Politics, politics, politics

[milo]

Really? Do Switzerland and Norway have similar trouble getting to the negotiating table?

They don't have a seat at the EU table, they have to implement EU directives the same as we do, they pay in roughly the same as us, they do not have a passport for financial services and have freedom of movement.

Economically, this is the best that we could hope for post Brexit. I don't see the benefits personally.

 

[SpurMeUp]

You do make some cogent arguments. The most persuasive that we don't really know if leaving would be bad. It may not (it may also be seriously detrimental). But to me there are simple logical things that leave brings. The UK moves to the periphery. To the US, China, banks or whoever, we are a more attractive country within the EU. Because we provide access - political access for the US - and trade access for others into the single market.

Really? Do Switzerland and Norway have similar trouble getting to the negotiating table?

Yes. Everyone wants to trade with large economies. Hence countries lifting their skirt to China who has an astonishing 1.3 billion people, with a rapidly growing middle class. Countries and trading blocks are I'm afraid not interested in the UK. The US president confirmed, they will not be rushing to set up trade deals with us outside the EU. We will join a long list of small countries that want to set preferential terms with the large consumer markets. Why would these markets lose themselves to do us a favour? They hold all the cards when negotiating, they have all the buying power in their economy. The UK is attractive to China and the US while inside the EU. Outside the EU we become like Norway: peripheral. Small. Insignificant to them. Germany and France take our place in their eyes.

Trade ultimately comes down to what products exactly you are going to try and trade and not necessarily the size of your consumer market on its own. The irony being that many sections of British business have complained that the EU has been too slow to agree trade deals with big consumer markets like India. Oh and recently the UK Government signed some trade deals with China, including some related to Nuclear operations. I assume these deals were arranged independently of the EU?

Which of these 'many sections of British business'? Can you give an example re. trade with India? We have delusions of grandeur, ore global power is diminishing as the East rises. To India we are far more credible, and interesting for commerce within the EU. Would Tata invest in new manufacturing plants in the UK, knowing their products will face tariffs when exporting into the single market?

Soveriegnty is when if it is felt you do not have enough of a certain type of skilled worker you can make an effort to attract them from wherever in the world you see fit at a particular time and then if you reach a certain point when priorities change you change the policy when it suits the country at that given time and do not have to seek agreement on it from 20-odd neighbouring countries.

So sovereignty to you is a negative state. A lack of immigration from all over the world is sovereignty!? I thought the main idea of Brexit is to reduce immigration, not open it up to the whole world. Taking more people from a diverse range of countries is Sovereignty? That's it!?

Oh and it has been the EU top brass THEMSELVES who have talked up the idea/notion of a Politically Unified European State. Haven’t got time right now to dig up the quotes but if you want me to I can take time later and do so.

There are federalists. There are fascists, communists, green party, anarchists etc They all have their political nonsense available if you want to look for it and quote it. The reality is a federal EU is not on the cards for obvious reasons - the EU members are so distinct. We all have different languages ffs! Deeply entrenched cultures. Strong national governments, histories etc etc.

This is a fair point; it is all about predictions. For example, many Economists predicted that it would be to our disadvantage to not join the Euro all those years ago. How wrong they were. Can you point out examples in the last 20/30 years where many Economists warned against a certain action, were ignored by politicians and then were proved right in the end? I’m asking this out of curiosity and tbh fairness, as on one side like @P.D. says there are the absence of gloomy forecasters of the ‘credit crunch’ downturn and the gloomy forecasters of the UK not joining the Euro.

Just like weather predictors missing one storm, doesn't mean weather forecasts per say are always wrong.

Questions that have to be asked then are:

- Those banks from the US, China, Hong Kong and Switzerland had the chance to set-up directly into the ‘big market’ that is the EU from the start but chose London: why? Why not set-up within the EU from the start and then forego the costly transfer to other EU countries from the beginning?

We are in the EU now. We are in the free market which is why we are attractive to banks. Not sure what your point it?

