I recently read a paper by a very well respected economist as part of my degree... I've forgotten the name of the paper but ill post it on here when I find it...
He basically looks at all the pros and cons and benfits and Consequences and weighs them is! He concludes that in the short run we would be marginally worse off in the medium term we will be almost exactly the same and in the long run we will be significantly better off! He also takes the argument that to leave the is inward looking and an outdated idea and rips it to shreds! He says the idea of regional economies is outdated! We live in a global system and we need to be part of a global economy to thrive! And the EU is preventing us from doing that!
What's the name of this economist and does he vastly misuse exclamation marks throughout his paper ?
I recently read a paper by a very well respected economist as part of my degree... I've forgotten the name of the paper but ill post it on here when I find it...
He basically looks at all the pros and cons and benfits and Consequences and weighs them is! He concludes that in the short run we would be marginally worse off in the medium term we will be almost exactly the same and in the long run we will be significantly better off! He also takes the argument that to leave the is inward looking and an outdated idea and rips it to shreds! He says the idea of regional economies is outdated! We live in a global system and we need to be part of a global economy to thrive! And the EU is preventing us from doing that!
@cantersaddick if you can find and post that would be appreciated. I'm particularly interested in the long term conclusions, plus what he says about the opportunity in emerging markets. cheers mate
Got an exam in the morning but once I'm past that I'll have a look for it and post back!!
This is because shared regulations means products made in any part of the eu meet requirements in any other part, so no alterations to products are needed, so the market for those goods is larger. Different regulations require different processes and more costs when altering products for the large eu market making British business less competitive.
Brilliant - so have the rest of Europe seen the light and all European Cars built in the UK will now be Right Hand Drive?
And all Europeans now require the Type G 3 pin plug?
What about Class A eggs?
Should we be using the Iberian guage for our railway lines then?
Seeing as 90% of the British Economy is not involved in trade with the EU,, I don't suppose this really matters anyway.
I mean things like engines etc for environmental laws, cars are not made all at once... Bits are made individually and put together, but you know that. Plugs are also a ridiculously easy thing to add on universal products. We also use French trains.
There are many more products than cars etc including products are which aren't physical like banking.
Like I said I'm not going to convince you or anyone who thinks differently from me as we think differently for a reason. This is why a referendum is needed where everyone is given clear, unbiased information so we can come to a decision and stop uncertainty.
I recently read a paper by a very well respected economist as part of my degree... I've forgotten the name of the paper but ill post it on here when I find it...
He basically looks at all the pros and cons and benfits and Consequences and weighs them is! He concludes that in the short run we would be marginally worse off in the medium term we will be almost exactly the same and in the long run we will be significantly better off! He also takes the argument that to leave the is inward looking and an outdated idea and rips it to shreds! He says the idea of regional economies is outdated! We live in a global system and we need to be part of a global economy to thrive! And the EU is preventing us from doing that!
I don't respect any economists. The dismal "science ". When I did my masters we had some idiot telling us about how marvellous the Asian and Celtic tiger economies were. The next term when he spoke to us they had crashed and burned and he met a very disbelieving bunch of students.
Will wait to see what comes from Cameron's renegotiations. I'm generally pro-europe although I'm aware of the problems. And the infighting in the main parties, particularly the Tories (Cameron has already said he expects all his ministers to support a yes vote) will be interesting.
Last poll I saw ( I know, I know) had it 45% yes and 35 % no and i think after the main parties and most of the press get behind the yes campaign the vote will be yes.
I recently read a paper by a very well respected economist as part of my degree... I've forgotten the name of the paper but ill post it on here when I find it...
He basically looks at all the pros and cons and benfits and Consequences and weighs them is! He concludes that in the short run we would be marginally worse off in the medium term we will be almost exactly the same and in the long run we will be significantly better off! He also takes the argument that to leave the is inward looking and an outdated idea and rips it to shreds! He says the idea of regional economies is outdated! We live in a global system and we need to be part of a global economy to thrive! And the EU is preventing us from doing that!
