EU referendum

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

The remain campaign has to win the competition for most bull**** spouted by ****** politicians though surely? So far we have had leaving will mean World War 3, a recession, unemployment, house prices to fall, prices of other stuff to go up, wages to fall, interest rates to go up. It's all complete nonsense because the ****s who make this stuff up do not have a clue what sort of deal we will do with the EU post exit.

 

The funny thing is Cameron said, before his negotiations with the other EU leaders, that he would only recommend we stayed in if there was reforms. Now, after a few almost irrelivant changes he is trying to convince us that the World will end if we leave.

 

What we see here I think is the Remain camp 'spinning' the forecasts for all they are worth. Surely we have both been 'around the block' enough times to understand that nearly ALL politicians behave in that manner. But that is not the same thing as saying that the forecasts that lay behind the 'spin' are either wrong or fundamentaly unreasonable in some way. Indeed Charles Bean - the former Deputy Governor of the BoE - said only yesterday that the Treasury forecasts (or more precisly what economists call a 'gap analysis') are based on a well understood model of the economy that is considered to be robust.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36357177

 

Any type of forecast might be wrong of course, be it about tomorrow's weather or the economy in five years time. But HM Treasury forecasts are not some kind of random guess generated by politicans that the British people can safely ignore because that is just not the case. Just how big a hit our economy is likley to take should we vote to leave the EU is a matter of some valid debate - but the likelihood that our economy will suffer to some extent has (more or less) been established now.

 

Again, as a firm believer in freedom of speech I really don't mind those who disapprove of the idea of shared soverengthy and/or strongly object to the EU 'Single Market' concept expressing their honestly held opinion on those subjects. In a month's time they can vote their way and I will vote mine and we shall see who is in the majority. What I do find deeply objectionable however is those who claim we can administer this massive shock to our economic system and then escape any adverse consequences of that choice.

 

That I think is the biggest lie of all.

[Batman]

were the Norwegians told lies in their referendum then Charlie. the same stuff that we are told about if we leave?

 

 

just a yes or no will do. No need for one of your long drawn-out answers

Edited 24 May, 2016 by Batman

[Foxy]

were the Norwegians told lies in their referendum then Charlie. the same stuff that we are told about if we leave?

 

 

just a yes or no will do. No need for one of your long drawn-out answers

 

I find it interesting that we're always told we'd be Norway if we leave, as its on the periphery of the EU and rich, but never Moldova.

[Nolan]

I find it interesting that we're always told we'd be Norway if we leave, as its on the periphery of the EU and rich, but never Moldova.

Maybe it's because we are the fifth biggest economy in the world and comparison with the 143rd in the world would be a bit silly?

[CB Fry]

were the Norwegians told lies in their referendum then Charlie. the same stuff that we are told about if we leave?

 

 

just a yes or no will do. No need for one of your long drawn-out answers

They have never had a referendum to stay or leave.

 

I'm glad you've picked Norway as one of your model countries as they are pretty much the direct opposite of the things you want - higher immigration than us, part of the Schengen area, pay into the EU and swallow EU legislation with no say at all.

 

I was surprised as you to see that Norway aren't building a brand new hospital every single day like we'll be able to do when we get our £350m a day back to spend on whatever our heart desires.

[alpine_saint]

I had to call Southampton City Council Electoral Services yesterday and give them grief, because they sent me a letter saying I would only be on the Electoral register from 1st July (which I interpreted as meaning I get no vote in the EU refererendum despite registering in time).

 

Seems this date refers to the 3-monthly published register update, not the eligibility to vote. My postal vote card will be sent tomorrow.

[sadoldgit]

No names, no pack drill of course, but have you ever noticed how with some people the older they get the more right wing and reactionary they become?

 

Just saying ...

 

I worked at The Telegraph for a while and they used to believe this. They used to think that people started out reading The Guardian when they were younger but changed to The Telegraph as they "matured." There were two problems with this assumption. No 1, if true they were inheriting a dying readership and No 2 no one who grew up reading The Guardian would be seen dead reading The Telegraph. I think many people become less tolerant and more liable to speak their true mind but I don't think people go from being left wing to right wing just down to age.

 

As a side note, I spent 22 years at The Guardian and we never gave The Telegraph a second thought. We were looking to take sales from The Times but mostly sought to convert new readers from the new intake of University students each year. Until The Independent was launched we really didn't feel that we had any direct competition as the Broadsheet market was pretty much well determined. That was in Circulation. Where we were competing was for advertising and when a very clever lady called Caroline Marland (later to become our CEO) discovered that The Telegraph's readership were mostly too old for the jobs they were advertising, we cleaned up - mainly because we had a younger readership profile. I spent a few months with The Telegraph before moving on to The Spectator and every sales conference involved talking about The Guardian and how they were planning to take older readership from them. Didn't happen.

