The Brexit referendum thread: potential consequences for GB, EU and the Brits in CH

[amogles]

	Quote:	greenmount
	Well, don't think everything will stay as it is. I think this would be only fair, one can't have the cake and eat it. You put restrictions on freedom of the movement of persons, we put restrictions on freedom of the movement of goods and capitals. Fair.

This is not really about an all in or all out.

Cameron has already asked for concessions and will probably come back for more.

So the question is, is Britain going to get a big heap of concessions and we'll officially say it's still in the EU even if certain rules are being bent?

Or will Britain officially be outside the EU with a big heap of bilaterals that effectively mean the same as the above, but there is the psychological but otherwise immaterial fact that according to the paper we're "out"..

[LuvSwissGermanAndItalian]

The problem of the EU is that it is no longer attractive to countries with highly developped economies (UK, Austria, France, Denmark, Nederland, Switzerland, etc.) while it keeps attracting much poorer countries with weak or inexistant economies (Bulgaria, Rumania, Albania, Macedonia, Ukraine) or countries systematically violating the human rights (Turkey).

Despite their rivality or animosity toward the Brits, most German and French want the UK to stay within the EU. Compare it to the more than 85% of French who wanted Bulgaria and Rumania to remain outside the union.

The EU will be seriously dented if the UK left the union. But unfortunately the two real bosses of EU (Germany and France) are not willing to integrate the UK as a true EU powerhouse, at the same level than the Franco-German couple.

It's sad, but a Brexit means the beginning of the end of EU.

[Chuff]

If a Brexit meant a minor economic impact at the boon of regaining control of our borders and welfare resources then I would be all for it. Personally I think every person in the UK without a passport that has been in the country less than a specified amount of time should be re-checked for if they have employment and/or self-sustainability without claiming benefits and if they are not refugees then have them re-apply for residency in the UK (if their family can prove they can support them, a la Suisse) or be sent back to their home countries where they can re-apply for residency upon proving they have a job lined up. Basically no-one who is not a national and not productive should be allowed to stay in the UK.

After we have sorted out the wheat from the chaff in terms of immigrants, start sorting through our non-productive native population and re-work the benefits system so that every penny has to be actively worked for (physical condition allowing) either by showing you are actively seeking work, or performing public services. For truly disabled people increase funding to give them better quality of life. Work to get British homeless people off the street, get them basic housing and accommodation and basic jobs.

On top of not paying for the poor EU economies that rely on handouts from the rich to prop up their economies, cut foreign aid spending for any country with known rampant corruption, put those reclaimed billions back into the UK's many poor towns and districts to balance the abysmal funding that many of the councils in the UK have to struggle with in our most deprives areas. Revitalise the NHS and put time and effort into making it efficient and sustainable. I would love to see our resources go into helping improve productivity and quality of life of Brits, ending the benefits culture, and ending poverty in what should be a first-rate, first-world country.

[Jim2007]

Something else worth keeping in mind:

	Quote:
	Lombard Odier said Britain’s ‘twin deficits’ – the current account and budget combined – are 9.6pc of GDP and almost as bad as in Brazil. It said the UK’s industrial base has shrivelled and household savings have collapsed to 4pc, “leaving very little margin of safety in the event of a shock." Switzerland has been able to plough its own furrow over recent years in part because it is a net creditor with colossal overseas assets and a current account surplus of 10pc of GDP, a rare advantage it shares with Norway. Britain is the mirror opposite.

One serious question we should be address is why the UK (+ France and Spain) continues to generate a negative balance of trade while the EU, the Euro group, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands, Ireland etc... are all generating positive balances of trade. All countries face the same market conditions and EU regulations which would suggest that domestic affairs play a much bigger part in the story than the EU does, with possibly one exception: Euro group countries enjoy the advantage of being able to trade in an under valued currency without cost to their exchequers.

[amogles]

	Quote:	Jim2007
	Something else worth keeping in mind: One serious question we should be address is why the UK (+ France and Spain) continues to generate a negative balance of trade while the EU, the Euro group, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands, Ireland etc... are all generating positive balances of trade. All countries face the same market conditions and EU regulations which would suggest that domestic affairs play a much bigger part in the story than the EU does, with possibly one exception: Euro group countries enjoy the advantage of being able to trade in an under valued currency without cost to their exchequers.

