I read articles across the board to try and obtain some sort of facts out of the sewage that is our media, and the comments in the Telegraph are amongst some of the least informed there are nowadays. Whole sections of our country are like dead people in the Sixth Sense, they only see what they want to see.
I also suspect it's flooded with UKIP/City of London bods.
The comments following the article are, generally speaking, from members of the public. Now instead of complaining about the media, tell us where you stand on the EU and why.
The comments following the article are, generally speaking, from members of the public. Now instead of complaining about the media, tell us where you stand on the EU and why.
Still trying to play the man instead of the ball, eh allaorta?
When they say "The chairman of the committee said if Britain left the EU, it would be disastrous for its economy."
(from BBC News site).
Saying it will be disastrous for the economy is a legitimate opinion. It would certainly be disastrous for British business if the UK lost the influence it currently has over the running of the single market. At best you can criticise it for using slightly emotive language - which pales into insignificance in comparison to the stuff UKIP come out with.
There's been a very clear argument articulated against leaving the EU in the past couple of weeks. We're a member of the single market and roughly half of our external trade is with the rest of the EU, so we benefit from having influence over the rules that govern that trade. If we have no influence over those rules then there's nobody to protect British business on the continent. It's not a complicated argument, or a piece of scaremongering, it's a very straightforward point of view.
It may be a clear argument but it is not necessarily based on fact.
You say 50 per cent of our trade is with the EU, but the percentage is, in reality, less than that because of the Rotterdam-Antwerp effect and the Netherlands distortion. The 50 per cent figure would be nearer 40 per cent.
In addition to that, the percentage of our overall trade going to the EU has been falling. This September report gives the official figure as 43.6 per cent. Taking account of the Rotterdam-Antwerp effect and Netherlands distortion that percentage will be lower again.
The percentage of trade we do outside the EU is growing. It may well be possible to increase that trade even more if we were able to negotiate our own trade deals with other countries. As a member of the EU we are prevented from doing so.
And in all likelihood our current membership of the EU would be replaced with an arrangement that allowed us to trade freely with the EU. Jacques Delors has already spoken openly about such an arrangement. So have others. Indeed, the rest of the EU would want such an arrangement because they sell more to us than we sell to them.
Saying it will be disastrous for the economy is a legitimate opinion. It would certainly be disastrous for British business if the UK lost the influence it currently has over the running of the single market. At best you can criticise it for using slightly emotive language - which pales into insignificance in comparison to the stuff UKIP come out with.
It is no more legitimate than saying it wouldn't be a disaster. This week we have had the US saying the UK would be less valuable to it if it were not in the EU and Germany that it would be disaster. Both give me the impression the UK remaining in the EU is more about their interests than ours.
If anyone thinks the UK has much influence over how the single market is run they are very naive.
It may be a clear argument but it is not necessarily based on fact.
You say 50 per cent of our trade is with the EU, but the percentage is, in reality, less than that because of the Rotterdam-Antwerp effect and the Netherlands distortion. The 50 per cent figure would be nearer 40 per cent.
In addition to that, the percentage of our overall trade going to the EU has been falling. This September report gives the official figure as 43.6 per cent. Taking account of the Rotterdam-Antwerp effect and Netherlands distortion that percentage will be lower again.
The percentage of trade we do outside the EU is growing. It may well be possible to increase that trade even more if we were able to negotiate our own trade deals with other countries. As a member of the EU we are prevented from doing so.
And in all likelihood our current membership of the EU would be replaced with an arrangement that allowed us to trade freely with the EU. Jacques Delors has already spoken openly about such an arrangement. So have others. Indeed, the rest of the EU would want such an arrangement because they sell more to us than we sell to them.
I actually said "roughly half" not 50%, but for all intents and purposes it doesn't make much difference to the argument if it's 40%, 50% or even lower/higher. The point is that trading with the single market is extremely important to our economy and not having control over the rules which govern that trade is going to harm British business. Saying "we would be allowed to trade freely with the EU" is a completely different issue - nobody is saying we wouldn't be "allowed to trade", what we're discussing are the rules that govern that trade.
