Wow Danny Addick - my second flag in 8 years and its from you again! Care to explain why my opinion about a possible cause of post war european peace has offended you so badly?
Can we also have a vote to get out of NATO, as apparently the EEC trade organization obviously secured peace?. All those missiles, spies, negotiations and troops on the East German border and to the north and south were completely redundant. Beyond parody.
East Germany was not part of the European Union. Nor any of the other USSR satellites.
But you knew that but posted anyway because it suits your argument.
That really wasn't what A-R-T-H-U-R was suggesting.
The fact is the rise and fall of the Soviet Union and the related and following events had more hand in European peace than the EU has brought about. The EU is a continuation of cross-European cooperation, not the reason it exists in the first place. I know the EU puts this propaganda out there that it is the only thing standing between peace and war in Europe but I don't really expect grown men to actually believe this nonsense.
Men believe in a lot of nonsense. You only have to read this thread to confirm that.
This government has calculated that EU Member States trade twice as much with each other as a result of the single market – which it estimates has meant that increased trade within the EU since the 1980s could have been worth around six per cent higher income per capita in the UK. Exports to other EU countries account for 51 per cent of the UK’s exports of goods and services, worth more than £200 billion; trade with the US, by contrast, constitutes 13 per cent of UK exports.
Being part of the EU means that we are part of the world's largest single market. This market provides a level playing field for us to trade in - no protectionism, custom duties etc... There are only one set of trading rules for all. I think it was calculated a few years back that the net benefit to the UK of the single market was about £25 billion pounds per anum. This isn't a game, and could be one of the most disasterous outcomes in history, but we won't leave. Whilst the average british person is pretty thick, they are not that thick!
This government has calculated that EU Member States trade twice as much with each other as a result of the single market – which it estimates has meant that increased trade within the EU since the 1980s could have been worth around six per cent higher income per capita in the UK. Exports to other EU countries account for 51 per cent of the UK’s exports of goods and services, worth more than £200 billion; trade with the US, by contrast, constitutes 13 per cent of UK exports.
Being part of the EU means that we are part of the world's largest single market. This market provides a level playing field for us to trade in - no protectionism, custom duties etc... There are only one set of trading rules for all.
General question. These 'faceless bureaucrats" in Brussels who are allegedly seeking to "rule" us.
- Who exactly do people think they are? - what nationality are they? Or are they from Mars? - are they seeking to "rule" France too? If so, and assuming they are not all from France, why are the French (apart from Marine le Pen) not frothing at the mouth about it? Ditto the Germans, the Dutch etc - if they are not all from one country, how did they get there? What are their beliefs and values? Are they fundamentally evil people, and how do they ensure that they stay in power to propagate their evil plans? - is it not possible that some of them are British? That what the EU is, and how it operates, is something we have actually contributed to?
Not related to anything specific you've said, but as somebody whom I perceive to be pro-business in political orientation:
A clear majority of business leaders (but not all, I concede) want to stay in the EU. Many of them are rarely otherwise heard on political issues. Even if you would characterise their position as 'self-interest" why would their self interest not coincide on this occasion with the economic interests of the country? Why would you ignore them on this, when, as far as i understood your comments on the GE thread, you very much took them into account when casting your vote this last month?
I'm pro what I think works in peoples' best interests, if anyone is really anti-business then they don't really have a grasp on the real world.
The business leaders we hear, speak mostly for large global conglomerates. Staying in the EU is convenient for their global business and helps inefficient businesses to survive, it has little to do with whether it's good for you or me. The CBI for example is a mouthpiece for big business, sometimes I agree, sometimes not. The CBI's views on the EU are not independent academic researched views, they are the views of its pro EU members, it is a trade association with the same independence of views as a trades union.
Small businesses that employ most of the UK's workforce, and so are most relevant in an economic sense, just get on and do what they need to do and find their own routes to market for their niche products and services. They don't have a voice anyone hears, yet they employ over 90% of the nation's employees.
Europe has been a poor market in the downturn, but UK business has grown by finding new markets. Markets change and businesses need to change, the problem is that big business can't change as easily as small business. All the big pro EU businesses want, or those who survive only because of soft EU subsidies, is an easy life. They want to avoid the cost and hassle of change and the risk it represents to their business.
If existing big business can't adapt, then I have faith there will be plenty of UK businesses that will take the opportunity to replace them and employ the people we hear will lose their jobs as result of big business not having the capacity, or will, to adapt to changing market forces.
If the UK were to consist just of businesses that can only survive on the back of EU subsidises and protection from competition from the rest of the World, I do not regard that as healthy. The EU is shrinking as a trading block, it has less relevance in the World and is more interested in its own navel and political structures.
