EU Brexit impact - Treasury Analysis

mwpt

Alan_Brown wrote: »

A federal, pan-European government is the polar opposite of devolution.

You can only say this because of the direction of travel. The so called pan-European state is still more devolved than the UK is, but you're happy with the state of the UK. Would you prefer the UK to move more toward the EU model where more powers are devolved to the smaller entities (regions/states/towns/whatever)?

The government is so remote from the people (before the referendum, did anyone actually know the name of their MEP, do they know how they have voted in the European parliament, do they even know which political party they represent?)

Agree with this but this is a question of scale. Moving on ...

I feel that the larger a government becomes, the slower it operates because of the huge divisions and fractions within in. A parliament representing the UK may have different views on how to get there, but they all want what they believe is best of the UK.

Err, no. There are many SNP supporters who think they are not at all represented by the current UK government and would like to not have devolved powers but to separate. Equally there will be Labour regions with many people feeling completely unrepresented. S

A European parliament has members that often are fighting for what is best for their own country, not the the EU as a whole.

Same as within the UK. Though of course, the system allows a majority of MPs to form laws ignoring the regions who may not like them.

The only way the EU and especially the Euro can work is by much closer integration, economic and otherwise. They need to become a federal state, like the US where the inhabitants call themselves Europeans rather than Czechs, Poles, Germans, etc. Only then will people in the region formerly known as Germany want their taxes to help aleviate poverty in the area formerly known as Greece.

In the UK, I'm happy for my income tax (and various other taxes) to be used in other regions of the UK to help fellow Brits, most people have the same attitude. Do we have the same attitude for helping the Greeks? I think not.

You are not unique in that respect but you are not a complete sample. There are many people in the UK who don't want their tax money subsidising other regions, or even other people. It takes a government to keep it going such that we don't break down and isolate the poorer and perhaps have civil chaos.

You have decided this is workable at the UK level but not at the EU level. There is no problem taking this stance and I actually agree with the view that the larger the government the harder it is to govern, but it isn't the only stance and it isn't self evidently true. I too think the Euro project needs federalisation to work and I think this is unlikely to happen, so foresee it breaking down at some point, though TPTB will keep it trundling along for a while (for those reading, I am referring to the single currency). I don't think we are overtly negatively impacted by this and it may well be that it is in our best interests to remain in and influence the course.

All of your arguments could be reduced to the UK level. Should we split the UK into constituent parts because smaller = better?

mayonnaise

Alan_Brown wrote: »

In the UK, I'm happy for my income tax (and various other taxes) to be used in other regions of the UK to help fellow Brits, most people have the same attitude. Do we have the same attitude for helping the Greeks? I think not.

I do. I don't think cooperation and solidarity needs to stop at our borders.
I'm as happy for part of my taxes to go to poorer Welsh regions as to poorer Greek regions.

wotsthat

Alan_Brown wrote: »

This is just a personal attack, and I don't see what the point of it is? I have a different opinion on the EU than you, that doesn't make me a bad person, there is no need to personalise the debate. We're not children.

It's understanding what makes people tick when you express surprise, in the absence of a return ticket, an ex-pat showing an interest in the fortunes of the UK.

When I try to understand what makes you tick it's a personal attack.

mwpt

mayonnaise wrote: »

I do. I don't think cooperation and solidarity needs to stop at our borders.
I'm as happy for part of my taxes to go to poorer Welsh regions as to poorer Greek regions.

But you may not be so happy in five years time if no reforms have been made, their pension age is still lower than yours, they still don't effectively collect tax, their black market is still the major component of their economy, and so forth.

What people see as the EU imposing laws on a sovereign state is simply the EU saying, if you want to continue to receive largess then these are our conditions.

Redistribution of wealth has many positive effects. If the incentives are set correctly, it will result in an increase in wealth for all as the poor less productive regions are lifted up so they contribute back into the wealthier regions. So I see much to recommend tax distribution across nations in the EU, provided it isn't being poured down a black hole.

Alan_Brown

wotsthat wrote: »

It's understanding what makes people tick when you express surprise, in the absence of a return ticket, an ex-pat showing an interest in the fortunes of the UK.

When I try to understand what makes you tick it's a personal attack.

I can't do anything more than express an apology if my actions were misinterpreted and to explain what I was actually interesting in understanding. I sometimes have a lot of time to write, and sometimes I have to dash off a quick sentence. Apologies if my abruptness caused offence or made people think I had ulterior motives. I hope this will be enough apologies for you now to leave me alone and perhaps return to the debate?
:money:

Alan_Brown

mwpt wrote: »

But you may not be so happy in five years time if no reforms have been made, their pension age is still lower than yours, they still don't effectively collect tax, their black market is still the major component of their economy, and so forth.

This is exactly what I was trying to get across. Unless the EU has complete integration, the project will never work. If the remainers want this then fair play to them, but most seem to want the status quo and my argument is that it's a fantasy as the status quo was a common market, not a political union.

Generali

Alan_Brown wrote: »

I can't do anything more than express an apology if my actions were misinterpreted and to explain what I was actually interesting in understanding. I sometimes have a lot of time to write, and sometimes I have to dash off a quick sentence. Apologies if my abruptness caused offence or made people think I had ulterior motives. I hope this will be enough apologies for you now to leave me alone and perhaps return to the debate?
:money:

Thanks for the apology and thanks to many others for their kind support.

BobQ

CLAPTON wrote: »

It would seem that there is no analysis that shows that exit would
-change anything at all
-make it better
-or make it worse

So you do not believe the Treasury's document is analysis? Or any of the other analysis it quotes and claims consistency with?

The report makes it clear that Exit would change things and make things worse compared to the status quo.

BobQ

wotsthat wrote: »

I think your incredulity about someone having an interest in the UK after leaving says more about your attitudes and motivations.

I'd still be interested in the UK if I left as I'd be leaving behind friends and family and would wish the best for them.

Also, selfishly, I wouldn't really want the UK to go to hell in a handcart in case I ever wanted to come back.

I agree. I have never lived or worked in the US but that does not mean I am not interested in the political and social climate of that country.

I called Alan's post bizarre because I cannot imagine emigrating to another country and not having an interest in the affairs of the country I was born in and had fiends and relatives who lived in.

Conrad

BobQ wrote: »

So you do not believe the Treasury's document is analysis? Or any of the other analysis it quotes and claims consistency with?

The report makes it clear that Exit would change things and make things worse compared to the status quo.

Tell me, which of The Treasury's last 4 quarters of predictions turned out correct?


And now you tell me their forecasts 54 months hence can be relied upon?




Is your enquiring mind satisfied that the whole report ignored the many trade deals we will do across the world (Switzerland has 30 for example to include one with China - of course large nations like China find doing deals with single nations FAR easier than trying to accommodate the disparate needs of 28 EU nations which explains the lack of a China - EU trade deal)


Are you satisfied the document takes no account of the net 3 billion saved in EU membership fees until 2030, and the additional taxes and GDP that would flow from ALL of this remaining in Britain?