Is There an Economic Case for Leaving the EU?

CLAPTON

SailorSam wrote: »

During the Scottish referendum there were companies with their bags packed ready to move down here if the vote went the wrong way. Equally there have been some large multi national companies said if the Uk wasn't a member of europe they move somewhere better for their business.

that would depend upon what trade deal we struck with the EU

chewmylegoff

Personally I don't think it would make a huge amount of difference to normal people's lives. The amount of money we spend on the EU is insignificant compared to things like the NHS. Whilst there are indirect costs as well e.g. The burden of EU red tape on business, our own government is pretty good at making !!!!!! rules which heap cost on without any obvious benefit so I'm pretty sure we would manage to drown business in silly rules all by ourselves. We would get control over our immigration policy - but the government can't stop people from outside the EU coming here by pretending they're on a pointless nondescript course at a college which turns out not to exist before disappearing into thin air so it seems unlikely that much would change.

We would need something else to moan about and blame everything on though. I suggest singling out Northern Ireland as the object of all our complaints - they are too poor to split from the UK so they'll just have to put up with it and there is a big strip of water to protect us from them.

the_flying_pig

It costs about £10bn a year, right?

Call it £150 per person.

My instinct is that it most likely is worth it

Generali

Thrugelmir wrote: »

August 2014

Exports to EU £10.7 billion

Imports from EU £15.9 billion.

Trade deficit for the month - £5.2 billion

Who needs the trade the most?

I would infer from this that it's better to be an exporter than an importer in your opinion.

What will you eat if imports are made much more expensive?

padington

People will still try to come here on mass eu or not, it's the networks, freedoms, welfare and the English language they are after, not the eu membership.

chucknorris

Generali wrote: »

Whenever I see the EU discussed here it seems to descend into a slanging match about immigration. I was wondering what people think of the economic case for being in or leaving the EU.

My view is that unfettered access to the single market is a huge benefit to all EU members especially for trading nations like the UK and that quitting the EU would put that at risk.

I don't think that I am knowledgeable enough about international economics to express anything other than a guess, my hunch would be that we are better in than out. Also I have a fair bit invested in UK shares so from a personal finance perspective, I wouldn't want to take the risk of leaving the EU, I think that the markets would react badly to leaving.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

padington wrote: »

People will still try to come here on mass eu or not, it's the networks, freedoms, welfare and the English language they are after, not the eu membership.

Agreed.

However multinational companies that choose to come here for their European HQ or manufacturing facilities and create jobs are after the EU membership and the unrestricted access to the single market it gives them.

Nick_C

I think one problem of these reports that tell us of the net benefits of immigration is that they look at the immigrants in isolation. Sure, when a Polish worker comes over here, he will be paying a small amount in taxes and not claiming any benefits. However, he is taking a job that should be done by a bone idle Brit who is sitting at home on benefits. If the Pole wasn't here, and the Brit was doing the job instead, there would be an even greater economic benefit. We would have the same tax revenue, but the benefits bill would be smaller.

Plus of course when those immigrants start having children but remain on a low wage, the benefits kick in and they may no longer be net contributors.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Nick_C wrote: »

when a Polish worker comes over here, he will be paying a small amount in taxes and not claiming any benefits. However, he is taking a job that should be done by a bone idle Brit who is sitting at home on benefits. If the Pole wasn't here, and the Brit was doing the job instead, .

That's the lump of labour fallacy though.....

There isn't a fixed number of jobs, immigrants create demand as well as supply, so they don't steal jobs from the native born.

To imagine how that works in practice, just imagine the UK decades ago with 10 million fewer people. Why aren't there 10 million more people unemployed today than there are? If the supply of jobs was fixed then there would be. But it isn't, so there aren't....

Bantex_2

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

That's the lump of labour fallacy though.....

There isn't a fixed number of jobs, immigrants create demand as well as supply, so they don't steal jobs from the native born.

To imagine how that works in practice, just imagine the UK decades ago with 10 million fewer people. Why aren't there 10 million more people unemployed today than there are? If the supply of jobs was fixed then there would be. But it isn't, so there aren't....

Does that not assume that every immigrant creates at least one new job as well as the one they are doing?