If the EU was just focussed on trade it might be fine, it is not, it does not give me confidence that it can represent the best interests of an entrepreneurial business community in the UK which needs to thrive on the freedom to exploit new ideas and markets and their future is a million times more important than the future of a few multi-nationals operating in the UK for a free ride.
In my opinion, there is a lot wrong with Europe, but it still is essential to us and we have to try to fix its faults from within. I want the best for my son and If we were to leave, I would never forgive the fools who risked his future and that of other young British people for their own shallow minds. But I'm confident that wont happen. Businesses, the Government, the opposition and the press will all support staying in. That will be more than enough.
need time to consider you post, thanks for it, but just quickly:
They don't have a voice anyone hears, yet they employ over 90% of the nation's employees.
surely that cannot be right? For a start i assume you exclude all state employees. Are you lumping farmers in that 90% ?Even then...surely one of our oft-quoted structural weaknesses is that we don't have the strong SME sector that German has. With the greatest respect, do you have a source for this, so I can understand the stat. a bit better?
The share of Britain's trade going to the EU has dropped to the lowest level on record.
For most of the past few decades, between 50% and 60% of UK exports have gone to the EU, as opposed to the rest of the world.
But in the past year or so that share has been falling. By 2012 it was down to 50%. By March of this year, the latest month for which we have figures, the share had dropped to 46%.*
That number is central to the EU referendum debate in the coming year or two.
After all, perhaps the main case for Britain's continued membership of the European Union and Common Market is that we are so reliant on the area for trade. The fact that it no longer sucks in more than half of Britain's exports undermines that argument.
It also illustrates another important theme: of all the economic players on the global scene, the EU has perhaps the smallest growth potential in the coming years. Which begs a question: why should Britain ally itself to a (comparatively) shrinking economic area when it could forge deeper links with China, India and other fast-growing emerging economies?
Let's see what businesses tell us they want. I suspect Dippenhall's contribution might just contradict the view of the vast majority of them, which makes it a strange read as he is trying to suggest he is speaking for them!!!!
It's an odd place to start but how about the marathon US/EU trade talks? I'm guessing we may be hearing more about The Transatlantic Trade Investment Partnership.
It seems odd but here's an example. VW picked a site in Mexico to build engines rather than one in the USA. Why? Because Mexico already has a free trade agreement with the EU and not because it has cheaper labour costs. Trade tariffs can cost a country a lot of money and growth. Anyway, there's a huge and very complex list of stuff that has tariffs imposed on it by either the EU or the USA. The USA charges a tariff of $1.227 per kilo on imported cheddar cheese just by way of an example. The EU slaps a 10% tariff on US built cars. Some shoes have a 66% tariff into the States and the US Govt. benefits to the tune of $2.4bn a year from imported shoes alone.
So, slowly the EU negotiators are working towards getting the tariffs removed. But it will include peripherals, like the standardisation of vehicle safety requirements which will benefit the manufacturers too.
I don't know and it might be difficult to find out what chances we'd have of trying to negotiate all this stuff with the USA separately if we left the EU. It's been hard enough for the EU to get to grips with.
So take a car that's quite popular in the US - the Mini. In fact more Minis are sold there than in the UK. 80% of Mini production is exported. Mini also has plants in Austria, were production is scheduled to end and be switched to Holland and Oxford in 2016. But, if we voted "out", would BMW think about reversing that decision? Would it still be viable to pay the US tariffs on UK-made cars if EU ones could get into the USA more cheaply? Probably it would stick with Oxford but perhaps not and that's only one example. Here's what Ian Robertson who is on BMW's main board had to say on the UK/EU question. "The thought of a UK outside of Europe with different trade agreements – sorry, it's not the way forward. Around the world, the biggest global trading blocs are getting bigger and we need to be part of one of them."
Then there's public tenders. At present there is supposed to be a "level playing field" for tendering for Govt. contracts across the EU. Each year, more than 250,000 public authorities in the EU spend around 18% of GDP on purchasing services, works or supplies. A business registered in the EU, has the right to compete for public contracts in other EU countries. I guess we'd like to continue to get a slice of that action, wouldn't we?
And how about joint ventures that could fall by the wayside. At the back end of last year France and Britain took a new step towards developing the unmanned fighter planes of the future by commissioning studies for a combat drone that could be ready for deployment in 2030.
Western Europe's two largest military powers awarded contracts to six companies including France's Dassault Aviation and Britain's BAE Systems for a two-year feasibility study worth 150 million euros (117.14 million pounds), guaranteeing funding for co-operation plans first sketched out earlier this year.
Also involved are UK engine maker Rolls-Royce and its French equivalent Safran as well as electronics groups Thales of France and Selex ES, a partially UK-based subsidiary of Italy's Finmeccanica. Who thinks any of that would have got off the drawing board if the UK had been outside the EU?
Finally, on a much smaller scale, a story from last year. Texane, of Market Harborough, will be supplying super tough polyurethane wheels for travelators throughout Charles de Gaulle Airport in Paris, which has more than 60 million passengers a year.
