Brexit?

[Rachel_X]

Should the UK leave and try to change the EU organisation from outside by negotiation? IF the UK leaves it will have a significant impact on the whole EU structure and not just by the removal of the money the UK pays to the EU. It will encourage other countries to think that leaving might be a good idea too.

The EU would crumble without the UK's money. It would be left to France and Germany to prop everyone else up and they simply can't afford it. The EU is already in a bad state in terms of money and taking away one of the biggest contributors will leave it without a spare penny.

Not only that, other countries have already mentioned leaving as well.
There could be a few more referendums down the line in Europe.

 

[suckonsimon]

For all the complaints of those saying they'll vote leave, many will get wiser at the ballot box and decide that crashing the economy is not so clever. In, we can reform the EU in those aspects it needs reform, as now widely recognised in other EU member nations

 

[oggbashan]

For all the complaints of those saying they'll vote leave, many will get wiser at the ballot box and decide that crashing the economy is not so clever. In, we can reform the EU in those aspects it needs reform, as now widely recognised in other EU member nations

"We can reform the EU"?

We have been trying for years, and failing. David Cameron's negotiations were the last chance saloon and he was prevented from even asking for what he really wanted because those reforms were 'impossible' within the Treaty.

EU states are beginning to regret that the concessions offered to the UK were so minimal because they are beginning to appreciate that a vote for OUT is a possible outcome.

Several EU states already face considerable internal opposition to the EU for a variety of reasons. If the UK votes for Out then those opposition movements could make significant political progress in Germany, France, Spain, The Netherlands... Those currently in power in many EU states are worried that they could be displaced at their next elections as a result of a Brexit.

The UK's referendum could have as much impact across Europe as the mid 19th Century revolutions - and in some countries the consequences could be very unpleasant.

Those who run the EU now are panicking because they see their unelected power being lost and the whole EU project 'wrecked' by a UK exit. Their warnings to British voters are getting more desperate and threatening.

Edited for PS:

Why did David Cameron agree to hold a referendum on EU Membership if, as he says now, the consequences of a vote to leave are so disastrous?

Answer - Because he couldn't hold the Conservative anti-EU members together without a promise of a referendum. But that shows he was thinking more about his political party than the country.

 

[JackLuis]

Perhaps this is a silly question, but why are not the EU bureaucrats elected? Why is there not a EU parliament elected by the people in proportion to the population of the countries and an executive elected by the EU Parliament?

Silly Europeans.

 

[oggbashan]

Perhaps this is a silly question, but why are not the EU bureaucrats elected? Why is there not a EU parliament elected by the people in proportion to the population of the countries and an executive elected by the EU Parliament?

Silly Europeans.

There is an elected European Parliament. It has very little power compared with all the unelected bureaucrats. That is one of the things the UK wanted to change but 'that can't be done - it would mean changing the Treaty'.

 

[underguy1]

I can't imagine why anyone would want to remain in the ship of venal, neoliberal fools that is the EU.

It is a corporatist mad house run by neoclassically trained morons who have no concept of humanity.

Look at what they've done to Greece if you want to see what the EU is about.

Countries and economies are not businesses and they don't function anything like businesses.

 

[underguy1]

For all the complaints of those saying they'll vote leave, many will get wiser at the ballot box and decide that crashing the economy is not so clever. In, we can reform the EU in those aspects it needs reform, as now widely recognised in other EU member nations

You've fallen for Project Fear and believe in magic.

 

[underguy1]

The EU would crumble without the UK's money. It would be left to France and Germany to prop everyone else up and they simply can't afford it. The EU is already in a bad state in terms of money and taking away one of the biggest contributors will leave it without a spare penny.

Not only that, other countries have already mentioned leaving as well.
There could be a few more referendums down the line in Europe.

Nonsense. You can't spend (or save) pounds outside the sterling zone. If the EU is spending pounds, it is spending them buying goods and services in the UK.

 

[Rachel_X]

Nonsense. You can't spend (or save) pounds outside the sterling zone. If the EU is spending pounds, it is spending them buying goods and services in the UK.

I think you got the wrong end of the stick there.
I wasn't talking about the UK's currency, I was talking about the billions that the UK gives to the EU every year to keep it afloat. Without that it falls on Germany and France to prop up the rest of the countries.
It simply can't be done because they've been walking a thin line for years now and if you take away 1/3 of their income then they're up shit creek without a paddle.

