I'm doubtful whether newspaper recommendations are going to make all that much difference in the EU referendum either way. For starters far fewer people read newspapers than used to. Next, many of those who still do read newspapers do so online and simply don't see the editorial comments. Finally, newspapers seem to be following their readers on this subject rather than the other way around.
@runnymede - Fair points, although you do also need to include services to get the whole picture (imperfect though the Single Market for services still is).
It's a difficult analysis to make, however - increasing exports to non-EU countries could arise precisely because there has also been a reduction in the barriers to trade (which previously were higher than intra-Europe) with non-EU countries as a result of WTO agreements, plus of course the larger share of world prosperity in emerging and newly-developed markets.
I'm certainly open to persuasion that we could leave the EU, negotiate a trade deal with them, and not suffer much or possibly any significant economic harm in the medium to long term. I can't see how there wouldn't be a short-term hit, because of the period of uncertainty over two or more years, and that needs to be included in any realistic assessment.
As I said, I'm still waiting to hear a coherent and realistic proposal.
That's alright Richard, we are all waiting to hear a coherent and realistic proposal for what staying in the EU would entail as well. What we do know is that it won't be what Cameron is promising and it won't be a continuation of what we have now.
Any thoughts on what the newspapers will recommend?
I'd say the Guardian, Indy and Mirror will definitely be IN, the Sun and Express definitely OUT, interesting see what the Mail and Telegraph tell readers to do.
I am not certain Sun will definitely be out. They might along with their stablemate (The Times) be a Polly Nose Peg (TM) for staying in.
Oh, if rcs1000 is around, I remember we had a discussion previously about import and export figures after stripping out imports and exports that just transit through other countries or use the UK as a transit zone. My intern worked out that stripping out the majority of these effects shows that we export around 29-35% of our goods to the EU as the final destination. The official "exports to EU" are about 40% currently, so there is a fairly large amount of goods that just transit through the EU and then onwards to Africa and Asia either by land, rail or sea.
That sounds fairly plausible, given that the EU (exc. UK) accounts for around 20% of world GDP (nominal, IMF 2014 figures).
On the timing issue I can see one further reason why Cameron would want to go early - ignoring the migrant crisis for a moment.
Both Germany and France have a full round of Parliamentary and Presidential elections in 2017. I can hardly imagine that the incumbents in either country want to go into the campaigns whilst being asked to make major concessions to the UK. For that reason I think it would be much harder for Cameron to achieve or claim any sort of victory - even on the very slight terms he is currently advocating - with French and German political campaigning in full swing.
If companies cannot export unless they are a member of a single market with their customers how on earth do UK companies managed to sell into the USA, China, Brazil, Australia, South Korea etc. etc.?
With more difficulty, expense and paperwork than when they sell to Germany or France.
This really isn't hard.
Not that much more paperwork or difficulty. Tariffs are probably the biggest complaint, but even then as the fifth largest economy I don't foresee many countries putting up barriers to trade with the UK if we left.
As Sean_F points out, if the cost of leaving the EU is 1-2% knocked of GDP then that is a price well worth paying for the return of our sovereignty. It would still leave us as the fifth largest economy and once it all shakes out. We trade with enough nations around the world without having free trade agreements and we do it just fine, not having one with the EU wouldn't be the end of the world, if anything given that we buy more from them than they do from us it may rebalance our economy towards domestic production rather than imports from Germany.
Max what can we not do domestically now that if we left the EU we would be able to do? Can be anything I would just like to anchor myself in an actual example of the EU interfering with an intra-UK issue.
For one we would be able to broker our own free trade deals, two we would have our own foreign policy, though I expect we would still consult with the French and Nato on military incursions, and thirdly we could reclaim our place in the WTO, who are a better arbiter of unfair or illegal trade barriers than the ECJ are for Britain wrt to EU/UK trade.
Thanks. I'm not sure that is the smoking gun that people will need if they are to be convinced to vote OUT.
I am pretty sure we have our own foreign policy now and regardless of EU status would consult with the French/Germans, just as we do and have with the US.
Free trade/WTO? Meh. Not going to get the troops out on the ground. Whether it should or not is a different matter but people are hugely indifferent on the minutiae of trade deals.
There is nothing there in there that is hugely compelling. To me.
