In or out

[Fire and Ice]

So let's pose an open question to everybody here who believes that the U.K. should remain within the EU: Just what benefits does this very expensive membership bring?

It will make Tony Blair happy.

 

[tony1851]

At the moment, almost certainly a negative to the UK.

But it's what's going to happen in 10, 20, 30 years time when our Government has no more power than a local council at present.

 

[Shutpa]

1. 'In', means we have the right to live and work in EU member countries. 'Out', means we would lose that freedom.

2. 'In' means that with easy access to the EU market, foreign-owned companies, eg Japanese car manufacturers, are happy to locate here creating thousands of jobs. 'Out' means that these companies could move to lower cost EU countries with the loss of these jobs.

3. 'In' means that UK exports are not subject to EU export tariffs. 'Out' means, not only would the UK be subject to such tariffs, but also that we would have to meet EU production standards.

4. 'In' means that the UK is in there helping write the rules. 'Out' means that they would be written without us.

 

[Fire and Ice]

I really do wonder if they thought about it when they named the "In" campaign "Britain Stronger in Europe..

 

[PBC_1966]

1. 'In', means we have the right to live and work in EU member countries. 'Out', means we would lose that freedom.

Let's not forget that moving to one of those other EU countries is not quite as simple as certain people might have you believe though. There is still a certain amount of red-tape involved in many cases, so it doesn't make it quite so simple as just moving across the U.K.

Also, while the relaxed immigration requirements could be seen as a benefit, they could be achieved far more simply (not to mention cheaply) by reciprocal agreements between the countries concerned: "You let our citizens live and work freely in your country, and we'll do the same for your citizens in our country." It doesn't require EU membership to achieve that.

For an example, take the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. The freedom of British and Irish citizens to live and work without restriction in each others' countries was established by a simple agreement between the British government and the new Irish government when Ireland was partitioned in the early 1920's. That freedom existed long before either country joined what was then the EEC in 1973, and it would still exist if both withdrew (although it would be "interesting" to see what the EU might try to demand if one withdrew and not the other).

2. 'In' means that with easy access to the EU market, foreign-owned companies, eg Japanese car manufacturers, are happy to locate here creating thousands of jobs. 'Out' means that these companies could move to lower cost EU countries with the loss of these jobs.

Foreign companies operated in the U.K. long before it joined the EEC/EC/EU and would continue to do so after withdrawal. In fact they might even be attracted to a country in which industry has been freed of all the EU's regulatory red-tape, bureaucracy, and attendant costs.

Besides, if there are other EU countries with lower costs than the U.K., what's stopping them moving there anyway even if the U.K. remains in the EU?

3. 'In' means that UK exports are not subject to EU export tariffs. 'Out' means, not only would the UK be subject to such tariffs, but also that we would have to meet EU production standards.

You mean import duties for British goods sold in Europe? Yes, but that comes only with the disadvantage that the U.K. cannot set its own import duties not only for goods brought in from the EU but also for goods imported from anywhere else in the world.

Outside the EU, the U.K. would be free to trade with the U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, etc. as it saw fit because it wouldn't be bound by the EU's common tariffs. Neither would it be bound to abide by all the EU's regulations for products even for products which are being sold and used wholly within the U.K.

4. 'In' means that the UK is in there helping write the rules. 'Out' means that they would be written without us.

But the U.K. would be free to write its own rules, which it is not at the moment.

 

[Fire and Ice]

1. 'In', means we have the right to live and work in EU member countries. 'Out', means we would lose that freedom.

2. 'In' means that with easy access to the EU market, foreign-owned companies, eg Japanese car manufacturers, are happy to locate here creating thousands of jobs. 'Out' means that these companies could move to lower cost EU countries with the loss of these jobs.

3. 'In' means that UK exports are not subject to EU export tariffs. 'Out' means, not only would the UK be subject to such tariffs, but also that we would have to meet EU production standards.

4. 'In' means that the UK is in there helping write the rules. 'Out' means that they would be written without us.

Thank you for that Bolo. I hope that you don't mind my putting the other side to your points.

1. Yes, we would no longer automatically have the right to work in the EU, we would also no longer have the right to claim benefits in EU countries. However, EU nationals would not have the right to work or claim benefits in the UK. I would suppose that all workers would need a work Visa so we would only have the workers that we needed, those who's skills are in short supply. This would make things fairer for people who come from a non EU country...Obviously this works both ways.

2. Several very large manufacturers seem relaxed about our leaving the EU, the EU is a declining market and the likes of Nissan export their British built products all over the world. We are currently in the EU and Ford moved the production of the Transit to non EU Turkey.

3. The EU really does sell more to us than we sell to the EU. Is it really in the interests of the EU to place high tariffs on UK produced goods when we could do the same and hurt them more than they hurt us? The UK does export to countries and meets the requirements of each individual market (Non EU trade is steadily increasing) Why would it be a burden for the UK manufacturers to meet standards that the UK manufacturers already meet?

4. In the early days of the EU the UK did indeed have a reasonable degree of influence but the EU has grown and will continue to grow, with every country that joins, UK influence diminishes, the UK is pretty impotent these days and is usually ignored, especially when it comes to matters of money, since the UK is one of the few net contributors it is reasonable for the UK to be outvoted by those countries who stand to gain financially... In short the UK has very little influence when it comes to making the rules in the EU but out we can set our own rules..