@cantersaddick if you can find and post that would be appreciated. I'm particularly interested in the long term conclusions, plus what he says about the opportunity in emerging markets. cheers mate
Got an exam in the morning but once I'm past that I'll have a look for it and post back!!
I recently read a paper by a very well respected economist as part of my degree... I've forgotten the name of the paper but ill post it on here when I find it...
He basically looks at all the pros and cons and benfits and Consequences and weighs them is! He concludes that in the short run we would be marginally worse off in the medium term we will be almost exactly the same and in the long run we will be significantly better off! He also takes the argument that to leave the is inward looking and an outdated idea and rips it to shreds! He says the idea of regional economies is outdated! We live in a global system and we need to be part of a global economy to thrive! And the EU is preventing us from doing that!
I don't respect any economists. The dismal "science ". When I did my masters we had some idiot telling us about how marvellous the Asian and Celtic tiger economies were. The next term when he spoke to us they had crashed and burned and he met a very disbelieving bunch of students.
My ex CEO insisted his management team read From Good to Great. I opened it up and the first bit I came across was a case study highlighting Fannie Mae's excellent approach to risk management. I threw the book away.
I also keep hearing about the disastrous consequences but little content of what they actually are, so I'd be keen to learn.
Same question for me, but flipped.
What would be the negative consequences of staying in the EU, and what are the real-life bad things that the EU has done to the UK in the last two or three years?
There are hundreds of those! Literally hundreds... The worst most recent one in my head is the European commission has recently proposed (for a second time, it was thrown out a couple years ago) That they should have the power to set a country's budget! This is a farce! That an unelected body who's own accounts haven't been signed off in 18 years want to control a sovereign states budget!
I believe we must do something to stop the current rate of population growth. The huge increase in our population is having a massive effect on education, the Health Service, housing and roads. We need to regain control of our borders and we can't do that if things remain as they are.
As someone who is 58 today (my birthday!) I fully agreed that we should enter the EEC as it was then, but it has changed out of all recognition. I certainly wouldn't have voted yes if I had known how much our population would grow as a result.
When we joined Europe it was a much larger trading block relative to World trade than it is today. It will progressively have less importance as China and Asian economies grow.
The future is in developing relations outside Europe, we will not lose the European market just because we are not part of a States of Europe.
There is a big difference between the large global corporates who will prefer least disturbance to their business model and the smaller businesses who employ over 90% of the UK's em
First, I think that to say "trade" would be totally unaffected if we left is simply not true. So much of our trade is in what used to be called "invisibles", not just stuff we make. Take one example: Deutsche Bank. It employs 9,000 (no doubt highly paid and highly taxed) individuals in the UK. It will almost certainly move back to Frankfurt if we leave the EU. There will be many other European businesses that do the same. It will cost us a fortune and have a knock-on effect on whether other financial institutions will want to do business here. In 2013, according to BIS, 41% of global foreign exchange trading happened in London. Deutsche alone did 15% of that.... Meanwhile, the EBRD, part-owned by EU institutions, will have to go elsewhere I'd guess. Then there's marine and aviation insurance and re-insurance...all sectors in which we are currently world leaders but that we would risk by chucking out the baby with the bath water.
Second, it is a fallacy to say that "faceless bureaucrats" are making laws that effect us. All EU directives are put together by representatives of the member states. Individuals that are nominated for their expertise by the UK Govt. participate in the process. I've said before that the UK had huge input to the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive for example - we got what we asked for and wanted. Generally the EU does not tamper with our affairs unless we let it. Largely, it is our own fault (and the success of our economy) that make the UK seem a desirable place to live for citizens of other EU countries.
Third, the EU (setting aside the immigration issue) really does not cost us very much. Less, in fact, than we pay to keep Northern Ireland as part of the UK. So a festering dump with the population around the same as Essex costs us more than the EU. And in return we get many benefits by belonging to the EU that we certainly don't get by hanging on to Ulster. I know which I'd rather keep.