It's a theoretical difference, not a practical one - as your own link says:
The EEA Agreement does therefore include an emergency brake as a ‘nuclear option’, which could be used to bring the EU to the negotiating table rather than as an indefinite policy tool. The outcome of any such negotiations would ultimately be determined politically. Norway has never used the safeguard measures for this purpose
(The Liechtenstein example which follows predates the current EU directive, and in any case was a temporary thing).
In practical terms, leaving the EU and joining the EEA would make no discernible difference as regards immigration. Exactly the same directive applies. Anyone thinking of voting Leave on the basis that it woud make a difference to immigration even if we joined the EEA is kidding himself.
Also you said that under EEA rules we could restrict freedom of movement to workers only. Wrong. Directive 2004/38/EC applies identically.
Like I said, I'm not arguing for the EEA. However, just because Norway has never chosen to use it does not make it theoretical. In fact, it's this very power that Cameron was (unsuccessfully) trying to renegotiate as recently as late last year.
EEA rules do give Norway more flexibility on workers and benefits too. I can't find the link at the moment (on my phone between meetings) but this echoes what Robert Smithson was saying recently.
If your argument is that leaving isn't a magic wand to control immigration, then I agree. It will involve some tough policy choices. We might be able to reduce it by 75-100k a year but not quite to the tens of thousands.
So be it. I'd consider net immigration in the 150-200k bracket a good start and worth it.
Any thoughts on what the newspapers will recommend?
I'd say the Guardian, Indy and Mirror will definitely be IN, the Sun and Express definitely OUT, interesting see what the Mail and Telegraph tell readers to do.
The Sun may well be a very reluctant and heavy-hearted IN.
"I’ve long taken the view, which is backed up by the polling, that Cameron’s recommendation will be absolutely vital and that the side he supports will win."
I have to agree with Mike. Cameron has an authority over certain "swing" voters which others don't.
''''Maybe Remain can rely on inertia or fear of worse, but I expect more from PB frankly. ''
It should be pointed out that a good deal of the in stuff so far is veiled threats. Threats of violence in Northern Ireland. Threats of the City being decimated. Threats about national security.
"I’ve long taken the view, which is backed up by the polling, that Cameron’s recommendation will be absolutely vital and that the side he supports will win."
I have to agree with Mike. Cameron has an authority over certain "swing" voters which others don't.
Thanks. I'm not sure that is the smoking gun that people will need if they are to be convinced to vote OUT.
I am pretty sure we have our own foreign policy now and regardless of EU status would consult with the French/Germans, just as we do and have with the US.
Free trade/WTO? Meh. Not going to get the troops out on the ground. Whether it should or not is a different matter but people are hugely indifferent on the minutiae of trade deals.
There is nothing there in there that is hugely compelling. To me.
Hi Topping. I notice that you original question asked specifically about domestic policy. This is I think a much neglected area where we could and would see substantial improvements if we were outside the EU.
The reason I say this is because the monies that come back to us from the EU for CAP or other EU funded projects come with both significant conditions attached to them and the requirement in many cases for matched funding from the UK Government. The projects receiving funding are also decided by the EU following their own criteria and priorities rather than by the UK.
We are therefore in the crazy situation where we give money to the EU and they then decide to give a portion of it back to projects of their choosing in the UK, setting their own criteria as to how those projects should be completed and demanding that as a condition of giving us back some of our money the UK Government matches that funding.
If we were outside the EU then it would be the UK Government who could decide the levels of subsidy, what projects receive funding and what the priorities and conditions of that funding would be.
Farmers have seen never ending shifting of priorities and conditions to receive EU grants over the last couple of decades and it has greatly harmed both their ability to plan ahead and their ability to protect fragile areas of countryside. Having such policies decided at national rather than supra-national level would provide a lot more stability and a set of policies decided with far more consideration given to local and national conditions rather than Europewide conditions.
Any thoughts on what the newspapers will recommend?
I'd say the Guardian, Indy and Mirror will definitely be IN, the Sun and Express definitely OUT, interesting see what the Mail and Telegraph tell readers to do.
I am not certain Sun will definitely be out. They might along with their stablemate (The Times) be a Polly Nose Peg (TM) for staying in.
Big business will make sure Telegraph goes for IN. FT definitely.
