[Rugoz]

But to put things into context, as pointed out by a fellow PoFoer, less than 40% of UK citizens actually voted to leave the EU. So despite what was occuring and all the fear-mongering taking place about being flooded with refugees, it still didn't result in what I call a decisive madate to make an important decision to leave (something like leaving the EU in my opinion requires at least 65% of the electorate to prevent division).

Hilarious.

First you say "less than 40% of UK citizens voted to leave". Let me remind you that a turnout of 72% is very good for a referendum. Then you say 65% approval of the electorate is required to "prevent division". In such a case only 25% of UK citizens could have decided to remain. How the hell would that "prevent division" or make the decision more legitimate? You're revealing your extreme bias.

So arrogance and stupidity resulted in this gamble going wrong.

You do not exactly excel in modesty and intelligence here.

Brexiteers promised everything, but as shown since, will not be able to fulfil such promises.

And Remainers predicted doomsday.

So to your point about new trade deals with the rest of the world to compensate for the single market, I can't see how anything could be better (or replace it).

I won't claim that independent trade deals will make up for the potential lack of access to the EU's single market, but you cannot claim the opposite either, certainly not at this point. We have to wait and see, and even then it's difficult to prove empirically. As Kaiser already mentioned, the effect of todays trade agreements, be it with the EU or anybody else, are rather small because free trade has pretty much been achieved already (WTO etc.).

The Euro would have suited the UK actually, the same way Germany benefits from it today.

The UK was hit hard by the financial crisis and it strongly devalued the pound against the euro in 2008/2009. Moreover, in 1993 the UK gave up the peg to the ECU (de facto DM, see ERM (European exchange rate mechanism)) alongside Italy (unlike Italy it didn't join the Eurozone afterwards).

So no, historical evidence suggests that the UK would not be a good fit for the Eurozone.

Strict legislation brings in high standards within products. I assume you want good quality of goods?

Are you suggesting the UK cannot guarantee a high standard of its products?

The EU can't make it attractive to leave. Why would they do a deal that gives the UK everything without any burden?

I get it, what EU-fanboys are saying is that "might makes right", because we both know the EU wouldn't refuse a deal to "uphold its principles" (namely to enforce free movement on its neighbors, unless that neighbor is Turkey/Ukraine) if it were smaller than the UK or equal to it. That's ok if you believe in those "principles", what annoys me is the hypocrisy.

They are a prime example to show the importance of the single market. There is Ukraine and there is Poland.

Ridiculous comparison. Don't even go there.

[B0ycey]

Hilarious.

First you say "less than 40% of UK citizens voted to leave". Let me remind you that a turnout of 72% is very good for a referendum. Then you say 65% approval of the electorate is required to "prevent division". In such a case only 25% of UK citizens could have decided to remain. How the hell would that "prevent division" or make the decision more legitimate? You're revealing your extreme bias.

Who isn't bias when it comes to personal opinion? Everyone shows their extreme bias on here, you included.

But FYI, 37% of UK citizens voted to leave the EU, 35% voted to remain and 28% didn't bother or want to make a decision either way.

As for your point about division, the UK is divided about Brexit I can assure you. I live here. I know. I listen to people, read articles, hear the news and visit forums. But perhaps I am biased. I did say it was my own opinion after all. But to prevent this kind of division on a big decision like leaving the EU you really need a strong backing. Hence why IMHO you need at least a 65% electorial backing.

You do not exactly excel in modesty and intelligence here.

I don't claim to be modest or intelligent. But I will claim that Cameron took a needless gamble during probably the worse time to take a referendum on EU membership and lost. If that isn't arrogant or stupidity then I don't know what is.

Fondness on the EU didn't result in the no vote. I would say that most Brexiteers have some fondness to the EU after all. Why else would they be prepared to negotiate with them? Just push for no deal if you didn't think the EU had something to offer.

And Remainers predicted doomsday.

Not all Remainers did. Nonetheless, they lost. It is now up to the winning side to fulfil their promises. They after all will get the blame if the promises they gave don't materialise.

I won't claim that independent trade deals will make up for the potential lack of access to the EU's single market, but you cannot claim the opposite either, certainly not at this point. We have to wait and see, and even then it's difficult to prove empirically. As Kaiser already mentioned, the effect of todays trade agreements, be it with the EU or anybody else, are rather small because free trade has pretty much been achieved already (WTO etc.).

Well I will agree that until these trade deals are achieved, I can only take an educated and logical guess. And logic states that due to geography, wealth of nations and cultural understanding it is unlikely that any trade deals the UK achieve will ever be better than the single market. But we will have to wait and see.

The UK was hit hard by the financial crisis and it strongly devalued the pound against the euro in 2008/2009. Moreover, in 1993 the UK gave up the peg to the ECU (de facto DM, see ERM (European exchange rate mechanism)) alongside Italy (unlike Italy it didn't join the Eurozone afterwards).

So no, historical evidence suggests that the UK would not be a good fit for the Eurozone.

Soros did the UK a big favor with Black Wednesday. An artifically strong currency is never good. In fact, one benefit that Brexit has done for the UK is bring the pound down to it's correct value.

As for the Euro not being a good fit for the UK now, you are actually right, but not for the reason you gave. Brexit would be impossible to achieve for the UK had they been within the Eurozone. And then there is the burden of relying on other nations to pay their debt. And the bailouts you have to supply if such events take place. Also as a continental depression is possible in the coming years, the ability to print new money, change rates and currency buoyancy becomes quite important.