[moonraker]

were the Norwegians told lies in their referendum then Charlie. the same stuff that we are told about if we leave?

 

 

just a yes or no will do. No need for one of your long drawn-out answers

But a yes or no means little.

The lies on each side cancel one another out. The questions you have to ask yourself are:

Is it more or less likely the UK will be better off economically out side of the EU?

Will leaving the EU significantly reduce immigration?

Will the EU be more or less secure and safe from terrorism outside the EU?

Will our Westminster Governments govern the nation more effectively, fairly and competently outside the EU?

Will the UK survive in its current form outside the EU?

There are no definitive answers to any of these questions, individuals must assimilate the information evidence and analysis and form their own views. Unfortunately it seems hearts are ruling heads and a misplaced vision of some imaginary utopia of the UK before the EU is fuelling the leave campaign.

[buctootim]

I had to call Southampton City Council Electoral Services yesterday and give them grief, because they sent me a letter saying I would only be on the Electoral register from 1st July (which I interpreted as meaning I get no vote in the EU refererendum despite registering in time).

 

Seems this date refers to the 3-monthly published register update, not the eligibility to vote. My postal vote card will be sent tomorrow.

 

 

So you didnt need to call them to give them grief because they hadn't made a mistake, you had. No doubt you recognised your error and apologised.

[buctootim]

I worked at The Telegraph for a while and they used to believe this. They used to think that people started out reading The Guardian when they were younger but changed to The Telegraph as they "matured." There were two problems with this assumption. No 1, if true they were inheriting a dying readership and No 2 no one who grew up reading The Guardian would be seen dead reading The Telegraph. I think many people become less tolerant and more liable to speak their true mind but I don't think people go from being left wing to right wing just down to age.

 

As a side note, I spent 22 years at The Guardian and we never gave The Telegraph a second thought. We were looking to take sales from The Times but mostly sought to convert new readers from the new intake of University students each year. Until The Independent was launched we really didn't feel that we had any direct competition as the Broadsheet market was pretty much well determined. That was in Circulation. Where we were competing was for advertising and when a very clever lady called Caroline Marland (later to become our CEO) discovered that The Telegraph's readership were mostly too old for the jobs they were advertising, we cleaned up - mainly because we had a younger readership profile. I spent a few months with The Telegraph before moving on to The Spectator and every sales conference involved talking about The Guardian and how they were planning to take older readership from them. Didn't happen.

 

People do tend to get more right wing with age - if they've accumulated some assets. The baby boomers in particular like to convince themselves everything they have is because they've been uniquely clever and hard working and everybody who doesnt have the same is a shirker. The fact that they just happened to be born at the right time when houses and shares were cheap before the Thatchers deregulation doesnt come into it.

[Johnny Bognor]

Trade deals seem to be the central point in terms of the economic impact of leaving the EU (remembering that you do not need a trade deal to trade). On the surface we run a trade deficit with the EU, so it would be in the EU's interests to have a deal.

 

At the same time, we run a trade surplus with the rest of the world (non-EU countries). Now there are many that state that we run a trade surplus with non-EU countries because of the EU trade deals that are in place. So I thought I would check out the trade agreements set up by the EU with the rest of the world...

 

Kosovo

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Serbia

Ukraine

Montenegro

Albania

Macedonia

Faroe Islands

Norway

Iceland

Switzerland

Algeria

Egypt

Lebanon

Jordan

Israel

Morocco

Tunisia

Palestinian Authority

Syria

EU-Ecuador

Colombia and Peru

Central America

EU-Iraq

Papua New Guinea and Fiji

Korea

Cameroon

Madagascar, Mauritius, the Seychelles, and Zimbabwe

Chile

Mexico

South Africa

 

 

Out of the top 10 non-EU economies, we have one trade deal.... with.... wait for it..... 10th placed Indonesia.

 

I'm sorry and no disrespect to the countries listed, but that list is a bit s-h-i-t. On the brightside, thanks to the EU, we have free trade deals with Syria, Iraq and Palestine... I guess thats good for the arms dealers

Edited 24 May, 2016 by Johnny Bognor

[buctootim]

Trade deals seem to be the central point in terms of the economic impact of leaving the EU (remembering that you do not need a trade deal to trade). On the surface we run a trade deficit with the EU, so it would be in the EU's interests to have a deal.

 

At the same time, we run a trade surplus with the rest of the world (non-EU countries). Now there are many that state that we run a trade surplus with non-EU countries because of the EU trade deals that are in place. So I thought I would check out the trade agreements set up by the EU with the rest of the world...

