Who is in and who is out?

[RobinBHM]

Trade with the eu is important of course but it is dwindling.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/econ ... harts.html

 

[RobinBHM]

My understanding is that almost every single eu country has a trade surplus with the UK.

EU exports about 15% of total exports to the UK, roughly similar to eu's exports to the US.

 

[dexter]

Thanks for that RogerS and Jake. It makes you think, who actually needs who?

 

[Inoffthered]

Does anyone know how much as a percentage, the U.K. Imports from the other 27 members of the EU collectively?
If they need us more than we need them, I imagine it would be quite a considerable amount.

Exports from EU to UK would be about 3% of EU (ex UK) GDP, and Britain would be about 16% of the EU's exports but the only country with a big trade surplus with us is Germany. EU would be 45% of our exports.which is about 13% of our GDP.

Where do you get your numbers from Jake?

A cynic may suggest that you are trying to distort the percentages. Expressing the aggregate of exports to the UK as a percentage of total EU exports is a pretty meaningless number.


Source please, or rather than quoting percentages give us the raw data please. France also has a sizeable trade surplus.

 

[Inoffthered]

Actually Jake, I'll help you out.

Figures for 2016 in millions (Exports = our exports, Imports = our imports) Source HMRC

Germany: Exports £10,452 Imports £20,456
France: Exports £6,268 Imports £7,978
Netherlands Exports £5,965 Imports 10,930
Belgium Exports £3,649 Imports £7,112
Spain Exports £2,908 Imports £5,282
Ireland Exports £5,115 Imports £3,875
Poland Exports £1,260 Imports £2,746
Sweden Exports £ 1,496 Imports £2,003

With the exception of Ireland all countries listed above sell more to us than we sell to them. Only a fool or a poor negotiator would fail to take that into account in any post brexit negotiations. The EU will be looking for some way of funding the UK's contribution to its budget, they are not going to make worse by stopping Germany and co trading with us.

 

[Jake]

Actually Jake, I'll help you out.

Figures for 2016 in millions (Exports = our exports, Imports = our imports) Source HMRC

Germany: Exports £10,452 Imports £20,456
France: Exports £6,268 Imports £7,978
Netherlands Exports £5,965 Imports 10,930
Belgium Exports £3,649 Imports £7,112
Spain Exports £2,908 Imports £5,282
Ireland Exports £5,115 Imports £3,875
Poland Exports £1,260 Imports £2,746
Sweden Exports £ 1,496 Imports £2,003

With the exception of Ireland all countries listed above sell more to us than we sell to them. Only a fool or a poor negotiator would fail to take that into account in any post brexit negotiations. The EU will be looking for some way of funding the UK's contribution to its budget, they are not going to make worse by stopping Germany and co trading with us.

That's a short list of 27 countries. Is it goods only perhaps, Mr Willing to Accuse Others of Manipulating Data?

Gotta link? Will trade.

 

[Jake]

Does anyone know how much as a percentage, the U.K. Imports from the other 27 members of the EU collectively?
If they need us more than we need them, I imagine it would be quite a considerable amount.

Exports from EU to UK would be about 3% of EU (ex UK) GDP, and Britain would be about 16% of the EU's exports but the only country with a big trade surplus with us is Germany. EU would be 45% of our exports.which is about 13% of our GDP.

Where do you get your numbers from Jake?

A cynic may suggest that you are trying to distort the percentages. Expressing the aggregate of exports to the UK as a percentage of total EU exports is a pretty meaningless number.

Source please, or rather than quoting percentages give us the raw data please. France also has a sizeable trade surplus.

No intention to distort anything. For what it is worth, I have not made up my mind which way to vote but I am finding this exercise very helpful as there is so much unsubstantiated nonsense around,so I do appreciate the question is a fair one even if it was framed antagonistically.

All the raw data you could want is transparently available on here (with the normal caveat that even official data is what it is)
http://exporthelp.europa.eu/thdapp/disp ... guageId=en

Edit: Here's some more useful official stats:

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j ... sig2=amcZh

 

[Inoffthered]

Here's the list

https://www.uktradeinfo.com/Statistics/ ... ables.aspx


Follow the link to top 25 trading partners.

We also have a big deficit with Italy. Of our top 25 trading partners, 10 are in the EU. We have a trade deficit with 9 of them, the only trade surplus is with Ireland and given the border between the republic and northern Ireland I think that surplus is safe whatever the EU tries to do.
I dont think you'll find that we do much with Luxembourg, Cyprus, Estonia and the others.

 

[Jake]

Here's the list

https://www.uktradeinfo.com/Statistics/ ... ables.aspx.

That's to a monthly table which is almost completely meaningless in any macro sense.

How about lets take the average of the last 20 years if that is available?

 

[Inoffthered]

Here's the list

https://www.uktradeinfo.com/Statistics/ ... ables.aspx.