As for history proving that the Euro would be bad for the UK, history has proven that no currency should be pegged to another. But the Euro is different. It is both overvalued and undervalued depending on where you are within the continent. Had the UK joined the Euro, they would be in a part of the Eurozone where the currency was undervalued. Also put in the notion that there be no issues on currency exchange rates or other problem to occur with trading in different currencies and you can see why I could conclude that the Euro might have benefited the UK. But being Swiss I do fully understand why you wouldn't agree here.

Are you suggesting the UK cannot guarantee a high standard of its products?

Today I could. But this wasn't always the case. I remember a shell suit going up in flames right in front of my eyes. Without strong legislation that companies must adhere to, they will always put profits before safety. The EU have set the bar high. I doubt an independent UK would have set it so high because I'm sure a lobby group would bung them into low standards, like what occurs in America. Nonetheless, to trade in the single market the UK must adhere to EU rules anyway. So I doubt the UK will benefit from less regulation in standards anyway.

I get it, what EU-fanboys are saying is that "might makes right", because we both know the EU wouldn't refuse a deal to "uphold its principles" (namely to enforce free movement on its neighbors, unless that neighbor is Turkey/Ukraine) if it were smaller than the UK or equal to it. That's ok if you believe in those "principles", what annoys me is the hypocrisy.

Turkey and Ukraine are not in the single market. But you would have a point about hypocrisy should they ever achieve full access to it. The UK want free trade in goods and services in the EU. That sounds like full access to me. And that includes movement of people.

Ridiculous comparison. Don't even go there.

Why? Both were in the Warsaw pact, both needed investment since the curtain fell, both took different paths to achieve this. They are a prime and very good example of the benefits of the EU. I'm sure the coup protesters fighting to be part of the EU don't see it as ridiculous. Perhaps you should explain why it is rather than just say it is.

[Rugoz]

Who isn't bias when it comes to personal opinion? Everyone shows their extreme bias on here, you included.

You don't get it.

I have a preference, but I do not consider my preference to be above that of anybody else, so I'm fine with majority rule. You on the other hand think your personal preference should be protected with a super majority rule, one that doesn't exist anywhere in the world for referendums by the way, because 65% approval is incredibly difficult to achieve in a referendum. Moreover, if you showed any kind of consistency, you would demand 65% approval for joining the EU as well, because "it's such an important decision". In that case the UK would never have joined in the first place.

Soros did the UK a big favor with Black Wednesday. An artifically strong currency is never good. In fact, one benefit that Brexit has done for the UK is bring the pound down to it's correct value.

As for the Euro not being a good fit for the UK now, you are actually right, but not for the reason you gave. Brexit would be impossible to achieve for the UK had they been within the Eurozone. And then there is the burden of relying on other nations to pay their debt. And the bailouts you have to supply if such events take place. Also as a continental depression is possible in the coming years, the ability to print new money, change rates and currency buoyancy becomes quite important.

As for history proving that the Euro would be bad for the UK, history has proven that no currency should be pegged to another. But the Euro is different. It is both overvalued and undervalued depending on where you are within the continent. Had the UK joined the Euro, they would be in a part of the Eurozone where the currency was undervalued. Also put in the notion that there be no issues on currency exchange rates or other problem to occur with trading in different currencies and you can see why I could conclude that the Euro might have benefited the UK. But being Swiss I do fully understand why you wouldn't agree here.

Nothing in this paragraph makes any sense. Congrats.

Turkey and Ukraine are not in the single market. But you would have a point about hypocrisy should they ever achieve full access to it. The UK want free trade in goods and services in the EU. That sounds like full access to me. And that includes movement of people.

Turkey is in the EU's customs union, it has a common external border with the EU (for goods), unlike EFTA members. That means its trade policy is dictated by Brussels. Further Turkey is obliged to adopt all EU law relevant to the customs union (which does leave out some sectors like agriculture). It also participates in Horizon 2020. It has less access to the single market when it comes to public procurement. In any case, it's hard to argue Turkey is legally less part of the single market than EFTA (feel free to make that argument with facts if you can). The reason for the lack of free movement with Turkey is obvious, EU members don't want poor Turks to flood the EU. So much for principles.

[B0ycey]

You don't get it.

I have a preference, but I do not consider my preference to be above that of anybody else, so I'm fine with majority rule. You on the other hand think your personal preference should be protected with a super majority rule, one that doesn't exist anywhere in the world for referendums by the way, because 65% approval is incredibly difficult to achieve in a referendum. Moreover, if you showed any kind of consistency, you would demand 65% approval for joining the EU as well, because "it's such an important decision". In that case the UK would never have joined in the first place.

You don't get it.

It is my opinion that to prevent division it is best to have 65% approval rating. Cameron didn't see the need. Well May has to deal with division with this policy now. But apart from that, I do tend to agree with majority rules.

Turkey is in the EU's customs union, it has a common external border with the EU (for goods), unlike EFTA members. That means its trade policy is dictated by Brussels. Further Turkey is obliged to adopt all EU law relevant to the customs union (which does leave out some sectors like agriculture). It also participates in Horizon 2020. It has less access to the single market when it comes to public procurement. In any case, it's hard to argue Turkey is legally less part of the single market than EFTA (feel free to make that argument with facts if you can). The reason for the lack of free movement with Turkey is obvious, EU members don't want poor Turks to flood the EU. So much for principles.

