Who is in and who is out?

[Jake]

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",

Myth. http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/straight-cucumbers/

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.

These things are just trade standards, not laws in any meaningful sense. They help people do deals knowing what they are getting.

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

That's actually not the case, I have not decided how to vote and I am sceptical about the claims made on both sides. I know the constitutional side of the EU quite well, but have to research most other points. Most of the leave points I have looked at so far do not seem to be well made, but that doesn't mean that leave is the wrong decision - just that if leave is the right decision it is not the right decision for most of the reasons I have seen set out. The pure sovereignty argument is the one I have most sympathy with, but the cost of reclaiming the delegated sovereignty seems to be quite and probably too high, based on my preferences. And, I personally suspect that the EU will have to change radically in the next decade to accommodate more of a two tier approach, for the outer tier of which there will be less of a sovereignty issue.

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."

If the EU decides to get Russian on us, it doesn't matter if we are a member or not. Then there is the fact that Putin wants an exit vote. I think the reason for that is obvious,and it isn't about our interests.

 

[Mark Hancock]

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",

Myth. http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/straight-cucumbers/

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.

These things are just trade standards, not laws in any meaningful sense. They help people do deals knowing what they are getting.

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

That's actually not the case, I have not decided how to vote and I am sceptical about the claims made on both sides. I know the constitutional side of the EU quite well, but have to research most other points. Most of the leave points I have looked at so far do not seem to be well made, but that doesn't mean that leave is the wrong decision - just that if leave is the right decision it is not the right decision for most of the reasons I have seen set out. The pure sovereignty argument is the one I have most sympathy with, but the cost of that seems to be quite and probably too high, based on my preferences. And, I personally suspect that the EU will have to change radically in the next decade to accommodate more of a two tier approach, for the outer tier of which there will be less of a sovereignty issue.

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."

If the EU decides to get Russian on us, it doesn't matter if we are a member or not. Then there is the fact that Putin wants an exit vote. I think the reason for that is obvious,and it isn't about our interests.

The video link I posted above will explain the facts about the sovereignty issue.

 

[Jake]

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

Howhave I been rumbled? I have looked at that page, but you had linked to the monthly data,so I was asking if that was what you had cited. If so, that's a bit meaningless. One big deal could skew a monthly figure.

The införmation 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.

Oh really, why's that?

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?

I asked if you would agree to that being a sensible period. It makes no sense to look at one month's data, or one year's, on something like this and I don't have time to look at every basis. If you won't agree on a sensible period to look at, I will be wasting my time finding the data as you will just say I am looking at the wrong period (as you have already done).

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.

I cannot be bothered to look at videos, it is too slow a means of getting information. I take it this is this story.

http://www.thejournal.ie/luke-flanagan- ... 1-May2016/

I don't know I think very much about that. I can see why the Commission does not want the content of its discussions with the US revealed. I doubt Whitehall would be anymore transparent with an MP, possibly less so.

 

[Jake]

The video link I posted above will explain the facts about the sovereignty issue.

Probably, I cba watching videos but googled for a precis of his views in that, which seem to be that parliament is still sovereign which is both right and wrong. Ultimately it is right of course, which is the point of the referendum (as parliament can ditch the EU if it chooses to do so). Practically speaking, it is a bit overstated in that parliament in its sovereignty has delegated some of its sovereignty to the EU via the international treaty and is obliged to respect the EU decision making for so long as it is a member.

I don't personally have any objection to the delegation and sharing of sovereignty per se, which is why I am interested in checking out the examples which are given which are said to be objectionable. I would not be happy, for instance, if the EU had the power to declare war. But it clearly does not. The fact that it can legislate about grading standards for cucumbers does not bother me one iota - it seems very sensible as a means of facilitating trade.

 

[Jake]

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.

Just because I do not accept the leave line without questioning does not mean I am not an independent thinker, thank you. I will not return the compliment, but it can easily be directed at those who believe some of the piffle which is being spouted. There is a perfectly sensible and valid debate to be had, but making up nutso stuff like that is not part of it.

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).

Does that have significance in itself?

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.

That's just rhetoric (and contains patent falsities like the reference to an "unelected EU state" which does not exist).

Think man, do some research and understand and become aware.

I guess you mean that only people who do not understand could have a view other than your own? That seems a bit arrogant if you do not mind me saying so.

 

[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.