 

Kosovo

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Serbia

Ukraine

Montenegro

Albania

Macedonia

Faroe Islands

Norway

Iceland

Switzerland

Algeria

Egypt

Lebanon

Jordan

Israel

Morocco

Tunisia

Palestinian Authority

Syria

EU-Ecuador

Colombia and Peru

Central America

EU-Iraq

Papua New Guinea and Fiji

Korea

Cameroon

Madagascar, Mauritius, the Seychelles, and Zimbabwe

Chile

Mexico

South Africa

 

 

Out of the top 10 non-EU economies, we have one trade deal.... with.... wait for it..... 10th placed Indonesia.

 

I'm sorry and no disrespect to the countries listed, but that list is a bit s-h-i-t. On the brightside, thanks to the EU, we have free trade deals with Syria, Iraq and Palestine... I guess thats good for the arms dealers

 

Misleading as ever Johnny. Those are the EEA deals plus preferential trade deals aimed at development in poor countries. The EU biggest trade partners are the US and China, but you knew that.

[Batman]

They have never had a referendum to stay or leave.

 

I'm glad you've picked Norway as one of your model countries as they are pretty much the direct opposite of the things you want - higher immigration than us, part of the Schengen area, pay into the EU and swallow EU legislation with no say at all.

 

I was surprised as you to see that Norway aren't building a brand new hospital every single day like we'll be able to do when we get our £350m a day back to spend on whatever our heart desires.

 

either way. all those bad thing that will apparently happen were going to strike down Norway. The opposite was reality.

[buctootim]

either way. all those bad thing that will apparently happen were going to strike down Norway. The opposite was reality.

 

They joined the EEA instead - the EU without a vote. Thats why they didnt happen. Not hard.

[Johnny Bognor]

Misleading as ever Johnny. Those are the EEA deals plus preferential trade deals aimed at development in poor countries. The EU biggest trade partners are the US and China, but you knew that.

 

I must have missed the EU-China and EU-USA Free Trade Agreements...

 

Meanwhile, little old Switzerland has a FTA with China. For the project fear peeps, this is an interesting article:

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2015/05/05/what-the-eu-could-learn-from-switzerlands-free-trade-agreement-with-china/

 

Even New Zealand has a FTA with China.

 

There is no doubt, that the EU economy carries more clout due to the sheer size of the EU economy, but when you have to get 28 members to agree to it, size counts for nothing.

[buctootim]

I must have missed the EU-China and EU-USA Free Trade Agreements...

 

Meanwhile, little old Switzerland has a FTA with China. For the project fear peeps, this is an interesting article:

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2015/05/05/what-the-eu-could-learn-from-switzerlands-free-trade-agreement-with-china/

 

Even New Zealand has a FTA with China.

 

There is no doubt, that the EU economy carries more clout due to the sheer size of the EU economy, but when you have to get 28 members to agree to it, size counts for nothing.

 

 

You're missing the point. Small countries like NZ and Switzerland have free trade agreements because they dont have industries which would be threatened by China. The EU does not allow China free trade because of its positions on dumping, intellectual property theft, counterfeiting, foreign ownership of property in China and state interference in business. Given thre trade imbalance if we were to have a 'free trade' agreement it would be to our disadvantage and their gain.

[cambsaint]

While I have always thought myself pro Europe, and started off as a remainer, I have regrettably come to the conclusion that I cannot support membership of any organisation which allows the parliaments of other countries which may well have strong vested interests to control British immigration and social security policy.

I shall be voting Brexit although with great reluctance, although I cannot imagine the major countries in Europe wanting to see a large duty on luxury car imports and substantial duties on other car, white good and agricultural imports from Europe.

It is my belief that the sensible negotiations will only begin properly if there is a small vote in favour of Brexit.

Also the prospect of substantial falls in house value is reason alone to vote Brexit!

It will allow young people once again to get on an orderly house ownership ladder and stop them wasting their money with grasping landlords.

[Johnny Bognor]

You're missing the point. Small countries like NZ and Switzerland have free trade agreements because they dont have industries which would be threatened by China. The EU does not allow China free trade because of its positions on dumping, intellectual property theft, counterfeiting, foreign ownership of property in China and state interference in business. Given thre trade imbalance if we were to have a 'free trade' agreement it would be to our disadvantage and their gain.

 

I don't disagree, but China still trades with the EU. Much of the remainers economic argument seems to centre around trade deals and the fear of not getting a deal. The simple fact is that trade will continue out or in. We may win in some areas and lose on others, but if in the long term we continue to be an inventive and entrepreneurial nation, we will be jsut fine. It's all about making products that people want to buy.

[Whitey Grandad]

I don't disagree, but China still trades with the EU. Much of the remainers economic argument seems to centre around trade deals and the fear of not getting a deal. The simple fact is that trade will continue out or in. We may win in some areas and lose on others, but if in the long term we continue to be an inventive and entrepreneurial nation, we will be jsut fine. It's all about making products that people want to buy.

