Politics, politics, politics

[P.D.]

Interesting.

I think some Conservatives, like Boris think that a vote to leave would allow a renegotiation and a partial leave. But that would be undemocratic. Interesting to see that even those who preach Leave, don't really believe it! Nor do 9 out of 10 economists, the US President, the IMF etc etc. Essentially, those that know, know it wouldn't be in the UKs interests.

Boris was right, what a waste of time, instead of focusing on the real issues - plenty of zhit the government should be sorting out, rather than this bolocks.

I dont really agree with the quoting of so many economic institutions, they are rarely right. None of them predicted the credit crunch for instance, they are always amending their UK growth forecasts so how can they possibly predict what will happen here.

The IMF said it was impossible to have growth and austerity, they got that wrong and had to make a humble apology not long after.

 

[milo]

As it should be; therefore no big deal regarding a Brexit vote then, right?

I think that you have misunderstood the economic arguments for remain. This article from yesterday's Times makes a good job of explaining some of the risks

http://www.economicsuk.com/blog/002163.html

 

[milo]

You mean Germany and France? That pretty much is the EU

All member states ratified the treaty and my recollection is that it was widely acknowledged that changes were needed to how the EU and Council of Ministers operated following the expansion of the EU. Obviously, the proposed constitution was scuttled after being rejected in referendums in France and the Netherlands but I do not think that the Lisbon Treaty was forced on a reluctant Europe by France and Germany.

 

[parklane1]

I dont really agree with the quoting of so many economic institutions, they are rarely right. None of them predicted the credit crunch for instance, they are always amending their UK growth forecasts so how can they possibly predict what will happen here.

The IMF said it was impossible to have growth and austerity, they got that wrong and had to make a humble apology not long after.

That will not go down with some who believe everything they read.

 

[milo]

Questions I heard today which I found interesting.

- Is the fact that immigration has such an impact on our economy proof that its a problem?

It is more or less universally acknowledged that immigration has had a positive impact on the UK economy. I'd be interested in reading any academic study that said different

- If you was pro immigration and had control on borders at what number would be enough for you to make a call to stop it? is there a difference doing that than someone like Farage saying that now is the time?

The biggest pull factor for EU migrants coming to the UK is because there are jobs here. If there were less jobs, there would be less migrants. If we put further controls on the number of immigrants coming to the UK, it follows that jobs would remain unfilled and that would have a detrimental impact on business and the UK economy. My questions to you would be:

What balance would you want to see between the economic benefits that migrants bring and your desire to see the number immigrants reduced? What should take precedence?

What makes you think that government would do a better job of effectively managing migration than the market?

 

[milo]

I dont really agree with the quoting of so many economic institutions, they are rarely right. None of them predicted the credit crunch for instance, they are always amending their UK growth forecasts so how can they possibly predict what will happen here.

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.

The IMF said it was impossible to have growth and austerity, they got that wrong and had to make a humble apology not long after.

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.

 

[milo]

One more post before I bore you all to tears.

This blog post is an interesting read and does a very good job of discussing the leave campaign's claims that the EU is undemocratic and that it has removed sovereignty from the UK Parliament

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

 

[scaramanga]

All member states ratified the treaty and my recollection is that it was widely acknowledged that changes were needed to how the EU and Council of Ministers operated following the expansion of the EU. Obviously, the proposed constitution was scuttled after being rejected in referendums in France and the Netherlands but I do not think that the Lisbon Treaty was forced on a reluctant Europe by France and Germany.

It was certainly forced upon the UK and Ireland against our wills. In fact, I think it was the taoiseach at the time who said that when the first referendum was rejected, they'd keep having them until they got the right answer.

I know there's a lot of resentment in the Netherlands and the Czech Republic too. Most people I've spoken to in either country feel it was a complete stitch up by the EU.

 

[scaramanga]

One more post before I bore you all to tears.

This blog post is an interesting read and does a very good job of discussing the leave campaign's claims that the EU is undemocratic and that it has removed sovereignty from the UK Parliament

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

Stopped reading when I read the word peace.

The EU tiger repellant rocks have been pretty effective too.

