The EU consists of a massive number of laws/regulations and expenditures which can be divided into three types of situations:
If the UK leaves the EU then the EU and UK will make other treaties to handle situation 1, but won’t for situations 2 and 3 unless there is horsetrading involved.
I also think that, economically, it wouldn’t make much difference overall to the UK economy if we left the EU. Especially since, as Quartz points out, we’ll still be in EFTA or the EEA or whatever it is. I think the benefits of EU membership, and the EU’s contribution to post-war Western European peace and prosperity, are greatly overstated. Correlation, yes. Cause? Not so sure.
That said, I seriously doubt the UK will vote to leave, and it would perhaps be a strategic mistake to piss off our neighbours, both in Europe as a whole and in Scotland, by doing so. We might be better off waiting for something to implode by itself. The currency union, for example, the collapse of which would more or less stop the whole EU project in its tracks. I think the EU and eurozone already has over-expanded and they’re expending most of their energy trying to reconcile vastly different countries, leaving not much time for the project.
Perhaps, but EFTA and the EEA are still enormously different beasts. We could got he EEA route (most likely), but the cost is that you pay almost as much for membership of that as you do for the EU, but you have zero control over the rules handed down from the EU. At least within the EU, we have some influence over them.
This is all sensible stuff, but I doubt the public-at-large care for many of them as much as the strategic-thinkers in Whitehall do. The recent opinion polls are unnervingly close.
I don’t think the referendum vote will be based on any economic cost-benefit analysis, instead it will be decided by a few hot button issues–like the state of the economy when the vote is held, immigrants taking jobs, terrorist attacks by Muslims… I find it surprising the previous posters don’t realize this.
Don’t be so sure about Scotland: we elected one UKIP MEP last time around. Sure, leaving the EU will piss off the SNP; but Scots as a whole? I’m not so sure about that.
Sorry UKIP will not disband once out of the EU there is the case for an English parliament so that we will have English MP’s voting on English matters, we also need straight talking about education, health and housing. Do not forget that UKIP gained 4,000,000 votes at the last general election, it is only because of our crap voting system that UKIP only has 1 MP, The SNP gained less votes than UKIP but gained 56 MP’s CRAZY. Far from shrinking into the background UKIP membership is on the increase
I think that because of the Scottish vote the UK will remain in the EU, the problem is that the English majority want out, this could result in a division between England and Scotland, then there will be a re-match with England leaving the EU. I think the only way around this is for a separate referendum for England and Scotland.
There are more reasons for leaving Europe than staying in We must regain our sovereignty and pass UK law in Westminster, we must regain control of our borders, this is not about race creed and colour it is about a rapidly growing population that will if not brought under control break the country. We are already being warned that many manual jobs will disappear due to technology and this happening in our life time so there will not be jobs for a growing population. We are already feeling the effects of climate change the forecast of far wetter winters is happening and we are experiencing serious flooding to overcome this we need to increase flood plains that will mean a decrease in suitable building land and agriculture. Also to be considered is the loss of land mass due to coastal erosion over the next 50 - 100 years. up until last year we had the highest population density in Europe we need to bring this under control and we cannot do this and remain in the EU
I don’t think it’s as simple as that. We have the experience of the Scottish referendum as a guide. Im convinced that much of the Scottish result was based upon economic fearmongering(some real some imagined). The perceived cost-benefit consequences will play an extremely important role. Just wait until multi-national companies start issuing strongly worded warnings of Brexit in the run-up to the Referendum and we shall see how important the economic issues are. My educated guess is they shall be very important.
I say I don’t care whether they will leave or not but I would like them to because I’m getting tired of this issue already. I’m not a EU membership enthusiast, by the way.
I think you are right about the Scottish referendum The main hope was that they could rely on oil production to strengthen their economy, one thing became clear that oil production is in decline and exploration of other fields could prove to expensive to harvest If Scotland was totally independent the current low oil prices would be causing havoc to their economy.
As we come nearer to the referendum the scaremongers will be out there warning of the tariffs that will be levied against our manufacturing, tariffs are a two way street and companies such as Mercedes, Renault, VW and Ford do not want to see their products become overpriced due to tariffs, a fact that should not be overlooked is that the majority of our export market is outside of the EU also a great deal of investment in the UK is coming from outside of the EU.
(Blatant digression alert!)
Many of us looked beyond that to 30 and 40 years’ hence, and saw the poverty that would ensue.
