Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
You are fundamentally misunderstanding the whole purpose of the European project, which was to bind France and Germany so tightly together that it would be impossible for either of them to start another war. They always were, and remain, at the heart of something that was never, from day one, supposed to be just a trading bloc. French agriculture and German manufacturing were intended to create a symbiosis between the two countries and the ties were always intended to become political. Inevitably the rest of the continent has been drawn in to this and as long as they understand what they are in and assent to it that’s their business.
|
Whilst we agree on its foundation it’s evolved significantly over time and the UK has contributed significantly to it – eg Single Market, State Aid Rules, etc. Seeing it through the lens of a post-war settlement was right once but a more 360 approach is needed in the 21st Century.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
If after all the arguing and debating over the EU on this forum and in other places, you still don’t get this basic point, you’re never really going to understand why some of us campaigned against U.K. membership of the EU for decades and why we remain deaf to complaints about short (or even medium term) disruption to our trading patterns. Involvement in the EU isn’t about cheap out-of-season strawberries, tulips from Amsterdam or our ability to export cheese. What it is about is the ability to determine British laws and international treaties in our national interest. This is why fishing rights have become such a massive issue despite their modest economic impact. The right to control who fishes in our exclusive economic zone is a highly visible symbol of our departure from a system that is designed, in the long run, to create a single federal territory.
|
I’m not going to speculate on people’s motives for campaigning against EU membership. But to pretend that not being a member results in only short or medium term economic disruption ignores the gravity of trade and the move towards economic blocs. We’re talking about a long-term reduction in our country’s wealth as well as a short-term reduction in the wealth of the country – acknowledged by Dominic Cummings as being more than the entire contributions that the UK has paid into the EU.
By not being in the bloc, our global influence is also weakened, and that’s assuming the UK remains intact and Scotland and Northern Ireland don’t go their respective ways. Brexit plus We might be able to talk about sovereignty, and for sure, we will probably have control of our fishing waters which contribute less than 1% of GDP. I would venture that’s not just modest, but exceedingly modest! But ultimately, the UK will come down to becoming a rule-taker or not taking part in World trade. The lack of trade deals we have been able to sign demonstrates this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
It is vanishingly unlikely that RCEP or indeed NAFTA or Mercosur will ever get anywhere near the level of integration the EU has today, because that is not the objective of any of those organisations.
|
Agreed, which is why I said it will be interesting to see how the new bloc develops over time. It will be helpful to have a comparison to the EU which has hitherto been the largest trading bloc.