The contract is worth £410,000 over three years to the company. Mr Dutt of the company said Britain's membership of the European Union was critical if Texane and other companies were to carry on winning contracts in Europe. I think he's right.
need time to consider you post, thanks for it, but just quickly:
They don't have a voice anyone hears, yet they employ over 90% of the nation's employees.
surely that cannot be right? For a start i assume you exclude all state employees. Are you lumping farmers in that 90% ?Even then...surely one of our oft-quoted structural weaknesses is that we don't have the strong SME sector that German has. With the greatest respect, do you have a source for this, so I can understand the stat. a bit better?
Sorry, should have made it clear I was talking about the private sector.
Trying to track down some figures I saw three years ago from DWP reports outlining the companies who were staging for pensions auto enrolment which is based on size of payroll. ONS don't give much information on size of employer and only classify at below or above 250 employees, so you will struggle to get much of a steer on number of employees in large companies and multi nationals.
What readily available statistics prove is that over 60% of employees are employed by business employing below 250. For my purposes I am talking about "small" being businesses that sit below the major corporates, there are only 7,000 companies employing over 250 employees so the number of large corporates are not significant in terms of total number, but they are significant politically in terms of a local community dependent on that business.
Taking away these 7,000 medium to large companies leaves around 5million remaining UK businesses.
Starbucks, just to name one multi national employs 8,500 employees, there are very few private companies employing upwards of a 1,000 employees but these will be the voices heard speaking on behalf of UK business.
Muttley, if my views are contradicted by others then fine, it is irrelevant. I don't form my opinions based on what a majority think nor am I "trying to suggest" I speak for anyone else. The most frequent winners in business, and investing, are those who don't follow the crowd.
Keep safe Muttley and best of luck following the unified crowd you hope forms from Business, the Government, the Opposition and the press.
It's an odd place to start but how about the marathon US/EU trade talks? I'm guessing we may be hearing more about The Transatlantic Trade Investment Partnership.
It seems odd but here's an example. VW picked a site in Mexico to build engines rather than one in the USA. Why? Because Mexico already has a free trade agreement with the EU and not because it has cheaper labour costs. Trade tariffs can cost a country a lot of money and growth............
So take a car that's quite popular in the US - the Mini. In fact more Minis are sold there than in the UK. 80% of Mini production is exported. Mini also has plants in Austria, were production is scheduled to end and be switched to Holland and Oxford in 2016. But, if we voted "out", would BMW think about reversing that decision? Would it still be viable to pay the US tariffs on UK-made cars if EU ones could get into the USA more cheaply? Probably it would stick with Oxford but perhaps not and that's only one example. Here's what Ian Robertson who is on BMW's main board had to say on the UK/EU question. "The thought of a UK outside of Europe with different trade agreements – sorry, it's not the way forward. Around the world, the biggest global trading blocs are getting bigger and we need to be part of one of them."
Righto. So two German Car manufacturers completely at odds with each other as to their trade realtionship with the USA.
Do you really believe Mexico was chosen over the US because of a trade agreement rather than labour costs currently being 78% of those in the USA?
What have the Austrians as EU members done to lose the production of the MINI? Whatever Robertson says, the move is for the benefit of BMW - nobody else. Us leaving the EU would have no effect on the number of MINIS exported to the USA.
Then there's public tenders. At present there is supposed to be a "level playing field" for tendering for Govt. contracts across the EU. Each year, more than 250,000 public authorities in the EU spend around 18% of GDP on purchasing services, works or supplies. A business registered in the EU, has the right to compete for public contracts in other EU countries. I guess we'd like to continue to get a slice of that action, wouldn't we?
I've highlighted the key word here. The right to compete is there all right, it just that 'best value' can mean so much more in places like France.
And how about joint ventures that could fall by the wayside. At the back end of last year France and Britain took a new step towards developing the unmanned fighter planes of the future by commissioning studies for a combat drone that could be ready for deployment in 2030.
Western Europe's two largest military powers awarded contracts to six companies including France's Dassault Aviation and Britain's BAE Systems for a two-year feasibility study worth 150 million euros (117.14 million pounds), guaranteeing funding for co-operation plans first sketched out earlier this year.
Also involved are UK engine maker Rolls-Royce and its French equivalent Safran as well as electronics groups Thales of France and Selex ES, a partially UK-based subsidiary of Italy's Finmeccanica. Who thinks any of that would have got off the drawing board if the UK had been outside the EU?
Just like that other Cross European success, the Airbus SAS then? With France, Spain, Germany and Britain sharing the gain and the pain equally?
Finally, on a much smaller scale, a story from last year. Texane, of Market Harborough, will be supplying super tough polyurethane wheels for travelators throughout Charles de Gaulle Airport in Paris, which has more than 60 million passengers a year.
