

Seeing as they've been teaching metric to kids in schools now for well over 40 years I think that's a non starter

 

[miami]

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.

You really think it won't be spent on things like reducing capital gains tax, lowering the top rate of income tax, and allowing high income people to save even more than £15k a year in an isa?

 

[Barn]

You really think it won't be spent on things like reducing capital gains tax, lowering the top rate of income tax, and allowing high income people to save even more than £15k a year in an isa?

That's up to the British electorate isn't it.

 

[TheKnightWho]

That's up to the British electorate isn't it.

Not really. Given the appalling state of the way in which we elect politicians, my democratic rights are far better expressed by the EU anyway.

 

[WessexEclectic]

Not really. Given the appalling state of the way in which we elect politicians, my democratic rights are far better expressed by the EU anyway.

So you wish to 'offshore' democracy? I'm sure the 1% will be pleased...

 

[DynamicSpirit]

That's up to the British electorate isn't it.

Presumably, in basically the same way that how the EU spends money is up to the European electorate (of which the British electorate is a part).

 

[Barn]

Presumably, in basically the same way that how the EU spends money is up to the European electorate (of which the British electorate is a part).

Yes and no. As with most EU decision-making, the Parliament gets a say but does not originate proposals itself. It can delay matters but it is difficult for it to really change the course of the EU.

The wider point, though, is that Brexit supporters are continually asked for full details of 'what happens next' as if everything is in their personal gift. That's not for referendum campaigners to decide, is it? Brexit supporters are merely campaigning for the right to take democratic decisions closer to home. What those decisions end up being is a matter for our democracy.

 

[miami]

Yes and no. As with most EU decision-making, the Parliament gets a say but does not originate proposals itself.

No, that's upto people appointed by national governments, like ours in Westminster, and is put in place to ensure that the large countries like Germany and France can't ride roughshod over small countries like Luxembourg or Malta.

It can delay matters but it is difficult for it to really change the course of the EU.

Exactly the same as the westminster parliament, where my MP has no say on creating laws (private members bills, which are fairly rare and minor). Once crucial difference is the only way to delay or stop things in the UK is to find MPs willing to risk deselection and rebel against the party whips, or hope the house of lords delays procedures. In Europe as there is no majority of a single "party", and I don't think they even have whips, and certainly no threat of deselection - being made up of multiple national parties - it means that nobody can ride roughshod.

The wider point, though, is that Brexit supporters are continually asked for full details of 'what happens next' as if everything is in their personal gift. That's not for referendum campaigners to decide, is it? Brexit supporters are merely campaigning for the right to take democratic decisions closer to home. What those decisions end up being is a matter for our democracy.

Sadly most of the decisions that "we'll get back" won't be our decisions, they'll be decisions that are "obey this red tape or do no trade with country X".

The Canada-EU trade treaty took 5 years to negotiate, so assuming we start negotiating with Canada in June 2016, we should have an agreement with them in 2021. Same with the EU, we should be able to sort something out by then too. 5 years of uncertainty sounds really helpful.

How will our "democracy" (government by the party elected by 35% of the voting population, and 25% of the electorate, enforced by an iron fist by party whips) help with this?

Ignoring the trade implications, what decisions do you want overturned? If you were in charge the day we leave, what EU enforced law would you remove first?

 

[Barn]

Exactly the same as the westminster parliament, where my MP has no say on creating laws (private members bills, which are fairly rare and minor).

You're not just electing your local MP though, are you? In the Westminster system you are also contributing to the election of the Government, which is drawn from the party controlling the commons. The Government sets policy.

Sadly most of the decisions that "we'll get back" won't be our decisions, they'll be decisions that are "obey this red tape or do no trade with country X".

Self-evidently, if you wish to trade into country X then your exported products will have to comply with country X's rules. That doesn't mean that those rules have to be implemented for our domestic economy or for our trade with the rest of the world, which together make up some 85%+ of our economy. (Switzerland has no obligation to impose EU rules domestically. It sometimes chooses to do so voluntarily.)