@runnymede - Fair points, although you do also need to include services to get the whole picture (imperfect though the Single Market for services still is).
It's a difficult analysis to make, however - increasing exports to non-EU countries could arise precisely because there has also been a reduction in the barriers to trade (which previously were higher than intra-Europe) with non-EU countries as a result of WTO agreements, plus of course the larger share of world prosperity in emerging and newly-developed markets.
I'm certainly open to persuasion that we could leave the EU, negotiate a trade deal with them, and not suffer much or possibly any significant economic harm in the medium to long term. I can't see how there wouldn't be a short-term hit, because of the period of uncertainty over two or more years, and that needs to be included in any realistic assessment.
As I said, I'm still waiting to hear a coherent and realistic proposal.
Given that the single market for services is so poor it wouldn't surprise me if the figures were even more biased towards RoW trade than EU trade.
You list WTO agreements as a reason for why we can trade more easily with non-EU nations, but the EU is a signatory to the WTO as are we, if we left the EU it's not like they could throw up a huge barrier or blockade without us going to the WTO.
A realistic proposal is to have no free trade deal with the EU. Given that we buy more from there than they buy from here and that the single market for services is, as you say, imperfect and finally that our exports are biased towards services, there is a case that says there is no need for a free trade deal with the EU unless they give us full market access for services, which we haven't been able to get for 30 years from within the EU.
Free trade in goods favours them much more than it does for us, by a huge amount, I see no reason to give them a leg up by opening up a free trade deal for goods while they continue keep the majority of their markets closed for services.
I have to say that the arguments on the EU vs the EEA vs WTO vs Something Else and who can do what to whom and how make my ears bleed. I'd rather do some urgent dusting, TBH.
What I'd really like to hear - and rarely do - is what the EU proposes next in terms of the future for the EU, both the eurozone and those outside. The argument (to me anyway) seems to me to be less about what would happen if we left (I think Britain would cope fine, eventually, but there would be short-term costs) and whatever apparent concessions Cameron may get - which I tend to discount - but the difference between leaving and staying in a EU heading off into somewhere other than the status quo. What the direction is and what it means for the UK in practical terms is what I want to know - and I don't feel that I do.
I'd like to have that spelled out by the pro-EU side and, indeed, by the EU themselves.
For instance, the EU currently has competence I believe in the Justice area. Does the EU envisage extending that to having one EU-wide criminal justice system? Does that mean that we would lose trial by jury, the burden and standard of proof, the rules on hearsay, habeus corpus etc?
These may sound like technical arguments of interest only to lawyers but they are not because they are, to my mind anyway, bound up with a particular view of the relationship between the state and the citizen, freedom under the rule of law and the state not behaving oppressively i.e. with an important part of Britain's identity. Would this be lost if we stayed and the EU developed in the way that it seems to be developing? And the same approach could be taken to a number of other issues.
The choice between the status quo - however tweaked - and Leave is a false one for me, because the status quo simply is not an option. The Ghost of Europe Future needs to speak up.
Thanks. I'm not sure that is the smoking gun that people will need if they are to be convinced to vote OUT.
I am pretty sure we have our own foreign policy now and regardless of EU status would consult with the French/Germans, just as we do and have with the US.
Free trade/WTO? Meh. Not going to get the troops out on the ground. Whether it should or not is a different matter but people are hugely indifferent on the minutiae of trade deals.
There is nothing there in there that is hugely compelling. To me.
Well when it came to sanctions on Russia for illegally entering Ukraine we had a massive EU merry go round with Germany holding up serious sanctions until it was too late and Putin had locked in his strategy. The US was ramping up their sanctions and rhetoric while the EU dawdled because Germany were worried about losing a few exports. I would say that's important.
Given that the major argument for In is free trade, I would't dismiss it. If Out can present WTO membership as a viable alternative to EU membership it would neutralise one of the major In arguments.
Any thoughts on what the newspapers will recommend?
I'd say the Guardian, Indy and Mirror will definitely be IN, the Sun and Express definitely OUT, interesting see what the Mail and Telegraph tell readers to do.
The Sun may well be a very reluctant and heavy-hearted IN.
I have a look at most papers online every morning, the Sun seems very anti EU, the Mirror barely mentions it.
Thanks. I'm not sure that is the smoking gun that people will need if they are to be convinced to vote OUT.
