Film, Media & TV6 mins ago
Eu In Or Out?
At risk of antagonizing with yet another EU thread I have been reading this. I thought I would share as it seems a very fair discussion of both sides of the argument.
http://
http://
Answers
1 to 7 of 7
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by EDDIE51. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Thoughts, for what they're worth.
"It makes us part of arguably the world’s largest trading block, boosting UK businesses and jobs."
The EEC provided the trading block, I don't believe the EU added anything useful.
"It strengthens workers’ rights and gives consumers common standards that aid product choice and rights valid everywhere."
The EEC decided on common standards. Workers rights seem hollow when workers wages get undercut by freedom of movement immigrants. A country can protect it's own workers anyway.
"sustained peace among EU nations was ... due to NATO ..."
Left out the irrelevant bits
"Some of its regulations are unsuited to the UK"
"freedom of movement of course means other EU citizens can move here ... an unaffordable crowding out of our schools, NHS and culture"
Left out the irrelevant bits
"EU organisation is without doubt distant, only vaguely accountable, inefficient, and out of sync with the sentiment of much of Europe’s population"
"if we leave the EU, it’s the UK’s system that would pick up the slack"
"of course being elected doesn’t prevent stupid policies"
But at least the politicians responsible are our own stupid politicians and accountable to the voter at the next election.
"A vote for Brexit is unquestionably economically riskier than a vote to remain."
Fair enough but no reason to believe opportunities will prove less valuable than any risks taken.
"Leaving the EU risks us being left on the sidelines. A shrinking power"
Or alternatively, of course, a revitalised trading nation taking advantage of the new trade with other countries who'd want to grab the trade opportunities.
"on balance I think a wobble of economic uncertainty is more likely"
A blip is always possible, it is a change after all, but I'd suggest it would be short term and minor, and the medium to long term more settled.
"There’s a risk, that, say, French and German leaders could demand freedom of movement as a condition of a future free trade agreement"
But in that case we would tell them where they can stuff their unreasonable demands and go get a better deal elsewhere in the world. Of course, realistically they wouldn't be so keen to lose the trade. In any case a trading agreement is not vital to start trading.
"The size of the UK’s annual economic activity was £1,800 billion in 2015. The annual fees to the EU ..." net "..£8.5b"
But one needs to recall that one can trade anywhere in the world so in the very unlikely event that the whole £1,800 B trade had to be moved elsewhere, we'd be in the same situation, except there'd be no fees. I.e. you can't simplistically compare existing trade against fees and come to a useful conclusion.
Of course this concentrates on an unknown economic analysis. It doesn't take into sufficient consideration the basic requirement for a nation to be its own master and not bowing to some foreign organisation's elites. Sovereignty is a main issue.
But otherwise as an analysis it has some merit.
"It makes us part of arguably the world’s largest trading block, boosting UK businesses and jobs."
The EEC provided the trading block, I don't believe the EU added anything useful.
"It strengthens workers’ rights and gives consumers common standards that aid product choice and rights valid everywhere."
The EEC decided on common standards. Workers rights seem hollow when workers wages get undercut by freedom of movement immigrants. A country can protect it's own workers anyway.
"sustained peace among EU nations was ... due to NATO ..."
Left out the irrelevant bits
"Some of its regulations are unsuited to the UK"
"freedom of movement of course means other EU citizens can move here ... an unaffordable crowding out of our schools, NHS and culture"
Left out the irrelevant bits
"EU organisation is without doubt distant, only vaguely accountable, inefficient, and out of sync with the sentiment of much of Europe’s population"
"if we leave the EU, it’s the UK’s system that would pick up the slack"
"of course being elected doesn’t prevent stupid policies"
But at least the politicians responsible are our own stupid politicians and accountable to the voter at the next election.
"A vote for Brexit is unquestionably economically riskier than a vote to remain."
Fair enough but no reason to believe opportunities will prove less valuable than any risks taken.
"Leaving the EU risks us being left on the sidelines. A shrinking power"
Or alternatively, of course, a revitalised trading nation taking advantage of the new trade with other countries who'd want to grab the trade opportunities.
"on balance I think a wobble of economic uncertainty is more likely"
A blip is always possible, it is a change after all, but I'd suggest it would be short term and minor, and the medium to long term more settled.
"There’s a risk, that, say, French and German leaders could demand freedom of movement as a condition of a future free trade agreement"
But in that case we would tell them where they can stuff their unreasonable demands and go get a better deal elsewhere in the world. Of course, realistically they wouldn't be so keen to lose the trade. In any case a trading agreement is not vital to start trading.
"The size of the UK’s annual economic activity was £1,800 billion in 2015. The annual fees to the EU ..." net "..£8.5b"
But one needs to recall that one can trade anywhere in the world so in the very unlikely event that the whole £1,800 B trade had to be moved elsewhere, we'd be in the same situation, except there'd be no fees. I.e. you can't simplistically compare existing trade against fees and come to a useful conclusion.
Of course this concentrates on an unknown economic analysis. It doesn't take into sufficient consideration the basic requirement for a nation to be its own master and not bowing to some foreign organisation's elites. Sovereignty is a main issue.
But otherwise as an analysis it has some merit.
The economy is only one aspect of the decision - and by no means the most important. Sovereignty is by far the most important consideration, then the economics would arrange themselves to suit. Economists seem to be more often wrong than right in their assessments - based on their record (remember the advice to join the euro?)and I hold accountants to blame for very many of the ills of this country. An absolute certainty in my experience in education.
I am also more concerned with sovereignty and self-determination (and indeed the supremacy of UK law) than the economy, which I believe will be scarcely effected in the long term.
But since we’re on the economic aspects, nobody seems to have questioned why huge subscriptions and freedom of movement are a requirement to freely trade. Trading agreements creating free markets exist all over the world but no other nations outside the EU are required to accept freedom of movement as a price for doing trade.
Freedom of movement has nothing to do with the facilitation of trade. It is an unnecessary requirement. For the UK and Germany to sell each other their goods there is no earthly reason why they should be forced to accept for settlement each other’s citizens. What is is a manifestation of the federal ambitions of the Euromaniacs. Nothing less.
But since we’re on the economic aspects, nobody seems to have questioned why huge subscriptions and freedom of movement are a requirement to freely trade. Trading agreements creating free markets exist all over the world but no other nations outside the EU are required to accept freedom of movement as a price for doing trade.
Freedom of movement has nothing to do with the facilitation of trade. It is an unnecessary requirement. For the UK and Germany to sell each other their goods there is no earthly reason why they should be forced to accept for settlement each other’s citizens. What is is a manifestation of the federal ambitions of the Euromaniacs. Nothing less.
1 to 7 of 7