 

[BotanyBoy]

The trade will still be there if Brexit happens though.
Unless of course the EU stops it to spite Britain, which is something they've done in the past.

I bet the EU comes up off their bullshit before UK goes third world shithole.

UK should grab the purse strings and see what happens after that sends 'the collective' into a total fucking panic.

oh, it's already happening. the fear-mongers have the markets rattled. down to about 1.41 against the US, and the pound was at 1.99 against the aussie dollar last week, dropped to 1.92!

the baht has gained an insignificant amount - which is my current 'watch'.

Currency trader?

 

[underguy1]

I think you got the wrong end of the stick there.
I wasn't talking about the UK's currency, I was talking about the billions that the UK gives to the EU every year to keep it afloat. Without that it falls on Germany and France to prop up the rest of the countries.
It simply can't be done because they've been walking a thin line for years now and if you take away 1/3 of their income then they're up shit creek without a paddle.

How are they separate issues? Do you have any clue of what you're talking about?

I'll say it again. If the UK is giving the EU pounds sterling then the EU can only spend those pounds in the sterling zone.

The UK, Germany or anyone else can no more "prop up" the EU than they can perform magic. It's a concept that has no basis in macroeconomic reality.

 

[Rachel_X]

How are they separate issues? Do you have any clue of what you're talking about?

I'll say it again. If the UK is giving the EU pounds sterling then the EU can only spend those pounds in the sterling zone.

The UK, Germany or anyone else can no more "prop up" the EU than they can perform magic. It's a concept that has no basis in macroeconomic reality.

Do you not know how global economy works?
Every pound has a value in euros. They convert them.
I think it's pretty clear that you're the one who has no idea what you're talking about.
It's the same concept as using a credit/debit card abroad. The banks convert your currency into the currency of the country you're in using their exchange rate.

 

[Scotsman69]

Yesterday's murder of a young vibrant pro-Remain Labour MP will dent the Leave campaign's supposed poll lead.

 

[oggbashan]

Yesterday's murder of a young vibrant pro-Remain Labour MP will dent the Leave campaign's supposed poll lead.

If the polls are as good as they were at forecasting the last General Election result - we don't have a clue which way the vote will go.

It doesn't matter whether Jo Cox MP was for or against. She was good, hard working Member of Parliament popular with the people she represented, and trying to do her best. We need people like her as MPs, whatever party they stand for.

 

[underguy1]

Do you not know how global economy works?
Every pound has a value in euros. They convert them.
I think it's pretty clear that you're the one who has no idea what you're talking about.
It's the same concept as using a credit/debit card abroad. The banks convert your currency into the currency of the country you're in using their exchange rate.

Sterling is a non-convertible currency. Pounds can be exchanged for other currencies but not 'converted'. Somebody has to want those pounds.

The difference is essential to understanding the subject you are bloviating upon.

Which you don't.

 

[DeYaKen]

Why it's not democratic.

Perhaps this is a silly question, but why are not the EU bureaucrats elected? Why is there not a EU parliament elected by the people in proportion to the population of the countries and an executive elected by the EU Parliament?

Silly Europeans.

The reason EU Bureaucrats are not elected is because it was never designed to be what it is. It just grew.

What is now the EU, started life as the European Coal and Steel Community. It purpose was to trade coal and steel without barriers. The lack of barriers also had to apply to the importing of expertise, so there was free movement of labour. The underlying purpose of the organisation was to make the original countries so interdependent, economically, that they could never go to war with each other again. There was no need for democracy because it was only trade. It was set up to be run by a council of ministers. These would have been the trade ministers of the governments of member states. Each state had one minister and each minister had one vote. The voting was deliberately not proportional to population, in order to avoid Germany, with its large population, steamrollering other nations.

The organisation became the EEC and started making rules which had to be applied in each member state. The European Commission was formed at this point because it would take up too much of the ministers time, drafting European laws and directives. The governance of the commission was the same as the council of ministers except that the commissioners were not elected by anyone to do anything. Mostly they were ex-politicians or people who had done favours for the governments of the member states.

The parliament came into being in the 1970s but was just a talking shop, with no power, But it's make up did represent the differing populations in the member states. When the EEC became the European Community the level of law making increased and all members had to accept that European law took precedence over domestic law in member states. To appease countries like Britain The Parliament was given the power to reject EU laws. However, 30% still are not referred to the parliament.