The EU too, has been responsible for much sensible legislation which we have benefitted from. One example, the deregulation of air travel has saved us all a fortune in air fares. And gets us compensation when planes are late.
Anyway, in my opinion, it would be madness to leave.
If anyone wants to read more this site has some publications which explains how the EU and its institutions work. europa.eu/about-eu/index_en.htm
In essence there are two strands to this and there is an awful lot of media froth in an attempt to both conceal and blur the fundamental facts from the electorate.
1) It is not necessary to be a member of the EU to participate in the perceived economic 'benefits' of the Single Market which tends to be the main economic argument advanced in favour of EU membership. Participation in the Single Market can be achieved through the European Economic Area (EEA) as exemplified by Norway, Iceland and Switzerland all of whom are members of EFTA (the European Free Trade Association).
2) The EU is a political rather than an economic union. Acquis Communautaire 'ever closer union' is a fundamental part of the whole concept.
You do not have to be mensa material to realise that the logical conclusion of 'acquis' is an eventual supra state where the individual member states completely cede sovereignty.
Some may consider this to be desirable and it is a valid viewpoint to hold.
Why though are we not having an honest debate with this concept at the forefront of it?
And I don't buy the line about not being able to influence the EU regulations. We need to comply whether in or out of Europe. What influence do we actually exert at present and why does it matter? We are but one little voice in a noisy unruly self serving unmanageable body of bureaucrats.
We shouldn't need to rely on Europe to lead us in health and safety standards. Product safety standards need to comply with many different country regulations, not just Europe's.
If the U.S. changes vehicle emission standards everyone has to change in line if they want to export, do we wait and see if Europe tells us to change?
Can't see what is so unique about Europe that makes it any different to any other trading block we are not part of.
Politicians don't have a clue about how leaving Europe will affect business, they are politicians. Thrir skill and knowledge is in talking about things they know little about and sounding convincing.
I will make my own mind up base on what I hear from all quarters apart from politicians. They will encourage a Yes vote because it is the only position they can take that guarantees they have saved face whichever way the vote goes.
I also keep hearing about the disastrous consequences but little content of what they actually are, so I'd be keen to learn.
Same question for me, but flipped.
What would be the negative consequences of staying in the EU, and what are the real-life bad things that the EU has done to the UK in the last two or three years?
There are hundreds of those! Literally hundreds... The worst most recent one in my head is the European commission has recently proposed (for a second time, it was thrown out a couple years ago) That they should have the power to set a country's budget! This is a farce! That an unelected body who's own accounts haven't been signed off in 18 years want to control a sovereign states budget!
So out of those supposed hundreds of examples, you have chosen one that was allegedly proposed, but hasn't happened. Not only has it not happened, but it seems entirely inconceivable that it ever would. This doesn't strike me as a convincing line of argument
I also keep hearing about the disastrous consequences but little content of what they actually are, so I'd be keen to learn.
Same question for me, but flipped.
What would be the negative consequences of staying in the EU, and what are the real-life bad things that the EU has done to the UK in the last two or three years?
There are hundreds of those! Literally hundreds... The worst most recent one in my head is the European commission has recently proposed (for a second time, it was thrown out a couple years ago) That they should have the power to set a country's budget! This is a farce! That an unelected body who's own accounts haven't been signed off in 18 years want to control a sovereign states budget!
So out of those supposed hundreds of examples, you have chosen one that was allegedly proposed, but hasn't happened. Not only has it not happened, but it seems entirely inconceivable that it ever would. This doesn't strike me as a convincing line of argument
My point was its been rejected once but they bring it up less than three years later and will continue to do so until it gets through! Just as they did with the irish referendum! Maybe just me being cynical...
"I've said before that the UK had huge input to the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive for example - we got what we asked for and wanted."
