[Update] The UK votes to leave the EU

[Big Brian]

Originally Posted by Damien

He addresses this part though. For companies and industries where the current situation is agreeable is it much of an argument to suggest that we may get the same outside the EU?

This is the question I have of the Tech Industry in London who recruit across Europe and which attracts start-ups from across Europe. What will they do? This is one area where freedom of movement and commerce works well.

We'll train our own people to do the jobs. These people will still be allowed to come and work in the UK. I don't have any problem with that.

[Osem]

If we run our own affairs we can pick and choose those with skills we need and control the numbers we admit. Right now we have little or no control over migration from within the EU, the jobs migrants come here to do and the benefits etc. they can claim. We have undercut out own labour and instead of training more of the people we need, we're choosing to rely on migrants from all around the globe who're more than willing to work for less.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Damien

This is the question I have of the Tech Industry in London who recruit across Europe and which attracts start-ups from across Europe. What will they do? This is one area where freedom of movement and commerce works well.

Presumably the same kind of things all the start-ups in Silicon Valley and everywhere else do.

[Big Brian]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Presumably the same kind of things all the start-ups in Silicon Valley and everywhere else do.

Doesn't make it right though.

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Presumably the same kind of things all the start-ups in Silicon Valley and everywhere else do.

America is a far bigger country but as it happens they're not too happy with their immigration policy either. Still the point remains that for them finding talented staff from a population of 318 million is easier that finding talented staff from a population of 64 million.

We can 'train people up' as suggested previously but we haven't so far that isn't the fault of the European Union although I am sure somebody will find some reason as it why it is.

Our rival for this industry though isn't Silicon Valley, for now, but Berlin and for all the tropes about Britain being great the ability to recruit across Europe and operate across Europe with little friction will be an advantage to them. One of the problems some companies face is that when moving into a new country they need to have a bank account and registered premises in that country. Technologies companies don't really have to work like these if they're not selling services or products with physical components. At the moment pan-European expansion is easy. Making it less so will not help it.

This isn't yet a massive industry for the UK, and it certainly shouldn't be used as a main argument to stay in, but it's an example of some real problems that could come out of it. It's always met with claims that it will be fine, that we've operated outside of Europe before and do what America does (which is expand into Europe slowly and set up a HQ, usually in Dublin, for across the EU). It's not actually clear what would happen practically though about from this mythical trade deal that will cover everything and be in our favor.

We were asking for reasons to stay in and there are real industries that benefit from the EU and real concerns as to what would happen to them.

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by figgyburn

That bit of info is very informative.So no reams and reams of extra paperwork/red tape only an extra 30 mins of paperwork to deal with.Hardly Armageddon time.

It is a big deal when you ship over 100,000 orders per year - 50,000 hours

---------- Post added at 13:06 ---------- Previous post was at 12:45 ----------

Originally Posted by Big Brian

Given the latest situation in Brussels with 3 attacks in an hour does it not make us a bigger target remaining in the EU? At the moment they seem to be leaving the UK alone and concentrating their efforts on Brussels and Mainland EU. Shouldn't we get out for that reason alone?

---------- Post added at 10:37 ---------- Previous post was at 10:24 ----------



On your first point. There is no evidence that being in the EU has kept the peace for 60 years. There was peace for 20 years on Europe before we joined. This point, though you're entitled to raise it, is a common theme the Inners use.

Your Second Point. This can all be done outside the EU.

Your Third Point is contradictory: How can we be European yet more like Scandinavians? We tried working together for 40 years and it doesn't work unless you are Brussels!

Technical Point of View:

First Point: Depends on the kind of trade agreement we get with the EU.

Second Point: The UK would have it's own body to do this.

Third Point: Do you really believe we have that much influence? Don't forget the last 40 times we have put something forward in the EU it has been rejected 40 times.

Fourth Point: The EU can never be perfect with becoming a United States of Europe. One Currency, one nation. Do you really want to be Governed from Germany financially and Brussels politically?

Correct they are self serving. To hell with what's best for the UK as long as you are al right Jack, eh?

Hey, we can agree to differ, that's democracy. You made some good points but unless we could have a control group in science terms, it's difficult to say for sure that things would be different if we weren't in the EU. I can only work on the evidence I have in front of me. I will try and answer your points;

One the peace front, it's not just me, the Nobel Peace Prize committee agree (awarded from Oslo of course)

Do we need a formal framework for international co-operation? No, but it's easier if we group together with common aims. See United Nations

When I stated we are like Scandinavians, I meant our general outlook is similar to European countries. I feel that we are getting further and further away from the US in our societal outlook. Others may feel different, it could be the environment I work in (a US company with a big UK based headquarters)

On the technical side, 'it depends' is not a convincing answer for me. We do have our own medicines agency (MHRA) but it aligns and influences the European Medicines Agency. See also british standards, etc.

