Pat494
Legendary member
- Messages
- 14,614
- Likes
- 1,588
Has anyone got the figures of what we pay in and what we get out ?
The fact that the EU has 2 established Parliament buildings and all the infra structure is a nonsense. Could be reduced to 1 surely.
I don't think the EU supremacy over local Courts has been a happy experience so far. Why do criminals in prison have to have a vote for instance.
I remember the original referendum in the 70s. It was sold as a commercial trading area. Now it is a political area ruled by the Germans.
To have a unanimous voting system to get anything done in Parliament is ridiculous. It should be a 2/3rds majority.
The fact that the EU has 2 established Parliament buildings and all the infra structure is a nonsense. Could be reduced to 1 surely.
I don't think the EU supremacy over local Courts has been a happy experience so far. Why do criminals in prison have to have a vote for instance.
I remember the original referendum in the 70s. It was sold as a commercial trading area. Now it is a political area ruled by the Germans.
To have a unanimous voting system to get anything done in Parliament is ridiculous. It should be a 2/3rds majority.
Pro EU woman on the news earlier claiming we get 10/1 return on our money. Find that very hard to believe.
Pat494
Legendary member
- Messages
- 14,614
- Likes
- 1,588
I feel pretty sure we get less out than we put in. Greece etc. need bailing out.
The corruption in most of them is really bad too.
Pat494
Legendary member
- Messages
- 14,614
- Likes
- 1,588
Found this on the web
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Germany, as the biggest economy, is also the biggest contributor, Poland is the biggest receiver. The UK contributes much more than it receives too, about €4.7bn more. Why the gap? The UK is a rich country and the EU points out that although it spends less in the UK than the national contribution, the British economy gains much more from access to European markets and contracts. UK exports to the EU were worth nearly €12bn in September alone.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
With this extra cash Dipstick Dave could have an extra Trident submarine !
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Germany, as the biggest economy, is also the biggest contributor, Poland is the biggest receiver. The UK contributes much more than it receives too, about €4.7bn more. Why the gap? The UK is a rich country and the EU points out that although it spends less in the UK than the national contribution, the British economy gains much more from access to European markets and contracts. UK exports to the EU were worth nearly €12bn in September alone.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
With this extra cash Dipstick Dave could have an extra Trident submarine !
trendie
Legendary member
- Messages
- 6,875
- Likes
- 1,433
Wiki to the rescue!
It lists the contributions by member states, and as proportion of budget.
The problem is, the more advanced nations are likely to benefit less, as poorer countries strive to bring themselves up to the norm. This comes at the expense of countries who are at or above the norm.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_the_European_Union
But this is not about who gets how much from the EU, its not even mostly about economics. The EU is a political union not an economic one. The primary goal is political union of Europe into a federal nation state. I can't see a hundred years into the future so I can't say if that will be a good or bad thing, but joining late is almost certainly going to be leave us in a politically weak position so the cautious action now would be to full membership.
In economic terms, the EU seeks to embed itself within national economies to prevent those respective national governments from walking away and joining/forming a competing economic union. That is surely the only point of the Euro. No doubt a secondary aim is to help the poor countries of the EU get richer - not so they can retire early but so they can buy more stuff and services and invest more in the major economies of the EU - that would be Germany, France and hopefully, the UK.
In economic terms, the EU seeks to embed itself within national economies to prevent those respective national governments from walking away and joining/forming a competing economic union. That is surely the only point of the Euro. No doubt a secondary aim is to help the poor countries of the EU get richer - not so they can retire early but so they can buy more stuff and services and invest more in the major economies of the EU - that would be Germany, France and hopefully, the UK.
PipsterPipstoffelees
Junior member
- Messages
- 49
- Likes
- 9
Exactly, this is about politics, nation states, and borders. it has nothing to do with economics. The economic arguments are all farcical, Politicians want power and they will say anything to get it.
How on earth can we expect as a country to "get more than we put in"? If we are to get more out than we put in, then where do people expect this surplus to come from? Are we to believe an economic surplus is magically born from this EU bureaucracy? 100 bureaucrats sit around discussing things in Brussels and .... MONEY? Here I am thinking it has something to do with British business making the money, and all the while its actually EU politicians making us all rich. Who would have thought it?
