Eurozone will collapse...

Originally Posted by Chris

These arguments are a busted flush, Damien. All of them were made in one form or another when the Euro was proposed and Britain indicated it would not join. Being outside the currency used by all the powerhouse economies of Europe - back in the days when they were powerhouses - was insane, we were warned, no sensible corporation would saddle itself with massive exchange risk by basing operations here when it could just as easily set up in Spain. Just try telling any of that to the people of Sunderland.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Chris

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.

I am saying that the Euro and free trade deals aren't the same thing. The drawbacks of the Euro do not apply to free trade deals and the fact that the arguments for the Euro were proven wrong doesn't mean that the arguments for the single market are also wrong. You're the one making the connection between the two, I think they're separate issues.

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.

The EU would have problems but so would we. Europe has a whole is more attractive to the US and than any one part of it.

[Osem]

With all the quarrelling, uncertainty and resentment that's bound to erupt in Europe I don't the the EU is going to be very appealling to anyone for long.

Originally Posted by Damien

I am saying that the Euro and free trade deals aren't the same thing. The drawbacks of the Euro do not apply to free trade deals and the fact that the arguments for the Euro were proven wrong doesn't mean that the arguments for the single market are also wrong. You're the one making the connection between the two, I think they're separate issues.



The EU would have problems but so would we. Europe has a whole is more attractive to the US and than any one part of it.

You're assuming it's a case of either/or for the USA - which IMO is a baseless assumption. The USA is a growing capitalist economy. You don't take one or other other of something if you can take both. And I come back to the point that it has taken the EU how many decades even to get this far?

Originally Posted by Chris

You're assuming it's a case of either/or for the USA - which IMO is a baseless assumption. The USA is a growing capitalist economy. You don't take one or other other of something if you can take both. And I come back to the point that it has taken the EU how many decades even to get this far?

I am not saying the US will choose or the other but that our position in negotiations will be weaker than it would be as a collective with Europe. It has taken a while but given the difficulty in securing such agreements it's not a massive surprise, the US hardly has agreements in place with loads of other countries. Still it's took ages and will probably takes ages to agree still.

Originally Posted by Damien

I am not saying the US will choose or the other but that our position in negotiations will be weaker than it would be as a collective with Europe. It has taken a while but given the difficulty in securing such agreements it's not a massive surprise, the US hardly has agreements in place with loads of other countries. Still it's took ages and will probably takes ages to agree still.

Again, I don't agree. Reciprocal trade deals are not simply a case of "I won't put tariffs on yours if you don't put tariffs on mine". There are a whole pile of additional considerations arising from whatever regulations exist in the territory you wish to sell into. In the case of the EU the regulation is vast and often arcane. The UK, when left to itself, tends towards less regulation than the EU. This offers us a potential advantage.

Originally Posted by Chris

Again, I don't agree. Reciprocal trade deals are not simply a case of "I won't put tariffs on yours if you don't put tariffs on mine". There are a whole pile of additional considerations arising from whatever regulations exist in the territory you wish to sell into. In the case of the EU the regulation is vast and often arcane. The UK, when left to itself, tends towards less regulation than the EU. This offers us a potential advantage.

That does offer us an advantage but the terms of the agreement can depend on the strength of your hand when you enter the negotiations, entering it as the entire European single market is a better position than the UK on it's own. A trade deal would help us more than the US given the size of their economy compared to our own.

[Sirius]

My dislike of the European way is not only around imports and exports. I hate the way we must do as we are told by Brussels, that we must allow people that have moved here to work and are not yet working access to benefits and housing that our own people even have trouble claiming for, then we have to let them send the money to there families in there own country, how we cannot kick out known terrorists from this country unless they say we can, how there laws seem to take precedence over our own, How we cannot control our own borders, how an unelected bureaucrats in Brussels can dictate to us over our own elected Mp's. the list goes on and on and i for one do not want to be ruled by Brussels or the countries who think the only way forward is a United States Of Sodding Europe.

Roll on the referendum.

I seem to have heard Dave make a similar claim before and then refuse to hold to it.

Asked whether Lord Lawson's comments had given UKIP a boost, Mr Cameron said: "I think it's been a good day for the pledge that, if re-elected, I will hold to it in a referendum, so that everyone can have not just a voice on every one's future in Europe, but a vote on our future in Europe."

You lied once to us i feel you will lie again

Sirius, when was a referendum on Europe promised before? (serious/Sirius question, as I can't find anything on t'intraweeb).

The only thing I can find is on page 113 of the 2010 manifesto

We will ensure that by law no future government can hand over areas of power to the EU or join the Euro without a referendum of the British people.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Sirius, when was a referendum on Europe promised before? (serious/Sirius question, as I can't find anything on t'intraweeb).

I stand corrected, this was what he lied about

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...on-Treaty.html

The Tory party leader’s admission, which could come as early as Tuesday, will bring accusations that he has broken clear promises to grant a popular vote on the treaty.

Mr Cameron gave voters an “cast-iron” promise in 2007 that a Conservative government would hold a popular vote on Lisbon.

And, in May this year, he said: "A progressive reform agenda demands that we redistribute power from the EU to Britain and from judges to the people. We will therefore hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty."

But today Mr Cameron gave his clearest signal yet that he will not hold a popular vote on the treaty, which creates the post of EU president and ends more than 50 British vetoes over European policy.

Mr Cameron said that once the document is endorsed by all 27 EU members and comes into force, it will “not be a treaty” and will instead be part of European law.

Therefor how can we trust him not to do the same trick and lie AGAIN. He is not trustworthy when it comes to his promises and his offer of a referendum.

Thanks for that.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Thanks for that.

Your welcome

[beeman]

Originally Posted by Sirius

I stand corrected, this was what he lied about

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...on-Treaty.html





Therefor how can we trust him not to do the same trick and lie AGAIN. He is not trustworthy when it comes to his promises and his offer of a referendum.

But he didnt exactly lie. Gorden signed the treaty BEFORE the GE. Once the treaty was signed it was too late it was already law no going back without a FULL withdral which was not the pledge.

He also made it VERY clear BEFORE the election that a referendum would not be possiable due to the above, the referendum was nevr part of the manafasto and that was the exact reason this pledge became an election promise

We will ensure that by law no future government can hand over areas of power to the EU or join the Euro without a referendum of the British people.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by beeman

But he didnt exactly lie. Gorden signed the treaty BEFORE the GE. Once the treaty was signed it was too late it was already law no going back without a FULL withdral which was not the pledge.

He also made it VERY clear BEFORE the election that a referendum would not be possiable due to the above, the referendum was nevr part of the manafasto and that was the exact reason this pledge became an election promise

I don't trust him, he will find a way to get out of this referendum.