Here are the averaged figures for 2008-2016 from HMRC (in billions, negative is a UK trade deficit). They back up what I said.

The Netherlands is presumably skewed by the "Rotterdam effect" which Leave campaigners (probably rightly) say exaggerates the scale of trade with the EU.

Other than that, the differences are tiny in international trade terms. A couple of billion surplus will not influence Paris in the same way the 20bn plus German surplus might (and only might) influence Berlin. The rest really are completely irrelevant, and all will have a vote.

This table from document I posted earlier illustrates how important our trade is to the other member states. None of this suggests a deal would not be done, but none of it suggests to me that they will all be falling over themselves to do a favourable deal (for us) and quickly.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Some interesting and factual tables. I agree with you that they will not be in any hurry to sign up a deal. Any impact of Brexit on trade is unlikely to be precipitate - either imports or exports.

But (all things being equal etc) trade will probably decline as tariffs reduce trade. It will impact on inflation and jobs. The rapidity of decline is open to debate, as is the relative impact on different products and markets. I am personally convinced that the only basis upon which they will likely do a deal is in Norway style - which includes free movement of people, compliance with most regulation and a contribution to the EU budget.

 

[Inoffthered]

Other than that, the differences are tiny in international trade terms. A couple of billion surplus will not influence Paris in the same way the 20bn plus German surplus might (and only might) influence Berlin. The rest really are completely irrelevant, and all will have a vote.

This table from document I posted earlier illustrates how important our trade is to the other member states. None of this suggests a deal would not be done, but none of it suggests to me that they will all be falling over themselves to do a favourable deal (for us) and quickly.

Congratulations you have found the underlying information, wasn't that difficult was it?.
From an economic analysis perspective, using an average of an 8 year period when most of it was effected by the most severe recession which will skew results. (but better than going into a trade negotiation quoting data that is 20 years old which would undoubtedly raise a smile on the other side).

I dont mean to offend and I'm not sure whether you are doing it deliberately or whether it is lack of experience in the commercial world but you constantly seem to conflate two issues. You dismiss insignificant trade deficits and state that no-one would be bothered about them. That is nonsense because the net position is made up of importers and exporters and they are not the same people. The net position may be a trade deficit of a mere £1bn in a year, but that £1bn could be the net of £11bn imports and £10bn exports, so the relevant figure for the european country is not the net loss of £1bn, but the loss of trade of £11n and that is not something any EU country would want to face.

Notwithstanding the above, if we do just look at the net figure Germany will not want to face a £21billion trade hit, so a deal will be done.

PS .Reference to the Rotterdam (or Antwerp) effect may get you an extra mark in an economics O level exam but for the purposes of this debate it is totally irrelevant.

 

[Jake]

Congratulations you have found the underlying information, wasn't that difficult was it?.

Nope, I had seen it before but was asking you for clarification of what time series you were quoting.

From an economic analysis perspective, using an average of an 8 year period when most of it was effected by the most severe recession which will skew results. (but better than going into a trade negotiation quoting data that is 20 years old which would undoubtedly raise a smile on the other side).

I agree with the first but not the second. Anyhow, 2008 to now is all that I could find on that site.

I dont mean to offend and I'm not sure whether you are doing it deliberately or whether it is lack of experience in the commercial world but you constantly seem to conflate two issues.

Don't worry, I'm not going to be offended by anything you have to offer including that rather risible attempt to patronise me.

You dismiss insignificant trade deficits and state that no-one would be bothered about them.

That's because I am examining the truthfulness of the claim that all of the EU will fall over themselves to grant us a very favourable alternative trade deal because (it is said) they all run big trade surpluses with the UK so they need us more than we need them. With that as the starting point, it doesn't make sense to look at anything other than the trade balances as that is what is and was being put up as the justification for the argument.

That is nonsense because the net position is made up of importers and exporters and they are not the same people.

OK,you seem to be saying that this Leave argument is nonsense?

The net position may be a trade deficit of a mere £1bn in a year, but that £1bn could be the net of £11bn imports and £10bn exports, so the relevant figure for the european country is not the net loss of £1bn, but the loss of trade of £11n and that is not something any EU country would want to face.

I have not seen the argument put like this before, probably because it is an argument based on relative bargaining powers between nation states, for which the trade balance does seem more relevant. If the trade balance is uneven, then that would seem to me to be potential negotiation leverage. If there are, say, equal flows then the threat on both sides will effectively cancel out.

