Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
I don't think they are a busted flush. If that were the case then we wouldn't be so keen to continue to make free-trade deals. There is little appetite for a single currencies but there continues to be incentives to cut the cost of trade between nations. They're not the same thing.
We wouldn't just be leaving the bloc that accounts for 44% of our trade (which is no small number). We would be leaving our other trade deals too, including the prospective one with America, and left to renegotiate them on our own terms. Being able to offer 500 million consumers is a better position to be in than offering 62 million people.
We will also be leaving the system that allows for free movement across the continent which is useful for these pan-European countries. It's especially useful for banks and software development. Look to the attempts to cultivate a Silicon Valley Rival around Old Street (imaginatively named 'Silicon Roundabout') which is drawing in developers and designers from across Europe. We would want to keep that as well but that is far more politically difficult to maintain than arguing to keep the trade deals given the pressure to control immigration.
The EU is a bit of a mess. I would love to go for a Europe-lite that allows us to keep the stuff I mentioned above, the ECHR, and some standards. I hope Cameron negotiates something akin to that although it's very unlikely. However I am not convinced that leaving is a sure-fire bet without consequences.
|
Your argument is a non sequitur.
The position that the UK is at a disadvantage when it withdraws from the fundamental structures of the EU is untenable. We know it to be so, because we are not in the Euro and none of the supposed catastrophes which were made in the late 1990s, and which are being made again now, have come to pass.
You seem to suggest that a keenness to make free trade deals demonstrates that your argument is valid but I can see no logical connection between the two (please offer one!). Remember though that free trade deals are negotiated for us by the EU, so British keenness on such deals is neither here nor there. It certainly doesn't demonstrate that we're working harder to counteract the supposed disadvantages of being in the EU.
Remember that ultimately, control of a currency is not about deciding who is printed on the bank notes or making it cheaper or more expensive for businesses to operate across borders. Monetary policy is a key weapon in any government's arsenal which it must have at its disposal if it is to be in control of its economy. The Eurozone states have surrendered that control and they are paying the price. We have not surrendered that control and we are sheltered from the worst of the continental depression as a result.
The problem with the EU is that while it doesn't have our monetary policy under its control, it has a whole lot else. Our government cannot, for example, pursue a sensible energy policy (whatever you think about coal, shutting down our remaining coal power stations now, before we have adequate capacity to replace them, is insane - but we are compelled to do so anyway, despite the risks to our energy security and the costs to our economy).
And yes, trade policy. Though I'm not sure your example is a good advert for EU trade policy. How many years has the EU existed, and it is only just getting around to forging a deal with the biggest economy on earth? I like to think that we can do better, as our national instinct is not to regulate as heavily as the EU is prone to. I'm confident that we can get trade deals in place with all the countries that matter, reasonably quickly. As for population size, that is less important than the size of the economy. The UK has the 6th largest economy in the world and the 2nd largest in Europe. In fact, the EU will have a problem of its own, touting the size and desirability of 'its' economy to potential trade partners, if the UK's GDP isn't there to make its figures look rosy.