This is the fundamental misunderstanding that a lot of people make with the EU/single market - they assume that it's a simple case of "being able to trade with Europe" and don't take on board the fact that the success of British business on the continent can be influenced to an extremely large extent by the regulations that govern the single market. Indeed that's precisely the reason why the US has been so vocal about the issue - because these regulations also affect American companies' success in trading with Europe and the subsequent manufacturing costs associated with complying with EU rules.
It may well be possible to increase that trade even more if we were able to negotiate our own trade deals with other countries. As a member of the EU we are prevented from doing so.
We actually have several bilateral trade deals with other non-EU countries. For example UK businesses exporting goods to Canada have an advantage over other EU businesses because they receive preferential tariffs due to a bilateral agreement. The UK has recently had bilateral trade negotiations with China, Malaysia, South Korea and numerous other countries. We're not prevented from securing bilateral trade agreements due to our EU membership - it's an "and/and" model where EU agreements can be secured or we can negotiate individually. The fact that we choose to negotiate through the EU more often than not is because there's a much greater chance of securing favourable agreements when we negotiate jointly.
he point is that trading with the single market is extremely important to our economy and not having control over the rules which govern that trade is going to harm British business. Saying "we would be allowed to trade freely with the EU" is a completely different issue - nobody is saying we wouldn't be "allowed to trade", what we're discussing are the rules that govern that trade.
This is the fundamental misunderstanding that a lot of people make with the EU/single market - they assume that it's a simple case of "being able to trade with Europe" and don't take on board the fact that the success of British business on the continent can be influenced to an extremely large extent by the regulations that govern the single market. Indeed that's precisely the reason why the US has been so vocal about the issue - because these regulations also affect American companies' success in trading with Europe and the subsequent manufacturing costs associated with complying with EU rules.
The UK while having a voice, 1 out of 27, does not have control over the rules.
Afaik no one has claimed the UK can ignore the rules and regulations of the single market or any other market it seeks to trade in. The comments from the US this week were about the UK's value to the US and didn't afaik mention what you claim they are so vocal about not that I'm even clear what that is.
Still trying to play the man instead of the ball, eh allaorta?
Nope, merely pointing out that issuing dissertations on how we should form an opinion and hold a discussion is just hiding away from committing to the issue. But I'm sure you of all people know that.
Nope, merely pointing out that issuing dissertations on how we should form an opinion and hold a discussion is just hiding away from committing to the issue. But I'm sure you of all people know that.
What I know is that an argument stands or falls on its own merits regardless of whether the proponent's views are unstated or even undecided, and no-one is obliged to "commit" to any particular side purely in order to satisfy anyone's one-dimensional, binary thinking nor anyone's propensity towards pigeon-holing people.
I actually said "roughly half" not 50%, but for all intents and purposes it doesn't make much difference to the argument if it's 40%, 50% or even lower/higher. The point is that trading with the single market is extremely important to our economy and not having control over the rules which govern that trade is going to harm British business. Saying "we would be allowed to trade freely with the EU" is a completely different issue - nobody is saying we wouldn't be "allowed to trade", what we're discussing are the rules that govern that trade.
So explain precisely how much trade we would lose as a result of withdrawing from the EU or are you basing an argumet on something you don't have an answer for?
This is the fundamental misunderstanding that a lot of people make with the EU/single market - they assume that it's a simple case of "being able to trade with Europe" and don't take on board the fact that the success of British business on the continent can be influenced to an extremely large extent by the regulations that govern the single market. Indeed that's precisely the reason why the US has been so vocal about the issue - because these regulations also affect American companies' success in trading with Europe and the subsequent manufacturing costs associated with complying with EU rules.
So America's interest is to do with the success of American companies; would that be those in America or those over here or those in other EU countries that might lose their UK trade?
We actually have several bilateral trade deals with other non-EU countries. For example UK businesses exporting goods to Canada have an advantage over other EU businesses because they receive preferential tariffs due to a bilateral agreement. The UK has recently had bilateral trade negotiations with China, Malaysia, South Korea and numerous other countries. We're not prevented from securing bilateral trade agreements due to our EU membership - it's an "and/and" model where EU agreements can be secured or we can negotiate individually. The fact that we choose to negotiate through the EU more often than not is because there's a much greater chance of securing favourable agreements when we negotiate jointly.