How are household savings defined?

Is this strictly limited to bank accounts and smilar? I think with the ever lessening returns, hardly anybody has significant sums parked on bank accounts these days but has them tied up in investements and assets.

[Phil_MCR]

	Quote:	Jim2007
	Something else worth keeping in mind: One serious question we should be address is why the UK (+ France and Spain) continues to generate a negative balance of trade while the EU, the Euro group, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands, Ireland etc... are all generating positive balances of trade. All countries face the same market conditions and EU regulations which would suggest that domestic affairs play a much bigger part in the story than the EU does, with possibly one exception: Euro group countries enjoy the advantage of being able to trade in an under valued currency without cost to their exchequers.

Well, it is zero-sum, so if there's a positive somewhere, there will be a negative elsewhere.

Germany has benefited from entering the Eurozone at an under-valued exchange rate.

The UK has opened up the market for goods to the EU, but the EU has not fully opened up the services market (which the UK relies on) - in fact, Germany has gone on record recently as saying that they will NEVER fully open up the EU services market. So there are still internal protectionist policies which work against the UK.

[greenmount]

	Quote:	amogles
	This is not really about an all in or all out. Cameron has already asked for concessions and will probably come back for more. So the question is, is Britain going to get a big heap of concessions and we'll officially say it's still in the EU even if certain rules are being bent? Or will Britain officially be outside the EU with a big heap of bilaterals that effectively mean the same as the above, but there is the psychological but otherwise immaterial fact that according to the paper we're "out"..

Whatever you call it, a Brexit will mean less advantages for the UK in regards with free movements of goods and capitals which are taken for granted now.
Amogles, you know it and I know it that lots of EU companies wouldn't have made it on so many markets if it wasn't for EU agreements and subventions. Lots of people totally miss the point here. Back home we subsidise foreign companies or facilitate their process of getting EU funds which they would not get had they not expanded their activity. To think of only one aspect...
There's lot more than movement of people, from which, btw, UK citizens take advantage like anyone else.
To me personally whether UK stays in or gets out means nothing. (maybe it's a bit irritating because some discussions are vastly misguided) But to argue that there will be no changes in case of a Brexit is a tad I don't know, silly.

[zurich99]

I Watched the first in this BBC series this morning (on iplayer) it covers how the joining of the EU came about and who said/did what.

I found it quite interesting, I had no idea how it all began and having watched I can see how we are perceived as being quite 'difficult' about being in the EU and how it does seem to be a 'them and us' sort of situation.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...n-island-apart

[fatmanfilms]

	Quote:	zurich99
	I Watched the first in this BBC series this morning (on iplayer) it covers how the joining of the EU came about and who said/did what. I found it quite interesting, I had no idea how it all began and having watched I can see how we are perceived as being quite 'difficult' about being in the EU and how it does seem to be a 'them and us' sort of situation. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...n-island-apart

Thanks for the link, it's a real trip down memory lane!

My father was pretty much a lone campaigner against the Common Market for over 50 years until his death in 2013. He was a founder member & then Chairman of the Anti Common Market league for many years. His view on Europe was dynamically opposed from most of his best friends, he was Godfather to one of Geoffrey Howe's children who was about as pro Europe as you could get! He was also a Conservative counsellor who in 1973 went on BBC TV interviewed by Robin Day saying he would vote Labour at the General Election.

His views were in retrospect incredibly far sighted, it's very sad he died in 2013 before public opinion changed enough for a referendum.

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	Phil_MCR
	The UK has opened up the market for goods to the EU, but the EU has not fully opened up the services market (which the UK relies on) - in fact, Germany has gone on record recently as saying that they will NEVER fully open up the EU services market. So there are still internal protectionist policies which work against the UK.

Well be that as it may, the fact remains that when it comes to trade the UK has not performed as well as the rest and now the argument is that outside the EU they will do better... who is that going to work?

[Phil_MCR]

	Quote:	Jim2007
	Well be that as it may, the fact remains that when it comes to trade the UK has not performed as well as the rest and now the argument is that outside the EU they will do better... who is that going to work?

