 | Forum
Reply | Remain With or Leave the EU
at 18:43 22 Jun 2016
(a) On border control, see my above response to AnotherJohn .
(b) I was not discussing climate change itself but the damaging impact of Brexit on UK science research, including research to deal with the challenges of climate change.
UK science is hugely successful. Surely, Brexiters too should be alarmed when 150 Royal Society scientists warn of the the dangers to UK science of leaving the EU. |
| Forum
Reply | Remain With or Leave the EU
at 18:27 22 Jun 2016
Wainwright's alarm about the adverse impact of Brexit on fighting terrorism and international crime is shared by many leading experts. Here, for example, are the views of Dame Pauline Neville Jones, former chair of the Joint Intelligence Committee:
"Where I think those who want us to leave the EU get it seriously wrong is on border control and police cooperation. As regards borders, the central claim is that if we left the EU we would be better able to keep terrorists out of Britain ... This really is nonsense ....
The irony is that if we left the EU, our border control could well actually deteriorate. The control we conduct in Calais or Paris, in relation to the Channel tunnel and the Eurostar, would be at severe risk following Brexit, with the likely result that the Calais migrant camp would establish itself in Kent.
The aim of border control policy is to push the point of control as far from a country’s physical shores as possible : for instance to foreign airports, so that we can prevent undesirable individuals ever getting on a plane to the UK. EU cooperation underpins this, and it would be a serious security mistake to create a situation where many more people were able to cross into the UK in the first place."
(Source: Article in The Guardian 25 March 2016) |
| Forum
Reply | Remain With or Leave the EU
at 17:00 22 Jun 2016
(a) Terrorism - From an article in today's Guardian which supports my view:
"Rob Wainwright, the director of Europol, said leaving the EU meant the UK would become “a second-tier member of our club” and risked losing access to a vital European security database used by British police every day.
Brexit “has the potential to harm the UK’s ability to fight terrorism and crime, because of the extent to which police co-operation information systems and other capabilities in the EU have become embedded in the [British] police community and, to a lesser extent, the intelligence community”.
Wainwright, a former MI5 analyst who was born in Carmarthen, has led Europol since 2009."
(b) Mass migration is well understood to refer to the mass movement into Europe of those displaced by war, poverty and civil disorder and in search of a better life. Leaving the EU will do nothing to improve the UK's ability to respond to this problem. Indeed, it will very likely make things worse as we cease to participate in collaborative efforts to manage the flows of determined and desperate people.
By leaving the EU we may, of course, be able to reduce the flow of skilled and energetic EU migrants who are net contributors to the UK economy. The price we pay for that will be lost access to the single market. This, as almost all reputable economists maintain, will contribute to higher unemployment and lower growth. For further evidence on this see my post earlier today on the joint LSE, IFS & NIESR report on the economic harm which will be caused by Brexit.
(c) Climate change. Much of the most promising scientific research concerning the challenge of climate change -e.g. our need to produce and consume energy in less damaging ways - is not only sponsored by the EU but also involves collaboration between scientists across Europe. This applies, in fact, across the whole spectrum of science research. So it is no surprise that the UK's leading scientists are overwhelmingly against Brexit because it will very likely damage UK science research.
For supporting evidence see, for example, the letter in The Times on 10 March 2016 in which 150 Royal Society Fellows, the cream of UK science, warn of the potentially disastrous impact of Brexit on UK science:
( http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4709730.ece) |
| Forum
Reply | Remain With or Leave the EU
at 13:34 22 Jun 2016
This is taken from a joint statement issued on 20 June 2016 by three of Britain's leading independent economic research institutes - the London School of Economics, the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the National Institute of Social and Economic Research:
"The reasons to expect lower national income if the UK leaves the EU are well-established — prolonged uncertainty, reduced access to the single market, and reduced investment from overseas. Each of these would be highly likely and the overwhelming weight of evidence is that each would be damaging for the living standards of UK households. Consequently, leaving the EU would, relative to staying in, be likely to result in:
Lower real wages;
A lower value of the pound — and hence higher prices for goods and services;
Higher borrowing, lower public spending or higher taxes;
In the short run, higher unemployment.
It is not just the research undertaken by our institutes that predicts these effects, but the work of almost all those who have looked seriously at this issue. In our lifetimes we have never seen such a degree of unanimity among economists on a major policy issue. The precise effect, in terms of a numerical percentage, is of course uncertain. But that we would be financially worse off outside the EU than in it is almost certainly true."