So we got agreement with Canada all on our own and we're having talks with China, and numerous other countries all on our own which tends to defeat your proposition that we need the EU to negotiate on our behalf. Perhaps we're doing it because the EU is lousy at it or the world outside of Europe don't care much for the EU style and certainly not its baba the Eurozone.
Big business telling us we must stay in Europe for fear of losing their tax avoidance route, the Yanks telling us we have to stay in the EU and the Germans telling us we must not have a referendum. The British people have historically had a great dislike of people telling us what to do.
Historically, I often think we are political suckers so the 'popular freedom' tactic probably works.
I blame Pink Floyd for singing about kids needing no education.
So explain precisely how much trade we would lose as a result of withdrawing from the EU or are you basing an argumet on something you don't have an answer for?
If you want actual estimates on the economic impact then there are plenty around - e.g. this.
So America's interest is to do with the success of American companies; would that be those in America or those over here or those in other EU countries that might lose their UK trade?
I'm not trying to be sarcastic or obnoxious here, but I'm not sure I really understand the question. America has an interest in trying to influence EU regulations - something it finds extremely difficult to do from outside the EU - because they have an impact on American companies. Any American company that exports to the EU has to take on board EU regulations in the running of their business. Otherwise a machinery manufacturer, for instance, would have to construct two different products: an American version and a European one (which would make the whole enterprise more expensive).
Then there are specific regulations that can in effect penalise American companies relative to EU competitors (e.g. a French and American company both manufacture a similar product, but EU regulations make some component in the American version illegal, causing them to change their manufacturing process). That's broadly why the US cares about EU regulation and that's one reason why the UK is a valuable ally - because it offers a route into influencing the negotiations (we can negotiate on their behalf). Put simply it's something the UK can give to the US in exchange for something in return (leverage). If you ignore what your allies actually want from you then you're not going to have much success diplomatically.
So we got agreement with Canada all on our own and we're having talks with China, and numerous other countries all on our own which tends to defeat your proposition that we need the EU to negotiate on our behalf. Perhaps we're doing it because the EU is lousy at it or the world outside of Europe don't care much for the EU style and certainly not its baba the Eurozone.
That makes the bizarre assumption that every trade agreement is negotiated under the same conditions in every context. For instance the reason why we have our agreement with Canada is that it's a legacy of the Commonwealth - something that only applies to us and not the rest of the EU. However that doesn't get us much benefit if we're negotiating with Japan, or Mexico. In certain isolated circumstances it makes sense to have bilateral negotiations, however in most cases we negotiate through the EU. The point is that we aren't prevented from negotiating a bilateral agreement by our EU membership - i.e. there's no basis for this idea that if we leave the EU we can just recoup our losses by trading with the rest of the world.
If you want actual estimates on the economic impact then there are plenty around - e.g. this.
It's left-wing propaganda. A Guardian article written by someone educated at the infested by the left-wing London School of Economics and talking about a report written by the IPPR, a left wing think-tank.
I'm not trying to be sarcastic or obnoxious here, but I'm not sure I really understand the question. America has an interest in trying to influence EU regulations - something it finds extremely difficult to do from outside the EU - because they have an impact on American companies. Any American company that exports to the EU has to take on board EU regulations in the running of their business. Otherwise a machinery manufacturer, for instance, would have to construct two different products: an American version and a European one (which would make the whole enterprise more expensive).
Well I've made a point on this elsewhere. If the USA want to influence EU regulations then let them nurture a relationship with the EU. If the don't want to be closely involved with the EU in influence terms, you'd think they might be making an effort to seek that influence with other EU nations, not having Britain as its errand boy.
Then there are specific regulations that can in effect penalise American companies relative to EU competitors (e.g. a French and American company both manufacture a similar product, but EU regulations make some component in the American version illegal, causing them to change their manufacturing process). That's broadly why the US cares about EU regulation and that's one reason why the UK is a valuable ally - because it offers a route into influencing the negotiations (we can negotiate on their behalf).
If France or any other country does that then it almost certainly wouldn't impact just on America; perhaps you can substantiate that this is a frequent or even infrequent move by the EU.
Put simply it's something the UK can give to the US in exchange for something in return (leverage). If you ignore what your allies actually want from you then you're not going to have much success diplomatically.