The Canada-EU trade treaty took 5 years to negotiate, so assuming we start negotiating with Canada in June 2016, we should have an agreement with them in 2021. Same with the EU, we should be able to sort something out by then too. 5 years of uncertainty sounds really helpful.

It's not uncertainty, it's trading at known tariff levels. I think people assume that the EU is a much better negotiator due to the size of its potential market. But that also means balancing competing and sometimes contradictory demands of 28 member states. Smaller countries, like Switzerland and Iceland, have much greater success than the EU monolith in negotiating free trade deals.

TTIP, for example, looks like it will have financial services and some creative industries excluded due to pressure from other member states - two areas which the UK would hugely benefit from but which clash with others' views. The UK could be much simpler to negotiate with.

Many countries with whom the UK already enjoys a free trade relationship with would wish for that to continue on similar terms as at present - why wouldn't they?

Ignoring the trade implications, what decisions do you want overturned? If you were in charge the day we leave, what EU enforced law would you remove first?

There are several, but I am less concerned about past laws and more concerned about future direction, including domestic allocation of taxpayer funds, ability to regulate immigration and cease favouring the EU ahead of other countries, regaining control of our trade policy and restoring the supremacy of our Supreme Court.

As I've said above, I do not think Brexit should be about Brexiteers' own views of what should be repealed (why should we get to impose that on others?), but rather restoring the power for our domestic representatives to make those decisions.

 

[TheKnightWho]

So you wish to 'offshore' democracy? I'm sure the 1% will be pleased...

You think I should have less democratic rights simply because it's done 'offshore'? The Westminster voting system is rubbish - I'd rather keep what proportional ones we have thank you.

 

[Barn]

You think I should have less democratic rights simply because it's done 'offshore'? The Westminster voting system is rubbish - I'd rather keep what proportional ones we have thank you.

The Westminster system is designed to create an executive Government as a byproduct of a legislative election. Other systems do not need to achieve this if there are separate executive elections (e.g. USA presential elections) or if the executive is unelected (e.g. European Commission).

 

[crehld]

The Westminster system is designed to create an executive Government as a byproduct of a legislative election. Other systems do not need to achieve this if there are separate executive elections (e.g. USA presential elections) or if the executive is unelected (e.g. European Commission).

It's interesting you should cite the US executive as an example. Perhaps you could remind me which members of the US cabinet are directly elected?

While the Westminster system is supposed to appoint an executive as a by product of a legislative election, the reality is actually executive dominance of the legislative, restricting the de facto ability of the legislative to effectively exercise control and scrutiny of the executive.

 

[miami]

The Westminster system is designed to create an executive Government as a byproduct of a legislative election. Other systems do not need to achieve this if there are separate executive elections (e.g. USA presential elections) or if the executive is unelected (e.g. European Commission).

UK Prime Minister suggested by Queen and confirmed by MPs
EU President suggested by the head of government from each state and confirmed by MEPs
US president elected by the electoral college, which are representitives of the wishes of the states with smaller states having more of a say per person. Normally, but not in the Gore vs Bush 2000 election, this follows the plurarity of the popular vote as 90% of the candidates are eliminated in the primaries. The US get a choice of Jack Johnson or John Jackson.

Verdict: Most democratic toss up between EU and US. Most effective UK or EU.

UK Prime Minister then selects a cabinet from all commons MPs, all Lords, and anyone else he wants (as he can create Lord Sugar rather easilly), and MPs can like it or lump it. Often made up of powerful Party allies and used as a reward for Loyal Party Members.

EU President selects a cabinet from candidates suggested by national governments, and MEPs approve this (or don't)

US president selects a cabinet from whoever he wants, selecting (in theory) experts in each area.

Verdict: Most democratic EU, most effective US.


There's an argument that the EU is too democratic, but given the EU president has very little power compared with a head of state/head of government it's not too important.

 

[crehld]

, but rather restoring the power for our domestic representatives to make those decisions.