I am pretty sure we have our own foreign policy now and regardless of EU status would consult with the French/Germans, just as we do and have with the US.
Free trade/WTO? Meh. Not going to get the troops out on the ground. Whether it should or not is a different matter but people are hugely indifferent on the minutiae of trade deals.
There is nothing there in there that is hugely compelling. To me.
Hi Topping. I notice that you original question asked specifically about domestic policy. This is I think a much neglected area where we could and would see substantial improvements if we were outside the EU.
The reason I say this is because the monies that come back to us from the EU for CAP or other EU funded projects come with both significant conditions attached to them and the requirement in many cases for matched funding from the UK Government. The projects receiving funding are also decided by the EU following their own criteria and priorities rather than by the UK.
We are therefore in the crazy situation where we give money to the EU and they then decide to give a portion of it back to projects of their choosing in the UK, setting their own criteria as to how those projects should be completed and demanding that as a condition of giving us back some of our money the UK Government matches that funding.
If we were outside the EU then it would be the UK Government who could decide the levels of subsidy, what projects receive funding and what the priorities and conditions of that funding would be.
Farmers have seen never ending shifting of priorities and conditions to receive EU grants over the last couple of decades and it has greatly harmed both their ability to plan ahead and their ability to protect fragile areas of countryside. Having such policies decided at national rather than supra-national level would provide a lot more stability and a set of policies decided with far more consideration given to local and national conditions rather than Europewide conditions.
And that was the kind of thing I was interested in. That makes a lot more (non)sense than nebulous trade deals where the nuances of outcome are to most people neither here nor there.
The justice area has pushed me into Leave. I value our sovereignty too highly here as well as borders. These are core values, not temporary trade blips.
I have to say that the arguments on the EU vs the EEA vs WTO vs Something Else and who can do what to whom and how make my ears bleed. I'd rather do some urgent dusting, TBH.
What I'd really like to hear - and rarely do - is what the EU proposes next in terms of the future for the EU, both the eurozone and those outside. The argument (to me anyway) seems to me to be less about what would happen if we left (I think Britain would cope fine, eventually, but there would be short-term costs) and whatever apparent concessions Cameron may get - which I tend to discount - but the difference between leaving and staying in a EU heading off into somewhere other than the status quo. What the direction is and what it means for the UK in practical terms is what I want to know - and I don't feel that I do.
I'd like to have that spelled out by the pro-EU side and, indeed, by the EU themselves.
For instance, the EU currently has competence I believe in the Justice area. Does the EU envisage extending that to having one EU-wide criminal justice system? Does that mean that we would lose trial by jury, the burden and standard of proof, the rules on hearsay, habeus corpus etc?
These may sound like technical arguments of interest only to lawyers but they are not because they are, to my mind anyway, bound up with a particular view of the relationship between the state and the citizen, freedom under the rule of law and the state not behaving oppressively i.e. with an important part of Britain's identity. Would this be lost if we stayed and the EU developed in the way that it seems to be developing? And the same approach could be taken to a number of other issues.
The choice between the status quo - however tweaked - and Leave is a false one for me, because the status quo simply is not an option. The Ghost of Europe Future needs to speak up.
Kevin Schofield @PolhomeEditor 12m12 minutes ago No 10 backs Chief of Defence Staff in Corbyn row: "It's reasonable for him to talk about how we maintain the credibility (of Trident)."
He is the outgoing CDS so for him it was a shot to nothing... Appropriately enough he was simply getting his retaliation in early.
I have to say ultimately I view the decision that needs to be made in a similar way to Sean Fear. If Britain decides to leave the EU I'm sure we'll come up with some working arrangement or other with the rest of the EU. It may not be the economically optimal route but that's less important to me than getting the route that's most consistent with the best way forward for Britain's identity.
Where I part from Sean Fear is that he assumes that a Britain outside the EU would be a better Britain than a Britain in the EU. That is far from obvious to me at present and I am waiting to hear the competing visions of how Britain would progress either inside the EU or outside it. I expect that I shall be waiting a very long time indeed.
We've been progressing inside the EU for 40 years. Is that not vision enough for you?
As Sean_F points out, if the cost of leaving the EU is 1-2% knocked of GDP then that is a price well worth paying for the return of our sovereignty.