The movement to closer political union gave us the Schengen agreement which meant the complete removal of border controls within the EU (Except Britain) So we now have a European superstate Still being run along the lines of a trade organisation. Why has nobody changed it? Because small member states can wield enormous power and they will not give that up. Making the EU democratic would mean that it was dominated by Britain an d Germany (The countries with the largest populations) Even if you could persuade the governments to do this, Many member states, like France and Ireland, have domestic laws that require a referendum to ratify any treaty change. There is no way you could persuade those countries to give up the disproportional amount of power that they now control.

At present if Parliament votes down a bill it goes into tripartite, where equal numbers of representatives from the parliament, the Council and the Commission get together to find a compromise. The elected body is outnumbered 2:1 by the unelected. So the final power rests with the unelected bodies.

 

[JackLuis]

Thanks for the info DeYaKen.

 

[Blue]

I would be so much happier if the mess that is the political union of the EU would just internally reform and become a large federated super-state or an entire country in and of itself.
I'm strongly in the stay camp, I watch the debates, I read the news and scan threads like these because even small bubbles like this are an important source of new perspectives, but I haven't yet heard one convincing economic argument to leave the EU that can't be logically dismantled by another person.

I know a bunch of people will dislike me for stating this but I get the impression that the Leave campaign is just the Scottish referendum all over again; a group of hyper-nationalists preying on people's gullibility, laziness and reflex patriotism to try and get their own lines on the map again.
Precious lines and colours...

But I have become apathetic to continued debate on the issue and I'm taking the exact same stance I'm taking with the USA presidential election and the current escalating tensions with Russia; Grab a deck chair and a parasol, a cool drink, a pair of shades and just wait and see if everything goes up in flames or not. And if it does, then I get a nice view of the approaching tidal flames.

 

[underguy1]

I would be so much happier if the mess that is the political union of the EU would just internally reform and become a large federated super-state or an entire country in and of itself.
I'm strongly in the stay camp, I watch the debates, I read the news and scan threads like these because even small bubbles like this are an important source of new perspectives, but I haven't yet heard one convincing economic argument to leave the EU that can't be logically dismantled by another person.

I know a bunch of people will dislike me for stating this but I get the impression that the Leave campaign is just the Scottish referendum all over again; a group of hyper-nationalists preying on people's gullibility, laziness and reflex patriotism to try and get their own lines on the map again.
Precious lines and colours...

But I have become apathetic to continued debate on the issue and I'm taking the exact same stance I'm taking with the USA presidential election and the current escalating tensions with Russia; Grab a deck chair and a parasol, a cool drink, a pair of shades and just wait and see if everything goes up in flames or not. And if it does, then I get a nice view of the approaching tidal flames.

What is the economic argument for staying in?

Surely the sorry economic performance of the EU is no reason to remain. Why sign up to the neoliberal fiscal rules that the EU imposes that cause depression era levels of unemployment?

 

[DeYaKen]

What is the economic argument for staying in?

Surely the sorry economic performance of the EU is no reason to remain. Why sign up to the neoliberal fiscal rules that the EU imposes that cause depression era levels of unemployment?

The Economic performance of the EU is not that bad in world terms and parts of it are still doing well. It is the headline grabbers of Spain and Greece that make it look a lot worse than it is. Much of the problems encountered by those struggling countries are down to the common currency. An experiment that was doomed from the beginning. Having a common currency without common fiscal control or taxation was always going to fail.

Frances youth unemployment is high but employment as a whole is not even approaching depression levels. Britain is an EU member, no unemployment problems there. Belgium, Ditto. Germany ditto, Sweden, the most neoliberal or downright socialist of them all, is doing well. In fact, it seems that Britain is the only country doing relatively well, having resisted what you call neoliberalism. Don't forget that the worst performer, Spain, was a fascist country not so long ago.

 

[oggbashan]

One of the economic arguments for leaving the EU is the Common Agricultural Policy that protects small uneconomic farming inside the EU and puts up prices of imported food, damaging third world food exports.

It was designed to protect small scale French farmers who have formidable political clout in France but it means EU consumers pay higher prices for food than free competition would provide. It also has benefits for wildlife and bio-diversity but those factors could be provided more cheaply without the CAP.

The main economic argument is the extensive and expensive regulation demanded by the EU on a wide range of goods and services. US citizens who complain about big federal government interfering in their lives have seen nothing like the rules set by the EU. Some of them are 'socialist' in the derogatory US sense of the word.

The UK, or other countries, could elect a right wing government but still be constrained by the left-wing bias of EU institutions.