I would be interested to see the 40 proposals rejected if you have them, I wasn't aware of this. It's unusual for one country to 'go solo' and agreements are usually reached at the COREPER stage.

Getting near the end now.... In a global market, and I fail to see any sign of globalisation reducing, decisions made in Brussels, Germany or anywhere else will affect the UK, whether we are a member of the EU or not. See the global financial crisis which kicked off with dodgy mortgage lending in the US. Being in the EU, we can influence as part of a larger trading bloc. We can't influence the Euro and neither should we if we aren't a member of the eurozone.

Finally, aren't all voting decisions at least partially self serving? I wouldn't believe anyone would vote completely altruistically and make themselves significantly worse off. Voting decisions surely are influenced a) by facts and b) by beliefs. I believe that the EU is a force for good. I will be voting in.

If someone wants to vote out, then that's cool, this is a democracy. I just hope that all the facts are presented well in the run in instead of some of the rubbish you see in the press (bendy bananas, banned toasters, etc.)

Gonna drop out of the conversation for now, just wanted to say my piece

[Big Brian]

Originally Posted by Damien

America is a far bigger country but as it happens they're not too happy with their immigration policy either. Still the point remains that for them finding talented staff from a population of 318 million is easier that finding talented staff from a population of 64 million.

We can 'train people up' as suggested previously but we haven't so far that isn't the fault of the European Union although I am sure somebody will find some reason as it why it is.

Our rival for this industry though isn't Silicon Valley, for now, but Berlin and for all the tropes about Britain being great the ability to recruit across Europe and operate across Europe with little friction will be an advantage to them. One of the problems some companies face is that when moving into a new country they need to have a bank account and registered premises in that country. Technologies companies don't really have to work like these if they're not selling services or products with physical components. At the moment pan-European expansion is easy. Making it less so will not help it.

This isn't yet a massive industry for the UK, and it certainly shouldn't be used as a main argument to stay in, but it's an example of some real problems that could come out of it. It's always met with claims that it will be fine, that we've operated outside of Europe before and do what America does (which is expand into Europe slowly and set up a HQ, usually in Dublin, for across the EU). It's not actually clear what would happen practically though about from this mythical trade deal that will cover everything and be in our favor.

We were asking for reasons to stay in and there are real industries that benefit from the EU and real concerns as to what would happen to them.

Correct it isn't the fault of the EU but as long as we are in we are NOT training people up.

That's one industry. Others have premises and are registered in other countries, I suggest yours does the same. The only problems created are the ones you create yourself. Other industries have and will make contingency plans.

Only 5% of industry trades with the EU. Or should I say UK business'?

Originally Posted by Big Brian

Correct it isn't the fault of the EU but as long as we are in we are NOT training people up.

True but I think even if we did it still would be better to recruit from a much larger pool. Only a small minority of people will ever want to work in such fields.

That's one industry. Others have premises and are registered in other countries, I suggest yours does the same. The only problems created are the ones you create yourself. Other industries have and will make contingency plans.

Mine isn't the problem. That however is an example of where the single market is a benefit and why leaving is an issue. Telling companies to set-up facilities elsewhere and to make contingency plans is a poor argument when there remains the option not to have to do any of this and stay in the EU.

There are many businesses that are pan-European. It's going to be a lot more difficult to detangle than people expect IMO. Trade is not just about shipping cars/equipment around.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Damien

True but I think even if we did it still would be better to recruit from a much larger pool. Only a small minority of people will ever want to work in such fields.



Mine isn't the problem. That however is an example of where the single market is a benefit and why leaving is an issue. Telling companies to set-up facilities elsewhere and to make contingency plans is a poor argument when there remains the option not to have to do any of this and stay in the EU.

There are many businesses that are pan-European. It's going to be a lot more difficult to detangle than people expect IMO. Trade is not just about shipping cars/equipment around.

... and that'll be an excellent reason for our former EU partners to expedite matters and facilitate the required change rather than stamp their feet and whine that the UK has dared to leave.

Originally Posted by Osem

... and that'll be an excellent reason for our former EU partners to expedite matters and facilitate the required change rather than stamp their feet and whine that the UK has dared to leave.

And under what terms?

Also as I said that for the start-up industry we have rivals in Europe, Berlin especially, and there will be a self-interested motivation for them to put barriers up for services. The recent trade deal with Canada for example excluded Financial Services. I am also unsure the extent to which a single market would require we keep freedom of movement.

The uncertainty of what those terms would be and if their own industry would be ok or not is what will drive some industries to conclude it's better off staying in. Even the administrative actions of having to treat the EU as a different market for which different regulations or legal entities need to be set up wouldn't be welcome.