Notwithstanding the above, if we do just look at the net figure Germany will not want to face a £21billion trade hit, so a deal will be done.

QMV remember. And the dreaded Commission.

PS .Reference to the Rotterdam (or Antwerp) effect may get you an extra mark in an economics O level exam but for the purposes of this debate it is totally irrelevant.

It wasn't in my economics O or A level course that I remember, although that was some time ago so I may have forgotten.

I mentioned it mainly because it does affect the Netherlands figure in particular although nobody seems to be able to put a figure or proportion on it and it is frequently cited on the Leave side as a factor reducing the 45% of exports to the EU. It plainly is relevant to the interest which the Netherlands would take.

 

[Inoffthered]

OK,you seem to be saying that this Leave argument is nonsense?

I have not seen the argument put like this before, probably because it is an argument based on relative bargaining powers between nation states, for which the trade balance does seem more relevant. If the trade balance is uneven, then that would seem to me to be potential negotiation leverage. If there are, say, equal flows then the threat on both sides will effectively cancel out.

The net position may be a trade deficit of a mere £1bn in a year, but that £1bn could be the net of £11bn imports and £10bn exports, so the relevant figure for the european country is not the net loss of £1bn, but the loss of trade of £11n and that is not something any EU country would want to face.

No, you are looking at leverage from the perspective of a net position. I am saying that you need to look at it from a gross position.
Referring to Germany, our imports from Germany in 2015 amounted to £61 billion, our exports to Germany in the same period amounted to £30 billion a net balance of trade of £29 billion.
You seem to be saying that Germany's trading decision is based on losing a net £29bn. I am saying you are wrong because if the EU put up barriers they will lose sales of £61bn which would be a significant hit to their GDP, especially if you factor in the multiplier effect. The values for other EU countries may not be as high as Germany, but the loss of trade if they adopt the nuclear option would hurt most of them. That is just not going to happen.

To suggest that this doesn't support the Leave argument speaks volumes.

 

[RogerS]

There have been countless simulations from both sides but none are conclusive since they depend on the initial data being fed in and whether or not the 'other' side, as it were, accepts that data.

What this means in practice is that the leave camp don't accept the vast majority of projections and only accept projections based on very optimistic and favourable assumptions.
There was an interesting interview with one of the few economists in favour of leaving on R4 earlier this week. What he said was that his assumptions were based on best possible cases and wouldn't accept that anything could go wrong. Sounded very naive to me.

The problem is that only a tiny 0.6% fall in our economy will wipe out any financial saving won from not paying any EU membership costs. The majority of projections are VERY significantly worse than that.

No, what this means in practice is that no-one knows for sure either way - whether we are In or Out.

 

[RogerS]

There's nothing wrong with a Hi-Viz tutu



(In the interest of introducing a little bit of levity).

 

[Inoffthered]

No, what this means in practice is that no-one knows for sure either way - whether we are In or Out.

The "Treasury" forecasts are based on doomsday scenarios, including a collapse of the £. They also assume that if the £ collapsed even though our goods would therefore be cheaper there would be no impact on international trade. Absolute nonsense and a measure of how rattled the Remainiacs have become...just like announcing that Baroness Warsi (who was never part of the Leave campaign) has left the Leave campaign...you couldn't make it up.

 

[paulm]

/quote]

The "Treasury" forecasts are based on doomsday scenarios, including a collapse of the £. They also assume that if the £ collapsed even though our goods would therefore be cheaper there would be no impact on international trade. Absolute nonsense and a measure of how rattled the Remainiacs have become...just like announcing that Baroness Warsi (who was never part of the Leave campaign) has left the Leave campaign...you couldn't make it up.

Some on here do, regularly, look at Rhossydd's recent thread on Yandles and other nonsense on here !

Perhaps he has been working on the Treasury forecasts for them too :lol:

 

[Cheshirechappie]

"The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable" - John Kenneth Galbraith.

It does seem that in this debate, one can choose the economic forecast that most fits one's position on leaving or remaining. It's also true that many institutions forecast that the UK would be better off if it adopted the Euro; many feel they have been proved wrong.

About the only thing I will take from this debate on the economics is a considerable cynicism about economic forecasts. The only way to check the accuracy of a ten-year economic forecast is to wait ten years and see what happened.

It's not, in my view, a basis on which to decide whether leaving or remaining is the better option.