Of course, Boris has promised to apologise if there is a recession ...... |
| Forum
Reply | Remain With or Leave the EU
at 12:41 22 Jun 2016
Yes, and so many of the greatest challenges we face -terrorism, mass migration, climate change and the risk of another economic crash- are challenges that require more not less collective action and solidarity between nations. The days when the UK could impress it's will on the world through unilateral action are long over. |
| Forum
Reply | Remain With or Leave the EU
at 12:09 22 Jun 2016
Corbyn is not the only possible alternative to the right wing of the Conservative Party. There are moderate MPs in all the major parties in the Commons. Jo Cox was a shining example. We must not be bewitched into thinking that the only alternatives are the extreme left and right. Moderate and rational politics is under attack, those of us who believe in it must fight for it. |
| Forum
Reply | Remain With or Leave the EU
at 11:36 22 Jun 2016
If we leave the EU then the "they" who will have control will likely be the right wing of the Conservative Party. Vote to leave and get Boris and Gove in charge. A bitter irony for working class Brexiters who will be worst affected by what follows. Still, Boris has promised to apologise if there is a recession. |
| Forum
Reply | Remain With or Leave the EU
at 19:03 21 Jun 2016
A coincidence occurs when two events happen at the same time due to unrelated causes. If the anti-immigrant emotions deliberately stoked by VoteLeave contributed even slightly to the actions of her killer then her death and the VoteLeave campaign are not entirely coincidental. Of course, whether this is so is unknowable at present and may never be known with certainty either way. But is it unreasonable to suggest that, in general, anti-immigrant rhetoric, on the scale that we have witnessed in this campaign, makes such violence more likely? |
| Forum
Reply | Remain With or Leave the EU
at 11:15 21 Jun 2016
The leading economist supporting the Vote Leave campaign is Patrick Minford who is Professor of Applied Economics at Cardiff Business School. Here, in an excerpt from an article in The Sun on 15 March 2016, is Minford's view of what will happen to UK manufacturing industry after Brexit, with the key sentences highlighted in bold type.
"This country is no longer one that specialises in farming or building. We now
trade in skills more than we do in things.
We have excellent designers, highly skilled intellectuals and we specialise in
ideas that are then sent to South America or parts of Asia to be made.
Over time, if we left the EU, it seems likely that we would mostly
eliminate manufacturing, leaving mainly industries such as design, marketing
and hi-tech. But this shouldn’t scare us.
Britain is good at putting on a suit and selling to other nations."
Yes, he really did say eliminate manufacturing industry!
We can't say we haven't been warned.
P.S. I know that this repeats material posted on another thread. But Brexiters really need to see this. |
| Forum
Reply | Remain With or Leave the EU
at 15:42 15 Jun 2016
(a)You say that "The Germans and French have a stranglehold on the current EU setup, so exactly how are we going to lead them. "
No Sir, you are quite wrong. We don't lead Germany and France we lead with them - as Wolfgang Schäuble's remarks, which I quoted in my post, clearly suggest. Therein lies the difference between the arrogance of many dogmatic eurosceptics -I am not suggesting that you are one of them- and the robust pragmatism of leaders such as Margaret Thatcher. Since you are interested in history, you may remember that Mrs Thatcher was a leading figure in developing the single market, a classic example of how the UK exercised cooperative leadership from within the EU on an issue of vital national interest.
(b) You do not have to take my word for it that damaging the collective strength of the EU weakens our collective security. This is a view supported by a long list of former US Secretaries of State and Defense and other senior foreign affairs figures in an open letter to the Times on 10 May 2016 .