 

Surely even the most ardent Brexiteer will recognise that it is much easier to trade with your near neighbour than with somebody on the other side of the world. Apart from the costs of transport and travel there is the matter of which laws the contract will operate under. With the EU there is a legal framework in place for arbitration. I have no doubt that outside the EU we could get a trade deal of some sort eventually, but that can never be as advantageous and trouble-free as what we have now.

 

Let me it it this way, outside the EU would trading with it be:

 

a) Cheaper and easier.

b) Much the same as now.

c) More difficult and expensive.

 

It cannot posssibly be (a), at the very best it might approach (b) in which case why bother leaving?

Now consider the situation regards trading with the rest of the world. In my opinion leaving the EU offers us no advantages in this respect.

[OldNick]

I don't disagree, but China still trades with the EU. Much of the remainers economic argument seems to centre around trade deals and the fear of not getting a deal. The simple fact is that trade will continue out or in. We may win in some areas and lose on others, but if in the long term we continue to be an inventive and entrepreneurial nation, we will be jsut fine. It's all about making products that people want to buy.

MAKING products is the key word.

We cannot be compared to China, they fund a lot of our debt, and are by far a bigger player in the world than we are.

[Johnny Bognor]

MAKING products is the key word.

We cannot be compared to China, they fund a lot of our debt, and are by far a bigger player in the world than we are.

 

Yet one man like James Dyson completely revolutionises the household vacuum market globally.... wiping out the US Giant Hoover and spanking electrical giants like Electrolux. Creating thousands of jobs and generating wealth for the UK. As I said, if you create great products, people will buy them. It really is that simple.

 

The future success of our economy should be based on our ability to create, not whether or not we should be in the EU. When you look at Silicon Valley and the raft of firms that appeared over the last 30 years .... Microsoft, Oracle, Symantec, Apple, Adobe, Intel etc etc .... how much are these worth to the US economy?? Billions.

 

I wish people would expand their minds as to the possibilities out there...

[moonraker]

Yet one man like James Dyson completely revolutionises the household vacuum market globally.... wiping out the US Giant Hoover and spanking electrical giants like Electrolux. Creating thousands of jobs and generating wealth for the UK. As I said, if you create great products, people will buy them. It really is that simple.

 

The future success of our economy should be based on our ability to create, not whether or not we should be in the EU. When you look at Silicon Valley and the raft of firms that appeared over the last 30 years .... Microsoft, Oracle, Symantec, Apple, Adobe, Intel etc etc .... how much are these worth to the US economy?? Billions.

 

I wish people would expand their minds as to the possibilities out there...

 

Except Dyson moved production to Malysia in 2002. Dysons UK jobs are high end design and develpment based in Malmesbury Wiltshire.

[Johnny Bognor]

Except Dyson moved production to Malysia in 2002. Dysons UK jobs are high end design and develpment based in Malmesbury Wiltshire.

 

... and that is the future model. Just beacuse his kit is made elsewhere, it doesn't mean that the company does not generate wealth for UK PLC

 

We're never going to compete with India and China due to employment regulation and higher wages. Create the IP and import the wealth.

[moonraker]

... and that is the future model. Just beacuse his kit is made elsewhere, it doesn't mean that the company does not generate wealth for UK PLC

 

We're never going to compete with India and China due to employment regulation and higher wages. Create the IP and import the wealth.

 

You are right about IP and wealth, gernetaed from a knowledge based economy. Leaving the EU will do nothing to addrsess the issue of accepting the low standard employment regulations and that our own low paid jobs are predominantly in the service industries and we find it incresingly difficult to recruit indigenous workers to perform these roles.

[Johnny Bognor]

You are right about IP and wealth, gernetaed from a knowledge based economy.

 

... and if we create the right products and services, trade will happen. Whether we are in the EU or not.

 

Leaving the EU will do nothing to addrsess the issue of accepting the low standard employment regulations

Technically it will. We will be able to vote in our own elections for the parties that address these issues. It's how democracy works

 

and that our own low paid jobs are predominantly in the service industries and we find it incresingly difficult to recruit indigenous workers to perform these roles.

 

If we find it difficult to recruit, as we would be in control of immigration, we could allow more immigration. The ability to tailor our immigration policy to the needs of the UK, whether that be low skilled manual labour from Eastern Europe or highly educated people from Africa, would be better served outside of the EU.

[buctootim]

ugh

 

[buctootim]

our own low paid jobs are predominantly in the service industries and we find it incresingly difficult to recruit indigenous workers to perform these roles.

 

If we find it difficult to recruit, as we would be in control of immigration, we could allow more immigration.

 

Or pay more. Pay differentials between top and bottom have got way out of kilter. Allowing wages to rise would reduce the benefits bill aside from all he desirable side effects.