Even if a UK voter isn't influenced by immigration or economics, the EU's management is a cluster-fuck. IF the EU could change? But see DeYaKen's post #41 above which explains why it can't.

What would be good for the UK, and for Europe, was a completely redesigned EU organisation. We are NEVER going to get that in the EU. Do we live with the EU as it is? Or do we want it to change drastically?

If we vote in, we vote for the familiar mess we have.

If we vote out, we vote for - we don't know what. It might be better. It could be worse.

 

[CharlieB4]

One of the economic arguments for leaving the EU is the Common Agricultural Policy that protects small uneconomic farming inside the EU and puts up prices of imported food, damaging third world food exports.

It was designed to protect small scale French farmers who have formidable political clout in France but it means EU consumers pay higher prices for food than free competition would provide. It also has benefits for wildlife and bio-diversity but those factors could be provided more cheaply without the CAP.

The main economic argument is the extensive and expensive regulation demanded by the EU on a wide range of goods and services. US citizens who complain about big federal government interfering in their lives have seen nothing like the rules set by the EU. Some of them are 'socialist' in the derogatory US sense of the word.

The UK, or other countries, could elect a right wing government but still be constrained by the left-wing bias of EU institutions.


Even if a UK voter isn't influenced by immigration or economics, the EU's management is a cluster-fuck. IF the EU could change? But see DeYaKen's post #41 above which explains why it can't.

What would be good for the UK, and for Europe, was a completely redesigned EU organisation. We are NEVER going to get that in the EU. Do we live with the EU as it is? Or do we want it to change drastically?

If we vote in, we vote for the familiar mess we have.

If we vote out, we vote for - we don't know what. It might be better. It could be worse.

The CAP protects all farmers in the EU. English, Dutch, German and the rest would all fold if they had to solely rely on what they get for their produce on the world market. So unfortunately if the EU and therefore the CAP collapses then all countries in Europe would immediately reintroduce tariffs and trade barriers to protect their uncompetitive agricultural sector so consumers would continue to pay more.

 

[Hard_Rom]

I would think the same rules protect small scale British farms too. Even with NAFTA Canada protects Canadian business and agriculture. Without such protections it would all be corporation farms and 3rd world foodstuffs. Farmers punch way over their weight class in most countries. Even urban folk appreciate the small family farm.

I'm probably one of the few Imperialists left but I would love to see a true United States of Europe with jolly old England taking a leading role.

Then again they can take any talk of a united North America and shove it!

Hard to compete or combat huge united populations and their buying power. In resources and land, Canada is a leading power. In population we are a tiny fish in a pool of sharks. With one of the biggest with it's eye on us. When it can be bothered to notice us.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I would think the same rules protect small scale British farms too. Even with NAFTA Canada protects Canadian business and agriculture. Without such protections it would all be corporation farms and 3rd world foodstuffs.

Bullshit, Monsanto and others have been railroading your farmers for decades.

Even urban folk appreciate the small family farm.

LMFAO!! no they don't....they go buy processed shit from wal mart.

I'm probably one of the few Imperialists left but I would love to see a true United States of Europe with jolly old England taking a leading role.

Then again they can take any talk of a united North America and shove it!

Ohhhhhhhhh good for thee but not for mee....typical

 

[DeYaKen]

The CAP protects all farmers in the EU. English, Dutch, German and the rest would all fold if they had to solely rely on what they get for their produce on the world market. So unfortunately if the EU and therefore the CAP collapses then all countries in Europe would immediately reintroduce tariffs and trade barriers to protect their uncompetitive agricultural sector so consumers would continue to pay more.

This is simply not true. Remove the subsidies provided by the CAP and farmers would have to become more business-like and demand a fair price from their customers. There is nothing special or romantic about farming it is a business. With no subsidies the market would be forced to pay more for the produce because they can't get it cheaper elsewhere. The difference is that with no one paying for surplus produce farmers would have to get better at managing production.
Some smaller farms would go to the wall others would concentrate on niche markets. The CAP has a dual purpose. It allows small farms (only 12 cows) to scrape a living. and it reduces the cost of food to the consumer. Neither of these is particularly desirable. For the benefit of those across the pond the CAP also guarantees a minimum price for farm produce. All the farmer has to do is produce the goods. If they can't sell it the EU will buy it at the minimum price. This has led to huge surpluses some of which has been sold at a loss and more often than that it has just been dumped. This has had some terrible effects on agriculture in third world countries. The EU sold off their surplus to those countries at prices below the local cost of production driving those farmers out of business.