Nato does not exist in a vacuum, it rests on economic and diplomatic foundations which include the EU. This fundamental truth helps to explain why five former Secretaries General of Nato argued in an open letter to the Telegraph, also on 10 May 2016 , that the EU "is a key partner for Nato" and Brexit "will give succour to the West's enemies". |
| Forum
Reply | Remain With or Leave the EU
at 12:14 15 Jun 2016
Absolutely right. As Gordon Brown puts it, we should "Lead the EU not Leave the EU". This is a view echoed by the German Finance Minister, Wolfgang Schäuble in an interview with Der Spiegel on 10 June 2016. Schäuble argues that:
"Britain is one of the strongest economies in the EU, and London is Europe's largest financial centre. Britain plays a leading role in all matters of foreign and security policy. That is why Europe is stronger with Britain than without it. Besides, the UK consistently advocates market-based solutions in Brussels, which frequently makes it an ally of the German government. And, in my view, one cannot have enough British pragmatic rationality in Europe." ( http://m.spiegel.de/international/europe/a-1096999.html)
With Putin menacing Europe's eastern borders and massive instability in the middle-east, weakening the collective strength of Europe's democracies is a serious strategic blunder. |
| Forum
Reply | Bleeding Germans
at 20:09 11 Jun 2016
You are quite right. I suspect that part of the reason why Brexiters are often confident that the EU will roll over and agree with UK demands is that the undoubted importance of EU trade with the UK is taken out of context. In assessing the strength of our hand in any future negotiation it needs to be remembered that the trade of EU members with one another is vastly bigger than EU exports to the UK. And it is that intra EU trade which would be hit by the unravelling of the single market. If we force the EU to choose, they simply have to preserve the single market and refuse to allow the UK access on terms that would cause it to unravel. We are either in the single market or out of it. The choice is ours, but there is no half way house. |
| Forum
Reply | Bleeding Germans
at 18:09 11 Jun 2016
The best known economist supporting Brexit is Patrick Minford who is Professor of Applied Economics at Cardiff Business School. His sunny optimism about the benefits of quitting the EU are widely quoted in the press. Less often referred to is his view of what is likely to happen to UK manufacturing industry after Brexit. Here it is, in an excerpt from an article by Minford in The Sun on 15 March 2016 with the key sentences highlighted in bold print.
"This country is no longer one that specialises in farming or building. We now
trade in skills more than we do in things.
We have excellent designers, highly skilled intellectuals and we specialise in
ideas that are then sent to South America or parts of Asia to be made.
Over time, if we left the EU, it seems likely that we would mostly
eliminate manufacturing, leaving mainly industries such as design, marketing
and hi-tech. But this shouldn’t scare us.
Britain is good at putting on a suit and selling to other nations."
A cheery thought, isn't it? |
| Forum
Reply | Bleeding Germans
at 13:51 11 Jun 2016
My comments addressed Clinton's specific question about why the UK couldn't simply trade with the EU as China does. Brynmill Jack is quite right that a bare WTO arrangement would hurt the EU more than us on goods trade. Which is why we would likely try to negotiate some form of free trade deal with EU. The question is what sort of deal?
We could, for example, adopt something like the "Norway" model which excludes agriculture and fisheries but otherwise provides for single market access. The quid pro quo is that Norway pays contributions to the EU, accepts EU regulations governing the goods and services concerned and allows free movement of EU citizens to live and work. As a non member, Norway has no vote on the EU regulations which it must accept. This model, it seems to me, would likely be seen by Brexiters as a sell out. The worst of both worlds.
There is also, of course, the possibility of negotiating a looser free trade agreement with the EU. But the loss of single market access would cause serious damage to our financial services exports in particular. There will be major job losses and refuced tax revenues.
The Brexiters ideal of striking a new deal which keeps single market access without accepting the free movement of labour is a pipe dream. It would have to be rejected by the EU because acceptance would lead to the unravelling of the single market itself. As I said in an earlier post, the single market is a package deal for good reasons. We are either in it or out of it. There is no half way house. |
| Forum
Reply | Bleeding Germans
at 22:05 10 Jun 2016
If we were to trade with the EU under WTO rules, as China does, then we would be much worse off than we are now. First, our goods trade would be subject to EU tariffs. Second, we would lose our present rights of access to EU markets for service providers. This would be seriously bad news for our financial services industry in particular, causing major job losses and lost tax revenue. |
| Forum
Reply | Bleeding Germans
at 19:37 10 Jun 2016
You may be right, but as I see it Wolfgang Schäuble is only restating the obvious. The single market is a free market not only for the movement of goods and services but also for capital and labour. It is regulated by EU rules agreed by the member states. And it comes as a package so as to promote fair competition on a level playing field. To allow any one country to enjoy market access but restrict the free movement of labour would be to undermine the fairness of the market for everyone else. This is something that Margaret Thatcher well understood, which is why she insisted on the free movement of labour in the 1980s.
There is no halfway house. We are either in the single market or we are not. And to pretend otherwise, as some Brexiters do, is pie in the sky. |
| | Apollo
|
Site Scores| Forum Votes: | 2 | | Comment Votes: | 0 | | Prediction League: | 0 | | TOTAL: | 2 |
|
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.