This argument is constantly conflated with side issues, such as trade. as if businesses will stop producing and stop trading if the UK regains political independence. As if BMW will stop selling its cars to the UK market if some W***er in Brussels doesn't get to tell us what to do anymore!
hhiusa
Senior member
- Messages
- 2,687
- Likes
- 140
The EU is not a country. Additionally, your argument is begnning to sound a lot like communism.
You are basically advocating to stay in a smaller pond (the EU) and be big fish than try and enter the ocean (the world) and forge your own path.
Yeah, this is the problem. For the poorer eastern countries and financial wrecks like Greece/Spain/Portugal, the EU is a blessing. Not sure we get such a good deal.
Pat494
Legendary member
- Messages
- 14,614
- Likes
- 1,588
David Cameron has promised a referendum on whether Britain should remain in the European Union by the end of 2017. Here is a summary of the key arguments for and against British membership.
Are there any viable options for Britain leaving the EU?
If Britain votes to leave the EU, it will have to negotiate a new trading relationship with what would now be a 27 member organisation, to allow British firms to sell goods and services to EU countries without being hit by excessive tariffs and other restrictions.
Better off out: Britain could negotiate an "amicable divorce", but retain strong trading links with EU nations, say those campaigning for Britain's exit.
Some potential models:
◾ The Norwegian model: Britain leaves the EU and joins the European Economic Area, giving it access to the single market, with the exception of some financial services, but freeing it from EU rules on agriculture, fisheries, justice and home affairs
◾ The Swiss model: Britain emulates Switzerland, which is not a member of the EU but negotiates trade treaties on a sector-by-sector basis
◾ The Turkish model: The UK could enter into a customs union with the EU, allowing access to the free market in manufactured goods but not financial services
◾The UK could seek to negotiate a comprehensive Free Trade Agreement with the EU, similar to the Swiss model but with better access for financial services and more say over how rules and standards are implemented
◾The UK could make a clean break with the EU, relying on its membership of the World Trade Organisation as a basis for trade
Many of those campaigning for exit argue that none of the country-based models would work for the UK.
They want a Free Trade Agreement which would not involve the UK accepting the supremacy of EU law, the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, the free movement of people or the requirement to pay significant amounts into the EU budget.
Given the fact that there is already full regulatory compliance between the UK and EU, they say it would be easier to negotiate than past trade deals.
They point to Canada, which recently signed a Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with the EU, which is set to eliminate trade barriers in most areas but does not require free movement or budgetary contributions, as an example of what is possible.
Better off in: An "amicable divorce" is a pipe dream, pro-EU campaigners argue. France, Germany and other leading EU nations would never allow Britain a "pick and mix" approach to the bloc's rules. Norway and Switzerland have to abide by many EU rules without any influence over how they are formed and have to pay to access the single market. Negotiating a comprehensive free trade agreement could take years and have an uncertain outcome. And if Britain went for a completely clean break with the EU its exports would be subject to tariffs and would still have to meet EU production standards, harming the competitiveness of British business. The end result could be a trade war between Britain and the EU, some have warned, which could cripple Britain's export industries.
◾Read more: What we know so far about UK's in-out referendum
What would be the impact on British jobs?
The run-up to the EU referendum is likely to be dominated by competing claims about how many millions of jobs will be lost or gained by Britain's exit. All such claims come with a health warning. Coming up with a precise figure is difficult as there is no way of knowing if threats by foreign companies to scale back their operations in the UK would come to pass or, indeed, how many jobs would be created by the reshaped economy that might emerge in the wake of an exit.
Better off out: There would be a jobs boom as firms are freed from EU regulations and red tape, say those arguing for an exit, with small-and medium-sized companies who don't trade with the EU benefiting the most. In its recent paper, the EU Jobs Myth, the free market Institute for Economic Affairs seeks to debunk the claim that 3-4 million jobs would be lost if Britain left. "Jobs are associated with trade, not membership of a political union, and there is little evidence to suggest that trade would substantially fall between British businesses and European consumers in the event the UK was outside the EU," it argues. "The UK labour market is incredibly dynamic, and would adapt quickly to changed relationships with the EU."