There was (and remains) also the blatant racism and bullying of the SNP leadership, and it’s really obvious that they care more for personal power than Scotland. I’m not sure if it’s still valid, but I remember doing the calculations a while back and after expenses and everything, a Holyrood MSP costs us more than a Westminster MP.
Exactly.
(/Digression)
It’s going to be an interesting discussion.
Exactly so. An ENORMOUS amount of the financial sector activity in the UK involves firms passporting in from elsewhere in the EEA (or UK firms passporting within the EEA themselves) as well as local subsidiaries. Put up barriers to business and you increase costs, which will dampen business growth.
And yes, the UK could stay in the EEA without being in the EU but:
There’s no significant upside to Brexit from the standpoint of London as a financial centre. It wouldn’t be a crippling blow by any means - the market will adapt - but it wouldn’t help any either.
Ah, the cutting of red tape. This reminds me of something I read in the FT a while back:
*Financial sector, pre-2007 crash: “The FSA is too intrusive! It’s stifling growth! It should stay out of our business!”
Financial sector, post-crash: “Why didn’t the FSA stop this from happening?”*
While legislation is always fraught with inefficiencies and implementation issues, there is an argument for infant retention during bathwater disposal protocol implementation too.
Let me know when UKIP starts “straight talking”. I’ve yet to see any. Usually it’s variations on “FOREIGN PEOPLE BAD”.
…far outpaced by the Green Party on the left. The fringe parties are gaining in large part due to dissatisfaction with the three main parties rather than on the basis of their own merits. UKIP can’t even sort out its own internecine squabbling; it certainly can’t deal with the entirety of the UK.
Let me know when UKIP starts “straight talking”. I’ve yet to see any. Usually it’s variations on “FOREIGN PEOPLE BAD”.
You will start to hear straight talking when the media start straight reporting, the main culprit being the Leftwing BBC. No it is definitely not Foreign People Bad it is about controlling the size of our population, we are a small country and 350,000 economic immigrants a year is far to many, drastically reducing this number will allow us to increase entry to genuine refugees.
Nothing wrong with a little in fighting it shows that we are not little political robots toeing the party line
Actually that’s not true. Year on year they are roughly even, you can find the figures through the Office of National Statistics (links to a web page, giving option to download spreadsheets.
I am not going to disagree with you as I do not have time at present to check the link. It is worth considering that we need EU permission before we are allowed to negotiate and agree contracts with countries outside of the EU. The policy restricts who our manufacturers can export to.
There is no “we”.
You will seem more sane if you express your personal views in First Person, and then talk about the country/state as a distinct concept.
Ah, the battlecry of the UKIPper - “It’s not our fault! The media makes us look bad by reporting things we say!”. In reality the “leftwing BBC” is heavily responsible for the rise of UKIP, having given Nigel Farage a disproportionate amount of free television appearances in the year before the election. You ought to write them a nice note of thanks, really.
That’s the party line (which I note you’re toeing) but in practice it does tend to be “FOREIGN PEOPLE BAD”, whether they’re riding the bus or keeping the NHS from collapsing.
Net migration is currently around 330,000, which admittedly is at the highest point over over ten years - two years ago it was half that rate. I’d be interested to see where your figure of 350,000 economic migrants comes from (and if it’s the Daily Mail, don’t even bother - when it comes to immigrants they’re about as reliable as the Guardian is on proofreading).
Then you must love the Labour Party right now.
Anyhoo, to link this back to the main topic, here’s some bloke from that paragon of the leftwing media the Telegraph:
Wouldn’t the previous eight years, when the market crunch started making several EU countries shake, be way more ripe for an exit than this year?
Oh dear the spelling and grammar police again. It is people like your good self who discourage those with written English problems from having their say. A moderator on another site encouraged me to continue as it encouraged those with written English difficulties to have their say, I would not be surprised if there are a number of visitors to this site who have English as a second language I am sure that you believe as I do that they should be encouraged come on board and contribute to the conversation
That’s both true and false. Different parts of the BBC have different biases. Parts of the BBC have been very biased against the Tories. Parts have delighted in the rise of UKIP. Parts have even been pro-Labour. I went to the BBC Big Debate in Stonehaven last year and there was no Tory on the panel (nor UKIP), despite the Tories being the second party locally.
A question for you: when was the last time the BBC produced a drama that centred on and showed the Tories in a positive light?