The contract is worth £410,000 over three years to the company. Mr Dutt of the company said Britain's membership of the European Union was critical if Texane and other companies were to carry on winning contracts in Europe. I think he's right.
need time to consider you post, thanks for it, but just quickly:
They don't have a voice anyone hears, yet they employ over 90% of the nation's employees.
surely that cannot be right? For a start i assume you exclude all state employees. Are you lumping farmers in that 90% ?Even then...surely one of our oft-quoted structural weaknesses is that we don't have the strong SME sector that German has. With the greatest respect, do you have a source for this, so I can understand the stat. a bit better?
Sorry, should have made it clear I was talking about the private sector.
Trying to track down some figures I saw three years ago from DWP reports outlining the companies who were staging for pensions auto enrolment which is based on size of payroll. ONS don't give much information on size of employer and only classify at below or above 250 employees, so you will struggle to get much of a steer on number of employees in large companies and multi nationals.
What readily available statistics prove is that over 60% of employees are employed by business employing below 250. For my purposes I am talking about "small" being businesses that sit below the major corporates, there are only 7,000 companies employing over 250 employees so the number of large corporates are not significant in terms of total number, but they are significant politically in terms of a local community dependent on that business.
Taking away these 7,000 medium to large companies leaves around 5million remaining UK businesses.
Starbucks, just to name one multi national employs 8,500 employees, there are very few private companies employing upwards of a 1,000 employees but these will be the voices heard speaking on behalf of UK business.
Muttley, if my views are contradicted by others then fine, it is irrelevant. I don't form my opinions based on what a majority think nor am I "trying to suggest" I speak for anyone else. The most frequent winners in business, and investing, are those who don't follow the crowd.
Keep safe Muttley and best of luck following the unified crowd you hope forms from Business, the Government, the Opposition and the press.
Ok, thanks for clarifying.
However within these 5m businesses we still don't know what kind of "businesses" they are. What I'm getting at here is that compared with Germany relatively few of these businesses make useful stuff, which can be exported. This much is known. It's the often hidden success story of Germany, and our relative weakness.
Now my question is, why do you (appear to) assume that the the army of small businesses is somehow not heard? isn't the British Chamber of Commerce supposed to be one vehicle for that?. In the link , their latest barometer shows that 63% of businesses arose the UK believe that withdrawal from the EU would be negative for Britain's economic and business prospects.
And if there is still some important group of businesses whose voice is still not represented by either the CBI or the BCC, what is it that they are complaining about as businesses in respect of the EU? Is it the perception of increased bureaucracy? That's a genuine question because my experience of bureaucracy in business across Europe is that it varies widely from country to country. If that is so, it suggests that national factors - and character - are stronger indicators of bureaucracy than EU membership is.
Most businesses are or were opposed to any change that would force them to spend money to implement that change, whether it is health & safety related, minimum wage, pension, sick/paternity/maternity leave, anti-trust, competition, price-fixing etc.
Businesses have had to spend a fair whack of money in the last 20 years to ensure that they were complying with EU regulations so I can see why they would be opposed to all of that going down the pan.
In my opinion, there is a lot wrong with Europe, but it still is essential to us and we have to try to fix its faults from within. I want the best for my son and If we were to leave, I would never forgive the fools who risked his future and that of other young British people for their own shallow minds. But I'm confident that wont happen. Businesses, the Government, the opposition and the press will all support staying in. That will be more than enough.
I reckon this thread is premature as the voters need facts and there are precious few on here. I like to think of myself as open minded and undecided. Having taken a deep breath before taking the plunge, what do I find? Already the name-calling has begun.
Muttley, you are an intelligent and I think also a sensitive person. Do not resort to calling people who don't agree with your evidently closed mind "fools and shallow" because worse will soon follow as the election thread amply showed. That sort of nasty stuff does have an impact on the debate, but as the election thread demonstrated, it's not necessarily the one that the name-callers want. I think the whole "shy Tories" thing shows there are lots of people who are unattracted by insults as a form of persuasion. I'm not saying you were a big "name-caller" before nor that fool is up there with knob or worse, but you are the first one to sling it about on this thread!
This is more important than the election. This is about people wanting to drive this country off a cliff. A fool is a foolhardy person, not a compliment I admit, but describes how strongly I feel about this subject. You will see from my previous posts that it is not a throw away word I have used before and probably as strong as you will get from me. And Dippenhall there was an inference in your post that you were speaking for small businesses and my point was when the time comes these businesses you are referring to wont be, in my opinion, be looking to leave the EU. If you were speaking for your own personal view, you shouldn't bring these businesses into the thread to illustrate your point. Of course If there are a sizeable number of businesses supporting an exit, then you will be proven to be perfectly right. Let's see.