Better off in: Millions of jobs would be lost as global manufacturers moved to lower-cost EU countries. Britain's large, foreign-owned car industry would be particularly at risk. "The attractiveness of the UK as a place to invest and do automotive business is clearly underpinned by the UK's influential membership of the EU," said a KPMG report on the car industry. The financial services sector, which employs about 2.1 million people in the UK, also has concerns about a British exit. "The success of the UK financial services industry is to a large extent built on EU Internal Market legislation. To abandon this for some untried, unknown and unpredictable alternative would carry very significant risks," said global law firm Clifford Chance in a report by think tank TheCityUK..
What about the impact on the economy as a whole?
Much would depend on the trade deals Britain managed to negotiate with the EU and rest of the world after its exit.
The best-case scenario, according to think tank Open Europe, is that the UK would be better off by 1.6% of GDP a year by 2030. That is assuming the UK carried out widespread deregulation after its exit and managed to strike favourable trade deals. The think tank adds: "A far more realistic range is between a 0.8% permanent loss to GDP in 2030 and a 0.6% permanent gain in GDP in 2030, in scenarios where Britain mixes policy approaches".
The Centre for Economic Performance, at the London School of Economics, says the worst-case scenario is a 6.3% to 9.5% reduction in GDP, "a loss of a similar size to that resulting from the global financial crisis of 2008/09". The best case, according to their analysis, is a loss of 2.2% of GDP, although it does not take into account as wide a range of factors as the Open Europe study.
What about immigration?
Better off out: Britain would regain full control of its borders, say anti-EU campaigners. UKIP wants to see a work permit system introduced, so that EU nationals would face the same visa restrictions as those from outside the EU, which it says would reduce population growth from current levels of 298,000 a year to about 50,000. This would create job opportunities for British workers and boost wages, as well as easing pressure on schools, hospitals and other public services.
Better off in: Britain might have to agree to allow free movement of EU migrants as the price of being allowed access to the free market. In any case, pro-EU campaigners argue, immigration from the rest of the EU has been good for Britain's economy. The UK's growth forecasts are based, in part, on continued high levels of net migration. The independent Office for Budget Responsibility says the economy relies on migrant labour and taxes paid by immigrants to keep funding public services.
Would Britain save money in membership fees?
The UK's net contribution to the EU, taking into account the rebate, was £11.3bn in 2013. That is more than four times what it was in 2008. It is about the same amount as the UK government spends on transport every year.
Better off out: The UK would save billions in membership fees, and end the "hidden tariff" paid by UK taxpayers when goods are exported to the EU, caused by red tape, waste, fraud and other factors.
Better off in: The UK's contribution to the EU budget is a drop in the ocean compared with the benefits to business of being in the single market.
What would be the effect on trade?
Better off out: The EU is not as important to British trade as it used to be, and continuing turmoil in the eurozone will make it even less so. Even if Britain did not manage to negotiate a free trade deal with the EU it would not be as disastrous as EU-enthusiasts claim, argues economist Roger Bootle in his book The Trouble with Europe: "It would place the UK in the same position as the US is currently in, along with India, China and Japan, all of which manage to export to the EU relatively easily." The UK would be free to establish bilateral trade agreements with fast-growing export markets such as China, Singapore, Brazil, Russia and India through the World Trade Organisation.
Better off in: The EU is the UK's main trading partner, worth more than £400bn a year, or 52% of the total trade in goods and services. Complete withdrawal from the EU would see trade barriers erected, with car exports to the EU, for example, facing a 15% tariff and imports a tariff of 10%. "The idea that the UK would be freer outside the EU is based on a series of misconceptions, that a medium-sized, open economy could hold sway in an increasingly fractured trading system dominated by the US, the EU and China; that the EU makes it harder for Britain to penetrate emerging markets; and that foreign capital would be more attracted to Britain's economy if it were no longer part of the single market," the pro-EU Centre for European Reform said in a recent report.
Would the UK's influence in the world change?
