Is There an Economic Case for Leaving the EU?

CLAPTON

wotsthat wrote: »

That is a strawman I'm afraid. I didn't say non-membership of the EU precludes trade with the EU it just makes it more complex and therefore more costly.

Take food. I can order a truck of food from anywhere in the EU and, apart from normal commercial documents, that's the extent of the complication.

Food from countries outside the EU has to be health certificated to prove it's been made to EU standards. The producing country had no say in how those standards were arrived at. The third country officials signing the certificates and approving factories will have to have qualifications from a list determined by the EU. The EU will also send delegations to the country to ensure the third countries aren't just giving the whole thing lip service.

So, yes, Japan & China can do business with the EU but it's more complex and costly than EU country to country trade. It's not plausible to suggest leaving the EU would do anything other than add to the cost of conducting trade with Europe.

exactly the same argument was made about joining the Euro : not joining would increase our costs: maybe true but there are other counterweights that out way the marginal impacts.


clearly we trade successful with non EU countries.


The EU has tariffs barriers that prevent us getting 'world' prices' : outside the EU we can trade at lower world prices.

N1AK

CLAPTON wrote: »

exactly the same argument was made about joining the Euro .

And exactly the same arguments were made by Nationalists during the Scottish referendum as you are making here but you're not keen to draw that comparison I wonder if that's because you rubbished those arguments and claimed that it was really because they hated the people they shared the union with... doesn't exactly make your point I suppose.

Generali

N1AK wrote: »

Thanks for, I expect, proving Generali's point. There aren't any strong economic arguments in favour of leaving. So even when the debate is framed in those terms Europhobes ignore that and go back to the same old FUD.

Parts of the EU believe in closer union. Clearly other parts don't. We, the British, can play a key part in shaping an EU that allows for closer integration for those who desire it while accommodating those nations that we to retain greater autonomy.

If the EU mandated tomorrow that we must use the euro, subscribe to a european military and transfer our place on the security council to the EU then the British people would vote overwhelmingly for a party that would take us out. What UKIPers like to forget, or can't understand, is that most people's opinion on the EU is based on what it is, not some UKIP dystopian fantasy of what it might become.

The best bit about being in is that if thr EU wanted to try to force that stuff on the UK she could say no via her veto. Of course if the UK was outside then those things might be requirements for continuing to import food from the EU or medicine perhaps.

As you say, if the UK is in she can shape her European future. If the UK is out then she'll be tossed on the tide.

CLAPTON

N1AK wrote: »

And exactly the same arguments were made by Nationalists during the Scottish referendum as you are making here but you're not keen to draw that comparison I wonder if that's because you rubbished those arguments and claimed that it was really because they hated the people they shared the union with... doesn't exactly make your point I suppose.

I don't understand the relationship between the UK buying food on the world market, without EU tariffs, and Scottish referendum

Thrugelmir

Linton wrote: »

The UK - surely you need to think in terms of %s. On the day after the UK left the EU, UK exports to the EU would be a much higher % of its total exports than EU exports to the UK would be of its total. So the potential loss of some or all of both export markets would affect the UK far more than the EU.

On the import side we are far more likely to need the imports that we get from the EU (the EU being a large % of world exporting countries) than the EU needs us since it would have a greater choice of where else it could source its imports.

Remove Germany from the EU's export figures as a whole and the EU is a net importer. The whole matter is far more complex than you suggest. When push comes to shove protectionism will come to the fore. At differing levels, i.e. local upwards.

Bantex_2

jjlandlord wrote: »

It seems that a few posts have been deleted.

Way to go.

Seems Generali has found that if he accuses anybody he does not agree with of racism and then reports them, the posts get deleted.

One way of winning an argument, just a bit north Korea though.

michaels

N1AK wrote: »

Thanks for, I expect, proving Generali's point. There aren't any strong economic arguments in favour of leaving. So even when the debate is framed in those terms Europhobes ignore that and go back to the same old FUD.

Parts of the EU believe in closer union. Clearly other parts don't. We, the British, can play a key part in shaping an EU that allows for closer integration for those who desire it while accommodating those nations that we to retain greater autonomy.

If the EU mandated tomorrow that we must use the euro, subscribe to a european military and transfer our place on the security council to the EU then the British people would vote overwhelmingly for a party that would take us out. What UKIPers like to forget, or can't understand, is that most people's opinion on the EU is based on what it is, not some UKIP dystopian fantasy of what it might become.

Not sure what FUD stands for but continuing your off topic non-economic arguement I beleive the founding treaty of the EEC and all others subsequently make reference to 'ever closer union' and that has definitely been the direction of travel of the further treaties and agreements since then.

Not sure if opt-outs prevent UK red lines being crossed either, easy enough to say okl UK you can opt out of working time directive or whatever but then deny access to UK goods on the grounds that they have not been produced by staff working in a manner that corresponds to EU safety rules.

Also interesting that it is assumed that I want out, I am currently undecided, I think democratically there should be a referendum reflecting the loss of sovereignty as there would have to have been had the UK had a formal written constitution (which I also think we should have).

I am actually concerned that long term issues on sovereignty and economic consequences will not be properly debated in any referendum, fear tactics will likely produce a vote in favour of staying in the EU, regardless of the actual costs and benefits, and then there will be no further checks to the process of european integration. Perhaps an integrated Europe would become a democratic and non-corupt entity once that happened but there is defnitely a democracy and accountability deficit with the current European set up.

wotsthat

CLAPTON wrote: »

exactly the same argument was made about joining the Euro : not joining would increase our costs: maybe true but there are other counterweights that out way the marginal impacts.

clearly we trade successful with non EU countries.

The EU has tariffs barriers that prevent us getting 'world' prices' : outside the EU we can trade at lower world prices.

A moot point really. The UK isn't chomping at the bit to abandon all tariffs so it's citizens can access world prices.

It's a half hearted argument against staying in the EU. Aren't you just more concerned about the non economical arguments which you think trump any financial benefits i.e. full control of immigration policy, removal of the European Court's influence, a rewriting of the Human Rights Act etc.

purch

jjlandlord wrote: »

Hence why metrics per head are very important.

I prefer the imperial system :eek:

CLAPTON

wotsthat wrote: »

A moot point really. The UK isn't chomping at the bit to abandon all tariffs so it's citizens can access world prices.

It's a half hearted argument against staying in the EU. Aren't you just more concerned about the non economical arguments which you think trump any financial benefits i.e. full control of immigration policy, removal of the European Court's influence, a rewriting of the Human Rights Act etc.

One difficulty is that all every single economist in the world would agree that GDP is a poor measure of 'real' income or real goods and service, nevertheless group think dictates that they will ALWAYS use the GDP in practice.


So e.g. if we can enjoy a certain level of prosperity which requires us to say commute for 30 minutes a day: if circumstances change so that to maintain the same level we have to commute of say 2 hours a day, the economist will see no change GDP (I ignore the actual cost in fuel etc commuting for now). However in reality we are much poorer but because it isn't measured as part of GDP the change will be ignored and deemed 'non-economic'.


So my objection to the massive increase in the population isn't anything to do with any objection to people (like one of my parents and many relatives) who were born abroad but the impact they have on
- London (and the SE) house prices that have serious economic consequences for ordinary people but do not reflect in the 'economics ' of increase in population.
- increase in overcrowding and subsequent delays : again that do not count as 'economic' costs.
as well as other issues.

Whether people are chomping at the bit or not isn't essentially an economic issue: however a significant reduction in food (and indeed other prices) is an economic issue and would be widely welcomed.


I'm amazed you view the cost of imports as a half hearted issue but so beit.