For me, the question is under which system of government are the people of the UK (and ultimately Europe as a whole) likely to enjoy a better life, and be able to contribute positively to the wider world. For me, that's democracy. I judge the UK system to be more democratic than the EU system, so my decision is to vote to leave.

 

[RogerS]

This website claims to be impartial

www.ukandeu.ac.uk

 

[Mark Hancock]

One factor that seems to be ignored in all this is the time scale. If we leave how long will it be before the new trade agreements will be in place? What happens to our economy during that period? I understand Switzerland still hasn't completed all trade agreements with the EU and how long has that been? I believe there is a similar situation with Canada?

 

[paulm]

"The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable" - John Kenneth Galbraith.

It does seem that in this debate, one can choose the economic forecast that most fits one's position on leaving or remaining. It's also true that many institutions forecast that the UK would be better off if it adopted the Euro; many feel they have been proved wrong.

About the only thing I will take from this debate on the economics is a considerable cynicism about economic forecasts. The only way to check the accuracy of a ten-year economic forecast is to wait ten years and see what happened.

It's not, in my view, a basis on which to decide whether leaving or remaining is the better option.

For me, the question is under which system of government are the people of the UK (and ultimately Europe as a whole) likely to enjoy a better life, and be able to contribute positively to the wider world. For me, that's democracy. I judge the UK system to be more democratic than the EU system, so my decision is to vote to leave.

Very much my view also, I posted similar back on page 20, some time ago now !

Trying to decide long term, major, strategic issues such as this based on points of detail or forecast outcomes is to descend into a spiral of ever decreasing circles and paralysis by analysis !

The only way to sensibly deal with it is considering the fundamentals at a strategic level, and then deal afterwards with the details and inevitable bumps in the road that will arise whichever way you jump.

Seems to me that fundamentally it is an exceedingly poor idea to mortgage your trust and future well being of yourselves and future generations to an unelected, unaccountable massive quango with a heavily socialist agenda, that has a substantial track record of serial incompetence, corruption and wide ranging and self serving agendas and heavily biased and exceedingly poor political decision making.

It will never be in our best interests to tie ourselves to such an organisation with such an appalling track record and every prospect of falling apart at the seams in the not too distant future.

Those with a short term agenda of personal and corporate enrichment as part of the EU gravy train will of course claim it is the only way forwards, that is to be expected, but it doesn't mean they are objective, independent, truthful, or correct !

Those worried souls who want certain outcomes and forecasts and guarantees and won't get out of their beds in the morning in case the sky falls on their heads, and those who seek the opportunity for short term personal enrichment at the expense of the long term, will likely never be persuaded to vote to take control and vote leave, while those with a degree of real world experience and the ability and experience to see the way forwards through the clouds of FUD thrown up by the vested, self serving interests, will hopefully continue their efforts to drag the UK away from the failing and flawed EU model that has been hijacked and corrupted out of all recognition from it's early and simplistic ideals.

Look at the appalling EU track record in fraud, awful political decision making, and complete inepitude in major practical issues, and at the various changes they are trying to keep hidden from us until after the vote, and ask yourself why you would want more of the same for the foreseeable future !

 

[paulm]

One factor that seems to be ignored in all this is the time scale. If we leave how long will it be before the new trade agreements will be in place? What happens to our economy during that period? I understand Switzerland still hasn't completed all trade agreements with the EU and how long has that been? I believe there is a similar situation with Canada?

I would strongly suspect that the ability of the numerous countries within the EU to agree amongst themselves is the hold up with finalising agreement with Switzerland and elsewhere, another reason to vote leave !

Has the EU not been trading with Switzerland and Canada in the meantime in any event ?

 

[Mark Hancock]

One factor that seems to be ignored in all this is the time scale. If we leave how long will it be before the new trade agreements will be in place? What happens to our economy during that period? I understand Switzerland still hasn't completed all trade agreements with the EU and how long has that been? I believe there is a similar situation with Canada?

I would strongly suspect that the ability of the numerous countries within the EU to agree amongst themselves is the hold up with finalising agreement with Switzerland and elsewhere, another reason to vote leave !

Has the EU not been trading with Switzerland and Canada in the meantime in any event ?

This may answer your last question regarding Switzerland
http://ukandeu.ac.uk/is-the-swiss-model-a-brexit-solution/
It seems negotiating deals is not quite as simple as the media has been making out and we would still have to comply with EU regulations.