OK, if that is what the Leave side argue, let them argue it. They would have to accept that that means accepting a large number of job losses, obviously. They'd also need to spell out exactly what they mean by 'return of our sovereignty'. Sovereignty in what areas, exactly? Presumably not product type approvals, for example, but what else?
My gripe is not that I disagree with the Leave side's arguments, it's that they are not even getting to first base and telling me what they are advocating. That's why we keep going round in circles with people still mentioning the EEA option, which seems to me unambiguously the worst of all worlds.
I personally wouldn't advocate joining the EEA, it just seems like paying for nothing. Better to do a bilateral trade deal, it won't be as good as what we have now, but given what we have now is quite poor the difference would be negligible.
Return of sovereignty is return of border controls and return of our foreign policy (see the Russia sanctions farce with Germany not willing to push for harsher sanctions because it would hurt their industries). Beyond that we would save £8bn per year even if we decided to maintain all of the current levels of funding that the EU spends in the UK (development funding mostly in Wales and agricultural subsidies). If we replaced the EU programmes with more efficient ones then we could get savings beyond the £8bn per year.
With respect you are living in a day dream. By all means be the only major country in Europe not in the EEA. Let's forget Switzerland which already has 25% immigrant population anyway. It's hardly a market for the size of inward investment we have at stake and it does not have the countless hundreds of thousands of citizens living in Europe that we have either. A trade deal with the EU involves free movement of labour ... It involves the single market and its rules. Defacto EEA. Far from throwing out the EEA, I see it as the only realistic chance of persuading the public to leave the EU.
I wish the Sun and Daily Mail would stop attacking Corbyn for every single thing like the bow / not bow...only because it means that the following day my twitter feed and facebook timeline is then swamped by anti-Mail / NI posts and pro-Corbyn ones, and I then miss much more important stuff.
There is also some interesting data from the WTO/OECD on value-added measures of trade which shows the EU's importance as a final destination market for UK goods is overstated by standard trade data (this is the result of complex supply chains and related double-counting). On a value-added basis, the EU's share of goods trade was 41.5% in 2011, about 6% points below the level given by gross trade data.
I wish the Sun and Daily Mail would stop attacking Corbyn for every single thing like the bow / not bow...only because it means that the following day my twitter feed and facebook timeline is then swamped by anti-Mail / NI posts and pro-Corbyn ones, and I then miss much more important stuff.
"it wasn’t only negative, what happened in the riots. And I think that those people clearly are part of what, of the people that need to be organised and need to find a political expression and social organisation… But it’s also an opportunity. It’s a huge opportunity to channel that anger."
Was that what he was taught to think brought up in a good Beeboid / Winchester School household? I somehow doubt he lives in the kind of areas he think were showing such positive things by burning / looting everything in sight.
He's clearly sh*tting a proverbial that if we left we'd out-compete the ROI on business taxes - which I'd hope we would.
Why would we need to leave the EU to do that? And wouldn't it be more of a threat to the ROI if we did it within the EU?
Because we'd be likely to pursue an alternative economic strategy to the one we're pursuing now. Furthermore, within the EU, there may be no explicit rules against tax competition, but there are increasing noises against it.
@runnymede - Is 'Income' income from investments? If so, it should be left out, surely?
On services, your figures seem to show the opposite of what Max was suggesting. Trade with the EU in services has not fallen as a percentage as much as it has for goods (a percentage of a larger cake, of course), suggesting we've benefitted relatively more in services than goods from EU membership. Have I missed something?
Because we'd be likely to pursue an alternative economic strategy to the one we're pursuing now. Furthermore, within the EU, there may be no explicit rules against tax competition, but there are increasing noises against it.
So you are suggesting that we could compete in low taxes for companies wanting to trade in the EU better outside the EU than in it, that the EU would be happy with that, or, if they weren't, then despite us then having zero say in what the EU does, we could somehow stop them doing anything about it?
This is the kind of argument which makes me despair of the Leave side.
Guardian TV going well then....It really is a crap programme these days, along with 30 minute Panoramas (when they do the hour long specials, they are just so much better e.g. The VIP Paedophile Ring: What's the Truth?).
Any thoughts on what the newspapers will recommend?
I'd say the Guardian, Indy and Mirror will definitely be IN, the Sun and Express definitely OUT, interesting see what the Mail and Telegraph tell readers to do.