So you reckon name-calling will be more effective than reasoned argument? Wow, this country really is changing for the worse.
My advice would be to stick to persuasion based on facts if you are so convinced you are right. You have already slightly inclined me to the contrary view. Persuade me you are right.
No, I used the phrase to illustrate my strength of feeling. The impact of this won't be something that will change with e a new government - we will be stuck with the consequences. My son will be stuck with them. There is reasoned argument in my posts. It is more worrying if I, one person, have inclined you to the contrary view.
Inclined is a matter of degree, Muttley and my mind is open. All I'm saying is that if I see one side resorting to insults my inclination is to oppose that side. It's way too soon for me to be making up my mind on this. Can't speak for others though.
But if at the end of the day all I have seen from your side, the Yes side, is insults aimed at the "No" side, I am likely to vote No. That is frankly a lesson that a minority of Labour activists ought to learn from the election, which although less important than the EU thing, was still quite important for our country and your son. I'm not thinking it will be learned, unfortunately, but it's another matter for another day.
As you have said there is a lot of argument to flow under the bridge before anyone has to make up their mind. Let's not prolong this and just leave it that if the thread does descend into an insult-fest the chances are that AFKA' s red n white army of moderators will end up closing it. Which will be fair enough.
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 have yet to be convinced of any of the 'yes' arguments, mainly because there are so few.
The reasons to leave seem to overwhelm any reason to stay
Yes, we MAY be able to negotiate new trade agreements BUT how long will they take and on what terms ? I would suggest that as we are smaller than the EU they will take a long time to negotiate and be on worse terms. Plus, every new trade agreement with a new country means MORE/different red tape.
That's 3 of your 5 reasons gone - time for a rethink ?
It's an odd place to start but how about the marathon US/EU trade talks? I'm guessing we may be hearing more about The Transatlantic Trade Investment Partnership.
I don't know and it might be difficult to find out what chances we'd have of trying to negotiate all this stuff with the USA separately if we left the EU. It's been hard enough for the EU to get to grips with.
.
Good post showing clear examples of what affects business decisions. Part of my point is that a business takes a decision on what is good for its shareholders. What is good for its shareholders is not necessarily good for citizens.
There will clearly be negatives, I agree that joint initiatives that use cross border combined skills and resources have been success stories, but we don't know what other opportunities might have been arisen in a different environment.
The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership is a good example of something we might assume must be good for the countries concerned, why otherwise would it be contemplated. The controversial piece is the bit that gives companies the right to sue governments if it takes political actions which affect the company's profits. I am clearly not anti-business, but that does not mean I have to accept that business should be given unfettered powers detrimental to the proper operation of democracy.
The difficulties in finalising this agreement are more to do with the way the EU works and trying to cover the interests of a wide range of different interests than any technical point. Arguably, if it wanted, the UK would have been able to finalise a deal without the same amount of angst it is creating.
The TTIP is supported by big business because it gives them more protection of their investments is the best example to support one of the points I am making about not relying on what chiefs of big business say. A CEO of a big business will support only what is in the interests of his business. He will have a point of view but you need to think about the motive and not assume the motive will coincide with the long term interests of citizens of the UK.
Do people who would vehemently oppose TTIP change their mind because the CEOs of big business tell them its a good thing?
The Yes campaign will be surely say what is bad for big business, and might result in them pulling out of the UK, must be bad for the UK, and agree it must be considered. But I am to be convinced that either there are good reasons for them needing to pull out or that it would be a disaster if they did. I suggest their individual size and concentration projects a level of importance that might be overstating their contribution to the economy.
I don't have figures, I am not stating facts, not speaking for small business or any other business, simply offering an alternative view to be considered and tested. And I like a polite argument.
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 have yet to be convinced of any of the 'yes' arguments, mainly because there are so few.
The reasons to leave seem to overwhelm any reason to stay
Yes, we MAY be able to negotiate new trade agreements BUT how long will they take and on what terms ? I would suggest that as we are smaller than the EU they will take a long time to negotiate and be on worse terms. Plus, every new trade agreement with a new country means MORE/different red tape.
That's 3 of your 5 reasons gone - time for a rethink ?
Actually 4 because he never replied to my point that leaving the EU won't in any way help to stem the tide of migration from outside the EU , which is generally also the type of migration that creates greater problems of assimilation, and where the migrants are less likely to clear off again after a few years)
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 have yet to be convinced of any of the 'yes' arguments, mainly because there are so few.
The reasons to leave seem to overwhelm any reason to stay
Yes, we MAY be able to negotiate new trade agreements BUT how long will they take and on what terms ? I would suggest that as we are smaller than the EU they will take a long time to negotiate and be on worse terms. Plus, every new trade agreement with a new country means MORE/different red tape.
That's 3 of your 5 reasons gone - time for a rethink ?