 

[milo]

It was certainly forced upon the UK and Ireland against our wills. In fact, I think it was the taoiseach at the time who said that when the first referendum was rejected, they'd keep having them until they got the right answer.

I know there's a lot of resentment in the Netherlands and the Czech Republic too. Most people I've spoken to in either country feel it was a complete stitch up by the EU.

I think that we are talking at cross purposes. I meant that the governments of the member states supported the treaty, I would agree that feeling in the countries themselves was different.

 

[scaramanga]

I think that we are talking at cross purposes. I meant that the governments of the member states supported the treaty, I would agree that feeling in the countries themselves was different.

Agreed there.

The EU (with the support of a few pro-EU expansion governments) intentionally changed a constitution to a treaty so as to avoid triggering referenda that would have allowed those people to choose.

 

[milo]

Agreed there.

The EU (with the support of a few pro-EU expansion governments) intentionally changed a constitution to a treaty so as to avoid triggering referenda that would have allowed those people to choose.

There was some reduction in powers between the rejected constitution and the Lisbon Treaty but I would agree that they were substantially the same. I would argue that the treaty was required though to prevent deadlock following the expansion and that if there is criticism for the way that it was introduced, that should sit with national governments.

 

[milo]

Stopped reading when I read the word peace.

That's a shame. In the blog post, he gives most of the credit for European peace to NATO but rightly recognises the role that the EU has played in promoting democracy, prosperity and stability in the former eastern block countries who joined.

 

[milo]

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1071639256245454

 

[the dza]

That's a shame. In the blog post, he gives most of the credit for European peace to NATO but rightly recognises the role that the EU has played in promoting democracy, prosperity and stability in the former eastern block countries who joined.

I agree, that's got to be the EU's biggest contribution to security. If the EU breaks up, then I think over time we'll see Russia exert it's influence over Eastern Europe again -- maybe another Cold War in the long run.

 

[inkpenspur]

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1071639256245454

Is Tom de Waal a pen name for David Cameron Age 19 and a bit?

 

[parklane1]

Is Tom de Waal a pen name for David Cameron Age 19 and a bit?

No but he is a expert on the Caucasus so he thinks he is a expert on the EU as well

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

One more post before I bore you all to tears.

/

To late, good job I have a soft spot for you, you old tart

 

[SpurMeUp]

As it should be; therefore no big deal regarding a Brexit vote then, right?



If you had said that financially and in trade the EU can compete with other 'trading blocs' such as NAFTA, ASEAN etc then at that point that's probably fair enough. However you mention USA and China as the competition and yet these are not 'trading blocs' but individual countries with distinct cultures and distinct soveriegnty. If the EU is to become Economic/trading federation to compete against those two individual countries as an example (and not NAFTA, ASEAN etc) then it by default has to act like a Sovereign individual state, setting Trading rules, tarrifs across the federation. This requires a unified 'Federal' government to implement (as it does in the USA) given the different countries and Economies throughout the European 'Federation'.

It's the 'Federal Government' aspect that many Brexiters fear, and not without good reason imo. After all, many of the EU top brass have stated publicly in recent years that their goals were Economic Union followed by a Political Union.
Regardless of the issues of Democracy the UK has (unelected House of Lords, the Monarchy!) it is at least within our borders and thus can be identified and dealt with (if the desire is REALLY there to do so). But issues related to the EU/Brussels are much more remote to deal with democratically by the very nature that they are Federal and beyond the UK's borders (and more complicated as they involve several other nations who by their nature will not have the interests close to the UK's heart,close to theirs).

Its not some debating club issue, if I'd said NAFTA rather than US I'd have an argument!? This is about the future of this country, the UKs economic future and its political significance in the world.

The trade issue is simple: we have a population of 65m. The US 323m. China well over 1 billion. If you are the US or China you are not going to worry about a trade agreement with such a small population of consumers. The UK has no power to negotiate preferential trade terms, or even get to the negotiating table. China, the US, NAFTA or anyone else won't give a fuk about the UK. The EU with 500m consumers, far more than the US, will be a vital trading partner for each country or block and be able to get better trade terms. It would take the UK decades to even get to the table with these huge consumer markets. That is the reality.