That's to a monthly table which is almost completely meaningless in any macro sense.

How about lets take the average of the last 20 years if that is available?

That gives the UK's current year to date trading results for 2016. It actually makes a lot of sense from a macro point of view, much more relevant for the referendum decision than total Eurostat statistics.
What possible value are trading statistics for 20 years ago pre bank crash etc? The world has changed a lot since then.. That's how the USSR used to do things, take a 20 year perspective and make things nobody wanted...you must have heard the story about the bath plugs.


Makes your numbers look a bit suspect though doesn't it!

If you looked at other options on the page you would have seen the annual deficit of trade with the EU since 2008. The annual deficit (i.e. imports exceeded exports) was £85bn. I'm not sure what is was 20 years age but in 2008 it was £35bn.

 

[rafezetter]

The Eurozone problems are mounting but so long as the Euro exists the UK will eventually be expected to join it, no matter what is said now. All the opt outs and vetos will go right by the board - ultimately the EU will do exactly as it wishes, just as it always has done.

Great assertion. How do they achieve that then? With guns or something?

I would say you couldn't make it up - but you just did.

Did you REALLY just state that Jake? The EU has been introducing LAWS on us that we don't want, didn't ask for and that are detrimental to our economic situation. Let me just state that again, LAWS that we cannot ignore and if a person breaches said law, they can and will be charged (or detained, possibly indefinitely, without charge).

The laws are being passed by the EU legislators regardless of WHAT WE WANT, with NO VETO option to say that the UK does not wish to adopt said law, and the EU leaders have been doing so for FORTY YEARS!!

What part of this situation makes you believe they won't force us at legal or political gunpoint to adopt the euro or face crippling penalties that they can apply any time they wish. They have the unlimited and unopposable power to sue the country into virtual bankruptcy should they so choose, or apply such extreme trade sanctions "we will cut you off at the knees and leave you twitching at the side of the road while we milk you dry if you refuse", that those in Govt at the time will have no choice but to agree or face riots in the streets.

All it will take is a group of EU leaders to decide they want the UK to adopt the Euro as it's national currency and it'll happen - we don't have it now because the pound is and always had been a very strong currency internationally, and also quite possibly because the EU leaders know it's a watershed event that until the referendum became a thing - might have sparked one, but were that to change - quite possibly if the #leave vote fails, then the EU will be pretty much free to do as it wishes with impunity.

I'm sorry but not even grasping just how much power and change the EU has already been exerting on the UK without our best interests as heart, just proves how little grasp you have of the realities of being in the EU.

 

[Jake]

That gives the UK's current year to date trading results for 2016.

Source? It says it is monthly data.

I was trying to avoid 2008 etc skew by suggesting 20 years,but last month is bit silly no?

 

[Jake]

The Eurozone problems are mounting but so long as the Euro exists the UK will eventually be expected to join it, no matter what is said now. All the opt outs and vetos will go right by the board - ultimately the EU will do exactly as it wishes, just as it always has done.

Great assertion. How do they achieve that then? With guns or something?

I would say you couldn't make it up - but you just did.

Did you REALLY just state that Jake? The EU has been introducing LAWS on us that we don't want, didn't ask for and that are detrimental to our economic situation. Let me just state that again, LAWS that we cannot ignore and if a person breaches said law, they can and will be charged (or detained, possibly indefinitely, without charge).

The laws are being passed by the EU legislators regardless of WHAT WE WANT, with NO VETO option to say that the UK does not wish to adopt said law, and the EU leaders have been doing so for FORTY YEARS!!

What part of this situation makes you believe they won't force us at legal or political gunpoint to adopt the euro or face crippling penalties that they can apply any time they wish. They have the unlimited and unopposable power to sue the country into virtual bankruptcy should they so choose, or apply such extreme trade sanctions "we will cut you off at the knees and leave you twitching at the side of the road while we milk you dry if you refuse", that those in Govt at the time will have no choice but to agree or face riots in the streets.

All it will take is a group of EU leaders to decide they want the UK to adopt the Euro as it's national currency and it'll happen - we don't have it now because the pound is and always had been a very strong currency internationally, and also quite possibly because the EU leaders know it's a watershed event that until the referendum became a thing - might have sparked one, but were that to change - quite possibly if the #leave vote fails, then the EU will be pretty much free to do as it wishes with impunity.

I'm sorry but not even grasping w much power and change the EU has already been exerting on the UK without our best interests as heart, just proves how little grasp you have of the realities of being in the EU.

You can make as much **** up as you like but it doesn't make it true. Everything in your post is imaginary fearful fantasy which could not actually happen under the treaty. You literally have not a clue about how law, international relations, and international law works. It may seem very distant,but what you are writing is complete fantasy with no basis at all in fact.

