Neil Harding has helpfully left a link to this particular bit of propaganda, published by the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform:
My responses (FWIW):
"More than half our exports" and "three million jobs"? Wot? Exports and imports account for 20% of our economy. So ten per cent of jobs are in exports and ten percent in imports (i.e. three million each way). If the EU accounts for half our exports, that's only one-and-a-half-million jobs. And ultimately, the EU can't and won't just boycott us, see points 3 and 8 below.
1. "might"? In other words "wouldn't necessarily"
2. Ditto
3. I am a unilateralist. There is no need to negotiate 'bilateral trade agreements'. We will open our borders to all goods that comply with commonsense safety standards. It is mathematically impossible (in the long term) for us to import more than we export - even if France imposes a boycott on UK goods and services, they will end up buying stuff from the countries who don't boycott us. Further, it is quite easy to negotiate a bilateral trade agreement with the whole EU (Lisbon Treaty, Article 7a).
4. "Research"? "Framework programme"? Wot?
5. It is not rocket science to keep the best bits of "consumer protection protection" (for example, cooling off period for doorstep selling etc), we don't need the EU for that.
6. Ditto "workers rights". A sensible legal system has to balance the 'right-to-strike' with the 'right-of-employers-to-sack-strikers' with the 'right-for-consumers-and-taxpayers-not-to-be-held-to-ransome'. A difficult balance, yes, but being in the EU makes this more difficult, and not easier.
7. Ignoring the fact that this is factually and logically incorrect, I do like the inference that "Without us they'd be even worse". And the word 'British' is meaningless in this context. The last time I looked, this country is called "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", there is no such place as "Britain".
8. Yes, being in the EU must have some advantages. But it's not "inward investment" that I am fussed about any more than "outward investment". Let's get our own economy on an even keel first (80% of our GDP is purely internal, 10% is trade with EU and 10% is trade with non-EU) before we worry about "inward investment". What happens if our economy and our businesses are so successful that we don't need "inward investment'? Why shouldn't we be the ones snapping up overseas companies?
9. Wot? Negotiating with whom exactly? Would an American, Chinese, Japanese or Indian business give a UK business less favourable terms (whether buying or selling) if we left the EU?
10. This is factually and logically incorrect. Yes, if we want to export manufactures to the EU, we would have to comply with their standards, no prob's there. But we could choose to impose higher or lower standards within the UK. Again, they use the word "might", in the sense of "it is theoretically possible". As a matter of fact, Norway and Switzerland pay "market access fees" to the EU of a few hundred £ million a year. Seeing as the EU are net exporters to the UK, I am sure that we could beat them down to similar levels, if not even make them pay fees for access to our markets.
Muh, Far Right
1 hour ago
6 comments:
Mark, seeing as the main argument antis make about the EU are our contributions and the inefficient CAP - then these points are relevant.
If countries like Norway and Switzerland with 4m and 7m populations have to pay £200m-£400m a year (and don't get free access to services markets), then you can bet we will have to pay 15 times that! £8bn a year for access is roughly what we pay now in net contributions, except we will have to abide by EU standards and rules we have had no say in.
Before we joined the EU - tariffs of 10% to 20% on our most exportable goods were common place - our market is tiny in comparison to the EU so threats of tariffs from us will be laughed at - they will hold all the negotiating power - we will have to abide by whatever they offer us.
The bottom line is - if you ask, most UK businesses want us to stay in the EU - they wouldn't want this if they did not think it was better we stayed a member.
Then there is the CAP - two ways of looking at this.
1. If it wasn't for the CAP - agricultural production in the EU would have collapsed. In these times of high food inflation, for both economy and security the more food we can produce domestically, the better.
2. If we look to the US, we see that their farm subsidies are high and targeting inefficient - it is likely that UK farm subsidies would be high anyway, even without the CAP.
So the two strongest arguments of those wanting to leave just do not stand up.
Even if EU membership is not a benefit to the UK, that doesn't mean the alternative of leaving is better.
Neil,
"Before we joined the EU - tariffs of 10% to 20% on our most exportable goods were common place - our market is tiny in comparison to the EU so threats of tariffs from us will be laughed at - they will hold all the negotiating power - we will have to abide by whatever they offer us.