For me this gets to the heart of the debate. My point of departure is the assumption held by some that it is the EU that has taken away power from domestic representatives - rather the question should be about what gives our decision makers more power and influence. Having a debate focused on how the EU has, de jure, reduced the powers of domestic representative overlooks the UK's fundamentally majoritarian political system, and that in such a system power exercised by those making decisions in the executive is not subject to effective parliamentary scrutiny, and, arguably, therefore lacks credible electoral legitimacy. Leaving the EU would not restore this imbalance - if anything it might exacerbate it.

Decisions in the EU are made by two institutions: the European Parliament and the Council of the European Parliament. The European Commission, contrary to popular belief, does not decide anything - it merely proposes EU policy (although there is a significant debate to be had about how effective 'agenda setters' are at controlling the policy process - but no one seems all that interested in this). The European Parliament is of course made up of directly elected members whose chief function is to legislate - in this way it is no different from any other directly elected chamber on planet earth. Now the argument can be made that UK MEPs are vastly outnumbered by their colleagues from the other member states. Such an argument is flawed for three reasons. Firstly it's illogical - Welsh MPs in the Commons are vastly outnumbered by English, Scottish and Northern Irish MPs, and my local MP is vastly outnumbered by their colleagues from their own constituencies, for example. Secondly, MEPs tend to vote along ideological grounds, rather than on national grounds - so to claim there is some sort UK (or indeed any other country specific) voting bloc in the EP would be simply false. Thirdly we need to account for the fact that the EP cannot, independently, pass any legislative act. Rather it requires agreement from the Council of the European Union, composed of ministers from each member state (sitting in portfolio specific configurations according to the policy topic under discussion). Decision making here in most (but certainly not all) cases is supposed to be through a system of qualified majority voting. This again means the UK might find itself 'out voted' in certain cases. The reality, however, is that formal voting is rare and unanimous consensus is the name of the game.

Now, there are some significant debates to be had about how influential UK representatives are in these two decision-making arenas and the extent to which the UK gets its way in EU politics (Prof Simon Hix has conducted some thorough empirical analysis on this question in a series of blogs for the Guardian website which I wholly recommend). Nevertheless, the fact remains that for the overwhelming majority of the time the UK government does get it's way in the EU (bearing in mind, of course, HM government has no monopoly on what the UK collectively thinks is best anyway - there are, of course, competing visions of what the national interest should be which our system of government fails to account for).

Given the UK is, the overwhelming majority of the time, on the 'winning' side of a decision, to suggest that an elite group of UK ministers (acting as domestic representatives) have somehow lost power in EU decision making is overly simplistic at best, and outright false at worst. The question of restoring power to domestic representatives is much more a question of how our national political system operates, rather than our membership of the EU.

I directly elect my MEPs every five years and so, through the convention of parliamentary democracy, I and every other eligible UK citizen can hold those particular decision makers to account at the ballot box. The national executive, making decisions in the Council of the EU (with its ministers acting as its agents) are supposed to be held to account by the UK parliament, who I also directly elect. Yet because our parliament is not independent and because our electoral system leads to executive dominance, the ability of our parliament to effectively discharge its scrutiny role is significantly hampered. Indeed, while legislatures in other EU member states play a proactive role in holding ministers attending the Council of the EU to account for their actions, the UK parliament has two little heard of scrutiny committees (one in the Lords, one in the Commons), which are allocated a hopeless amount of parliamentary time for the work they are supposed to undertake and a significant lack of resources. Even if it were well resourced it's impact would be limited given the dominance of the executive.

If we want to restore domestic representatives (and I'm assuming we mean MPs here given much of the debate on our membership of then EU seems to revolve around the purely de jure concept of 'parliamentary sovereignty') to a position of power, to enable them to play a more active role in decision making, and I guess have those decisions made closer to 'we the people', then the fundamental question of executive dominance in the UK needs to be addressed. This simply isn't on the cards with the forthcoming referendum.