- If we leave the EU where do you think the Swiss banks will then go, seeing as they find it complex and complex to transfer funds to the EU?

Most likely Frankfurt, Germany's fiance capital, will benefit. Long term there will be a movement of institutions from the periphery (the UK if we exit) into the heart of the trade zone. Its logical.

It depends on why those companies invested in UK in the first place rather than directly in Germany, Spain, France etc in the first place. After all, they could have had access to the EU market setting up in those countries anyway instead of the UK from the start. Perhaps what attracted them to the UK instead of those other countries initially will trump any downsides of not being in the EU.

Perhaps. Says it all. What is it that you think the UK offers that other UK states with access to 500m consumers do not?

Again, it was ‘obvious’ we would suffer if we didn’t join the Euro back when some were pushing for it to be adopted by the UK.

No. this was less obvious, but far comment.

The EU zone itself is floundering, many parts are already Economically crumbling anyway and it could be argued that being linked to it too much could stifle how we navigate, manage and adjust to changing Economic climates ourselves. If the EU was clearly super-efficient already then perhaps there would be little argument, but the EU feels like old mates on their last aging legs thinking of the good ol days trying to prop each other up on an updated and modern dancefloor where the music is proving too fast for them to keep upright!

'Could' and 'Feels' are pretty weak criteria for going against all economic forecasts. If we're honest, there isn't must logic for Brexit. It is emotional, it is a feeling and the rational is at best 'it could work'.

The EU is very new, in the grand scheme of things. Rather than last legs, its establishing itself. Which takes time. But its not inefficient as such. Its more efficient to allow open trade.

 

[milo]

Paul Johnson: Leavers may not like economists but we are right about Brexit
While few can predict how Britain would fare long-term, if we go it alone the immediate impact could be seismic

The economics profession was, with some justification, condemned for failing to predict the financial crisis of 2008. It collectively was not paying enough attention to what was going on in financial markets, was too focused on its own unrealistic mathematical models, had forgotten the lessons of history. Where it was issuing warnings it was doing so in obscure journals and in terms that were not comprehensible to policy makers. All true, to some extent.

Today, though, virtually the entire profession is — clearly and loudly — ringing the alarm bells about the economic consequences of Brexit. In a recent poll by Ipsos MORI for the Observer, 90 per cent of economists said they expected Brexit to damage the economy. Just four per cent said it would be beneficial. That degree of unanimity on any poll of any group of people about just about anything is almost without precedent. A significant majority also said Brexit would risk a really big downturn. The overwhelming majority of the serious independent modelling work suggests Brexit would make us financially worse off, probably by quite a lot.

And believe me, right or wrong, they believe it. Many economists I’ve met in recent weeks have confided that they are quite literally losing sleep over this. There is a palpable fear that something really quite grim for the British economy could follow a Brexit. And before the cynics ask — no, this is not because they (we) are in hock to Brussels for funding. We’re not. And in any case economists, like bankruptcy and insolvency specialists, tend to do fine when the economy goes wrong.

But another Ipsos MORI survey suggests that two-thirds of Britons believe Brexit would not make them worse off. The warnings from economists appear not to be cutting much ice.

That might be to do with past failures — of economists, not pollsters. It might be, as Michael Gove would have it, that we are all just fed up with experts. After all, it was the same economic experts who told us we should have joined the euro, right? Actually, no. Monetary union happened against the advice of much of the economics profession. It is a rewriting of history to suggest the reverse. The UK avoided an historic mistake in part because its decision not to join the euro was guided by the economic analysis commissioned and produced by the Treasury. This was led by the same man, Dave Ramsden, who has overseen the Treasury analysis of the economic consequences of Brexit. Same people, same organisation. In my view, it was the correct analysis on each occasion.

That’s hardly a clincher for the current analysis being right but let’s at least put to bed the myth that all those suggesting Brexit would be costly supported joining the euro. By and large they did not.