A travesty of the truth. We had no input in the original ideas and proposals, no one came to the UK, the leading financial centre of Europe and asked for input, we fought a rearguard action to prevent London's supremacy as a trading centre diminished to enhance Frankfurt's standing. If we were not in the EU we would be in control of our own destiny as a leading financial centre. If you want a Euro sceptic angle, this is what Bill Cash reported about MIFID developments in 2011:
I sit on the EU Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee where much of this new legislation is being debated. … I have been left in no doubt that the motivation of the continental legislators is resentment of the success of London. They have no idea what the conditions need to be for a financial marketplace to prosper. …
Already a new directive on market infrastructure—which may turn out to favor the Deutsche Bourse, damaging the pan-European trading platforms of London’s LCH Clearnet—is being rushed through. Further rules on derivatives trading are planned in the new Market Abuse Directive. A review of the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive is also imminent. No-one in the UK is lobbying me on these matters because they probably have not spotted the threats yet. It is almost as if the Commission wants to get all these new laws introduced before London wakes up to what is going on in Brussels.
I would like to know how a UK withdrawal from the EU would affect UK citizens like me living in EU countries. I work and pay taxes here and have full access to the welfare system and I cannot see how that could continue if it wasn't reciprocated. May be seen as a selfish question but there are millions of others like me.
One of the reasons I moved here was it was becoming too difficult to keep renewing the expensive visa for my wife (she is American) who, despite working and paying taxes for years, had 'no recourse to public funds' stamped in her visa. Spain has welcomed us both and I don't really want to leave it!
Of course those who voted in the 70s voted for something quite different from what the EU is today. Nobody has ever had a vote as to whether they wanted to be in a political union. For that reason alone we should have had a referendum on this much sooner than we have.
- If we leave the EU our trade with it is totally unaffected (It would be economic madness by other EU countries + Lisbon Treaty stipulates the EU must make a trade agreement with a country that leaves - If we leave the EU we can actually make trade agreements with countries outside the EU. Iceland has more trade agreements with countries than the EU does! - If we leave the EU it cuts the mass amounts of red tape that hits small businesses particularly hard - If we leave the EU then British laws are made in Britain - If we leave the EU we can control our borders (i.e not have 320,000 net migration in per annum)
I guess you could say I'm all for leaving.
It might have been quicker if you had just posted a link to the UKIP website eh?
Anyway, just to take your last point what % of the "320,000 net migration" was accounted for by EU citizens? And which kind of "migrant" is more likely to go home after 3-4 years, the young French manager or the Somali who has risked life and limb to get here?
Lowering immigration is the worst possible reason to exit the EU. We thrive because skilled migrants can cross borders and only a tiny fraction of EU migrants are net-cost to the taxpayer.
Likewise business/economic scare stories are also a non-story for staying in the EU. As other posters have pointed out, the Lisbon Treaty guarantees that we would not be disadvantaged economically if we chose to leave.
What it really comes down to is are you getting a good deal out of the EU? Is the extra money you pay for membership out of your taxes worth it? Most people would not really see any major shift in their lives if we left. Most people barely notice the influence the EU has on our lives in the first place.
"I've said before that the UK had huge input to the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive for example - we got what we asked for and wanted."
A travesty of the truth. We had no input in the original ideas and proposals, no one came to the UK, the leading financial centre of Europe and asked for input, we fought a rearguard action to prevent London's supremacy as a trading centre diminished to enhance Frankfurt's standing. If we were not in the EU we would be in control of our own destiny as a leading financial centre. If you want a Euro sceptic angle, this is what Bill Cash reported about MIFID developments in 2011:
I sit on the EU Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee where much of this new legislation is being debated. … I have been left in no doubt that the motivation of the continental legislators is resentment of the success of London. They have no idea what the conditions need to be for a financial marketplace to prosper. …
Already a new directive on market infrastructure—which may turn out to favor the Deutsche Bourse, damaging the pan-European trading platforms of London’s LCH Clearnet—is being rushed through. Further rules on derivatives trading are planned in the new Market Abuse Directive. A review of the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive is also imminent. No-one in the UK is lobbying me on these matters because they probably have not spotted the threats yet. It is almost as if the Commission wants to get all these new laws introduced before London wakes up to what is going on in Brussels.