 

[rafezetter]

I want to be subject to British laws voted on by a British Parliament, not foreign ones rubber stamped by a lap dog parliament here, or in Brussels.

The issue shouldn't be where the legislation is made, but if it's good legislation.
There's a lot of disabled people that haven't been too happy lately about the laws made in the UK by a British elected government.

The difference being the laws passed by british govt can be REPEALED by british Govt. EU laws are untouchable while we remain in the EU. They could introduce an amendment to the health and safety laws that stated all persons required to wear high viz gear must also wear a tutu - because a guy in a neon pink tutu is pretty damn well impossible to miss - and you would be forced to comply because (just for jake) EU law has primacy over domestic law; whereas in the UK, if evidence PROVED BEYOND DOUBT that a tutu offered no futher visibility or hazard awareness, the amendment could be REPEALED and wiped from the books.

"good legislation"... good for whom Rhossydd? was it "Good" for the uk to have the majority of our rich fishing grounds we had had relied on for hundreds of years given away because other nations had poorer grounds and wanted to jump ..no .... BREAK DOWN the fence to get at ours? Or that of the fish we are allowed to catch, there are such heavy restrictions that 40% (sometimes more) has to be returned to the sea (dead by the way, so not even good for the eco system either). Perfectly good edible fish, utterly wasted because of catch sanctions that favor foreign nations fishing OUR WATERS!!!!!

As I recall when Iraq fancied a dip into Kuwait's oil reserves, a war happened.... I have no doubt as reserves run out any of the EU countries that has a state owned commodity such as gas will be heavily leaned on to "share" as opposed to "sell", whether they wanted to or not. It's a good job our gas fields are privately owned, although iirc private assets have been seized in the past for the "national good".

@Jake - you are being far too nearsighted; maybe you are an older person with little care of what happens in the decades to come, or a younger person with limited knowledge of international history and what dominant govt's have done on a domestic level, which btw that's not meant to be a criticism as it applies to a great deal of the general population too. I however am taking the LONG view, not 5 or 10 years but 25, 50 or 100. International relations can change, look at the last 70 years for proof. International law can and has increasingly been challenged by domestic law whereby a conflict has been considered to occurr and since EU law has primacy over national law, therein lies the possibility that international law may not be safeguard you think it is, and if you have not heard the open warning that if UK leaves the EU our so called biggest ally might "put us at the back of the queue", then hear it now. Our biggest ally has openly threatened to make the UK's life difficult should we leave the EU. While I doubt it will happen, at least as far as trade goes (and I'm not deterred to #voteleave by it) it's a hint that if our biggest ally is willing to make such an open statement, other allies not part of the EU might too under the right conditions; so the whole "we will be protected from the big bad EU by international treaties and law etc etc", is just foolish expectation. International laws have been broken in the past as have international treaties between "allies" - Neville Chamberlain has been mentioned in this thread several times already - If it suits an "ally" not to or they just don't wish to get involved, they won't.

You have far too much faith in a system that is so obviously flawed RIGHT NOW, and if allowed to continue on the same path may entirely subsume the whole of Europe into one superstate, with what's left of the UK govt as little more than a figurehead group.

I suggest you read some of the documents Erik the Viking has citied - I have and it's extremely disturbing.

 

[Jake]

The difference being the laws passed by british govt can be REPEALED by british Govt. EU laws are untouchable while we remain in the EU. They could introduce an amendment to the health and safety laws that stated all persons required to wear high viz gear must also wear a tutu - because a guy in a neon pink tutu is pretty damn well impossible to miss - and you would be forced to comply; whereas in the UK, if evidence PROVED BEYOND DOUBT that a tutu offered no futher visibility or hazard awareness, the amendment could be REPEALED and wiped from the books.

Could you pick a less fantastical example? Perhaps one with a real issue in practice rather than lots of tutu-wearing hysteria.

Jake - International relations can change, International law can and has increasingly been challenged by domestic law whereby a conflict has been considered to occurr and since EU law has primacy over national law, therein lies the possibility that international law may not be safeguard you think it is. You have far too much faith in a system that is so obviously flawed. I suggest you read some of the documents Erik the Viking has citied - I have and it's extremely disturbing.

This does not make much sense either. I read everything which Eric the Retired Viking wrote and linked to. Could point me to the ones I have not addresed please in case I have missed something important? Sadly after being called out for talking non-factual stuff Eric declared it time for this thread to be shut. I understand the sentiments he gave for that of course.

 

[beech1948]

Jake,

You are being unrealistic and naive to think that this will not happen. To use words such as "dung" merely confirms your poor understanding and lack of research. Do you believe every bit of tripe fed to you by newspapers and polititions with no uncritical personal challenge.