So why do nearly all economists worry so much? The explanation lies in three words: uncertainty, investment and trade.

In the short run a vote for Brexit would create uncertainty. In the immediate aftermath the pound, and probably the stock market, would dive, making us all poorer. Investment and consumption would fall, and the economy would suffer. Even one of the few pro-Brexit economists — former Boris Johnson adviser Gerard Lyons — accepts that short-term uncertainty would lead to reduced growth in the immediate future. He describes it as being like the first part of a Nike swoosh — short-term pain for long-term gain. There’s no doubt we’d suffer in the short term.

What about the long run? If there is one thing that economics has taught us over the past two centuries it is that free trade and openness is good for growth. In any scenario for a post-Brexit UK, trade with the rest of Europe — by far our biggest trade partner — would become more costly than it is at the moment. And it would take years to sort out trade agreements with the EU and with the rest of the world. That would slow economic growth.

The UK would also become far less attractive to foreign investors seeking access to the single market. Trade and foreign investment are crucial drivers of growth and productivity, not just because of their direct effects but because both stimulate competition and productivity right across the economy. That’s why the best evidence is absolutely, unequivocally clear: we are much better off now than we would have been had we never joined the EU. Again these are just facts.

Of course we can’t be certain about the future. But I reckon that poll of economists gives us pretty good probabilities. Brexit would give us a 90 per cent chance of being worse off, five per cent chance of no change, five per cent chance of being better off. These are not good odds.

But that is not the end of the story. These big decisions are rarely straightforward in the way that the remain and leave campaigns would have us believe. Being in the EU means that we have no control at all over immigration from the rest of the EU. Even if we avoided it, it still means being part of a club that has made mistakes as costly as introducing the euro. It means sharing some sovereignty. It means being part of the absurdly wasteful Common Agricultural Policy.

It is simply childish to suggest that there is no trade-off, that one side has all the answers. It is just untrue to say that we can control overall immigration if we stay in. It is equally untrue to say that we would have more funds to spend on the NHS if we came out — we would have less.

We are a rich country. The UK is either the fifth or ninth biggest economy in the world (depending on how you measure it). We could cope outside the EU. We can choose to accept a fall in our living standards to regain some sovereignty. I can’t tell you how to trade these things off, how to make this choice. I can tell you that Brexit would almost certainly make us, economically, poorer.


http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/c...s-but-we-are-right-about-brexit-a3267601.html

 

[SpurMeUp]

You only have to look at the value of the pound over the past few months as Brexit looms. The world values our currency far less out of the EU.

 

[Craig_J]

You only have to look at the value of the pound over the past few months as Brexit looms. The world values our currency far less out of the EU.

Everything sensible is telling me to vote to remain in the EU... but I wish there was a way to get rid of this shambles of an unelected EU semi-oligarchical executive. It's beyond reasoning that in 2016 western Europe any individual who makes laws can be unelected.

 

[parklane1]

You only have to look at the value of the pound over the past few months as Brexit looms. The world values our currency far less out of the EU.

The pound bounces around like a ball and has done for years, i accept that SOME of your earlier points are worth considering but that one is just scare mongering. A lot like the stay comments by Cameron and his cronies.

 

[We are Tottenham]

I

We may not always be right, but to suggest as Nigel Farage did on Marr that IFS is biased by our funding is untrue


Nigel Farage on the BBC Andrew Marr programme this morning alleged that because the IFS gets three quarters of its funding from the UK government and the EU that its research couldn’t be trusted. He specifically said “If you work for government and are funded by the EU and you’re asked to produce a report you tend to do what you’re told and you don’t bite the hand that feeds you”.