Better off out: The UK would remain a key part of Nato and the UN Security Council and a nuclear power, with a powerful global voice in its own right. The Eurosceptic Bruges Group wants an end to the "discredited" principle that Britain acts as a transatlantic bridge between the US and Europe, saying the country should make self-reliance its guiding principle.
Better off in: Stripped of influence in Brussels, Berlin and Paris, Britain would find itself increasingly ignored by Washington and sidelined on big transnational issues such as the environment, security and trade. America and other allies want Britain to remain in the EU. The UK risks becoming a maverick, isolated state if it leaves.
What would happen to Britons working in Europe, and EU citizens working in the UK?
Better off out: Britain would gain full control of its own borders, with migration in and out of the country regulated solely by British law. It would be more difficult for EU citizens to move to the UK, although those already living here are unlikely to be removed.
Better off in: A lot would depend on what kind of deal was reached with the other EU nations. Britons may have to apply for visas to enter EU countries and those already living there may face integration rules, such as proving they can speak the language before gaining long-term residency rights. There would also be uncertainty for many EU workers now paying taxes in the UK - what benefits, if any, would they be entitled to?
Would taxes change?
Better off out: The EU has limited power over tax, which is largely a matter for national governments. The exception is VAT, which has bands agreed at the EU level. Outside the EU, the UK would potentially have more flexibility.
Better off in: "Tax avoidance and evasion will reach crippling levels as our economy becomes increasingly wholly owned by foreign multinationals that make tax avoidance in Britain central to their business strategy," argued the pro-European Observer newspaper in an editorial.
Would Britain's legal system, democratic institutions and law-making process change?
Better off out: It would be a major shot in the arm for British democracy as the Westminster parliament regained its sovereignty and reconnected with voters. The country would be free from the European Arrest Warrant and other law and order measures.
Better off in: Britons benefit from EU employment laws and social protections, which would be stripped away. Withdrawal from the European Arrest Warrant could mean delays for the UK in extraditing suspects from other European countries; and the UK already has some opt-outs from EU labour law, including the Working Time Directive.
Are there any viable options for Britain leaving the EU?
If Britain votes to leave the EU, it will have to negotiate a new trading relationship with what would now be a 27 member organisation, to allow British firms to sell goods and services to EU countries without being hit by excessive tariffs and other restrictions.
Better off out: Britain could negotiate an "amicable divorce", but retain strong trading links with EU nations, say those campaigning for Britain's exit.
Some potential models:
◾ The Norwegian model: Britain leaves the EU and joins the European Economic Area, giving it access to the single market, with the exception of some financial services, but freeing it from EU rules on agriculture, fisheries, justice and home affairs
◾ The Swiss model: Britain emulates Switzerland, which is not a member of the EU but negotiates trade treaties on a sector-by-sector basis
◾ The Turkish model: The UK could enter into a customs union with the EU, allowing access to the free market in manufactured goods but not financial services
◾The UK could seek to negotiate a comprehensive Free Trade Agreement with the EU, similar to the Swiss model but with better access for financial services and more say over how rules and standards are implemented
◾The UK could make a clean break with the EU, relying on its membership of the World Trade Organisation as a basis for trade
Many of those campaigning for exit argue that none of the country-based models would work for the UK.
They want a Free Trade Agreement which would not involve the UK accepting the supremacy of EU law, the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, the free movement of people or the requirement to pay significant amounts into the EU budget.
Given the fact that there is already full regulatory compliance between the UK and EU, they say it would be easier to negotiate than past trade deals.
They point to Canada, which recently signed a Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with the EU, which is set to eliminate trade barriers in most areas but does not require free movement or budgetary contributions, as an example of what is possible.
Better off in: An "amicable divorce" is a pipe dream, pro-EU campaigners argue. France, Germany and other leading EU nations would never allow Britain a "pick and mix" approach to the bloc's rules. Norway and Switzerland have to abide by many EU rules without any influence over how they are formed and have to pay to access the single market. Negotiating a comprehensive free trade agreement could take years and have an uncertain outcome. And if Britain went for a completely clean break with the EU its exports would be subject to tariffs and would still have to meet EU production standards, harming the competitiveness of British business. The end result could be a trade war between Britain and the EU, some have warned, which could cripple Britain's export industries.