[moonraker]

It seems that immigration is the key isssue leading many to vote Brexit. Confusingly when it is raised that many jobs would go unfilled or that indigenous people would not accept the wages offered, Brexit supporters opt for immigration, my question is what level of immigration is accepatble (number please) to ensure jobs are filled. Additionally if there were surplus jobs in one region and high unemployemnt in another what policy would leave supporters advocate to motivate people to move for work and thus reduce the need for migrants.

[Lord Duckhunter]

It seems that immigration is the key isssue leading many to vote Brexit. Confusingly when it is raised that many jobs would go unfilled or that indigenous people would not accept the wages offered, Brexit supporters opt for immigration, my question is what level of immigration is accepatble (number please) to ensure jobs are filled. Additionally if there were surplus jobs in one region and high unemployemnt in another what policy would leave supporters advocate to motivate people to move for work and thus reduce the need for migrants.

 

**** me , you really don't get it do you?

 

It's not about numbers it's about who decides the numbers . The British Government , accountable to the British people , or other nations . The fact that Cameron had to beg the Poles & Bulgarians to change OUR welfare rules , tells you all you need to know about our indipendance .

 

My lad works in Aus , he applied for a work permit . The authorities agreed with his boss that he had the skills they needed and that he wasn't taking an Aussies job , so have granted him an extension . There are hundreds of countries from New Zealand to Canada to The US , that manage immigration without being in the EU . It's really quite pathetic that you think we need Greeks, Latvians & Belgiums to dictate our immigration needs, and that we're incapable of doing so with them holding our hands

[moonraker]

**** me , you really don't get it do you?

 

It's not about numbers it's about who decides the numbers . The British Government , accountable to the British people , or other nations . The fact that Cameron had to beg the Poles & Bulgarians to change OUR welfare rules , tells you all you need to know about our indipendance .

 

My lad works in Aus , he applied for a work permit . The authorities agreed with his boss that he had the skills they needed and that he wasn't taking an Aussies job , so have granted him an extension . There are hundreds of countries from New Zealand to Canada to The US , that manage immigration without being in the EU . It's really quite pathetic that you think we need Greeks, Latvians & Belgiums to dictate our immigration needs, and that we're incapable of doing so with them holding our hands

 

**** me you an arrogant ****. The complaint is about numbers, migrants who come here work, therefore they are needed, how would you manage it, in or out it is supply and demand, no work no migrants.

[Johnny Bognor]

Or pay more. Pay differentials between top and bottom have got way out of kilter. Allowing wages to rise would reduce the benefits bill aside from all he desirable side effects.

 

indeed. Something that is more difficult to do within the EU as there are millions prepared to come here to worqk for minimum wage. With Labour shortages, employers will be forced to raise wages thus making work more attractive.

 

i was a fence sitter with my biggest doubts being about the economics. The more i have looked into things, the i think that is no longer a reason to stay. Project fear worked on me in the early days, but the recent desperate claims has helped me make up my mind.

[Lord Duckhunter]

**** me you an arrogant ****. The complaint is about numbers, migrants who come here work, therefore they are needed, how would you manage it, in or out it is supply and demand, no work no migrants.

 

Chump .As the remain chairman Lord Rose says leaving the EU will result in wage increases . That's the exact reason big business oppose it . The supply side of the equation is distorted by freedom of movement . You manage it by having work permits , like hundreds of other countries do .

Edited 24 May, 2016 by Lord Duckhunter

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

indeed. Something that is more difficult to do within the EU as there are millions prepared to come here to worqk for minimum wage. With Labour shortages, employers will be forced to raise wages thus making work more attractive.

 

i was a fence sitter with my biggest doubts being about the economics. The more i have looked into things, the i think that is no longer a reason to stay. Project fear worked on me in the early days, but the recent desperate claims has helped me make up my mind.

 

Look closer then.

 

Government statistics show that our 'workforce participation' rate is already at record levels and the unemployment rate (c 5%) is almost certainly comprised largely of those who find themselves either temporarily between jobs, or are unemployable for some reason. Anecdotally, I can hardly leave my home now without being assailed by 'now hiring' signs in shop windows and on the backside of almost every passing bus. So the effect of increasing wages would not be to somehow solve our labour shortage - because the UK now just does not have some vast pool of idle workers at its disposal - but rather to increase the costs and thus reduce the international competivnes of UK industry. Those are bad things by the way.

 

Better training I suppose might result in narrowing the 'skills gap' we now see in certain sectors. But the real reason we have immigration here is that our economy requires workers (both skilled and unskilled) in order to fulfil the many vacancies it is creating every year. In that sense the EU Single Market is not failing, it is doing exactly what it has been designed to do.

 

The IFS (Institute of Fiscal Studies) slams yet another torpedo into the side of the floundering Brexit case:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36371700

Edited 25 May, 2016 by CHAPEL END CHARLIE

[Foxy]

Maybe it's because we are the fifth biggest economy in the world and comparison with the 143rd in the world would be a bit silly?