Perhaps I give you pointless one line response like you give me instead.

Customs Union.

[Rugoz]

It is my opinion that to prevent division it is best to have 65% approval rating.

What kind of fucking stupid statement is that? So decision rules in democracies should be based on your precious feelings about whether a decision could be "divisive"? If you have anything half-way intelligent to contribute wake me.

[B0ycey]

What kind of fucking stupid statement is that? So decision rules in democracies should be based on your precious feelings about whether a decision could be "divisive"? If you have anything half-way intelligent to contribute wake me.

For someone who is from a country that is not in the EU and who also clearly doesn't want to be part of it, I do find it strange it is you who actually showing emotion and agression (feelings ) over an opinion.

But yes, in the UK a referendum is not legally binding. I could go into why, but why bother. So Cameron could have used any rules he liked and it would have been democratic. He decided on a majority only assuming he would win. If I was in power I would have placed a safe guard like 65% approval rating to prevent any sort of division . But that is just an opinion. What do you care anyway? You don't need to live with the decision.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

The UK is divided on Europe as shown by the referendum. Cameron couldn't have picked a worse time to hold it actually - during the migrant crisis. But to put things into context, as pointed out by a fellow PoFoer, less than 40% of UK citizens actually voted to leave the EU. So despite what was occuring and all the fear-mongering taking place about being flooded with refugees, it still didn't result in what I call a decisive madate to make an important decision to leave (something like leaving the EU in my opinion requires at least 65% of the electorate to prevent division). So arrogance and stupidity resulted in this gamble going wrong. Not fondness.

Another issue I had with this referendum - that would have given people a better sense of the costs of leaving, was that there was no manifesto on what the Brexiteers planned on doing should we vote to leave the EU. Brexiteers promised everything, but as shown since, will not be able to fulfil such promises. Even since the vote, there seems to be no plans revealed to give businesses confidence should no deal be achieved. So to your point about new trade deals with the rest of the world to compensate for the single market, I can't see how anything could be better (or replace it). And that is due to geography. No matter what deals are created with the rest of the world, the EU will always be out biggest trading partner - whether it be WTO or tariff free. The only advantage for the UK is that they have a trade deficit with the EU so are able to compensate their businesses with business rate deductions from tariff income and EU membership money (so to entice businesses to invest here). The problem is of course, that should there be a negative consequence due to Brexit, people can only buy your products if they can afford to do so - whether inside the UK or outside the UK. Hence why I think it is better to keep Europe together and to look after everyones interests. Brexit serves no ones interest.

And this leads into your last point. People vote with their pockets. People don't really give a shit who or where their laws come from (independence) as long as it doesn't effect them financially. Brexit will be judged on this very point. So perhaps the UK government needs to either reconsider another vote on Europe (with a manifesto) or start pulling their fingers out and publish policies with what they can actually achieve with certainty from Brexit. Because I can assure you with one thing, without goals that they can fall back unto, should there be a downturn, all people will remember is the false promises of great wealth during the Brexit campaign and blame the government who is in power for not achieving these promises.

I'm all for talking about costs - I made this thread after all. But as mentioned before, it wasn't and still isn't usually possible to have a balanced public discussion about this, as one side is constantly invoking economic armageddon. The only poll I'm aware of that has asked people for their reasons showed that fear of economic consequences was the most important reason for Remainers, yet immigration/refugees was not for Brexiters. If you juxtaposed being part of a United States of Europe vs Brexit, I believe people would overwhelmingly vote for leaving the EU even if the costs were far more substantial than they are in reality. The whole project hinges on being able to get to a full blown state by incremental steps whereby people become more or less accustomed to the status quo after which the next integration step happens. So no, people don't only vote with their pockets. If that was the case, we wouldn't have welfare states, environmental conservation, regulation against pollution, etc. The almost singular focus on economics and the exaggeration of positive effects together with the EU being portrayed as benign and no threat to sovereignty is deliberate, because without it the project would have never got off the ground at all.

The Euro would have suited the UK actually, the same way Germany benefits from it today. It doesn't suit poorer nations. The solution to the Euro is simple. Either create a second Euro currency for poorer nations to devalue if need be or to federalise the currency union and bring the responsibility of the Euro to all of the Eurozone and taking it way from individual states (so say Greece doesn't hold all the burden and is sent into a debt it will stuggle to pay).

Had the UK joined the euro, the currency union would quite possibly not exist today. The UK would have had similar problems to Ireland and bailing out an economy of the size of the UK would almost certainly have overwhelmed the remaining eurozone countries.

Strict legislation brings in high standards within products. I assume you want good quality of goods? The UK will still have to adhere to single market rules to trade within the single market. I can't see how independence is going to benefit here.

I'm not sure what this has to do with what I have written in the paragraph you quoted. My point is that even current FTAs have relatively little to do with barriers to trade, as they are commonly understood by the public, and their economic gains are diminishing while the restrictions they place on countries to regulate their own affairs are increasing. The EU has in many respects already gone far beyond what FTAs deal with today and the same trend is at work here - ever less pay-off in terms of economic growth and ever increasing restrictions on sovereignty.