[Osem]

Under terms that are mutually acceptable. Anything else would be mutually harmful and illogical wouldn't it. If we're saying that there are many complex business links between UK and other EU countries why wouldn't it be in everyone's interests to work to limit the damage of any split on both sides and ensure all required negotiations are conducted as quickly as possible. If barriers are imposed against the UK then clearly the UK would do likewise and the EU would clearly lose far more than we would in that eventuality. Given that the UK is growing and they're not why would they want to add further misery to their existing plight?

Of course you could be right and irrational, almost revenge based decisions may even be made but if that were to happen why would we want to be part of such a club who'd treat an ally and major partner in such a way? The EU is hamstrung by regulation and inherently slow to act/change as has been proved many times before. In what way would an independent UK, unhindered by huge EU regulation and consequently able to react to change within its economy and globally far more quickly than the EU ever could, be at a disadvantage?

Wasn't the speed of reaction and manoeuvrability of Drake's vessels the key to his success against the Spanish Armada?

Originally Posted by Osem

Under terms that are mutually acceptable. Anything else would be mutually harmful and illogical wouldn't it. If we're saying that there are many complex business links between UK and other EU countries why wouldn't it be in everyone's interests to work to limit the damage of any split on both sides and ensure all required negotiations are conducted as quickly as possible. If barriers are imposed against the UK then clearly the UK would do likewise and the EU would clearly lose far more than we would in that eventuality. Given that the UK is growing and they're not why would they want to add further misery to their existing plight.

I don't think barriers will be set up but they certainly don't have to make it as easy as it is now. Obviously any agreement would have to be mutually acceptable but that doesn't mean the deal will be as good. We could easily end up with less access to the single market than we do now but have a deal that is better than nothing. Instead of free movement, for example, we could trade away services. Let's face it free movement is politically untenable for any Government in the UK to agree too in any negotiation.

Also member that each member state has to agree to the deal. So the fact the EU as a whole exports more to us than we export to them may be meaningless if a lot of countries have their trade deficit the other way around.

We'll also have to start our own trade deals with the nations too and this time with a smaller consumer base to offer those at the other side of the table.

Of course you could be right and irrational, almost revenge based decisions may be made but if that were to happen why would we want to be part of such a club?

Because pragmatically it's better to do so if the alternative is harmful economically. The EU will have members that act irrationally if we're in or out and so will other trading partners.

I am not arguing we stay in the EU because of the brilliance of their leaders or because I believe in the European ideal. I think we should because the downsides, there are many, are worth it for access to the single market.

[Osem]

The deal wouldn't have to be as good because we'd be saving countless millions by not having to help subsidise the EU as we currently do and because businesses in the UK would no longer be bound by EU rules whether they trade with Europe or not.

Binding ourselves to a stagnating EU will only mean we pay more for the privilege of being in the club whilst at the same time being derided for being there. If the EU wants access to the UK's markets then they'll have to allow us to access theirs and since Germany calls most of the shots I can see the EU tail wagging the German dog for long.

Originally Posted by Osem

The deal wouldn't have to be as good because we'd be saving countless millions by not having to help subsidise the EU as we currently do and because businesses in the UK would no longer be bound by EU rules whether they trade with Europe or not.

When we're talking about stuff like that though how much is £10 or so billion in the grand scheme of things? Didn't tax receipts drop like £200 billion in 2008? A quick Google shows that £25 billion was lost because of a projection error. I don't think we would have to see too much of a drop before we've cancelled out the savings even before we take into account that the headline figure doesn't include the subsidies.

Also the companies that trade with the EU will still be bound by their regulations.

Binding ourselves to a stagnating EU will only mean we pay more for the privilege of being in the club whilst at the same time being derided for being there. If the EU wants access to the UK's markets then they'll have to allow us to access theirs and since Germany calls most of the shots I can see the EU tail wagging the German dog for long.

Well as I said I think we'll 'have access'. They can't penalize us under WTO rules. It's if the access is as good as it is now that is my concern.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Damien

When we're talking about stuff like that though how much is £10 or so billion in the grand scheme of things? Didn't tax receipts drop like £200 billion in 2008? A quick Google shows that £25 billion was lost because of a projection error. I don't think we would have to see too much of a drop before we've cancelled out the savings even before we take into account that the headline figure doesn't include the subsidies.


Also the companies that trade with the EU will still be bound by their regulations.


Well as I said I think we'll 'have access'. They can't penalize us under WTO rules. It's if the access is as good as it is now that is my concern.

Which is what I meant - right now all UK businesses are bound by rules regardless of whether they trade with the EU and that must impose additional costs etc. which those who don't trade with the EU would otherwise be free of making them more competitive.