Regretably I think you'll find that the EU nations have substituted America as our main allies.
That makes the bizarre assumption that every trade agreement is negotiated under the same conditions in every context. For instance the reason why we have our agreement with Canada is that it's a legacy of the Commonwealth - something that only applies to us and not the rest of the EU. However that doesn't get us much benefit if we're negotiating with Japan, or Mexico. In certain isolated circumstances it makes sense to have bilateral negotiations, however in most cases we negotiate through the EU. The point is that we aren't prevented from negotiating a bilateral agreement by our EU membership - i.e. there's no basis for this idea that if we leave the EU we can just recoup our losses by trading with the rest of the world.
Well I'm not going to attempt to unpick the dross but you and many like you are assuming that we will lose our exports to the EU and they will not export to us. That's a nuffink argument, it ain't gonna happen.
Current situation:-
Honda, main trade in Europe Via EU, drastic drop in sales laying off 800 workers + many more affected.
Jaguar/Land Rover, main trade Asia & China, record exports taking on 800 extra workers + more work for suppliers.
Its not difficult to see whats happening globally
Current situation:-
Honda, main trade in Europe Via EU, drastic drop in sales laying off 800 workers + many more affected.
Jaguar/Land Rover, main trade Asia & China, record exports taking on 800 extra workers + more work for suppliers.
Its not difficult to see whats happening globally
Absolutely true. Problem is, if the UK want to negotiate a trade deal with any of those Asian countries to increase their trading amounts, gain more co-operation or better terms, or any other part of the deal, or any other part of the world, it has to be done through the auspices of the EU. Then guess what, Germany and France want a part of the action, but also to impose their terms on the contract. Voila, they have benefitted and the UK has lost.
One only has to look at the proposal for a transaction tax. Who does it benefit? France and Germany. Who is likely to have their interests severely curtailed and their financial services industry damaged?
Comments
The comments following the article are, generally speaking, from members of the public. Now instead of complaining about the media, tell us where you stand on the EU and why.
When they say "The chairman of the committee said if Britain left the EU, it would be disastrous for its economy."
(from BBC News site).
Still trying to play the man instead of the ball, eh allaorta?
Saying it will be disastrous for the economy is a legitimate opinion. It would certainly be disastrous for British business if the UK lost the influence it currently has over the running of the single market. At best you can criticise it for using slightly emotive language - which pales into insignificance in comparison to the stuff UKIP come out with.
It may be a clear argument but it is not necessarily based on fact.
You say 50 per cent of our trade is with the EU, but the percentage is, in reality, less than that because of the Rotterdam-Antwerp effect and the Netherlands distortion. The 50 per cent figure would be nearer 40 per cent.
http://www.globalbritain.org/BNN/BN64RotterdamAntwerpNethDistortion.pdf
In addition to that, the percentage of our overall trade going to the EU has been falling. This September report gives the official figure as 43.6 per cent. Taking account of the Rotterdam-Antwerp effect and Netherlands distortion that percentage will be lower again.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2201876/UKs-non-EU-exports-surges-time-high-firms-sell-13-2billion-goods-nations-Europe-month.html
The percentage of trade we do outside the EU is growing. It may well be possible to increase that trade even more if we were able to negotiate our own trade deals with other countries. As a member of the EU we are prevented from doing so.
And in all likelihood our current membership of the EU would be replaced with an arrangement that allowed us to trade freely with the EU. Jacques Delors has already spoken openly about such an arrangement. So have others. Indeed, the rest of the EU would want such an arrangement because they sell more to us than we sell to them.
It is no more legitimate than saying it wouldn't be a disaster. This week we have had the US saying the UK would be less valuable to it if it were not in the EU and Germany that it would be disaster. Both give me the impression the UK remaining in the EU is more about their interests than ours.
If anyone thinks the UK has much influence over how the single market is run they are very naive.
I actually said "roughly half" not 50%, but for all intents and purposes it doesn't make much difference to the argument if it's 40%, 50% or even lower/higher. The point is that trading with the single market is extremely important to our economy and not having control over the rules which govern that trade is going to harm British business. Saying "we would be allowed to trade freely with the EU" is a completely different issue - nobody is saying we wouldn't be "allowed to trade", what we're discussing are the rules that govern that trade.