Strict legislation can be good or bad, e.g. having strict licencing requirements can be a burden and are often protectionist measures by certain professions. In the product market EU institutions have called for liberalisation for a long time now.

Only those companies that export to the EU, making up roughly 50% of UK exports, would have to comply with single market rules. The other half must comply for no reason other than the UK being in the EU and they also have to comply with the country they are exporting to, i.e. this is an additional burden to exporters who trade with non-EU countries.

The EU can't make it attractive to leave. Why would they do a deal that gives the UK everything without any burden? Nonetheless I have said countless times on here that a trade deal actually benefits the EU more than the UK. It's services that the UK needs from the EU. Without a deal on that, it be unlikely there be a trade deal anyway. Hence why if I was the UK negotiator, the delay on talking about trade wouldn't bother me. I would just publish a plan on tax breaks for businesses to compensate for a no deal instead and explain I still wanted a trade deal with the EU.

If the EU's main aim becomes making it unattractive to be a non-member rather than, as it claims, being the guardian of prosperity and peace across the continent, not only does the claim that it is benign break down, but it becomes an end in itself. One more reason for me to oppose it.

Further, you mentioned earlier that there are other than economic benefits to the EU, in which case it shouldn't be a problem to come to a reasonable economic deal that benefits both sides - after all, trade is not zero sum, right? - as the EU would remain attractive because of all the other things you had in mind.

Ukraine is an example of a nation within Europe who has not benefited from the single market at any point. They are a prime example to show the importance of the single market. There is Ukraine and there is Poland. Both were in the Warsaw pact and both needed investment since the curtain fell. Who is better off? Stats or estimates on GDP doesn't mean much when you can actually see the difference visually.

And as Ukraine have a great food export economy, should they have been in the single market, I could envisage them being quite wealthy today actually.

For food exporters the benefits would certainly be greater than for any other industry, as the EU is probably most protectionist in that area. Another reason why you cannot compare the UK with Ukraine.

And yes, obviously if Ukraine had less corruption, if it didn't have a civil war, if it fulfilled the requirements for EU membership and another dozen of ifs, it would be better off today, and the vast majority of this improvement would be down to being a peaceful and less corrupt country with better institutions and sound policies rather than EU membership per se.

But yes, in the UK a referendum is not legally binding. I could go into why, but why bother. So Cameron could have used any rules he liked and it would have been democratic. He decided on a majority only assuming he would win. If I was in power I would have placed a safe guard like 65% approval rating to prevent any sort of division . But that is just an opinion. What do you care anyway? You don't need to live with the decision.

The country wouldn't be any less divided by raising the threshold for a referendum. There would still be slightly more than half of eligible voters in favour of Brexit. I think Rugoz posted a graph in another thread showing that a majority for Brexit was possible several times over the last decades. That is, the population in the UK is divided on this regardless.

Add to this that the status quo is favoured by people as a general rule, and as mentioned before, Remainers are apparently mostly afraid of an economic boogeyman that doesn't really exist. Wait five or ten years and the UK might well see a phenomenon like Switzerland where the vast majority of people now reject EU membership.

[Rugoz]

But yes, in the UK a referendum is not legally binding. I could go into why, but why bother. So Cameron could have used any rules he liked and it would have been democratic. He decided on a majority only assuming he would win.

I've never been a fan of government-initiated referendums. They're mostly a sham and only a miscalculation by the government actually changes something. Referendums must be institutionalized. For example, joining supra-national institutions should be subject to a (binding) referendum as a general rule, in that case the UK would never have joined the EU and wouldn't be in the mess it is now where it has to come to an agreement with the EU and other nations in only 2 years. Moreover, government-initiated referendums, especially if they're used rarely, can lead to a protest vote against the government or the political elites in general.

If I was in power I would have placed a safe guard like 65% approval rating to prevent any sort of division . But that is just an opinion. What do you care anyway? You don't need to live with the decision.

Clearly a 65% referendum would be laughed off by anybody and if it actually were to happen it would most likely be boycotted by half of the population. It would be the most divisive thing ever. Majority voting is by definition the least divisive decision rule because it is unbiased. Your argument makes no bloody sense.

A super majority rule for constitutional changes by popular vote can arguably make some sense, but I would put it at ~55%, 60% at the maximum. Needless to say it must apply to all constitutional changes.

[Drlee]

AFAIK Said: British GDP would be higher if wages had risen with demand rather than millions of Eastern Europeans being imported. I remember being told that no-frills airlines were a benefit of EU membership and I could happily live without them.

It's mostly Germany that benefits from having a cheaper currency and easy access to export markets. The Deutschmark would have doubled in value if Greece and Spain weren't available to suppress it.

I agree with every word of this.

Observation about Germany. Reunification aside for a moment. In the early 1970's Germany was a very different place. It was peaceful and prosperous. The Baader Meinhoff gang aside it had virtually no unemployment. The cities were spotless and safe. Graffiti was nonexistent. College was cheap.

Solely as an outsider and from superficial observation, I can't think of a single thing that is better today for native born German citizens of the former West Germany. I would be curious to hear what I am missing.