◾Read more: What we know so far about UK's in-out referendum
What would be the impact on British jobs?
The run-up to the EU referendum is likely to be dominated by competing claims about how many millions of jobs will be lost or gained by Britain's exit. All such claims come with a health warning. Coming up with a precise figure is difficult as there is no way of knowing if threats by foreign companies to scale back their operations in the UK would come to pass or, indeed, how many jobs would be created by the reshaped economy that might emerge in the wake of an exit.
Better off out: There would be a jobs boom as firms are freed from EU regulations and red tape, say those arguing for an exit, with small-and medium-sized companies who don't trade with the EU benefiting the most. In its recent paper, the EU Jobs Myth, the free market Institute for Economic Affairs seeks to debunk the claim that 3-4 million jobs would be lost if Britain left. "Jobs are associated with trade, not membership of a political union, and there is little evidence to suggest that trade would substantially fall between British businesses and European consumers in the event the UK was outside the EU," it argues. "The UK labour market is incredibly dynamic, and would adapt quickly to changed relationships with the EU."
Better off in: Millions of jobs would be lost as global manufacturers moved to lower-cost EU countries. Britain's large, foreign-owned car industry would be particularly at risk. "The attractiveness of the UK as a place to invest and do automotive business is clearly underpinned by the UK's influential membership of the EU," said a KPMG report on the car industry. The financial services sector, which employs about 2.1 million people in the UK, also has concerns about a British exit. "The success of the UK financial services industry is to a large extent built on EU Internal Market legislation. To abandon this for some untried, unknown and unpredictable alternative would carry very significant risks," said global law firm Clifford Chance in a report by think tank TheCityUK..
What about the impact on the economy as a whole?
Much would depend on the trade deals Britain managed to negotiate with the EU and rest of the world after its exit.
The best-case scenario, according to think tank Open Europe, is that the UK would be better off by 1.6% of GDP a year by 2030. That is assuming the UK carried out widespread deregulation after its exit and managed to strike favourable trade deals. The think tank adds: "A far more realistic range is between a 0.8% permanent loss to GDP in 2030 and a 0.6% permanent gain in GDP in 2030, in scenarios where Britain mixes policy approaches".
The Centre for Economic Performance, at the London School of Economics, says the worst-case scenario is a 6.3% to 9.5% reduction in GDP, "a loss of a similar size to that resulting from the global financial crisis of 2008/09". The best case, according to their analysis, is a loss of 2.2% of GDP, although it does not take into account as wide a range of factors as the Open Europe study.
What about immigration?
Better off out: Britain would regain full control of its borders, say anti-EU campaigners. UKIP wants to see a work permit system introduced, so that EU nationals would face the same visa restrictions as those from outside the EU, which it says would reduce population growth from current levels of 298,000 a year to about 50,000. This would create job opportunities for British workers and boost wages, as well as easing pressure on schools, hospitals and other public services.
Better off in: Britain might have to agree to allow free movement of EU migrants as the price of being allowed access to the free market. In any case, pro-EU campaigners argue, immigration from the rest of the EU has been good for Britain's economy. The UK's growth forecasts are based, in part, on continued high levels of net migration. The independent Office for Budget Responsibility says the economy relies on migrant labour and taxes paid by immigrants to keep funding public services.
Would Britain save money in membership fees?
The UK's net contribution to the EU, taking into account the rebate, was £11.3bn in 2013. That is more than four times what it was in 2008. It is about the same amount as the UK government spends on transport every year.
Better off out: The UK would save billions in membership fees, and end the "hidden tariff" paid by UK taxpayers when goods are exported to the EU, caused by red tape, waste, fraud and other factors.
Better off in: The UK's contribution to the EU budget is a drop in the ocean compared with the benefits to business of being in the single market.
What would be the effect on trade?
Better off out: The EU is not as important to British trade as it used to be, and continuing turmoil in the eurozone will make it even less so. Even if Britain did not manage to negotiate a free trade deal with the EU it would not be as disastrous as EU-enthusiasts claim, argues economist Roger Bootle in his book The Trouble with Europe: "It would place the UK in the same position as the US is currently in, along with India, China and Japan, all of which manage to export to the EU relatively easily." The UK would be free to establish bilateral trade agreements with fast-growing export markets such as China, Singapore, Brazil, Russia and India through the World Trade Organisation.