The facts are these:

- We are an independent charitable organisation and do not in any sense “work for” the UK government. We were not asked by either the UK government or the EU to produce any report on the implications of the UK leaving the EU, and we are certainly not told what to conclude in these – or any other – outputs;

- The IFS has for over 40 years been an entirely independent and fearless body, beholden to nobody, frequently and publicly criticising the policies of governments (and opposition parties) when merited;

- About half of IFS funding comes from the Economic and Social Research Council and a further 10% from the European Research Council. Further details are provided here http://www.ifs.org.uk/about/finance. The former is funded by the UK government and the latter by the EU. But they are wholly independent of each, awarding funding on a competitive basis only in response to proposals for research of world class academic quality, which are subject to external peer-review. We are proud to receive funding from these bodies as a mark of the quality and objectivity of our work;

- These are the same bodies that fund research in universities in the UK. To suggest that we “work for government” because of this funding arrangement, and that what we say is affected by that, is tantamount to suggesting that this is true of all university based academics. In fact these funding bodies operate explicitly to ensure distance between government and researchers as a way of ensuring academic freedom is protected. Mr Farage’s comments are an attack not just on the IFS but suggest that academic independence does not exist;

If Mr Farage disagrees with our economic analysis then we are happy to debate it with him. For him to suggest that what we say, right or wrong, is not what we actually understand to be true, but rather is influenced by our funders, is biased, or results from being told what to say by the UK government or the EU, is simply untrue.

(Note: Mr Farage also implied that the IFS, and others suggesting that Brexit might have negative economic consequences, supported joining the Euro. In fact IFS researchers have neither produced any research or reports, nor made statements, supporting the UK joining the Euro.).

http://www.ifs.org.uk/about/blog/351

I don't think the Economics is the biggest issue in this EU referendum although of course it's an issue.

There is little Democracy ..but then the dilemma is we all see things differently and this is being
born out on a Larger stage.
The countries of Europe do need to keep in touch with each other [we do have a lot in common]but if it's going to be ruled
by a Europe that is going to run its own agenda as it is now, it may lead to a dictatorship in the future. Some say it's already moving that way.
There are so many issues..being an intellectual on politics is no good if you are going to run over
the other guy's point of view and you think you know what is best for everyone else.

Having a powerful economic Europe is not necessary a good thing.
Over consumption of commodities, for example, is not everything thing we need in life.
Our quality of life is so much important than that.
Now your thinking someone else said that,but I'm not thinking of him honestly my own thoughts.LOL
And I can easily outline those things.
Fair laws. We don't even have those 100% in our country. as I found out for myself by not being able to sue a company on a level footing of lawyer fees. But we have all heard of greedy Lawyers!

We actually need to control the population at some point in History of mankind. ]It's not talked about as a main topic by Euro and World leaders have their G meatings ]

We need more say on a local level in our lives so that our Local Council's don't dictate to
us and continue to boss us around.
We do need a NHS. but should work with charities and local businesses for extra funding.
We need to protect our countryside that is disappearing because of over population. The is also
contributing towards extinction of wild-life in this country.
We can't make life perfect but anyway, it's up to us innit ..if us folk can be listened to without prejudice.
Mind you ,if Spurs won something big.we wouldn't have to worry about the former

 

[P.D.]

There's a reason why not many economists predicted the last recession, recessions are very difficult to predict because they are a change in trend. That is very different to predicting the impact on the economy of economic uncertainty, destabilised markets and making access to our biggest export market more difficult.



Are you able to find a link to that apology? I do not recall that happening or them saying that it is impossible to have growth and austerity.

Here you go:

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/04/20/imfu-a20.html
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/poli...o-copy-osborne-s-austerity-drive-9780028.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...t-was-wrong-on-George-Osbornes-austerity.html

Well if economists aren't predicting a change in trend then what are they doing in their day? They have access to so much info and data that I'd expect more from them.

As I see it the 2 biggest economic changes in the last 20 years are the euro and credit crunch, economists either got it wrong or missed it for both of those things.

 

[P.D.]

Questions that have to be asked then are:

- Those banks from the US, China, Hong Kong and Switzerland had the chance to set-up directly into the ‘big market’ that is the EU from the start but chose London: why? Why not set-up within the EU from the start and then forego the costly transfer to other EU countries from the beginning?