All those hours I spent back in the 2000s, ploughing through the drafts, attending endless meetings, sending back recommended changes and getting stuff like the Spanish up to speed on prosecuting Barcelona-based boiler rooms when no Spanish citizens, only Brits, were victims must just have been a dream then... I wonder what I was actually doing? Down the Slug & Lettuce I expect!
If there was any lack of dialogue or "minor wants" that failed to materialise, my recollection is that it happened because HMT (that is Gordon Brown) were impossible to deal with, rather than Europe.
As you say, Cash is a well-known euro-spectic and is likely to have a biased view or will promulgate one to serve his ends. I don't know what is happening currently with regard to the latest versions of financial directives but, frankly, the concept of anything being "rushed through" by Brussels is gently amusing.
You might want to Google Sir Nigel Wicks and see what he got up to before he retired. I doubt Cash has even heard of him but he was part of the Committee of Wise Men, and used to head up Crestco (now Euroclear). As a member of the CoWM, it was his recommendations in the main, back in 2001 that formed a large part of what became MiFID I.
Comments
And it is at least a year away isn't it ?
There are many more products than cars etc including products are which aren't physical like banking.
Like I said I'm not going to convince you or anyone who thinks differently from me as we think differently for a reason. This is why a referendum is needed where everyone is given clear, unbiased information so we can come to a decision and stop uncertainty.
http://www.betteroffout.net/the-case/10-reasons-wed-be-better-off-out/
Last poll I saw ( I know, I know) had it 45% yes and 35 % no and i think after the main parties and most of the press get behind the yes campaign the vote will be yes.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/eu-referendum-support-for-britains-eu-membership-reaches-alltime-high-10068594.html
As someone who is 58 today (my birthday!) I fully agreed that we should enter the EEC as it was then, but it has changed out of all recognition. I certainly wouldn't have voted yes if I had known how much our population would grow as a result.
The future is in developing relations outside Europe, we will not lose the European market just because we are not part of a States of Europe.
There is a big difference between the large global corporates who will prefer least disturbance to their business model and the smaller businesses who employ over 90% of the UK's em
Meanwhile, the EBRD, part-owned by EU institutions, will have to go elsewhere I'd guess. Then there's marine and aviation insurance and re-insurance...all sectors in which we are currently world leaders but that we would risk by chucking out the baby with the bath water.
Second, it is a fallacy to say that "faceless bureaucrats" are making laws that effect us. All EU directives are put together by representatives of the member states. Individuals that are nominated for their expertise by the UK Govt. participate in the process. I've said before that the UK had huge input to the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive for example - we got what we asked for and wanted. Generally the EU does not tamper with our affairs unless we let it. Largely, it is our own fault (and the success of our economy) that make the UK seem a desirable place to live for citizens of other EU countries.
Third, the EU (setting aside the immigration issue) really does not cost us very much. Less, in fact, than we pay to keep Northern Ireland as part of the UK. So a festering dump with the population around the same as Essex costs us more than the EU. And in return we get many benefits by belonging to the EU that we certainly don't get by hanging on to Ulster. I know which I'd rather keep.
The EU too, has been responsible for much sensible legislation which we have benefitted from. One example, the deregulation of air travel has saved us all a fortune in air fares. And gets us compensation when planes are late.
Anyway, in my opinion, it would be madness to leave.
If anyone wants to read more this site has some publications which explains how the EU and its institutions work. europa.eu/about-eu/index_en.htm
1) It is not necessary to be a member of the EU to participate in the perceived economic 'benefits' of the Single Market which tends to be the main economic argument advanced in favour of EU membership. Participation in the Single Market can be achieved through the European Economic Area (EEA) as exemplified by Norway, Iceland and Switzerland all of whom are members of EFTA (the European Free Trade Association).