"
But why would we want to retalliate with tariffs? That would hurt British consumers more. Far better we unilaterally drop all trade barriers.
Secondly there is a big difference between free trade and a single market, and negotiating a free trade deal with the EU would be in both parties interests. Norway pays for access to the single market, which is different.
You may also be aware of the statement by the industry comissioner that the costs of single amrket regulation outweight the benefits of the single market by a few times over.
We would bebetter off out.
Neil, those are two of about seven-hundred-and-forty-three arguments for leaving (far outweighing the number of reasons for staying in, and yes, there are some).
Norway and Switzerland pay these fees because they are net exporters to EU. We are net importers, so really we ought to be charging them!
And as V says, if they impose tariffs, so what? The EU (in particular France) already imposes hidden tariffs on everything we do anyway.
As to CAP - all subsidies to land and property ownership are nonsense. (I'd go the other way and charge Land Value Tax). They have no effect on production, if anything they reduce it, because it's like the dole for farmers. CAP was invented as subsidy for inefficient French farmers who are still woefully inefficient.
I agree that US farming subsidies are just as bad, but so what? If they want to sell us subsidised wheat, all the better for us!
V,MW: Britain has never wanted the EU, as a trading nation that exported more to the US and Commonwealth than to Europe, we did our damnest to stop European countries integrating.
But we failed, we cannot possibly stop the EU existing, and while it exists it is better that we are inside this trading bloc just 29 miles off our coast than outside it. This is also why every government and business community on the borders of the EU, desperately wants to join. Both Swiss and Norwegian voters have rejected their governments arguments for joining the EU several times. That is their right - but it is narrow interests (oil and fishing in Norway, financial sector in Switzerland) there that are winning the argument probably to the detriment of the majority.
In Britain, it is more complicated, our initial joining coincided with the first oil shock stagflation and Murdoch and Dacre have ensured continued hostility to membership despite the benefits, due to their own business interest monopolies being threatened.
It would probably be better for the UK if the EU had never existed, but as it does we have to live with it. We cannot pretend that ignoring the EU is a viable option.
We both agree that inside or outside we need to trade with the EU - it may only account for 10% of our exports but even a 2% drop in GDP gives us a recession on the scale of the early eighties and nineties. This was the result of the right-wing government we got under your Tory Bruges Group friends. So for them to talk knowingly what is best for the UK is laughable.
Neither of us know what price the EU will put on giving us access to their single market if we left. We may save money, they may charge us more. My bet is that the stronger negotiating position lies with the EU of 440m than the UK with 60m and it seems most businesses in this country agree, why is that? Norway had its fees for access put up 10 fold in 2004, there was nothing it could do but grumble, concede and pay up. Is that where we want the UK to be? And even without the CAP we would have to pay significant amounts to our farmers - like they do in the US.
The Tories play Euro-sceptic games, but no serious party advocates withdrawal from the EU, for a very simple reason - the economy would be crippled.
Yes, it is in everyone's interest to remove trade barriers, but that would not stop the EU putting tariffs on our goods if we did not maintain the payments we currently pay (or more). It would hurt us more to lose out in a 440m customer market than it would for them. The UK has a trade deficit with most countries, by comparison our deficit with the EU is very small. The figures you have to look at are that, 10% of our exports goes to the EU, while only 4% of EU exports come to the UK. The UK would suffer much more which is why we would get hammered in negotiation. It would be much worse than what we managed to negotiate upon gaining membership.
Neil, if we left the EU we would get our fisheries back, and London is far more important that Switzerland in terms of financial sector. And we can divvy up the oil between England and Scotland. So I don't see where your argument leads.
Your whole argument seems to be based on "The EU would impose tariffs on us if we left", in other words, you think we ought to give in to bullying and blackmail. You have not offered one fundamental reason for staying in other than these threats, which I assume to be idle, worst case, they're not.
So what? We trade with plenty of other countries without being in a political union. Trade will always find a way!
And as to your 2% recession, the early 1990s will seem like a walk in the park compared to what's going to happen over the next couple of years under Nulab.
Post a Comment