[B0ycey]

I'm all for talking about costs - I made this thread after all. But as mentioned before, it wasn't and still isn't usually possible to have a balanced public discussion about this, as one side is constantly invoking economic armageddon. The only poll I'm aware of that has asked people for their reasons showed that fear of economic consequences was the most important reason for Remainers, yet immigration/refugees was not for Brexiters. If you juxtaposed being part of a United States of Europe vs Brexit, I believe people would overwhelmingly vote for leaving the EU even if the costs were far more substantial than they are in reality. The whole project hinges on being able to get to a full blown state by incremental steps whereby people become more or less accustomed to the status quo after which the next integration step happens. So no, people don't only vote with their pockets. If that was the case, we wouldn't have welfare states, environmental conservation, regulation against pollution, etc. The almost singular focus on economics and the exaggeration of positive effects together with the EU being portrayed as benign and no threat to sovereignty is deliberate, because without it the project would have never got off the ground at all.

I'm sure I am likely to get a bashing on here for this comment, but if Europe wants to ever feel safe from the threat of Russian aggression (even though I would say that due to financial constraints and size of population Russia could never really be a threat to the rest of Europe anyway), prevent unfair economic prosperity in individual states, solve the Euro problem, gain global respect, make their voice heard towards larger states, be a global superpower and save money in terms of military budget and bureaucracy constraints, perhaps a United Europe would actually benefit everyone. But I do understand there seems to be a national identity feeling among European citizens, coupled with the fact that it is unlikely individual states are going to give up their complete sovereignty to ever make this a reality.

I think the problem with this EU referendum in general - and the same is true with Catalan today actually, is that when there is some form of economic/political issue arises, the state gets the blame and the solution for people seems to be segregation from the state. But until you break away from state, you don't understand the importance of being united or what the state does for you in terms to your wellbeing, financial position and security.

Had the UK joined the euro, the currency union would quite possibly not exist today. The UK would have had similar problems to Ireland and bailing out an economy of the size of the UK would almost certainly have overwhelmed the remaining eurozone countries.

Eh? Everyone suffered from the banking crisis. Not every EU nation needed a bailout and I doubt the UK would have either. The UK economy was strong prior to 2008 and £500 billion pound of its debt since then can be attributed to it. I do understand that having a floating currency in 2008 certainly has helped the UK along with the fact they could print their own money (QE), but the ECB still has a QE program in place with a 0% interest rate and the EU overall growth figures have improved since Brexit. Had the UK been in the Euro, due to their grow rates prior to Brexit and the size of its economy, you could argue that the Euro would be in a stronger position than it is now, not that it would cease to exist.

But FYI, Ireland's issues was more down to their property boom and the UK issue was the financial sector crisis. The fact the UK actually lent Ireland money means I don't know why you think that Ireland and the UK problems were similar.

I'm not sure what this has to do with what I have written in the paragraph you quoted. My point is that even current FTAs have relatively little to do with barriers to trade, as they are commonly understood by the public, and their economic gains are diminishing while the restrictions they place on countries to regulate their own affairs are increasing. The EU has in many respects already gone far beyond what FTAs deal with today and the same trend is at work here - ever less pay-off in terms of economic growth and ever increasing restrictions on sovereignty.

If the economies are similar, FTAs are beneficial for member parties. That is due to competition from weaker nations. The European single market is the benefit of the whole of Europe in terms of less competition from global competitors and to keep the wealth within Europe. The way the EU works is that today poorer nations rely on subsidises. Over time, as the wealth is shared out, poorer nations will get less money. If the single market was just trade then it would not benefit the UK at all and perhaps there be a strong case for Brexit. But the UK benefits from services within the single market. Should no deal be achieved the UK could fall back on WTO for trade, but no such organisation exists for services. Hense why a no deal is bad for both the EU and the UK.

Only those companies that export to the EU, making up roughly 50% of UK exports, would have to comply with single market rules. The other half must comply for no reason other than the UK being in the EU and they also have to comply with the country they are exporting to, i.e. this is an additional burden to exporters who trade with non-EU countries.

These rules are in place for a reason. Take them away and you will have poor quality goods within the UK. Sure UK based only companies could benefit with less legislation, but what is more likely to occur is that they would adhere to better standards to boost the quality and sales of their products anyway. After all who wants to buy shit products? The rest of the world tend to buy British on quality. Why would they buy shit they can get from a flee market down the road?

If the EU's main aim becomes making it unattractive to be a non-member rather than, as it claims, being the guardian of prosperity and peace across the continent, not only does the claim that it is benign break down, but it becomes an end in itself. One more reason for me to oppose it.

Right, let's be honest here. If the UK wants to be part of the single market it can be. There be no opposition in the EU whether they are within the EU of not. The problem is that the UK wants everything for no burden. Why would the EU give the UK everything, let them trade with the rest of the world and make their own rules up for no burden what-so-ever? That would be a better deal than the member states have now! As our Swiss friend will testify, even Switzerland has to adhere to rules set by the EU (but he likes to delude himself that Switzerland is totally independent on this )

Further, you mentioned earlier that there are other than economic benefits to the EU, in which case it shouldn't be a problem to come to a reasonable economic deal that benefits both sides - after all, trade is not zero sum, right? - as the EU would remain attractive because of all the other things you had in mind.

Again it's down to what the UK has to offer isn't it. The UK needs a deal on services to make a deal on trade be worthwhile. Once you add in services it becomes the single market. That includes movement of people and you can no longer talk about trading with the rest of the world. This is the real issue. Perhaps if the UK agreed to remain in the single market they might be able to restrict labor movements in negotiations. But currently they are adamant to leave the single market. How do you think the UK can get a deal out of this that benefits both sides?