Can someone tell me what Sovereignty looks like? What is it you miss now?

Do you really think EU countries would let go of their national governments? The proud French, the efficient Germans? Tommy Cooper style just like that? Let go of their national control to become an America? Not only is it not workable, no one wants anything like this. Its a myth to scare people. This referendum debate is about fear and emotion, not rational arguments sadly. What is it that the EU decides now, that you don't like?

For me it is so simple: we leave, the UK becomes isolated, and the economy will suffer significantly, especially London. I agree @P.D. economic forecasts are like weather forecasts, based on assumptions and often wrong. But for every '87 storm that is not predicted, many forecasts - weather or economic - are also often correct. But lets disregard the trained experts who do this day to day for a moment, consider this:

Switzerland was the home of banking. For centuries the Swiss have been stable and neutral, never involved in conflict and the worlds rich have used their rock solid banks. But Switzerland is not in the EU. So Swiss banks moved and setup huge offices in London. As did US banks, Hong Kong banks, and increasingly Chinese banks and all this fiance flows through London. The reason they are not setting up in Zurich is simple: Zurich is not in the EU. From within Switzerland its more complex and costly to transfer funds to EU countries. So the banks moved to London.

We leave the EU, the banks and a whole heap of other companies that invest in our country, who have access to those 500m consumers, will start to locate in Germany, France, Spain etc. Car manufacturers won't make cars in the UK anymore, EU exporters won't setup in the UK, why would they when they could within the free market? The economy will suffer, real people with real jobs will suffer. Isn't this obvious?

A vote to leave is serious! Economically it is very fuking serious. It will leave the UK on the outside, a peripheral player on the world stage, and it could hit our economy very hard, as investment and cross boarder commerce contracts.

 

[glorygloryeze]

Its not some debating club issue, if I'd said NAFTA rather than US I'd have an argument!? This is about the future of this country, the UKs economic future and its political significance in the world.

The trade issue is simple: we have a population of 65m. The US 323m. China well over 1 billion. If you are the US or China you are not going to worry about a trade agreement with such a small population of consumers. The UK has no power to negotiate preferential trade terms, or even get to the negotiating table.

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

China, the US, NAFTA or anyone else won't give a fuk about the UK. The EU with 500m consumers, far more than the US, will be a vital trading partner for each country or block and be able to get better trade terms. It would take the UK decades to even get to the table with these huge consumer markets. That is the reality.

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?

Can someone tell me what Sovereignty looks like? What is it you miss now?

Do you really think EU countries would let go of their national governments? The proud French, the efficient Germans? Tommy Cooper style just like that? Let go of their national control to become an America? Not only is it not workable, no one wants anything like this. Its a myth to scare people. This referendum debate is about fear and emotion, not rational arguments sadly. What is it that the EU decides now, that you don't like?

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.

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.

For me it is so simple: we leave, the UK becomes isolated, and the economy will suffer significantly, especially London. I agree @P.D. economic forecasts are like weather forecasts, based on assumptions and often wrong. But for every '87 storm that is not predicted, many forecasts - weather or economic - are also often correct.

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.

But lets disregard the trained experts who do this day to day for a moment, consider this:

Switzerland was the home of banking. For centuries the Swiss have been stable and neutral, never involved in conflict and the worlds rich have used their rock solid banks. But Switzerland is not in the EU. So Swiss banks moved and setup huge offices in London. As did US banks, Hong Kong banks, and increasingly Chinese banks and all this fiance flows through London. The reason they are not setting up in Zurich is simple: Zurich is not in the EU. From within Switzerland its more complex and costly to transfer funds to EU countries. So the banks moved to London.

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?

We leave the EU, the banks and a whole heap of other companies that invest in our country, who have access to those 500m consumers, will start to locate in Germany, France, Spain etc. Car manufacturers won't make cars in the UK anymore, EU exporters won't setup in the UK, why would they when they could within the free market? The economy will suffer, real people with real jobs will suffer. Isn't this obvious?

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.

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.

A vote to leave is serious! Economically it is very fuking serious. It will leave the UK on the outside, a peripheral player on the world stage, and it could hit our economy very hard, as investment and cross boarder commerce contracts.

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!