Today UK civil servants in all ministries spend in excess of 61% of their time wading through EU legislation or proposed legislation ( figures from No 10 policy unit). The UK parliament is on the verge of becoming invisible in the making of our laws through an unelected EU state such that we can change nothing, repeal nothing, modify nothing, complain about nothing. Think man, do some research and understand and become aware.

 

[rafezetter]

The difference being the laws passed by british govt can be REPEALED by british Govt. EU laws are untouchable while we remain in the EU. They could introduce an amendment to the health and safety laws that stated all persons required to wear high viz gear must also wear a tutu - because a guy in a neon pink tutu is pretty damn well impossible to miss - and you would be forced to comply; whereas in the UK, if evidence PROVED BEYOND DOUBT that a tutu offered no futher visibility or hazard awareness, the amendment could be REPEALED and wiped from the books.

Could you pick a less fantastical example? Perhaps one with a real issue in practice rather than lots of tutu-wearing hysteria.

Jake - International relations can change, International law can and has increasingly been challenged by domestic law whereby a conflict has been considered to occurr and since EU law has primacy over national law, therein lies the possibility that international law may not be safeguard you think it is. You have far too much faith in a system that is so obviously flawed. I suggest you read some of the documents Erik the Viking has citied - I have and it's extremely disturbing.

This does not make much sense either. I read everything which Eric the Retired Viking wrote and linked to. Could point me to the ones I have not addresed please in case I have missed something important? Sadly after being called out for talking non-factual stuff Eric declared it time for this thread to be shut. I understand the sentiments he gave for that of course.

The tutu was a deliberate fantastical example meant to highlight how little power our Govt has on domestic law being handed down from the EU. I'm sure you know how it was meant to be taken, but decided to bait instead, however I'll bite anyway. Rather than request I cite such an instance, as you are claiming to be something of an expert "you have no clue" = "I know more than you"; can you tell me of a UK law imposed by UK govt of the ilk "all cucumbers must be straight and X length", or any other UK law set that's akin to the untold numbers of other EU laws deemed "nonsensically excessive" such as why there are 454 on towels (bath not sanitary) - I'm fairly sure you don't need that many for safety reasons, and previous to the EU ones - there probably wasn't, which was my entire point.

I don't know what points you addressed previously, and to be perfectly honest I'm not going to check as it's obvious you and I are at opposite ends and thus nothing I say will sway you, so I'm not going to waste time trying, suffice to reiterate International relations change; International treaties have been either bent or broken, and even exerting significant pressure more often than not yields ZERO positive results; shall I mention Ukraine? You know the place Russia INVADED more than a year ago and thus far, Russia, despite significant pressure and sanctions has essentially told the entire international community to F Off. Thinking international laws traties and other such bits of paper provide enough safeguards so the UK doesn't get a "comply or else" notice from the EU about something is to ignore the old proverb "those who fail to reference history are doomed to repeat it."

 

[Inoffthered]

That gives the UK's current year to date trading results for 2016.

Source? It says it is monthly data.

I was trying to avoid 2008 etc skew by suggesting 20 years,but last month is bit silly no?

Look, you have been rumbled, you clearly didn't look at the other information options on the HMRC site

The inför
mation on that page had all of the trade statistics you could wish for, including quarterly stats for several years and annual stats summarised since 2008. It was far more meaningful than the link to Eurostat page you included in your post.

You may think that saying you need 20 years information makes you appear knowledgable but it actually demonstrates the opposite. I repeat my earlier question, what possible relevance are trading result of 20 years ago?

When in difficulty you are great at posing questions as a means of trying to manipulate an argument. Well if you want a demonstration of how undemocratic you only have to look at how the Commission treats democratically elected MEP.

The link below relates to what happened to an Irish MEP when he wanted to see the details of the TTIP agreement.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9RMWvYqkxk

I look forward to your comments on this.

 

[Woody2Shoes]

In thinking about this whole question, I find both "in" and "out" options pretty undesirable. I wish there was a "none of the above" option.

I also think that uncontrolled, large-scale, immigration of low-skilled people (however highly motivated to work hard at menial jobs they may be in the short/medium term) is storing up trouble for future generations, if not this one, on our densely populated little island. I have little confidence that an "in" or an "out" vote will actually affect levels of immigration very much. For me, this is the worst aspect of the referendum - most people will be voting (either way) for the wrong reason (either for/against immigration)!

A radio programme I listened to yesterday was very thought-provoking and confirmed my suspicions that there is a lot of spin on both sides of the debate; I heartily recommend it to those who are tempted to believe "facts" put about by the politicians of all flavours: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07jczmc (Radio 4 More or Less - Referendum by numbers - omnibus parts 1 and 2).

Cheers, W2S

 

[Mark Hancock]

I would strongly suggest that those who want a more factual view of this topic watch this video. Those that believe the hype from both sides and the media ignore it.
https://news.liverpool.ac.uk/2016/0...ale-eu-law-expert-analyses-referendum-debate/