The Sun may well be a very reluctant and heavy-hearted IN.
I have a look at most papers online every morning, the Sun seems very anti EU, the Mirror barely mentions it.
I'm not so sure the Mirror would be a definite in. Don't forget it has lots of old Labour types like Paul Routledge working for it. Also don't forget some of the Corbynistas are quite sceptical
Because we'd be likely to pursue an alternative economic strategy to the one we're pursuing now. Furthermore, within the EU, there may be no explicit rules against tax competition, but there are increasing noises against it.
So you are suggesting that we could compete in low taxes for companies wanting to trade in the EU better outside the EU than in it, that the EU would be happy with that, or, if they weren't, then despite us then having zero say in what the EU does, we could somehow stop them doing anything about it?
This is the kind of argument which makes me despair of the Leave side.
Also, EU corporate tax rates are very low by world standards: Ireland and Cyrpus are 12.5%, for example, which is below pretty much any major developed non-EU country.
(Corporate tax rates in the US are 35%, Brazil 34%, Japan 38%, Australia 30%, South Korea 24%, China 25%.)
... a particular view of the relationship between the state and the citizen, freedom under the rule of law and the state not behaving oppressively i.e. with an important part of Britain's identity.
Comments
Both Germany and France have a full round of Parliamentary and Presidential elections in 2017. I can hardly imagine that the incumbents in either country want to go into the campaigns whilst being asked to make major concessions to the UK. For that reason I think it would be much harder for Cameron to achieve or claim any sort of victory - even on the very slight terms he is currently advocating - with French and German political campaigning in full swing.
I am pretty sure we have our own foreign policy now and regardless of EU status would consult with the French/Germans, just as we do and have with the US.
Free trade/WTO? Meh. Not going to get the troops out on the ground. Whether it should or not is a different matter but people are hugely indifferent on the minutiae of trade deals.
There is nothing there in there that is hugely compelling. To me.
EEA rules do give Norway more flexibility on workers and benefits too. I can't find the link at the moment (on my phone between meetings) but this echoes what Robert Smithson was saying recently.
If your argument is that leaving isn't a magic wand to control immigration, then I agree. It will involve some tough policy choices. We might be able to reduce it by 75-100k a year but not quite to the tens of thousands.
So be it. I'd consider net immigration in the 150-200k bracket a good start and worth it.
I have to agree with Mike. Cameron has an authority over certain "swing" voters which others don't.
He is our Mr. Heineken.
It should be pointed out that a good deal of the in stuff so far is veiled threats. Threats of violence in Northern Ireland. Threats of the City being decimated. Threats about national security.
The reason I say this is because the monies that come back to us from the EU for CAP or other EU funded projects come with both significant conditions attached to them and the requirement in many cases for matched funding from the UK Government. The projects receiving funding are also decided by the EU following their own criteria and priorities rather than by the UK.
We are therefore in the crazy situation where we give money to the EU and they then decide to give a portion of it back to projects of their choosing in the UK, setting their own criteria as to how those projects should be completed and demanding that as a condition of giving us back some of our money the UK Government matches that funding.
If we were outside the EU then it would be the UK Government who could decide the levels of subsidy, what projects receive funding and what the priorities and conditions of that funding would be.
Farmers have seen never ending shifting of priorities and conditions to receive EU grants over the last couple of decades and it has greatly harmed both their ability to plan ahead and their ability to protect fragile areas of countryside. Having such policies decided at national rather than supra-national level would provide a lot more stability and a set of policies decided with far more consideration given to local and national conditions rather than Europewide conditions.
You list WTO agreements as a reason for why we can trade more easily with non-EU nations, but the EU is a signatory to the WTO as are we, if we left the EU it's not like they could throw up a huge barrier or blockade without us going to the WTO.
A realistic proposal is to have no free trade deal with the EU. Given that we buy more from there than they buy from here and that the single market for services is, as you say, imperfect and finally that our exports are biased towards services, there is a case that says there is no need for a free trade deal with the EU unless they give us full market access for services, which we haven't been able to get for 30 years from within the EU.
Free trade in goods favours them much more than it does for us, by a huge amount, I see no reason to give them a leg up by opening up a free trade deal for goods while they continue keep the majority of their markets closed for services.