Better off in: The EU is the UK's main trading partner, worth more than £400bn a year, or 52% of the total trade in goods and services. Complete withdrawal from the EU would see trade barriers erected, with car exports to the EU, for example, facing a 15% tariff and imports a tariff of 10%. "The idea that the UK would be freer outside the EU is based on a series of misconceptions, that a medium-sized, open economy could hold sway in an increasingly fractured trading system dominated by the US, the EU and China; that the EU makes it harder for Britain to penetrate emerging markets; and that foreign capital would be more attracted to Britain's economy if it were no longer part of the single market," the pro-EU Centre for European Reform said in a recent report.
Would the UK's influence in the world change?
Better off out: The UK would remain a key part of Nato and the UN Security Council and a nuclear power, with a powerful global voice in its own right. The Eurosceptic Bruges Group wants an end to the "discredited" principle that Britain acts as a transatlantic bridge between the US and Europe, saying the country should make self-reliance its guiding principle.
Better off in: Stripped of influence in Brussels, Berlin and Paris, Britain would find itself increasingly ignored by Washington and sidelined on big transnational issues such as the environment, security and trade. America and other allies want Britain to remain in the EU. The UK risks becoming a maverick, isolated state if it leaves.
What would happen to Britons working in Europe, and EU citizens working in the UK?
Better off out: Britain would gain full control of its own borders, with migration in and out of the country regulated solely by British law. It would be more difficult for EU citizens to move to the UK, although those already living here are unlikely to be removed.
Better off in: A lot would depend on what kind of deal was reached with the other EU nations. Britons may have to apply for visas to enter EU countries and those already living there may face integration rules, such as proving they can speak the language before gaining long-term residency rights. There would also be uncertainty for many EU workers now paying taxes in the UK - what benefits, if any, would they be entitled to?
Would taxes change?
Better off out: The EU has limited power over tax, which is largely a matter for national governments. The exception is VAT, which has bands agreed at the EU level. Outside the EU, the UK would potentially have more flexibility.
Better off in: "Tax avoidance and evasion will reach crippling levels as our economy becomes increasingly wholly owned by foreign multinationals that make tax avoidance in Britain central to their business strategy," argued the pro-European Observer newspaper in an editorial.
Would Britain's legal system, democratic institutions and law-making process change?
Better off out: It would be a major shot in the arm for British democracy as the Westminster parliament regained its sovereignty and reconnected with voters. The country would be free from the European Arrest Warrant and other law and order measures.
Better off in: Britons benefit from EU employment laws and social protections, which would be stripped away. Withdrawal from the European Arrest Warrant could mean delays for the UK in extraditing suspects from other European countries; and the UK already has some opt-outs from EU labour law, including the Working Time Directive.
Pat494
Legendary member
- Messages
- 14,614
- Likes
- 1,588
The general opinion this morning from the pundits is that Dipstick's gains are worthless.
I can't see anything for the pensioners.
French farmers etc. must be having a sigh of relief.
Could throw out all those rather ordinary foreign football managers too. Have we lost all belief in ourselves ?
The EU reminds me of a stranded whale just flapping about with the added burden of more and more useless laws.
They had their chance to get efficient and blown it imho.
I can't see anything for the pensioners.
French farmers etc. must be having a sigh of relief.
Could throw out all those rather ordinary foreign football managers too. Have we lost all belief in ourselves ?
The EU reminds me of a stranded whale just flapping about with the added burden of more and more useless laws.
They had their chance to get efficient and blown it imho.
Atilla
Legendary member
- Messages
- 20,853
- Likes
- 4,031
The issue is one of Conservatives making. My colleague is voting NO! just purely based on migrants. Nothing else is as important to him. He is about to retire.
The excellent assessment below clearly points out migrant vibrant labour has kept wages and inflation low whilst contributing to economic activity, taxes and population generation to help pay for the pensions. There are now so many Italians, Spanish and French and German in the City along with Latin Americans and builders that London is 40% foreign.