For food exporters the benefits would certainly be greater than for any other industry, as the EU is probably most protectionist in that area. Another reason why you cannot compare the UK with Ukraine.

And yes, obviously if Ukraine had less corruption, if it didn't have a civil war, if it fulfilled the requirements for EU membership and another dozen of ifs, it would be better off today, and the vast majority of this improvement would be down to being a peaceful and less corrupt country with better institutions and sound policies rather than EU membership per se.

I don't compare Ukraine with the UK. I use them to show the benefits of the single market. And the rest of your paragraph has done that for me too. So thanks I guess.

The country wouldn't be any less divided by raising the threshold for a referendum. There would still be slightly more than half of eligible voters in favour of Brexit. I think Rugoz posted a graph in another thread showing that a majority for Brexit was possible several times over the last decades. That is, the population in the UK is divided on this regardless.

Add to this that the status quo is favoured by people as a general rule, and as mentioned before, Remainers are apparently mostly afraid of an economic boogeyman that doesn't really exist. Wait five or ten years and the UK might well see a phenomenon like Switzerland where the vast majority of people now reject EU membership.

As I have told Rugoz, in my opinion, to prevent division on a massive decision like this you need a 65% approval rating. Today May has to deal with this division. And perhaps they might go for Corbyn in the next election if they don't like what they see. But if you have a 65% approval rating you only need to worry about 1/3 of the population looking to vote else where. Whoever is in government will be judged on Brexit. I see the Tories vanishing for a generation or two if things go wrong after March 2019. So yes, I stand by my comment that Cameron was both stupid and arrogant in not placing any safeguards in place during this referendum.

[JohnRawls]

I agree with every word of this.

Observation about Germany. Reunification aside for a moment. In the early 1970's Germany was a very different place. It was peaceful and prosperous. The Baader Meinhoff gang aside it had virtually no unemployment. The cities were spotless and safe. Graffiti was nonexistent. College was cheap.

Solely as an outsider and from superficial observation, I can't think of a single thing that is better today for native born German citizens of the former West Germany. I would be curious to hear what I am missing.

The cold war. Capitalist and Socialist countries had a "obligation" to prop up border socialist or capitalist countries so both sides would look good. (North Korea vs South Korea, East Germany vs West Germany, EstonianSSR vs Finland etc) In some cases socialists did better and in some cases capitalists. This is ancient history now though since socialism lost.

[Drlee]

The cold war. Capitalist and Socialist countries had a "obligation" to prop up border socialist or capitalist countries so both sides would look good. (North Korea vs South Korea, East Germany vs West Germany, EstonianSSR vs Finland etc) In some cases socialists did better and in some cases capitalists. This is ancient history now though since socialism lost.

Well. Russian socialism lost certainly. So are you saying that we (the US) was pumping money into Germany to prop up its economy? We did with the Marshall Plan but by the 70's that was pretty much over. In the 50's German GDP increased 8% annually and maintained over 4% through the 60's. Certainly they made a good deal of this building arms for export and their own growing Army. The influx of skilled workers fleeing the USSR immediately after the war did not go amiss. Not did the US soft policy regarding the 'war debt'.

I do not think it is fair to consider the FRG a showpiece. I think it came from a confluence of good fortune (selling arms to the Korean war) and wise policy on the part of the US as the victor of the war. It is not a bad idea to keep in mind that in comparing the DDR and FRG, the FRG had vastly more lucrative markets into which to sell. By 1950 the FRG economy was roughly 20% of the size of the US economy which is nothing short of astonishing. And about what it is now.

Here is an interesting piece.

http://www.e-ir.info/2011/08/07/economi ... and-1960s/

What about socially? It seems Germany was more 'pacific' for lack of a better term. It was a wonderful place to live. ON EDIT:

In fact it seems to me that Brexit had little to nothing to do with economics and just about everything to do with "Brittishness". Were not the seeds of the ultimate collapse of the EU sown in immigration policy?

[Rugoz]

...but he likes to delude himself that Switzerland is totally independent on this

Something I never said, but continue to laugh about your own stupid straw men.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

@B0ycey, I have no problem with people making a case for a European state. At this point in time it is a non-starter, although that may change in the future. I'm strongly against this state being built by stealth, through bullying tactics and distorted or outright false arguments about economic prosperity and peace.

As for the UK and the euro, membership in the eurozone leads to more financial integration and interdependence, so it would have put even more pressure on the UK financial system. Further, the property markets in Ireland and the UK operate similarly and too low (for Ireland and the UK) ECB key interest rates more or less over the whole period up to the crisis contributed to the property bubble in Ireland. While the ECB rate was on average around 3%, the average BoE rate was around 5%. Had the UK been a member, the ECB rate might have been somewhat higher, as the ECB would have had to take the UK economy into account, but as the northern countries needed a lower interest rate, it still wouldn't have been anywhere near the BoE rate. Additionally, it was always assured that the Bank of England would be a lender of last resort in the UK government bond market. In contrast, in the eurozone governments can't guarantee that they will always be able to pay off the bonds they have issued and there was a lot of uncertainty about what the ECB could and would do in response to the debt crisis that was unfolding, driving up debt financing rates. Obviously, it's not possible to know exactly what would have happened, but the UK would almost certainly have been in much worse shape than it was anyway.