- If we leave the EU where do you think the Swiss banks will then go, seeing as they find it complex and complex to transfer funds to the EU?

I think a lot of banks like being in the UK because timezone is good, 1 hour closer to the US but also the native language is also the international business language.

I don't think big banks are just going to disappear, HSBC have confirmed they are staying in the UK already, Goldman are building their new HQ at the moment in Holburn Viaduct, JP Morgan only decided to set up their new EMEA HQ in Canary Wharf a few years back, UBS move into their purpose built HQ they have spent 3 years fitting out later this year, Bloomberg are building their new HQ in Cannon St at present.

 

[milo]

Everything sensible is telling me to vote to remain in the EU... but I wish there was a way to get rid of this shambles of an unelected EU semi-oligarchical executive. It's beyond reasoning that in 2016 western Europe any individual who makes laws can be unelected.

The Commission can be removed by the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers both of which are elected.

The Commission is just the EU civil service and whilst it proposes laws it has no say in whether they are passed.

 

[milo]

@Craig_J - the Barrister Blogger post that I linked to on the previous page goes in the democracy and sovereignty issues in some depth, this is the bit about the Commission

The EU “executive” is made up of Commissioners, who are appointed by the national governments, and ministers from the member countries who take decisions through the Council of Ministers. The European Parliament – it’s not entirely accurate to call it a legislature – is elected, but its powers, though much greater than they were, are still rather feeble. However, it can (and does) scrutinise proposed legislation. It also possesses power, which it has occasionally exercised, to dismiss the entire Commission, which provides at least an element of democratic accountability. Participation in European elections is generally low throughout Europe: in the UK it hovers around 35%, roughly the same level as vote in most local council elections. In Europe as a whole the trend has been for the turnout to fall over the last twenty years.

http://barristerblogger.com/2016/06/13/must-remain-eu-peace-prosperity/

 

[r-u-s-x]

Everything sensible is telling me to vote to remain in the EU... but I wish there was a way to get rid of this shambles of an unelected EU semi-oligarchical executive. It's beyond reasoning that in 2016 western Europe any individual who makes laws can be unelected.

Not having a go at you but the UK seems fairly undemocratic to me. Fptp voting, unelected second chamber and hereditary head of state

 

[milo]

Here you go:

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/04/20/imfu-a20.html
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/poli...o-copy-osborne-s-austerity-drive-9780028.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...t-was-wrong-on-George-Osbornes-austerity.html

Well if economists aren't predicting a change in trend then what are they doing in their day? They have access to so much info and data that I'd expect more from them.

As I see it the 2 biggest economic changes in the last 20 years are the euro and credit crunch, economists either got it wrong or missed it for both of those things.

Thanks for the links. I didn't read anything their about the IMF saying that it was impossible to have growth during austerity. Their forecasts were just lower which is why it is a good idea to look at a range of forecasts rather than just one.

I think that you are wrong with your point about economists and the Euro. The UK was kept out of the Euro by economists in the Treasury. There was a lot of talk about their five economic tests at the time but that has been forgotten in this debate.

 

[milo]

I don't think big banks are just going to disappear, HSBC have confirmed they are staying in the UK already, Goldman are building their new HQ at the moment in Holburn Viaduct, JP Morgan only decided to set up their new EMEA HQ in Canary Wharf a few years back, UBS move into their purpose built HQ they have spent 3 years fitting out later this year, Bloomberg are building their new HQ in Cannon St at present.

I don't think that they will disappear either, London is a world financial centre and not all companies base themselves here to access the EU but some do. They may scale back their operations here if we do not have a passport for services to trade across the EU. No non-EU countries have one of those currently, so it is reasonable to think that the same could happen with us. Without that, I think that it is very likely that we will lose jobs and investment that is here to access the EU to Frankfurt and Paris.

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

This is not a snap referendum. It has been on the calendar for along time.