 

No more so than comparisons with a nation of 5m people whose economy is dominated by oil revenues. Neither case is particularly comparable to the UK

[Nolan]

No more so than comparisons with a nation of 5m people whose economy is dominated by oil revenues. Neither case is particularly comparable to the UK

I don't know. We get the odd bit of revenue from Brent Crude.

[Batman]

we pay out £361m PER WEEK to the EU

 

Take away the rebate and other monies received from the EU (from our own cash) for both public and private sectors

 

it costs the UK £161m PER WEEK to be part of the club

[CB Fry]

we pay out £361m PER WEEK to the EU

 

Take away the rebate and other monies received from the EU (from our own cash) for both public and private sectors

 

it costs the UK £161m PER WEEK to be part of the club

We will start building a new hospital every single week and still have enough free cash left over to build a new secondary school every week too. All this free money will be brilliant.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

we pay out £361m PER WEEK to the EU

 

Take away the rebate and other monies received from the EU (from our own cash) for both public and private sectors

 

it costs the UK £161m PER WEEK to be part of the club

 

I too have been watching BBC Breakfast this morning. You forgot to include in your post that this analysis went on to put the £161m number into its proper perspective. Total government weekly expenditure is expected to be in the region of £15 billion in the financial year ending 2017:

 

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/government_expenditure.html

 

In return for paying our 'subs' to be a member of the European club we of course gain all the many advantages of being a part of a single market of some 500 million consumers. So do try contributing some longer and more honest contributions on here.

[John B]

we pay out £361m PER WEEK to the EU

 

Take away the rebate and other monies received from the EU (from our own cash) for both public and private sectors

 

it costs the UK £161m PER WEEK to be part of the club

 

But without it how much trade would we lose and how many jobs depend on it

 

Factsheet 2 - Benefits of EU membership outweigh costs

 

>> Visit our EU referendum hub

 

71% of CBI member businesses report that the UK’s membership of the EU has had an overall positive impact on their business, including 67% of SME members. Only 13% said there had been a negative impact. Overall,78% said they would vote to remain in the EU in a referendum, with 77% of SME’s taking the same position.

A CBI literature review suggests that the net benefit of EU membership to the UK could be in the region of 4-5% of GDP or £62bn-£78bn a year – roughly the economies of the North East and Northern Ireland taken together.

Access to a $16.6 trillion a year Single Market of 500m people is the key benefit

 

UK firms’ access to the Single Market goes beyond a standard free-trade agreement - the EU has eliminated tariff barriers and customs procedures within its borders, and has taken strides towards removing non-tariff barriers - such as different product regulations - by enforcing EU-wide competition law and coordinating product regulations.

76% of CBI members say that the ability to freely buy and sell products in the EU has had a positive impact on their business, including 74% of SMEs.

It has been estimated that UK trade with some countries in Europe could have increased by as much as 50% as a result of EU membership.

The Single Market also underpins access to European supply chains. In 2009 $207bn of the UK’s total of $293bn of exports to the rest of the EU27 was used as inputs to industries, rather than being consumed directly; and the UK imported $161bn of intermediates from the EU27 in 2009. Imported intermediates are important even to domestically-focused sectors: the health & social care sector used $19bn of imported intermediates (principally of pharmaceuticals and other chemicals).

The EU has helped open global markets to UK firms on strong terms

 

The EU is a springboard for trade with the rest of the world through its global clout: it accounted for 23% of the global economy in 2012 in dollar terms. Through 30 trade deals negotiated by the EU, including the Single Market itself, British firms have full access to a $24 trillion market. The recent deal with Canada and on-going discussions with Japan and the US could double this to $47 trillion - the UK would struggle to achieve the same quality of trade deals independently.

58% of CBI members think that extra-EU trade agreements have had a positive impact on their business, including 55% of SMEs, compared to 3% who thought the impact was negative.

Membership has increased flows of investment into the UK

 

Investment flows across borders inside the EU have roughly doubled following the introduction of the Single Market. As the EU’s leading investment destination, the UK was a key beneficiary: the EU accounted for 47% of the UK’s stock of inward FDI at the end of 2011, with investments worth over $1.2 trillion.

Access to the EU Single Market has also helped attract investment into the UK from outside the EU.

52% of CBI members say that the ability to invest in other EU states without restriction has had a positive impact on business.

Free movement of labour has broug****ht benefits to the UK economy

 

Free movement of labour helps UK business plug skills gaps. 63% of CBI members say that the ability to recruit and transfer staff from across the EU has been positive for business, including 48% of SMEs. Overall only 1% of members said the impact had been negative – and only 2% of SMEs said it had been negative.

UK citizens have also benefited from free movement of labour – at least three-quarters of a million live in other EU countries.