Trade agreements may take more than 5 seconds to put in place - better stay in an undemocratic unaccountable political union then.
Prague, as far as I know there is no impediment to this country imposing restrictions to migration from non EU states if that's what you want to do. However my understanding is that is not permitted in relation to migration from EU states. So what he was suggesting was that a substantial part of the 300,000 or so that can't now be controlled, could be if we left. Which sounds like a fair enough argument to me.
Whether or not you want to reduce immigration was not his point as I read it. It was about where border control should lie. In other words about sovereignty.
But EU immigrants provide a net positive impact to public finances. Immigration is so immotive a subject as people look at people they would rather not have here and don't total everything up. This has been shown in clear economic research done in this country. The people who have a net negative contribution are British people so maybe we should be finding ways of getting them to migrate to other European countries.
Most immigrants arrive in the UK after completing their education abroad, and thus at a point in their lifetime where the discounted net value of their future net fiscal payments is positive. If the UK had to provide each immigrant with the level of education they have acquired in their home country (and use productively in the UK, as natives do), the costs would be substantial.
Why do people solely focus on the economic side of it? It is clearly a social problem. You cannot have 300,000 people entering the country every year and expect them to integrate
Comments
Care to explain why my opinion about a possible cause of post war european peace has offended you so badly?
Being part of the EU means that we are part of the world's largest single market. This market provides a level playing field for us to trade in - no protectionism, custom duties etc... There are only one set of trading rules for all. I think it was calculated a few years back that the net benefit to the UK of the single market was about £25 billion pounds per anum. This isn't a game, and could be one of the most disasterous outcomes in history, but we won't leave. Whilst the average british person is pretty thick, they are not that thick!
- Who exactly do people think they are?
- what nationality are they? Or are they from Mars?
- are they seeking to "rule" France too? If so, and assuming they are not all from France, why are the French (apart from Marine le Pen) not frothing at the mouth about it? Ditto the Germans, the Dutch etc
- if they are not all from one country, how did they get there? What are their beliefs and values? Are they fundamentally evil people, and how do they ensure that they stay in power to propagate their evil plans?
- is it not possible that some of them are British? That what the EU is, and how it operates, is something we have actually contributed to?
The business leaders we hear, speak mostly for large global conglomerates. Staying in the EU is convenient for their global business and helps inefficient businesses to survive, it has little to do with whether it's good for you or me. The CBI for example is a mouthpiece for big business, sometimes I agree, sometimes not. The CBI's views on the EU are not independent academic researched views, they are the views of its pro EU members, it is a trade association with the same independence of views as a trades union.
Small businesses that employ most of the UK's workforce, and so are most relevant in an economic sense, just get on and do what they need to do and find their own routes to market for their niche products and services. They don't have a voice anyone hears, yet they employ over 90% of the nation's employees.
Europe has been a poor market in the downturn, but UK business has grown by finding new markets. Markets change and businesses need to change, the problem is that big business can't change as easily as small business. All the big pro EU businesses want, or those who survive only because of soft EU subsidies, is an easy life. They want to avoid the cost and hassle of change and the risk it represents to their business.
If existing big business can't adapt, then I have faith there will be plenty of UK businesses that will take the opportunity to replace them and employ the people we hear will lose their jobs as result of big business not having the capacity, or will, to adapt to changing market forces.
If the UK were to consist just of businesses that can only survive on the back of EU subsidises and protection from competition from the rest of the World, I do not regard that as healthy. The EU is shrinking as a trading block, it has less relevance in the World and is more interested in its own navel and political structures.
If the EU was just focussed on trade it might be fine, it is not, it does not give me confidence that it can represent the best interests of an entrepreneurial business community in the UK which needs to thrive on the freedom to exploit new ideas and markets and their future is a million times more important than the future of a few multi-nationals operating in the UK for a free ride.
need time to consider you post, thanks for it, but just quickly:
They don't have a voice anyone hears, yet they employ over 90% of the nation's employees.
surely that cannot be right? For a start i assume you exclude all state employees. Are you lumping farmers in that 90% ?Even then...surely one of our oft-quoted structural weaknesses is that we don't have the strong SME sector that German has. With the greatest respect, do you have a source for this, so I can understand the stat. a bit better?
The share of Britain's trade going to the EU has dropped to the lowest level on record.
For most of the past few decades, between 50% and 60% of UK exports have gone to the EU, as opposed to the rest of the world.
But in the past year or so that share has been falling. By 2012 it was down to 50%. By March of this year, the latest month for which we have figures, the share had dropped to 46%.*
That number is central to the EU referendum debate in the coming year or two.
After all, perhaps the main case for Britain's continued membership of the European Union and Common Market is that we are so reliant on the area for trade. The fact that it no longer sucks in more than half of Britain's exports undermines that argument.