 

[tony1851]

I don't claim credit for finding this, as someone posted it recently (can't remember who/where - sorry, whoever it was).

It is an excellent and well-researched report on how we have been systematically hoodwinked
by politicians of all colours over the years.

It's a long read but it explains the fallacy that we have done better out of the Common/Single Market than we would
otherwise have done.

If only all voters could be persuaded to read it..........

http://www.civitas.org.uk/publications/myth-and-paradox-of-the-single-market/

 

[Shutpa]

[QUOTE="Fire and Ice, post: 3566407, member: 234872[/QUOTE]I hope that you don't mind my putting the other side to your points.[/QUOTE]

Of course I don't mind! I could have done that myself, but as far as I am aware, no one asked for the "other side". I got the info from, if I remember correctly, a BBC article on the In or Out question, and could easily have posted the "out" argument which was listed alongside the "in". That said, just as it was not my intention to convey the impression that I was a member of the 'in' brigade, so too, it was neither my intention to provide fodder for vociferous 'outs'. The real point is that you can talk about the "In or out of the European Union" till the cows come home, but the only thing that you will achieve will be that you have passed a few more empty hours before bedtime. Sleep well.

 

[tony1851]

If anyone has 28 minutes to spare. have a look at this taken in Calais last weekend.

These are not refugees.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/201...ce-turn-and-run-as-migrants-stream-towards-po

 

[PBC_1966]

So let's pose an open question to everybody here who believes that the U.K. should remain within the EU: Just what benefits does this very expensive membership bring?

It will make Tony Blair happy.

Would that be the same Tony Blair who back in the 1980's, and if I recall correctly even well into the 1990's, was saying how bad the EC/EU was and how the U.K. should withdraw?

 

[gasbanni]

1. 'In', means we have the right to live and work in EU member countries. 'Out', means we would lose that freedom.
In means everyone else has the right to come here, out certainly does not preclude the right to work in Europe.

2. 'In' means that with easy access to the EU market, foreign-owned companies, eg Japanese car manufacturers, are happy to locate here creating thousands of jobs. 'Out' means that these companies could move to lower cost EU countries with the loss of these jobs.
Read the latest reports major manufacturers would stay hers over fear of social stability in the rest of migrant troubled europe

3. 'In' means that UK exports are not subject to EU export tariffs. 'Out' means, not only would the UK be subject to such tariffs, but also that we would have to meet EU production standards.
Out means free trade with the world, rest if the world manages without been in the EU.

4. 'In' means that the UK is in there helping write the rules. 'Out' means that they would be written without us.

If we are out we can tear up the eu rules just like they're tearing up the schweindog freedom of movement rules because of the migrant crisis.

 

[Fire and Ice]

So let's pose an open question to everybody here who believes that the U.K. should remain within the EU: Just what benefits does this very expensive membership bring?

It will make Tony Blair happy.

Would that be the same Tony Blair who back in the 1980's, and if I recall correctly even well into the 1990's, was saying how bad the EC/EU was and how the U.K. should withdraw?

Could be... And closely related to Tony Blair, butcher of Baghdad and irradiator of unborn babies

 

[gasbanni]

I don't claim credit for finding this, as someone posted it recently (can't remember who/where - sorry, whoever it was).

It is an excellent and well-researched report on how we have been systematically hoodwinked
by politicians of all colours over the years.

It's a long read but it explains the fallacy that we have done better out of the Common/Single Market than we would
otherwise have done.

If only all voters could be persuaded to read it..........

http://www.civitas.org.uk/publications/myth-and-paradox-of-the-single-market/

Twas me I'll take a bow.

 

[Himaginn]

If the anti-EU stopped to think a moment.
If the EU benefits so much from the membership of UK, then they're highly unlikely to let us go easily. By that I mean they're going to accede to Cameron's requests hand over fist.
So Cameron will succeed in his renegotiation and the referendum will be an academic exercise (an expensive one but academic nonetheless).

Of course, on the other hand, if Cameron's renegotiation is unsuccessful, doesn't that mean that the EU doesn't perceive the UK membership as beneficial?
So what happens to the Brexit campaigners arguments? Will they say, "well that's the EU for you, lying to the bitter end."
But no organisation cuts off its nose to spite its face.

Would the labour party divorce themselves from the unions, or the conservatives from big business?
So I would suggest that the response of the EU to Cameron's requests might be a good "barometer" for the in-out argument.

Finally, to the response that no governmental decision binds successive governments. To recognise this principle as general practice would lead to anarchy, revolution, confusion and general disgust of the government in power. I suspect also that a specific Act of Parliament, (preceded by debate and other such processes) is required to retract a previous agreement or treaty. I suspect that even die-hard Brexit campaigners would realise the foolishness of such turnarounds.

 

[tony1851]

If the anti-EU stopped to think a moment.
If the EU benefits so much from the membership of UK, then they're highly unlikely to let us go easily. By that I mean they're going to accede to Cameron's requests hand over fist.

No they won't, because Cameron keeps stating publicly that he loves and adores the EU, and he's getting big business to support staying in and that he personally will campaign to stay in

So the EU knows they only have to offer him a few face-saving crumbs which Cameron can declare a historic victory.

What a ridiculous negotiator Cameron is, telling them he's desperate to stay; what's the matter with the man???