Additionally the whole 'taking back our power from Brussels' routine holds the reckless and dangerous assumption that leaving the EU would be the means achieve the mythical ideal of parliamentary sovereignty. Would our legislators in the UK parliament really be able to independently exercise true power and sovereignty when the vast majority of their decisions will be impacted by events far beyond their control - e.g. the forces of global economic markets, international relations, the inherently transnational nature of many of the policy problems our country faces. I am far from convinced.

 

[TheKnightWho]

The Westminster system is designed to create an executive Government as a byproduct of a legislative election. Other systems do not need to achieve this if there are separate executive elections (e.g. USA presential elections) or if the executive is unelected (e.g. European Commission).

I am aware of that. However, my issue is with FPTP and not the fact that we are a representative democracy who only indirectly elects the government.

 

[keithboddey]

I have read the leaflet the government have sent me about remaining in the EU.
I thought it was intended to inform me about the facts.

There is one glaring omision though.....can someone explain why its has not been included.

The government know full well what our membership of the EU costs, and yet this figure is no where to be seen..

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I have read the leaflet the government have sent me about remaining in the EU.
I thought it was intended to inform me about the facts.

There is one glaring omision though.....can someone explain why its has not been included.

The government know full well what our membership of the EU costs, and yet this figure is no where to be seen..

One plausible reason would be that an accurate figure that takes everything into account - including the benefit to the UK economy from being in the EU - would be very hard to produce. We know the economic benefits are substantial, and I wouldn't be surprised if some economists had attempted to quantify them, but clearly any such quantification is going to be only an estimate.

I suspect the figure you'd like to see is the raw figure of what-the-UK-Govt directly pays to the EU minus what the EU directly pays to the UK. From what I've read, that appears to be around 8bn/year, but quoting that in isolation, without giving some quantification of the economic benefits, is likely to be quite misleading - which may be why such a figure wasn't included.

 

[Domh245]

I have read the leaflet the government have sent me about remaining in the EU.
I thought it was intended to inform me about the facts.

There is one glaring omision though.....can someone explain why its has not been included.

The government know full well what our membership of the EU costs, and yet this figure is no where to be seen..

To be fair, it isn't "The facts on the EU" it is "Why the government thinks we should stay in" - so at the very least, it is making it's intentions clear - a pro EU viewpoint, unlike the other leaflet. I suppose then that the reason the cost is omitted is because if you see the words "£160 million a week" [as reckoned by DynamicSpirit in post 952] you are almost certainly going to be horrified, even if they do then go on to talk about how there are other economic benefits to being in the EU that are quite difficult to quantify.

 

[crehld]

I received my copy of the government's leaflet today. It was buried inside so much junk mail that had I not been looking for it I probably would have put it in recycling bin without realising.

Anyhow I see there is some dissatisfaction that this leaflet isn't comprehensive enough. I subject my students to a textbook over 500 pages long on how the EU operates which they are expected to plough their way through in 12 weeks, and even then it is not adequate enough for them to reply upon in isolation. Perhaps the citizens of this great nation would prefer something of this magnitude thrust through their letter boxes instead?

At least we can console ourselves with the fact we'll soon be getting tax payer funded leaflets from the Vote Leave campaign being 'forced upon' us. Who felt it appropriate to give such funding to a body which has no claims of electoral legitimacy, nor to represent the majority of this county's citizens? And why are we getting so upset about our democratically elected government funding a leaflet with tax payers' money, yet aren't getting upset about tax payers' money being given to an organization which holds opposite views and which is not subject to the standards of democratic accountability at the ballot box?

 

[yorksrob]

At least we can console ourselves with the fact we'll soon be getting tax payer funded leaflets from the Vote Leave campaign being 'forced upon' us. Who felt it appropriate to give such funding to a body which has no claims of electoral legitimacy, nor to represent the majority of this county's citizens? And why are we getting so upset about our democratically elected government funding a leaflet with tax payers' money, yet aren't getting upset about tax payers' money being given to an organization which holds opposite views and which is not subject to the standards of democratic accountability at the ballot box?