Regarding free trade deals, you are not addressing my point that they have ever diminishing returns and ever higher costs and that the same is obviously true for economic integration within the EU which has already gone far beyond what FTAs deal with. If even minuscule increases in growth are worth ever more restrictions to democratic decision making, at least admit that you couldn't care less about sovereignty as long as it means you have a few pounds more in your pocket per year. It's also laughable that countries can't produce quality goods without the EU. EU proponents seem to be turning into outright EU supremacists. This is ridiculous stuff to which I'm not going to respond.

The UK doesn't need full single market access or passporting for its services industry. The most obvious part of a deal would be the UK granting access to its market for EU goods, where the UK has a large deficit, in exchange for improved access for UK services that go beyond what already exists for non-EU countries, such as the EU regulations on regulatory equivalence. Furthermore, with respect to financial services specifically, the relationship isn't as one-sided as you seem to assume. There is no financial centre that can rival London on the continent and building something like it cannot be done in a few years' time. This is leverage for the UK, as if the EU and the UK assume a hardline position, it has the potential to be a major disruption for the financial industry in the EU. The EU certainly needs a transitional agreement on financial services at least as much as the UK, especially considering that parts of its financial industry are still vulnerable as a result of the financial crisis. As an example, Switzerland has a bilateral agreement with the EU to enable its insurance industry to provide services within the single market, and a deal along those lines comprising more than just insurance seems eminently possible and desirable for both parties, as long as punishment for leaving and/or making leaving unattractive isn't the primary factor in the EU's negotiation position.

Feel free to misrepresent what I said on Ukraine, if that makes you feel better. What I'm taking away from this is more confirmation that EU fans not only cannot admit any negatives about the EU, but they are also unable or unwilling to give an inch when it comes to assessing the positives. It's almost cultish in its fanaticism and rigidity.

[B0ycey]

As for the UK and the euro, membership in the eurozone leads to more financial integration and interdependence, so it would have put even more pressure on the UK financial system. Further, the property markets in Ireland and the UK operate similarly and too low (for Ireland and the UK) ECB key interest rates more or less over the whole period up to the crisis contributed to the property bubble in Ireland.

The US toxic assets put pressure on the UKs financial institutions. Being part of the Euro wouldn't have placed any more or less pressure on this. Perhaps QE helped the UK in terms of stimulus for the sector and to create new credit to lend, but the ECB is still buying assets today and I'm sure they would have done likewise for the UK should they have been in the Eurozone. Being that the UK seems to have stabilized somewhat and the BoE is even suggesting increasing interests, perhaps if they were part of the Euro, the Euro would have been in a much better state than it is today, not cease to exist as you suggested.

As for Ireland and their bubble, it was due to cheap credit and over inflated property prices. The same as the US - but of course the US bankers were less responsible and more concerned with profits (on paper) than the mess they were creating. The UKs property market bubble is really down to desirability. While London and the south remains desirable places to live within the UK, it seems that prices will continue to will remain high regardless of the economic climate. Also there is a house shortage in the UK due to not enough affordable homes being built which is also keeping prices up. So again the UK doesn't seem to suffer the same issues that Ireland had. So no, the UK and Ireland are not similar - even on this.

While the ECB rate was on average around 3%, the average BoE rate was around 5%. Had the UK been a member, the ECB rate might have been somewhat higher, as the ECB would have had to take the UK economy into account, but as the northern countries needed a lower interest rate, it still wouldn't have been anywhere near the BoE rate. Additionally, it was always assured that the Bank of England would be a lender of last resort in the UK government bond market. In contrast, in the eurozone governments can't guarantee that they will always be able to pay off the bonds they have issued and there was a lot of uncertainty about what the ECB could and would do in response to the debt crisis that was unfolding, driving up debt financing rates. Obviously, it's not possible to know exactly what would have happened, but the UK would almost certainly have been in much worse shape than it was anyway.

Why do you think high interest rates benefits the UK? Do you believe businesses like to pay more back or that people like less money in their pockets? There is a reason Germany benefits from the Euro. The Euro is artificially low for the German market. If the Euro lowered the UKs interests rates that would benefit the UK too.

Of course the counter arguments would be the incentive for investors to invest within your currency and to buy your bonds that high interest rates provide (however the size of the Eurozone economy perhaps would counteract the lower interest rates) and to give a reason for the public to save.

Regarding free trade deals, you are not addressing my point that they have ever diminishing returns and ever higher costs and that the same is obviously true for economic integration within the EU which has already gone far beyond what FTAs deal with. If even minuscule increases in growth are worth ever more restrictions to democratic decision making, at least admit that you couldn't care less about sovereignty as long as it means you have a few pounds more in your pocket per year. It's also laughable that countries can't produce quality goods without the EU. EU proponents seem to be turning into outright EU supremacists. This is ridiculous stuff to which I'm not going to respond.

The EU FTA goes beyond other FTAs due to it being an organisation of more than free trade. It's a union of ethics and responsibility also.

But going back onto topic, when you compare Warsaw pact members to those who are within the single market to those who are not, why do you believe the effects of a small percentage of GDP is so insignificant?