It also illustrates another important theme: of all the economic players on the global scene, the EU has perhaps the smallest growth potential in the coming years. Which begs a question: why should Britain ally itself to a (comparatively) shrinking economic area when it could forge deeper links with China, India and other fast-growing emerging economies?
It's an odd place to start but how about the marathon US/EU trade talks? I'm guessing we may be hearing more about The Transatlantic Trade Investment Partnership.
It seems odd but here's an example. VW picked a site in Mexico to build engines rather than one in the USA. Why? Because Mexico already has a free trade agreement with the EU and not because it has cheaper labour costs. Trade tariffs can cost a country a lot of money and growth.
Anyway, there's a huge and very complex list of stuff that has tariffs imposed on it by either the EU or the USA. The USA charges a tariff of $1.227 per kilo on imported cheddar cheese just by way of an example. The EU slaps a 10% tariff on US built cars. Some shoes have a 66% tariff into the States and the US Govt. benefits to the tune of $2.4bn a year from imported shoes alone.
So, slowly the EU negotiators are working towards getting the tariffs removed. But it will include peripherals, like the standardisation of vehicle safety requirements which will benefit the manufacturers too.
I don't know and it might be difficult to find out what chances we'd have of trying to negotiate all this stuff with the USA separately if we left the EU. It's been hard enough for the EU to get to grips with.
So take a car that's quite popular in the US - the Mini. In fact more Minis are sold there than in the UK. 80% of Mini production is exported. Mini also has plants in Austria, were production is scheduled to end and be switched to Holland and Oxford in 2016. But, if we voted "out", would BMW think about reversing that decision? Would it still be viable to pay the US tariffs on UK-made cars if EU ones could get into the USA more cheaply? Probably it would stick with Oxford but perhaps not and that's only one example. Here's what Ian Robertson who is on BMW's main board had to say on the UK/EU question. "The thought of a UK outside of Europe with different trade agreements – sorry, it's not the way forward. Around the world, the biggest global trading blocs are getting bigger and we need to be part of one of them."
Then there's public tenders. At present there is supposed to be a "level playing field" for tendering for Govt. contracts across the EU. Each year, more than 250,000 public authorities in the EU spend around 18% of GDP on purchasing services, works or supplies. A business registered in the EU, has the right to compete for public contracts in other EU countries. I guess we'd like to continue to get a slice of that action, wouldn't we?
And how about joint ventures that could fall by the wayside. At the back end of last year France and Britain took a new step towards developing the unmanned fighter planes of the future by commissioning studies for a combat drone that could be ready for deployment in 2030.
Western Europe's two largest military powers awarded contracts to six companies including France's Dassault Aviation and Britain's BAE Systems for a two-year feasibility study worth 150 million euros (117.14 million pounds), guaranteeing funding for co-operation plans first sketched out earlier this year.
Also involved are UK engine maker Rolls-Royce and its French equivalent Safran as well as electronics groups Thales of France and Selex ES, a partially UK-based subsidiary of Italy's Finmeccanica. Who thinks any of that would have got off the drawing board if the UK had been outside the EU?
Finally, on a much smaller scale, a story from last year. Texane, of Market Harborough, will be supplying super tough polyurethane wheels for travelators throughout Charles de Gaulle Airport in Paris, which has more than 60 million passengers a year.
The contract is worth £410,000 over three years to the company. Mr Dutt of the company said Britain's membership of the European Union was critical if Texane and other companies were to carry on winning contracts in Europe. I think he's right.
Trying to track down some figures I saw three years ago from DWP reports outlining the companies who were staging for pensions auto enrolment which is based on size of payroll. ONS don't give much information on size of employer and only classify at below or above 250 employees, so you will struggle to get much of a steer on number of employees in large companies and multi nationals.
What readily available statistics prove is that over 60% of employees are employed by business employing below 250. For my purposes I am talking about "small" being businesses that sit below the major corporates, there are only 7,000 companies employing over 250 employees so the number of large corporates are not significant in terms of total number, but they are significant politically in terms of a local community dependent on that business.
Taking away these 7,000 medium to large companies leaves around 5million remaining UK businesses.
Starbucks, just to name one multi national employs 8,500 employees, there are very few private companies employing upwards of a 1,000 employees but these will be the voices heard speaking on behalf of UK business.
Muttley, if my views are contradicted by others then fine, it is irrelevant. I don't form my opinions based on what a majority think nor am I "trying to suggest" I speak for anyone else. The most frequent winners in business, and investing, are those who don't follow the crowd.
Keep safe Muttley and best of luck following the unified crowd you hope forms from Business, the Government, the Opposition and the press.
Righto. So two German Car manufacturers completely at odds with each other as to their trade realtionship with the USA.
Do you really believe Mexico was chosen over the US because of a trade agreement rather than labour costs currently being 78% of those in the USA?