This is the fundamental misunderstanding that a lot of people make with the EU/single market - they assume that it's a simple case of "being able to trade with Europe" and don't take on board the fact that the success of British business on the continent can be influenced to an extremely large extent by the regulations that govern the single market. Indeed that's precisely the reason why the US has been so vocal about the issue - because these regulations also affect American companies' success in trading with Europe and the subsequent manufacturing costs associated with complying with EU rules.
We actually have several bilateral trade deals with other non-EU countries. For example UK businesses exporting goods to Canada have an advantage over other EU businesses because they receive preferential tariffs due to a bilateral agreement. The UK has recently had bilateral trade negotiations with China, Malaysia, South Korea and numerous other countries. We're not prevented from securing bilateral trade agreements due to our EU membership - it's an "and/and" model where EU agreements can be secured or we can negotiate individually. The fact that we choose to negotiate through the EU more often than not is because there's a much greater chance of securing favourable agreements when we negotiate jointly.
The UK while having a voice, 1 out of 27, does not have control over the rules.
Afaik no one has claimed the UK can ignore the rules and regulations of the single market or any other market it seeks to trade in. The comments from the US this week were about the UK's value to the US and didn't afaik mention what you claim they are so vocal about not that I'm even clear what that is.
Nope, merely pointing out that issuing dissertations on how we should form an opinion and hold a discussion is just hiding away from committing to the issue. But I'm sure you of all people know that.
What I know is that an argument stands or falls on its own merits regardless of whether the proponent's views are unstated or even undecided, and no-one is obliged to "commit" to any particular side purely in order to satisfy anyone's one-dimensional, binary thinking nor anyone's propensity towards pigeon-holing people.
I blame Pink Floyd for singing about kids needing no education.
:rolleyes:
If you want actual estimates on the economic impact then there are plenty around - e.g. this.
I'm not trying to be sarcastic or obnoxious here, but I'm not sure I really understand the question. America has an interest in trying to influence EU regulations - something it finds extremely difficult to do from outside the EU - because they have an impact on American companies. Any American company that exports to the EU has to take on board EU regulations in the running of their business. Otherwise a machinery manufacturer, for instance, would have to construct two different products: an American version and a European one (which would make the whole enterprise more expensive).
Then there are specific regulations that can in effect penalise American companies relative to EU competitors (e.g. a French and American company both manufacture a similar product, but EU regulations make some component in the American version illegal, causing them to change their manufacturing process). That's broadly why the US cares about EU regulation and that's one reason why the UK is a valuable ally - because it offers a route into influencing the negotiations (we can negotiate on their behalf). Put simply it's something the UK can give to the US in exchange for something in return (leverage). If you ignore what your allies actually want from you then you're not going to have much success diplomatically.
That makes the bizarre assumption that every trade agreement is negotiated under the same conditions in every context. For instance the reason why we have our agreement with Canada is that it's a legacy of the Commonwealth - something that only applies to us and not the rest of the EU. However that doesn't get us much benefit if we're negotiating with Japan, or Mexico. In certain isolated circumstances it makes sense to have bilateral negotiations, however in most cases we negotiate through the EU. The point is that we aren't prevented from negotiating a bilateral agreement by our EU membership - i.e. there's no basis for this idea that if we leave the EU we can just recoup our losses by trading with the rest of the world.
Honda, main trade in Europe Via EU, drastic drop in sales laying off 800 workers + many more affected.
Jaguar/Land Rover, main trade Asia & China, record exports taking on 800 extra workers + more work for suppliers.
Its not difficult to see whats happening globally
Absolutely true. Problem is, if the UK want to negotiate a trade deal with any of those Asian countries to increase their trading amounts, gain more co-operation or better terms, or any other part of the deal, or any other part of the world, it has to be done through the auspices of the EU. Then guess what, Germany and France want a part of the action, but also to impose their terms on the contract. Voila, they have benefitted and the UK has lost.
One only has to look at the proposal for a transaction tax. Who does it benefit? France and Germany. Who is likely to have their interests severely curtailed and their financial services industry damaged?
Guess.