So it is somewhat surprising watching the daily claims/revelations and general roll out of the who's who of past and present politicians all trying to solidify some support behind remain.
Obviously this is a reaction to a growing feeling that the leave vote is on the rise, and to put it simply, they are brickt*ng themselves.

The preperation period was massive, perhaps a 'manifesto' type document, well researched and with some balance would have gone a long way to giving the public a easy, informed entry into the debate and discussion.

The problem with 'late in the day' soundbites, claims, and scaremongering is more people will be turned off you by that, because they smell the desperation or (rightly or wrongly) just think you're plain bullsh*tting.

 

[glorygloryeze]

An intersting article i saw below from another footy forum actually; am struggling to add all the text in one message so will split it in two.
Would be interesting to see what discussions this generates:

URL: http://uk.businessinsider.com/eu-referendum-reasons-why-a-brexit-is-a-good-idea-2016-6

I am starting to think a Brexit is a good idea, and I never thought I would ever say that

Musee des Beaux-Arts (Lyon, France)

For the first time, in my view, the arguments for Britain breaking ties with Brussels are looking more appealing.

Britain will decide whether the UK stays in the European Union on June 23, and I am still on the fence about what to do.

Ignoring the political posturing from both sides of the argument in various TV debates and knuckling down to the core arguments that each side presents, there are some are good reasons for a British exit from the EU, known as a Brexit.

A Brexit was not something I had ever thought was a good idea, either financially or politically.



The International Monetary Fund cut forecasts for the UK's gross-domestic-product growth in 2016 and haswarned of severe implications for the UK economy should there be a Brexit.A top official at the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development also said the effects of Britain leaving the EU would be akin to a "tax" on British citizens.

A report from the London School of Economics added that British households could lose out on as much as £173 billion ($246 billion) a year in the worst case scenario following a Brexit.

But the 28-nation members are in it together, working under a single market ideal, in which policies and laws are enacted for the good of all countries and do not give a distinct advantage to one more than any other another. Right?

Well, I am not so sure anymore.

Seeing how the markets and politicians have dealt with the eurozone sovereign-debt crisis, the worst refugee problem since World War II, and constant squabbles over EU lawmaking that wrecks national sovereignty, I have become fully unstuck from the mud of the pro-EU camp and will sit on the fence until we vote.

The EU referendum is not the same as the Scottish referendum

British Prime Minister David Cameron.REUTERS/Dylan Martinez

Naturally people will ask why I believe that Britain should potentially leave the EU but still believe Scotland should be part of the UK.



Mainly, as with most of my arguments, it is the economics - cold, hard numbers. Scotland had a much better case decades ago for breaking off from the rest of the UK without cutting off its nose to spite its face.

Scotland massively depends on oil for revenue, and in the 1980s it would have probably been able to argue that the country's economy was strong enough to sustain jobs and its own balance sheet.

The landscape has changed, however, and the resource that the Scottish National Party highlighted as a jewel in the country's crown does not shine anymore. The North Sea oil industry is in dire straits. OPEC statistics show that average oil output in 2013 from the North Sea clocked its lowest level since 1977, and prices have plunged.

If Scotland had left the UK in 2014 when the referendum was conducted, then its economy would have been killed off. Oil prices have crumbled from $105 a barrel in the summer of 2014 to about $48 a barrel right now.

Scotland depends on the rest of the UK for its pensions and its welfare and for jobs. Leaving the UK would have been horrific.

Britain, however, is not in the same boat as Scotland, and we should not treat both referendums the same way. The political and economic situation is far more complex.

No single market
We are meant to be operating under the bloc's Single Market mechanism as an EU member.

The EU describes it as "one territory without any internal borders or other regulatory obstacles to the free movement of goods and services." It is basically meant to stimulate competition and trade, improve efficiency, and help cut prices.

We are meant to operate as one. Basically, it works only if all countries are identical and work as a hive, like the Borg in "Star Trek." That sounds like a utopian ideal, and it has not worked at all.

