You mean the same way the Fish people tell the Scots that leaving the UK will have no downside, and they will continue to have open trade, lower taxes, better benefits, no extra costs, busy shipyards and naval bases, and keep the pound?
In or out
- Thread starter gasbanni
- Start date
Sponsored Links
The relationship between England and Scotland is completely different to the relationship between the UK and the EU.
To an extent, England subsidises Scotland, whereas the EU does not subsidise the UK - rather the other way round.
To an extent, England subsidises Scotland, whereas the EU does not subsidise the UK - rather the other way round.
So do all the people on here claiming that remaining in the EU would be better have all that to support their views?
Sorry, but doesn't saying "It's too complicated to explain the benefits" rather come across as sounding as though they simply can't come up with any good reasons? I don't deny that the situation is quite complex in many respects, but surely that shouldn't prevent the "in" crowd from being able to outline a few basic benefits?
I'm not sure which way you're going here. Are you trying to say that membership should be determined solely on the basis of whether people might be financially better off? I doubt that membership of the EU actually achieves that, but even if it were true, money is not everything.
What are you calling a judgment based on interest? I think the interest of self preservation might well come into play, for example, in the case of the horrendous EU arrest warrant.
Last edited:
Sponsored Links
Indeed - Do some people think that the U.K. never traded with what were then EEC countries before joining in 1973? Britain would do so again outside of the present EU.
Yes, as an outsider, the RUK would negotiate for the best terms it could get. Obviously the EU would do the same for itself and its members. No doubt the UK would agree terms for transacting, for example, Financial Services business with and on behalf of EU clients, and if the EU decided to proceed with, for example, a Financial Transaction tax, since the large objector from within the EU would have left, the UK would find a way to reach agreement. Like Switzerland, which had to agree to change its long-established banking practices due to outside pressures.
Haven't a good many of us already listed a good many arguments for withdrawal?
As I see it, the only argument the pro-EU side can come up with against withdrawal is the supposed massive loss of trade and subsequent loss of jobs etc. That would be a valid concern if it were true that withdrawal would result in that loss, but there is absolutely nothing to suggest that it would. Claiming that it would devasting to trade could, surely, then be a case of paranoia? (Although personally I don't think most of the pro-EU crowd actually believes that there would be any substantial loss of trade at all, so they are not paranoid; they just like to try and use that argument to stir up paranoia in others.)
Or it could be for another reason. Can you guess what it is yet?I wonder if that is why the "pro-EU" side have not yet entered the discussion.
But if they still wanted to be able to buy British goods, putting ridiculous tariffs on them so as to make it unviable wouldn't help to achieve that would it?
Of course, if you are saying that the EU might decide to apply extortionate tariffs as some sort of perceived "punishment" for daring to withdraw from the EU, even though it might also be affecting its own trade interests, that's another matter and I certainly see that as being possible. But if that were the case, it just goes to show that the U.K. shouldn't be a member of a "club" which has such an outlook in the first place.
Even if trade with EU members were affected to some extent, remember that outside of the EU the U.K. would also be free to negotiate whatever agreements it wanted with the rest of the world, which it cannot do at the moment. Favorable deals could be arranged with the U.S.A., Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, or anywhere else outside the EU/EEA.
S
Shutpa
Much more likely that both parties will do their best to negotiate an agreement which is to their own best interest.
And the smaller, weaker party will not be in the same position as the larger, stronger party.
Remember how the fish man thought that an independent Scotland had the right to share the Pound? We all know that next time the Bank of Scotland goes bust, it won't be the Bank of England that bales it out. So an independent Scotland will probably have to try to get back in the EU and join the Eurozone to get the protection of the ECB instead.
Poor old pig-porker has put himself in a very awkward position.
S
Shutpa
You may well be right tony2851, but your reply, the first on page 19, was the first of two pages of very interesting debate. That will not continue when Thumbs Down & Co return to the fray.
The arguments for Brexit have all been single issue arguments. It's very obvious to most that there is no single issue that is not massively inter-twined with other issues.
For instance, PBC mentioned the EU arrest warrant as a single issue. But this is another red herring:
All the arguments about loss of trade have concentrated on imports from EU, except for PBC's recognition that we'd have to replace our export market. This would be because the EU could apply import tariffs, customs duties, etc to any goods from UK. This would not be so short-sighted as simply revenge. It's a recognised form of revenue raising which we would have to pay, thereby making our exports to EU more expensive than their home-grown (made) goods. So long term, our exports to EU would be replaced by their own.
For instance JCB (who I believe the MD argued for out). JCB already have a proven world-wide export market anyway. But if their goods became more expensive in EU, organisations like Aebi, Fendt, Valtra, Agria, McCormick, SEP and many, many more would copy the JCB models and manufacture them cheaper. That would be good for EU and bad for UK.
All of our exports would be either subject to EU customs, import or freight duty without any influence from us (and they may thereby raise as much as we pay in EU dues without anything being returned), or we'd be forced to export to other countries, as PBC mentioned, BUT, there are more than 80 ferry crossings per day to EU, from UK. There are 16 trains per day to EU.