What have the Austrians as EU members done to lose the production of the MINI? Whatever Robertson says, the move is for the benefit of BMW - nobody else. Us leaving the EU would have no effect on the number of MINIS exported to the USA.
I've highlighted the key word here. The right to compete is there all right, it just that 'best value' can mean so much more in places like France.
Just like that other Cross European success, the Airbus SAS then? With France, Spain, Germany and Britain sharing the gain and the pain equally?
Yeh - right.
£410k over three years - whoop-di-do.
How much did Delort cost Wigan?
However within these 5m businesses we still don't know what kind of "businesses" they are. What I'm getting at here is that compared with Germany relatively few of these businesses make useful stuff, which can be exported. This much is known. It's the often hidden success story of Germany, and our relative weakness.
Now my question is, why do you (appear to) assume that the the army of small businesses is somehow not heard? isn't the British Chamber of Commerce supposed to be one vehicle for that?. In the link , their latest barometer shows that 63% of businesses arose the UK believe that withdrawal from the EU would be negative for Britain's economic and business prospects.
And if there is still some important group of businesses whose voice is still not represented by either the CBI or the BCC, what is it that they are complaining about as businesses in respect of the EU? Is it the perception of increased bureaucracy? That's a genuine question because my experience of bureaucracy in business across Europe is that it varies widely from country to country. If that is so, it suggests that national factors - and character - are stronger indicators of bureaucracy than EU membership is.
Businesses have had to spend a fair whack of money in the last 20 years to ensure that they were complying with EU regulations so I can see why they would be opposed to all of that going down the pan.
Muttley, you are an intelligent and I think also a sensitive person. Do not resort to calling people who don't agree with your evidently closed mind "fools and shallow" because worse will soon follow as the election thread amply showed. That sort of nasty stuff does have an impact on the debate, but as the election thread demonstrated, it's not necessarily the one that the name-callers want. I think the whole "shy Tories" thing shows there are lots of people who are unattracted by insults as a form of persuasion. I'm not saying you were a big "name-caller" before nor that fool is up there with knob or worse, but you are the first one to sling it about on this thread!
My advice would be to stick to persuasion based on facts if you are so convinced you are right. You have already slightly inclined me to the contrary view. Persuade me you are right.
But if at the end of the day all I have seen from your side, the Yes side, is insults aimed at the "No" side, I am likely to vote No. That is frankly a lesson that a minority of Labour activists ought to learn from the election, which although less important than the EU thing, was still quite important for our country and your son. I'm not thinking it will be learned, unfortunately, but it's another matter for another day.
As you have said there is a lot of argument to flow under the bridge before anyone has to make up their mind. Let's not prolong this and just leave it that if the thread does descend into an insult-fest the chances are that AFKA' s red n white army of moderators will end up closing it. Which will be fair enough.
The reasons to leave seem to overwhelm any reason to stay
That's 3 of your 5 reasons gone - time for a rethink ?
There will clearly be negatives, I agree that joint initiatives that use cross border combined skills and resources have been success stories, but we don't know what other opportunities might have been arisen in a different environment.
The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership is a good example of something we might assume must be good for the countries concerned, why otherwise would it be contemplated. The controversial piece is the bit that gives companies the right to sue governments if it takes political actions which affect the company's profits. I am clearly not anti-business, but that does not mean I have to accept that business should be given unfettered powers detrimental to the proper operation of democracy.
The difficulties in finalising this agreement are more to do with the way the EU works and trying to cover the interests of a wide range of different interests than any technical point. Arguably, if it wanted, the UK would have been able to finalise a deal without the same amount of angst it is creating.
The TTIP is supported by big business because it gives them more protection of their investments is the best example to support one of the points I am making about not relying on what chiefs of big business say. A CEO of a big business will support only what is in the interests of his business. He will have a point of view but you need to think about the motive and not assume the motive will coincide with the long term interests of citizens of the UK.
Do people who would vehemently oppose TTIP change their mind because the CEOs of big business tell them its a good thing?
The Yes campaign will be surely say what is bad for big business, and might result in them pulling out of the UK, must be bad for the UK, and agree it must be considered. But I am to be convinced that either there are good reasons for them needing to pull out or that it would be a disaster if they did. I suggest their individual size and concentration projects a level of importance that might be overstating their contribution to the economy.
I don't have figures, I am not stating facts, not speaking for small business or any other business, simply offering an alternative view to be considered and tested. And I like a polite argument.
#ridiculouslogic
Whether or not you want to reduce immigration was not his point as I read it. It was about where border control should lie. In other words about sovereignty.
Most immigrants arrive in the UK after completing their education abroad, and thus at a point in their lifetime where the discounted net value of their future net fiscal payments is positive. If the UK had to provide each immigrant with the level of education they have acquired in their home country (and use productively in the UK, as natives do), the costs would be substantial.