2) The EU is a political rather than an economic union. Acquis Communautaire 'ever closer union' is a fundamental part of the whole concept.
http://en.euabc.com/word/12
and
http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/glossary/community_acquis_en.htm
You do not have to be mensa material to realise that the logical conclusion of 'acquis' is an eventual supra state where the individual member states completely cede sovereignty.
Some may consider this to be desirable and it is a valid viewpoint to hold.
Why though are we not having an honest debate with this concept at the forefront of it?
We shouldn't need to rely on Europe to lead us in health and safety standards. Product safety standards need to comply with many different country regulations, not just Europe's.
If the U.S. changes vehicle emission standards everyone has to change in line if they want to export, do we wait and see if Europe tells us to change?
Can't see what is so unique about Europe that makes it any different to any other trading block we are not part of.
Politicians don't have a clue about how leaving Europe will affect business, they are politicians. Thrir skill and knowledge is in talking about things they know little about and sounding convincing.
I will make my own mind up base on what I hear from all quarters apart from politicians. They will encourage a Yes vote because it is the only position they can take that guarantees they have saved face whichever way the vote goes.
Even E Tendering adds costs.
A travesty of the truth. We had no input in the original ideas and proposals, no one came to the UK, the leading financial centre of Europe and asked for input, we fought a rearguard action to prevent London's supremacy as a trading centre diminished to enhance Frankfurt's standing. If we were not in the EU we would be in control of our own destiny as a leading financial centre. If you want a Euro sceptic angle, this is what Bill Cash reported about MIFID developments in 2011:
I sit on the EU Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee where much of this new legislation is being debated. … I have been left in no doubt that the motivation of the continental legislators is resentment of the success of London. They have no idea what the conditions need to be for a financial marketplace to prosper. …
Already a new directive on market infrastructure—which may turn out to favor the Deutsche Bourse, damaging the pan-European trading platforms of London’s LCH Clearnet—is being rushed through. Further rules on derivatives trading are planned in the new Market Abuse Directive. A review of the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive is also imminent. No-one in the UK is lobbying me on these matters because they probably have not spotted the threats yet. It is almost as if the Commission wants to get all these new laws introduced before London wakes up to what is going on in Brussels.
One of the reasons I moved here was it was becoming too difficult to keep renewing the expensive visa for my wife (she is American) who, despite working and paying taxes for years, had 'no recourse to public funds' stamped in her visa. Spain has welcomed us both and I don't really want to leave it!
Anyway, just to take your last point what % of the "320,000 net migration" was accounted for by EU citizens? And which kind of "migrant" is more likely to go home after 3-4 years, the young French manager or the Somali who has risked life and limb to get here?
I personally am in the same boat of not knowing. I wouldn't mind hearing of the consequences each way.
I would also like us to take up the aussie approach to people coming into the country.
Likewise business/economic scare stories are also a non-story for staying in the EU. As other posters have pointed out, the Lisbon Treaty guarantees that we would not be disadvantaged economically if we chose to leave.
What it really comes down to is are you getting a good deal out of the EU? Is the extra money you pay for membership out of your taxes worth it? Most people would not really see any major shift in their lives if we left. Most people barely notice the influence the EU has on our lives in the first place.
If there was any lack of dialogue or "minor wants" that failed to materialise, my recollection is that it happened because HMT (that is Gordon Brown) were impossible to deal with, rather than Europe.
As you say, Cash is a well-known euro-spectic and is likely to have a biased view or will promulgate one to serve his ends. I don't know what is happening currently with regard to the latest versions of financial directives but, frankly, the concept of anything being "rushed through" by Brussels is gently amusing.
You might want to Google Sir Nigel Wicks and see what he got up to before he retired. I doubt Cash has even heard of him but he was part of the Committee of Wise Men, and used to head up Crestco (now Euroclear). As a member of the CoWM, it was his recommendations in the main, back in 2001 that formed a large part of what became MiFID I.