If we no longer ship all our goods to EU, we're going to have to replace the whole logistical infrastructure. In addition the current infrastructure will suffer a massive decline.
The sensible, reasoned, substantive arguments for either in or out are not simple, but highly complex and no argument is a single issue argument.
For instance, PBC mentioned the EU arrest warrant as a single issue. But this is another red herring:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23239493
All the arguments about loss of trade have concentrated on imports from EU, except for PBC's recognition that we'd have to replace our export market. This would be because the EU could apply import tariffs, customs duties, etc to any goods from UK. This would not be so short-sighted as simply revenge. It's a recognised form of revenue raising which we would have to pay, thereby making our exports to EU more expensive than their home-grown (made) goods. So long term, our exports to EU would be replaced by their own.
For instance JCB (who I believe the MD argued for out). JCB already have a proven world-wide export market anyway. But if their goods became more expensive in EU, organisations like Aebi, Fendt, Valtra, Agria, McCormick, SEP and many, many more would copy the JCB models and manufacture them cheaper. That would be good for EU and bad for UK.
All of our exports would be either subject to EU customs, import or freight duty without any influence from us (and they may thereby raise as much as we pay in EU dues without anything being returned), or we'd be forced to export to other countries, as PBC mentioned, BUT, there are more than 80 ferry crossings per day to EU, from UK. There are 16 trains per day to EU.
If we no longer ship all our goods to EU, we're going to have to replace the whole logistical infrastructure. In addition the current infrastructure will suffer a massive decline.
The sensible, reasoned, substantive arguments for either in or out are not simple, but highly complex and no argument is a single issue argument.
If we vote to leave the EU and we want to retain the trade with EU, that we now enjoy, we would have to join the EFTA, European Free Trade Association.
The EFTA have their own council and representatives from each country attend this council, not unlike the EU, except that they are not elected representatives, but government appointed.
There are 4 countries in the EFTA, Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Liechtenstein.
If we negotiate our way out of EU and into EFTA, are we any better off? We would no longer have a vote for countries joining EU, or have a voice on their "free movement of persons".
If we tried to negotiate a new deal with EU, which was better than that enjoyed by EFTA, the other 4 countries in EFTA would also want to be part of that. Hence the EU would not allow anything other than our membership of EFTA, for our UK-EU trade to be unaffected.
Any suggestion that we can do without them and they can't do without us is a pious deception.
Any trade replacements with EU, instead of travelling 20-50 miles to EU would have to travel 5,000 miles to USA, 10,000 miles to Australia, New Zealand, 6,000 miles to Japan.
Alternatively we could cross the Baltic and trade with Russia, Oh no we can't, there's restrictions on.
Or trade to Middle East, well to Middle East countries without restrictions in place. But we already do that!
Well, there's N and W Africa, as long as there are no restrictions in place, but we already do that as well!
So we could use the Med' and the Suez canal, and run the risk of pirates off Somalia. Oh wait, we already do that as well.
In addition, any current or future trade embargoes are at the mercy of the UN. Any future embargoes could seriously jeopardise any trade with those countries, and we would not have the support and freedom enjoyed currently with being in and trading freely with EU.
The EFTA have their own council and representatives from each country attend this council, not unlike the EU, except that they are not elected representatives, but government appointed.
There are 4 countries in the EFTA, Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Liechtenstein.
If we negotiate our way out of EU and into EFTA, are we any better off? We would no longer have a vote for countries joining EU, or have a voice on their "free movement of persons".
If we tried to negotiate a new deal with EU, which was better than that enjoyed by EFTA, the other 4 countries in EFTA would also want to be part of that. Hence the EU would not allow anything other than our membership of EFTA, for our UK-EU trade to be unaffected.
Any suggestion that we can do without them and they can't do without us is a pious deception.
Any trade replacements with EU, instead of travelling 20-50 miles to EU would have to travel 5,000 miles to USA, 10,000 miles to Australia, New Zealand, 6,000 miles to Japan.
Alternatively we could cross the Baltic and trade with Russia, Oh no we can't, there's restrictions on.
Or trade to Middle East, well to Middle East countries without restrictions in place. But we already do that!
Well, there's N and W Africa, as long as there are no restrictions in place, but we already do that as well!
So we could use the Med' and the Suez canal, and run the risk of pirates off Somalia. Oh wait, we already do that as well.
In addition, any current or future trade embargoes are at the mercy of the UN. Any future embargoes could seriously jeopardise any trade with those countries, and we would not have the support and freedom enjoyed currently with being in and trading freely with EU.
Last edited:
I can't isolate Joe's last point, bolo, but as I've already explained, countries in EFTA have to recognise the "four freedoms" of the EU, that includes free movement of people. Additionally, they have to recognise the Schengen agreement, which says:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Agreement
In other words our borders with Europe would be dismantled.
Ferries and trains would no longer have passport checks!
That blows Joe's argument out of the water! (not that I'd consider blowing joe's anything
)In addition, joe made the point about Norway and Switzerland being completely independent, which we now know is fallacious because they're in the EFTA.
Last edited:
Haven't you got anything else to do?
Sponsored Links