The UK doesn't need full single market access or passporting for its services industry. The most obvious part of a deal would be the UK granting access to its market for EU goods, where the UK has a large deficit, in exchange for improved access for UK services that go beyond what already exists for non-EU countries, such as the EU regulations on regulatory equivalence. Furthermore, with respect to financial services specifically, the relationship isn't as one-sided as you seem to assume. There is no financial centre that can rival London on the continent and building something like it cannot be done in a few years' time. This is leverage for the UK, as if the EU and the UK assume a hardline position, it has the potential to be a major disruption for the financial industry in the EU. The EU certainly needs a transitional agreement on financial services at least as much as the UK, especially considering that parts of its financial industry are still vulnerable as a result of the financial crisis. As an example, Switzerland has a bilateral agreement with the EU to enable its insurance industry to provide services within the single market, and a deal along those lines comprising more than just insurance seems eminently possible and desirable for both parties, as long as punishment for leaving and/or making leaving unattractive isn't the primary factor in the EU's negotiation position.

There is an element of truth to this in terms of clearing houses. And then Spain needs a deal of some sort for their services to the UK too. But the EU will not allow their currency to be cleared within London long after Brexit I'm sure so I doubt it be as disruptive as you seem to predict. Especially as Frankfurt, Paris and Dublin are fighting for a piece of London's dominance. As for a transition period, I expect the EU would need to concede here actually due to London's dominance to set up elsewhere. But the UK is likely to need to do likewise for trade. The way negotiations are going, I can see talks going beyond March 2019.

Feel free to misrepresent what I said on Ukraine, if that makes you feel better. What I'm taking away from this is more confirmation that EU fans not only cannot admit any negatives about the EU, but they are also unable or unwilling to give an inch when it comes to assessing the positives. It's almost cultish in its fanaticism and rigidity.

FYI it was you who misunderstood me by believing I was comparing Ukraine with the UK.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Well. Russian socialism lost certainly. So are you saying that we (the US) was pumping money into Germany to prop up its economy? We did with the Marshall Plan but by the 70's that was pretty much over. In the 50's German GDP increased 8% annually and maintained over 4% through the 60's. Certainly they made a good deal of this building arms for export and their own growing Army. The influx of skilled workers fleeing the USSR immediately after the war did not go amiss. Not did the US soft policy regarding the 'war debt'.

I do not think it is fair to consider the FRG a showpiece. I think it came from a confluence of good fortune (selling arms to the Korean war) and wise policy on the part of the US as the victor of the war. It is not a bad idea to keep in mind that in comparing the DDR and FRG, the FRG had vastly more lucrative markets into which to sell. By 1950 the FRG economy was roughly 20% of the size of the US economy which is nothing short of astonishing. And about what it is now.

Here is an interesting piece.

http://www.e-ir.info/2011/08/07/economi ... and-1960s/

What about socially? It seems Germany was more 'pacific' for lack of a better term. It was a wonderful place to live.

I think this is pertinent for this thread, as nothing like the EU, which is today touted as crucial, was necessary to bring about substantial economic growth far beyond the actual post-war reconstruction in Germany and Western Europe as well as later Japan and South Korea. Starting in 1950, in Germany it was on average 8% for the first decade, 4% for the next and 2% for about two decades after the first oil crisis.

I don't know if Germany and Western Europe was more pacific or peaceful in the second half of the 20th century. As you mentioned, there was left-wing terrorism but also secessionist (although not in Germany itself) and right-wing terrorism. Germany was also much more militarised during the Cold War for obvious reasons, the Bundeswehr stood at half a million soldiers, and more than 1 million including reservists, and I suspect had a better standing and enjoyed more support if we exclude the militant left. I think the oil crisis is generally regarded as the end of the economic miracle, with GDP growth settling at 2% on average, but maybe the optimism and effects of the fantastic rise in living standards over the prior two decades could still be felt.

Anyway, it's interesting that whenever I have spoken to Brits who were stationed in Germany after the war, including after the 70s, they all told me they loved their time there. I haven't spoken to many Americans about this, but you seem to be of the same opinion.

ON EDIT:

In fact it seems to me that Brexit had little to nothing to do with economics and just about everything to do with "Brittishness". Were not the seeds of the ultimate collapse of the EU sown in immigration policy?

Yes, the predominant cause for Brexit was a combination of most Brits not considering themselves Europeans, the idea that Britain doesn't need the EU to stay peaceful and prosperous and the fear of sovereignty eroding ever more over time. It certainly helped that most people were able to witness how the former EEC had evolved and could remember what it was like beforehand. Immigration and the refugee crisis surely also played a role in the sense that they were a clear demonstration of the lack of control that the British government and parliament had and potentially would have in the future over quite fundamental issues like who can enter the country and in what numbers. As I've argued repeatedly on here, better to be out than assume the unnecessary risk of becoming ever more entangled in the future.

[vinnydell]

One does not have to be a member of the single market to trade with it.

[Rich]

in comparing the DDR and FRG,

Why do you anglicise "Die Bundesrepublik Deutschland" but not "die Deutsche Demokratische Republik"? Its a bit like the odd way people so often refer to "the German Kaiser" but "the Austrian Emperor".

[Drlee]

Why do you anglicise "Die Bundesrepublik Deutschland" but not "die Deutsche Demokratische Republik"? Its a bit like the odd way people so often refer to "the German Kaiser" but "the Austrian Emperor".

Because I am an American who, though he lived in Germany and speaks conversational German, is not so arrogant as to try to do it online. . (Was Hänschen nicht lernt, lernt Hans nimmermehr.) Oh yea. I forgot. This is an English language sight. 