Take a look at the complete schism between the economic growth of the UK, Germany, and the rest of the eurozone.

BAML

Britain's performance has more in common with the economic recovery in the US than the eurozone. It does not really look as if we need the EU. It needs us.

Britain is sitting pretty, regardless of your political lens. Unemployment is just 5.1%, which is pretty much as close to "full employment" as we can get. The EU's data agency Eurostat has this lower at 4.9%. Inflation is low, real wages are solid, and more people are able to get on the housing ladder. We are also one of the key financial centres in the world.



Now compare it with the unemployment rate in these countries and the rest of the eurozone as a whole:

Unemployment rates, seasonally adjusted, April 2016. UK numbers included are February figures.Eurostat

Does not really look like a Single Market, right? Certain countries are propping up Europe's economic figures, while others are still stagnant or practically in recession.

At the beginning of September, my colleague Oscar Williams-Grut pointed out that the so-called Single Market has a massive problem: Germany.

German manufacturing is a booming behemoth, while almost every other nation bar Greece is at some sort of low. Britain's manufacturing sector is not the same as it was back in the 1950s, and we now depend on a lot on imports and exports (I will come to this later).

Greece's rebalancing toward exports has been achieved simply by imports collapsing. All you need to do is take one look at that country and realise there is nothing about that nation that is rebounding.

But when it comes to helping out our manufacturing sector, Britain is also stuck. Take a look at the UK's steel industry.



Steel prices in Europe, the place Britain is most exposed to for prices, are ridiculously low, making it difficult for the UK to compete. On top of that, EU state aid rules prevent the government from helping out the nation's steel companies - EU law strictly prevents parliament from bailing out dying companies. That has led to the near collapse of Tata Steel's operations in the country and thousands of potential job losses.

So even if we wanted to help ourselves, we cannot.

 

[glorygloryeze]

And part 2:

At the mercy of Germany

REUTERS/Thomas Peter

Concerns over the Single Market being a whole load of poppyrooster are more relevant than ever, especially since the eurozone debt crisis of 2009.

First and foremost, even though we are meant to be part of one big unit, we have no fiscal union to address underperforming areas.

In Britain, for example, London may generate greater amounts of wealth than other parts of the country. If somewhere like Nottingham struggles, the money is redistributed to pay for welfare or prop up the local economy. Infrastructure, like new railway lines, could be installed to link cities and create greater connection for people working or looking to expand business.

In the EU, we don't have this. Just look at Greece and the sorry mess it is in. Sure, we lend money and force the country to gut itself, but a loan is not a redistribution of wealth. Countries that need to devalue their currency to spur exports cannot. The bloc is not a "single" anything.



The EU is not doing as well as it used to, and it is skewed economic reporting that suggests the eurozone is doing great. As demonstrated before, Germany is propping up manufacturing growth figures.

Take a look at how the EU really isn't as well positioned as it was when Britain entered the bloc in 1973:

Change or Go Report

The EU's economy is "shrinking relative to other countries across the globe," and its population is ageing. In 2020, the ratio of working-age people to pensioners in the EU will be 3-to-1, while in 2050 it will be 2-to-1. This is according to a Business for Britain report published in June, which had Mark Littlewood of the Institute of Economic Affairs, John Mills of JML, and fund manager Helena Morrissey of Newton on its editorial board.

They added that tax payments to the EU, the level of bureaucracy, and the changing population are all contributing to greater cost for the nation.

Destroying national sovereignty

REUTERS/Yannis Behrakis

Relinquishing national sovereignty sounds a lot like right-wing hooey, but having a look at how the EU has operated in the worst of times has not resolved any of these concerns.

Sovereignty is meant to be when a state has the absolute power to govern itself; make, execute, and apply laws; and impose and collect taxes.



Of course, being part of a union means we should all technically share that burden and have a say in which laws are enacted, while also making sure others are not penalised to the advantage of other nations. It should not be all bad.