CBI recognises that there is public debate over immigration – consideration must be given to how free movement can practically operate in an EU of 28 in a way that commands public support.

Business sees the UK’s lack of unilateral control over some regulation as a downside to membership

 

There is recognition that common rules are needed to support the Single Market. 52% of CBI members think that common product standards across the EU are a positive, including 50% of SMEs. Overall, only 15% of members said that the impact of common standards had been negative.

However, firms are concerned about labour market regulation. 49% of CBI members say that the pan-EU employment rights in areas such as working hours are a negative for business.

The UK’s net budgetary contribution is a small net cost relative to the benefits

 

The UK’s net contribution to the EU budget is around €7.3bn, or 0.4% of GDP. As a comparison that’s around a quarter of what the UK spends on the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and less than an eighth of the UK’s defence spend. The £116 per person net contribution is less than that from Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Germany and the Netherlands.

[Wes Tender]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/23/post-brexit-economy-george-osborne-eu-referendum

 

Here is an article rubbishing Osborne's propaganda of what will happen to the British economy post Brexit. As it is in the Guardian, the usual suspects won't be able to dismiss it as being irrelevant because of its source.

 

Of particular note is the statement that these predictions made by Oborne based on Treasury forecasts are not evidence, nor are they a credible, as they are a worst case scenario based on a situation that assumes that the Government or the Bank of England sit back and do nothing to stabilise the situation and it also takes no account of the outcome of negotiations on trade deals. This is just exacerbating the credibility of the Treasury and also severely damaging the reputation of Osborne.

 

Whatever happens in the referendum, the careers of Cameron and Osborne are headed to the knackers yard.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/23/post-brexit-economy-george-osborne-eu-referendum

 

Here is an article rubbishing Osborne's propaganda of what will happen to the British economy post Brexit. As it is in the Guardian, the usual suspects won't be able to dismiss it as being irrelevant because of its source.

 

Of particular note is the statement that these predictions made by Oborne based on Treasury forecasts are not evidence, nor are they a credible, as they are a worst case scenario based on a situation that assumes that the Government or the Bank of England sit back and do nothing to stabilise the situation and it also takes no account of the outcome of negotiations on trade deals. This is just exacerbating the credibility of the Treasury and also severely damaging the reputation of Osborne.

 

Whatever happens in the referendum, the careers of Cameron and Osborne are headed to the knackers yard.

 

Who is this "Oborne" character and why is his opinion important?

[Wes Tender]

New keyboard. But he is the same person as the one I mentioned three other times in the post.

 

In view of Osborne's reliance on Treasury propaganda, one is amazed at the sheer hypocrisy of the man when he deliberately set up the Office for Budget Responsibility for precisely the reason that Treasury figures were unreliable and could be manipulated by Chancellors to suit their own agenda. Here is what he said about the reliability of Treasury forecasting at the time he set up the OBR:-

 

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, has said: ‘the public and the markets have completely lost confidence in government economic forecasts… Unsurprisingly, these forecasting errors have almost always been in the wrong direction… The final decision on the forecast has always been made by the Chancellor, not independent officials.And that is precisely the problem… Again and again, the temptation to fiddle the figures, to nudge up a growth forecast here or reduce a borrowing number there to make the numbers add up has proved too great… I am the first Chancellor to remove the temptation to fiddle the figures by giving up control over the economic and fiscal forecast. I recognise that this will create a rod for my back down the line, and for the backs of future chancellors. That is the whole point. We need to fix the budget to fit the figures, not fix the figures to fit the budget. To do this, I am today establishing a new independent Office for Budget Responsibility’ (Speech at the Treasury, 17 May 2010, link).

 

But he was at least accurate in one thing; he has indeed made a rod for his own back by relying on these inaccurate forecasts from the Treasury, whilst ignoring the data from the very body he himself set up to provide some more impartial input. What with the ridiculous Treasury predictions of the £4300 drop in family income post a Brexit and now this, he is seen to be increasingly desperate to frighten the electorate with propaganda.

[moonraker]

We will start building a new hospital every single week and still have enough free cash left over to build a new secondary school every week too. All this free money will be brilliant.

 

We wont need all those hospitals and schools if we keep Johnny foreigner out. Perhaps we could spend it on something else, like negotiating and administering all our own trade deals, funding the staff to run the visa system, employing more border staff to ensure the new system works, paying benefits to the unemployed MEP's, repatriating our own citizens and making up for a likely reduction in GDP.

[Wes Tender]

Access to a $16.6 trillion a year Single Market of 500m people is the key benefit.

It has been estimated that UK trade with some countries in Europe could have increased by as much as 50% as a result of EU membership.

However, firms are concerned about labour market regulation. 49% of CBI members say that the pan-EU employment rights in areas such as working hours are a negative for business.