What I'd really like to hear - and rarely do - is what the EU proposes next in terms of the future for the EU, both the eurozone and those outside. The argument (to me anyway) seems to me to be less about what would happen if we left (I think Britain would cope fine, eventually, but there would be short-term costs) and whatever apparent concessions Cameron may get - which I tend to discount - but the difference between leaving and staying in a EU heading off into somewhere other than the status quo. What the direction is and what it means for the UK in practical terms is what I want to know - and I don't feel that I do.
I'd like to have that spelled out by the pro-EU side and, indeed, by the EU themselves.
For instance, the EU currently has competence I believe in the Justice area. Does the EU envisage extending that to having one EU-wide criminal justice system? Does that mean that we would lose trial by jury, the burden and standard of proof, the rules on hearsay, habeus corpus etc?
These may sound like technical arguments of interest only to lawyers but they are not because they are, to my mind anyway, bound up with a particular view of the relationship between the state and the citizen, freedom under the rule of law and the state not behaving oppressively i.e. with an important part of Britain's identity. Would this be lost if we stayed and the EU developed in the way that it seems to be developing? And the same approach could be taken to a number of other issues.
The choice between the status quo - however tweaked - and Leave is a false one for me, because the status quo simply is not an option. The Ghost of Europe Future needs to speak up.
Given that the major argument for In is free trade, I would't dismiss it. If Out can present WTO membership as a viable alternative to EU membership it would neutralise one of the major In arguments.
Thanks I will try to investigate a bit more.
Or they'll come back with the bullets after a ballot...
Appropriately enough he was simply getting his retaliation in early.
Another GOP debate this week. Full details are at:
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/everything-you-need-to-know-about-tuesdays-republican-debate-215611
Disappointed that Christie is in the earlier, low profile candidates debate, after his interesting week.
Is this on the basis that the troubles started when the UK was outside the EU (or then EEC) but ended when it was within it?
I mean, I've heard of correlation not equaling causation, but that's quite a stretch. We're getting into plagues of locusts terroritory here
A trade deal with the EU involves free movement of labour ... It involves the single market and its rules. Defacto EEA.
Far from throwing out the EEA, I see it as the only realistic chance of persuading the public to leave the EU.
And that is indeed correct. From the Pink Book for 2012, the shares in % of the EU-27 in different forms of trade were:
2012 1997
Goods 49.3 58
Services 36.5 38.0
Income 26.9 40.3
All combined 40.1 49.6
Note the shares of all have been declining.
There is also some interesting data from the WTO/OECD on value-added measures of trade which shows the EU's importance as a final destination market for UK goods is overstated by standard trade data (this is the result of complex supply chains and related double-counting). On a value-added basis, the EU's share of goods trade was 41.5% in 2011, about 6% points below the level given by gross trade data.
Only if in a single currency would it be inevitable that countries would lose control of tax policy.
http://order-order.com/2015/11/09/seumas-milne-it-wasnt-only-negative-what-happened-in-the-riots/
Was that what he was taught to think brought up in a good Beeboid / Winchester School household? I somehow doubt he lives in the kind of areas he think were showing such positive things by burning / looting everything in sight.
On services, your figures seem to show the opposite of what Max was suggesting. Trade with the EU in services has not fallen as a percentage as much as it has for goods (a percentage of a larger cake, of course), suggesting we've benefitted relatively more in services than goods from EU membership. Have I missed something?
This is the kind of argument which makes me despair of the Leave side.
Guardian TV going well then....It really is a crap programme these days, along with 30 minute Panoramas (when they do the hour long specials, they are just so much better e.g. The VIP Paedophile Ring: What's the Truth?).
(Corporate tax rates in the US are 35%, Brazil 34%, Japan 38%, Australia 30%, South Korea 24%, China 25%.)
In Margaret Thatcher's egregiously misquoted interview with Woman's Own ("no such thing as society") she also said "the whole essence of democracy is that you submit yourself to the people and it is from the people that your only authority comes." That is not how the big fish in Europe think. Look at their response to elections/referenda in various countries in recent years when the result was not to their liking. So when IN say "we carry on" (© J-C Junker) they mean the goal of ever closer union will continue to ride roughshod over the lesser goal of democratic decision making in member states. That is the status quo for IN.