Surely this is balanced out by the public funding of the 'in' campaign, which equally has no claims of electoral legitimacy or to represent the majority of this country's citizens ?

As for the Government leaflet - I shall be keeping it as a souvenir along with my millennium bug information leaflet and my copy of the first passengers charter !

 

[fowler9]

I think if we leave the EU there are going to be a hell of a lot of people shocked that we still have immigration and that they are no better off cash wise.

 

[Antman]

I received my copy of the government's leaflet today. It was buried inside so much junk mail that had I not been looking for it I probably would have put it in recycling bin without realising.

Anyhow I see there is some dissatisfaction that this leaflet isn't comprehensive enough. I subject my students to a textbook over 500 pages long on how the EU operates which they are expected to plough their way through in 12 weeks, and even then it is not adequate enough for them to reply upon in isolation. Perhaps the citizens of this great nation would prefer something of this magnitude thrust through their letter boxes instead?

At least we can console ourselves with the fact we'll soon be getting tax payer funded leaflets from the Vote Leave campaign being 'forced upon' us. Who felt it appropriate to give such funding to a body which has no claims of electoral legitimacy, nor to represent the majority of this county's citizens? And why are we getting so upset about our democratically elected government funding a leaflet with tax payers' money, yet aren't getting upset about tax payers' money being given to an organization which holds opposite views and which is not subject to the standards of democratic accountability at the ballot box?

I've not had my leaflet yet, unless I have missed it amongst the other junk mail that I put into the nearest postbox but if I do come across it I'll be putting it an envelope, without a stamp, addressed to Mr D Cameron of 10 Downing Street.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think if we leave the EU there are going to be a hell of a lot of people shocked that we still have immigration and that they are no better off cash wise.

I don't think most people want to stop all immigration and whether anybody is better off cash wise remains to be seen.

 

[fowler9]

I've not had my leaflet yet, unless I have missed it amongst the other junk mail that I put into the nearest postbox but if I do come across it I'll be putting it an envelope, without a stamp, addressed to Mr D Cameron of 10 Downing Street.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I don't think most people want to stop all immigration and whether anybody is better off cash wise remains to be seen.

I think you would be surprised regarding the immigration question. Certainly the Daily Express had a headline the other day saying that the only way to stop illegal immigration was to leave the EU which was frankly bonkers. Whilst the Express doesn't represent the entire country it was an idiotic thing to say and will appeal to a lot of people who don't know the difference between asylum seekers, legal and illegal immigration and what the EU have to do with it. Combine that with the other papers telling everyone how much we have to pay the EU everyday and that they make all our laws.

Personally I am struggling to find any concrete info to base an informed opinion on.

 

[crehld]

As for the Government leaflet - I shall be keeping it as a souvenir along with my millennium bug information leaflet and my copy of the first passengers charter !

You should see my big lever arch file of material from the 1975 referendum. a lot of it is in glorious 70s brown!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I've not had my leaflet yet, unless I have missed it amongst the other junk mail that I put into the nearest postbox but if I do come across it I'll be putting it an envelope, without a stamp, addressed to Mr D Cameron of 10 Downing Street.

Not quite sure what this meaningless protest tries to achieve as:

1. 10 Downing Street are not likely to accept any post which hasn't been appropriately paid for, nor are they likely to pay for Royal Mail's unpaid postage surcharge; and even if they did,

2. You'd only end up costing taxpayers more, which surely defeats the whole point you're trying to make?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Surely this is balanced out by the public funding of the 'in' campaign, which equally has no claims of electoral legitimacy or to represent the majority of this country's citizens ?

No, but if we're saying it's ok to fund publicity produced by the two official campaigns run as companies by limited guarentee then I really fail to see the objection to funding publicity produced by HM government, which can lay claim to democratic accountability and legitimacy (well in majoritarian terms anyway).