Take a look at Greece again. The country has teetered on the brink of collapse so many times that it might as well jump off the cliff. But it cannot, because it is stuck with loans it does not want that seem near impossible for it to pay back.

The one time it did show some semblance of sovereignty or power was at its referendum on the bailout. The public voted against the extremely harsh (and arguably necessary) conditions in exchange for emergency cash. And we all know how that turned out - an utterly pointless exercise.

All that happened is that Greece wound up owing its creditors so much that they used it against them in their next round of negotiations.

German finance minister Wolfgang Schaeuble said Yanis Varoufakis, theradical left-wing former Greek finance minister, "strains the solidarity of European partners" shortly before Varoufakis left the government.

As for what happened to Greece, the referendum did not make a difference, and it still had to go back to its creditors with its tail between its legs.



We get barely any say
There are a few things that Britons are getting really tired of and a growing mountain of examples to show how the UK does not really have much of a say in what happens within the bloc.

Ideally being part of the EU means we have a seat at the table - the ability to work through what needs to change and address concerns from the UK.

Since 2010, the EU has introduced more than 3,500 new laws affecting British business. Business for Britain highlighted in its report in June last year that the sheer volume of red tape that affects the UK costs billions.

"The British Chambers of Commerce has shown that the total cost of EU regulation is £7.6 billion per year," the report said. "Since the Lisbon Treaty came into force in December 2009, it has cost British businesses £12.2 billion (net) in extra regulation."

Furthermore, Britain doesn't really have as much of a say as I thought.

Business for Britain

"The Commission proposes new laws in the EU, but the UK's representation has declined dramatically and many officials are adamantly opposed to the sort of changes that the UK seeks," the report said.

"When the UK joined the EU in 1973, we had 20% of the votes. Today we only have 9.5% of the votes. British MEPs voted against 576 EU proposals between 2009 and 2014, but 485 still passed and became law."



Zero say over policies
As demonstrated, Britain's economy and society is unique. It does not fall into a hive mind of Europe. No country within the European Union does, which is why a Single Market doesn't actually exist.

At the moment, Britain is dragged into huge game-changing policies that we do not want.

For example, take a look at the financial transactions tax proposal. The FTT, more commonly known as the Robin Hood Tax, places a 0.05% tax on trades involving stocks, bonds, foreign currency, and derivatives.

The European Commission originally aimed to launch the FTT in January with slightly different tax calculations -0.1% on shares and 0.01% on bond transactions in which at least one of the parties was based in the EU. Talks have stalled and remain ongoing.





The Conservative government, the financial sector, and various business groups are heavily against the FTT. The Tory-led government hates the tax proposition so much that UK Chancellor George Osborne even launched a legal suit against the FTT plan.

Basically, even if Britain doesn't sign up for it, the UK would be still financially penalised if it does business with other countries that sign up for FTT.



Now, I am still not fully up for Britain leaving the European Union - there are still a huge number of advantages of staying in. But the argument for leaving is not looking as scary as I first thought.

We are a nation that depends on imports for energy and goods, and in being part of the EU we have a decent mechanism for trade. Severing links could easily make it more expensive to import or ship goods.

But while a Brexit would be unknown territory, it would not necessarily be all bad in the long run.

 

[Grays_1890]

Bob Geldof is a clown

 

[scaramanga]

Bob Geldof is a clown

That, by some distance, is the most polite word that can accurately describe him.

 

[parklane1]

I think a lot of banks like being in the UK because timezone is good, 1 hour closer to the US but also the native language is also the international business language.

I don't think big banks are just going to disappear, HSBC have confirmed they are staying in the UK already, Goldman are building their new HQ at the moment in Holburn Viaduct, JP Morgan only decided to set up their new EMEA HQ in Canary Wharf a few years back, UBS move into their purpose built HQ they have spent 3 years fitting out later this year, Bloomberg are building their new HQ in Cannon St at present.

I agree its just more scare tactics.