 

All very well to copy and paste this stuff from the CBI, but where does it say that we would wish to cease dealing with the single market? We wouldn't, would we? And where does it debate the benefits of trading with the rest of the World unencumbered by the bureaucracy entailed with trading with it at present as a member state of the EU, the sort of thing I highlighted in your post? As for the percentages quoted, many are around the 50% mark give or take a few points, so although the percentages quoted as negatives are lower, it still infers that there is quite a degree of scepticism.

 

It has been estimated that the trade deals with some countries in Europe have increased for the simple reason that most of those countries that we did little trade with before were formerly part of the USSR.

 

Ultimately though, the more important fact is that only 6% of businesses actually trade with the EU, yet 100% of them have to abide with the regulations imposed on businesses by the EU.

 

What British Influence fail to see is that EU red tape is not simply a political soundbite. For British firms, particularly SMEs, it can be the difference between profit and loss, between job creation, and business prospering, or shutting down and innovation being smothered. Ill-thought-out regulations might just be a nuisance or the cost of doing business for larger firms used to spanning continents, but for others it can define their success or failure.

Nor are the costs involved small beer. The Regulatory Policy Committee, an independent government body, recently revealed that new EU rules have imposed £2.3 billion in net costs to businesses since 2013, wiping out the £2.2 billion the UK Government saved cutting domestic red tape during the same period. No wonder independent polling shows that business leaders want a looser, trading relationship with the EU rather than the increasingly regulated political union we are in today.

[Guided Missile]

I, for one think that a Greek exit from the EU is just as/more likely as the UK leaving. In fact, it is possible that Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain could leave, as the eurozone continues to struggle. A Bertelsmann Foundation study suggests Grexit would have a limited impact on the world economy but warns of a ‘severe worldwide recession’ should Grexit cause other members to leave the eurozone. The UK economy stands to lose either way, the study suggests, with UK real gross domestic product expected to decline by €6bn under the Grexit only scenario and by as much as €738bn in the event that Portugal, Spain and Italy also leave.

[Whitey Grandad]

we pay out £361m PER WEEK to the EU

 

Take away the rebate and other monies received from the EU (from our own cash) for both public and private sectors

 

it costs the UK £161m PER WEEK to be part of the club

 

And what would it cost to be not part of the club?

 

It would only take a small drop in GDP to offset these payments.

[Whitey Grandad]

All very well to copy and paste this stuff from the CBI, but where does it say that we would wish to cease dealing with the single market? We wouldn't, would we? And where does it debate the benefits of trading with the rest of the World unencumbered by the bureaucracy entailed with trading with it at present as a member state of the EU, the sort of thing I highlighted in your post? As for the percentages quoted, many are around the 50% mark give or take a few points, so although the percentages quoted as negatives are lower, it still infers that there is quite a degree of scepticism.

 

It has been estimated that the trade deals with some countries in Europe have increased for the simple reason that most of those countries that we did little trade with before were formerly part of the USSR.

 

Ultimately though, the more important fact is that only 6% of businesses actually trade with the EU, yet 100% of them have to abide with the regulations imposed on businesses by the EU.

 

And many of those that don't trade with those that do.

[buctootim]

And what would it cost to be not part of the club?

 

It would only take a small drop in GDP to offset these payments.

 

Exactly, its less than 0.4% of GDP. A mild recession over a couple of quarters would be more.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

I suppose that maybe only 6% of our businesses do trade with the EU Single Market area - if you include every 'one man band', corner shop and mobile mechanic in the country. However, the fact of the matter is that a huge 45% of this nation's export trade goes to the EU and millions of British jobs depend upon this.

 

So the 6% claim is sophistry.

[moonraker]

I suppose that maybe only 6% of our businesses do trade with the EU Single Market area - if you include every 'one man band', corner shop and mobile mechanic in the country. However, the fact of the matter is that a huge 45% of this nation's export trade goes to the EU and millions of British jobs depend upon this.

 

So the 6% claim is sophistry.

 

The more important figure is how many peoples livelihoods are to some degree directly attributable to their employers ability to access the single market. There are businesses and businesses, the vast majority of SME’s, sole traders, etc. exist to serve local needs. The single biggest complaint of these entities is EU red tape and employment law. If we dismiss the truly fanciful Euromyths that Eurosceptics use to deliberately mislead the public e.g. straight bananas, the two areas I see most commonly sited as over burdensome are: employment law and product labelling. If one cared to actually research and understand the background and rationale for most of these directives they are based on sound reasoning, broad consultation and a desire to improve peoples lives and better inform, something I am sure leave supporters would still wish for. In fact in the case of employment law it is often sited that UK employment law is far more favourable for employers than many other parts of the EU. So I am truly interested to know what will actually change if we leave the EU and how would it improve our lives

Edited 25 May, 2016 by moonraker