Well the UK will be unshackled from EU policy. Trade policy and agreements can be made based on UK interests instead of EU interests.

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	Phil_MCR
	Well the UK will be unshackled from EU policy. Trade policy and agreements can be made based on UK interests instead of EU interests.

You're missing the point, if the others are operating under the same market conditions and generate positive trade balances, what's wrong with UK industry that it is not able to achieve the same outcome???

By the same token, Ireland and the UK joined the the EEC on the same date and at the time they were in monetary union, yet today Ireland has been generating positive trade balances since the late 1980s while the UK generates deficits. In 1974 the UK accounted for 55% of Irish exports and yet by 2003 it had fallen to 18%, with the rest of the EU moving from 21% to 43% of exports, while exports to the US moved up from 10% of the total to 21%.

To me the idea that the EU is somehow holding back UK trade does not ring true. If it was the case then how come the others are not also being impacted by EU policies??? It would appear to me that domestic policies must some how play a major part in the outcome.

Just watched this party political broadcast from 1997. It's as if James Goldsmith had a crystal ball. Would have been happy that 20 years later he got his referendum though.

How does this work?

[Phil_MCR]

	Quote:	Jim2007
	You're missing the point, if the others are operating under the same market conditions and generate positive trade balances, what's wrong with UK industry that it is not able to achieve the same outcome??? By the same token, Ireland and the UK joined the the EEC on the same date and at the time they were in monetary union, yet today Ireland has been generating positive trade balances since the late 1980s while the UK generates deficits. In 1974 the UK accounted for 55% of Irish exports and yet by 2003 it had fallen to 18%, with the rest of the EU moving from 21% to 43% of exports, while exports to the US moved up from 10% of the total to 21%. To me the idea that the EU is somehow holding back UK trade does not ring true. If it was the case then how come the others are not also being impacted by EU policies??? It would appear to me that domestic policies must some how play a major part in the outcome.

You're using Ireland vs UK as an argument based on a crude GDP measure?!?!

Ireland is/was a developing country, so greater GDP growth isn't unexpected. This isn't factoring many over huge factors (decline in North Sea oil etc.).

Of course Ireland has done better out of the EU - it has been a net recipient of EU funding paid for partly by the UK which is one of the largest net contributors.

Ireland has played its hand well setting up as a tax haven and riding the boom of big multinational tax avoiders.

I don't doubt that the EU is great for smaller countries which can be subsidised by the more developed economies. The quid pro quo for the bigger economies is that force them to open up their markets and have a form of commercial colonisation. Of course, if the services markets are not opened up, then this quid pro quo is worth less to a services focussed exporter.

IMO, the UK has been actively harmed during its membership of the EU as its ability to manage its trade policy has been hobbled by the EU.

The UK knows a thing or two about colonisation and I think they would have been able to get a much better deal unshackled from the EU.

Still, props to Germany. They played the game well and have emerged the preeminent EU superpower.

[Chuff]

	Quote:	Phil_MCR
	Still, props to Germany. They played the game well and have emerged the preeminent EU superpower.

I guess there is a certain dry irony to that...

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	Phil_MCR
	You're using Ireland vs UK as an argument based on a crude GDP measure?!?!

No I have been talking about the balances of trade all through this discussion.

	Quote:	Phil_MCR
	IMO, the UK has been actively harmed during its membership of the EU as its ability to manage its trade policy has been hobbled by the EU.

That is the point, the other countries produced positive balances of trade for the period where as the UK did not. That is why I'm saying it can't just be the EU to blame, domestic policy must play a major part in it.

[fatmanfilms]

This is interesting growth from 1973 - 2012. Perhaps being in the EU has not been beneficial al all.

[gaburko]

UK is in the EU?!?

[fatmanfilms]

	Quote:	gaburko
	UK is in the EU?!?

Yes, still no reason to see where it fares relative to other EU countries on average.

[zurich99]

	Quote:	Loz1983
	Just watched this party political broadcast from 1997. It's as if James Goldsmith had a crystal ball. Would have been happy that 20 years later he got his referendum though.

Thanks for that link, I can't believe the things he has predicted, and that no one listened....