I fail to understand why the City is so against a bank transaction surcharge having gobbled up tax payers monies in the first place.
If we do step out I see Europe moving onwards and forwards paying off their debt whilst ours remains ballooned and forever growing with the City and London and trade taking a knock.
It was a headache to get in and it's a headache to get out. Doubt and hesitation usually lead to accidents. :whistling
UKIP and Galloway on same stand is a bit of a shock!
Can't see that ending well either :whistling
barjon
Legendary member
- Messages
- 10,752
- Likes
- 1,863
I wonder what Britain would look like without all the migrant workers? I guess my local hospital would fall apart for one. It's not as though the indigenous labour force is unemployed whilst migrants "steal" their jobs is it.
Skilled visa system is the answer. That's how other countries operate and it is one that works. The open door policy to Europe is a disaster. This is an island not a huge continent
As we’re traders, we might look at Brexit in terms of economic risk:reward, rather than right/wrong. So –
UK stays in EU –
outcome economically positive - our economy grows, we are all better off: if this does happen, our economy will probably also grow faster and more strongly than our EU partners, so we simultaneously increase our political weight within the union -
Reward - economically good, politically good
outcome economically negative - our economy weakens, unemployment up, investment down, etc.: but if this does happen, our EU partners' economies are probably hurting way more than ours, they're already weaker and if we go down, they go down hard: little point exiting at that point, and politically it could be very beneficial when we’re comparatively stronger economically in comparison with the major EU members: but if we wished to exit, we still could, and we probably wouldn't be alone, so may even be able to head up a new EU with a constitution more to our liking -
Risk – economically bad short-term, but potential for political advantage that might limit the damage and hasten recovery
UK leaves the EU –
outcome economically positive - our economy grows, we are all better off: again, if this does happen, our economy will probably also grow faster and more strongly than our former EU partners so we may even be tempted to finesse the situation by offering to re-join the EU but on super-favourable economic terms in our favour -
Reward – economically good, with potential for political advantage that might be very beneficial economically long-term
outcome economically negative - our economy weakens, unemployment up, investment down, etc.: if this does happen, and the EU's economies are strengthening, we might try to get back into the EU, but we will be crucified on terms: if we don't / can't re-enter, or if the EU's economies are also going down so there's no point in re-entry, then we’re out of lifebelts, nobody else could or would help, so we're in deep do-do -
Risk – economically and politically very bad short-term and long-term.
On this basis, the economic risk of being wrong with an exit vote looks far worse than the risk of being wrong with a stay in vote. It does to me anyway, happy to hear a contrary view.
UK stays in EU –
outcome economically positive - our economy grows, we are all better off: if this does happen, our economy will probably also grow faster and more strongly than our EU partners, so we simultaneously increase our political weight within the union -
Reward - economically good, politically good
outcome economically negative - our economy weakens, unemployment up, investment down, etc.: but if this does happen, our EU partners' economies are probably hurting way more than ours, they're already weaker and if we go down, they go down hard: little point exiting at that point, and politically it could be very beneficial when we’re comparatively stronger economically in comparison with the major EU members: but if we wished to exit, we still could, and we probably wouldn't be alone, so may even be able to head up a new EU with a constitution more to our liking -
Risk – economically bad short-term, but potential for political advantage that might limit the damage and hasten recovery
UK leaves the EU –
outcome economically positive - our economy grows, we are all better off: again, if this does happen, our economy will probably also grow faster and more strongly than our former EU partners so we may even be tempted to finesse the situation by offering to re-join the EU but on super-favourable economic terms in our favour -
Reward – economically good, with potential for political advantage that might be very beneficial economically long-term
outcome economically negative - our economy weakens, unemployment up, investment down, etc.: if this does happen, and the EU's economies are strengthening, we might try to get back into the EU, but we will be crucified on terms: if we don't / can't re-enter, or if the EU's economies are also going down so there's no point in re-entry, then we’re out of lifebelts, nobody else could or would help, so we're in deep do-do -
Risk – economically and politically very bad short-term and long-term.
On this basis, the economic risk of being wrong with an exit vote looks far worse than the risk of being wrong with a stay in vote. It does to me anyway, happy to hear a contrary view.
Similar threads
