EU referendum - Stay or Leave?

[Not so ancient mariner]

I've said this before, and the debate on this forum has amply demonstrated it, that there is an awful lot of pure guff being put out by both sides.

As I see it, the choice is between a far from perfect known situation, and a completely unknown one. The question is whether or not it is worth the risk.

[Mervyn and Trish]

You're right Notso, though in fairness leaving is not completely unknown. We were an independent trading nation long before we joined the EU and we are the fifth largest economy in the world. That may be why more older people are ready to vote out. Young people have only ever known life in the EU so for them life outside is a mystery.

[wolfie]

I think that most will have made their minds up already, even before the debate started, and that they are unlikely to change their decision, despite all the media scaremongering either way. Putting up with this for another month................

[Quizzical Bob]

EU failing miserably? Where should I start? "Refugees" pouring in through leaky borders and no one with a clue who they are or where they are. Britain taking in refugee children because they are not considered safe in other EU countries. Unemployment and debt at record levels in some EU countries. Crises in the Euro more frequent than elections to the Euro parliament. Budgets not signed off by the auditors.... ever. If it was a company we'd close it down. If it was a dog we'd put it down. Plus all the things Towny's already mentioned.

This is a complete myth. The budgets have been approved by the auditors for the latest seven years.

Even if that's true, and you seem to be the only one to think that QB, that's a pretty poor record in the time the EU has existed.

I'm beginning to think you're some sort of undercover plant for the leave campaign. Pretty much everything you post supposedly in the name of staying makes me more determined to vote leave. Surely you must be Boris's twin separated at birth!

Merv, just Google 'EU budget signed off' and you'll get all the truth that you might possibly want.

[Quizzical Bob]

The Euro has been a great success and is working well. It's only Greece that has its own problems

Bob
In those two sentences you have destroyed for me any credibility that I might have had in your repeated arguments.

Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Ireland and how many more.

Most of these countries were not able to fulfil the criteria for entrance into the Euro but were bullied by Germany and France who bent the rules to promote their dubious ambitions and for many people in those nations it has been a disaster. The rate of juvenile unemployment in Spain is only one proof of that. There have been frequent reports of a crisis in the Eurozone for years. Yes - handy for us for holidays but that's not the point really.

Economics is not the be all and end all of the arguments.

John

I can't agree. The Euro is sound and has been a great success and is well on its way to becoming a reserve currency. Any problems that individual countries might have are due to poor financial management rather than the currency that they are using. Now, with the single currency, businesses and people across the continent can trade freely and without the uncertainty of exchange rate variations or horrendous bank charges.

Bob, I am sure that by your support of the euro you are just playing devil's advocate, because you could not really be thick enough to believe it's been a huge success.
If the likes of Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland etc had not been in the euro their govts. could have allowed their currencies to devalue, avoiding quite a lot of the pain of the recession. I will accept that fiscal mismanagement has been at the heart of the Greek problems, but even here a floating currency could have alleviated a lot of the horrors of austerity.
So to try to advocate that a fixed currency has been successful in growing EU trade whilst, Germany apart, it is languishing behind most other countries is just plain stupid.
Now I do accept that trading with floating exchange rates can be problematic, but if all govts. could agree to tax excess profits made by exchange rate firms at say 150% (and maybe hedge fund firms as well) then just possibly we would see a bit more stability in the exchange rate market, thus eliminating the German's desire to have us all tied to their Deutsch euro.

It's not the fault of the currency if certain governments cannot balance their books and live within their means. That's like blaming the $ for the price of oil, or blaming the speed limit for getting points on your licence. The € itself has more backing than the £.

Of course EU trade is much higher with a single currency, that is plainly obvious.

Devaluation (depreciation) of a floating currency is not necessarily going to help in a recession.

[towny44]

It's not the fault of the currency if certain governments cannot balance their books and live within their means. That's like blaming the $ for the price of oil, or blaming the speed limit for getting points on your licence. The € itself has more backing than the £.

Of course EU trade is much higher with a single currency, that is plainly obvious.

Devaluation (depreciation) of a floating currency is not necessarily going to help in a recession.

Bob,

The effect of the multi faceted economy of Europe on the value of the Euro can show major variations by country, despite the best efforts of its Govt. Which is why it is much easier and faster for a country in charge of its own currency to make the necessary adjustments to its own economy, which allows the currency to fluctuate and the economy to react to Govt. decisions.

Yes the Euro will have more technical backing, because more countries use it, however this is not a factor in the currencies strength.

Don't know how you justify the claim that the euro makes for higher trade than with separate currencies, but for comparison these are the GDP growth figures for eurozone and the UK since 2004, taken from EU stats.

Eurozone 2004, 2.2. 2005, 1.6. 2006, 3.2. 2007, 3.0. 2008 0.5. ,2009, -4.5. 2010, 2.1. 2011, 1.6. 2012, -0.9. 2013, -0.3. 2014, 0.9. 2015 1.6.

UK 2004, 2.5. 2005, 3.0. 2006, 2.7. 2007, 2.6. 2008, -0.5. 2009, -4.2. 2010, 1.5. 2011, 2.0. 2012 1.2. 2013, 2.2. 2014, 2.9. 2015, 2.3.

I recognize that stats. come after lies and damn lies, but it does illustrate how much better a country in charge of its currency can recover from a recession, if you care to look you will find that Denmark and Sweden fair even better than the UK.

[Quizzical Bob]

It's not the fault of the currency if certain governments cannot balance their books and live within their means. That's like blaming the $ for the price of oil, or blaming the speed limit for getting points on your licence. The € itself has more backing than the £.

Of course EU trade is much higher with a single currency, that is plainly obvious.

Devaluation (depreciation) of a floating currency is not necessarily going to help in a recession.

Bob,

The effect of the multi faceted economy of Europe on the value of the Euro can show major variations by country, despite the best efforts of its Govt. Which is why it is much easier and faster for a country in charge of its own currency to make the necessary adjustments to its own economy, which allows the currency to fluctuate and the economy to react to Govt. decisions.

Yes the Euro will have more technical backing, because more countries use it, however this is not a factor in the currencies strength.

Don't know how you justify the claim that the euro makes for higher trade than with separate currencies, but for comparison these are the GDP growth figures for eurozone and the UK since 2004, taken from EU stats.

Eurozone 2004, 2.2. 2005, 1.6. 2006, 3.2. 2007, 3.0. 2008 0.5. ,2009, -4.5. 2010, 2.1. 2011, 1.6. 2012, -0.9. 2013, -0.3. 2014, 0.9. 2015 1.6.

UK 2004, 2.5. 2005, 3.0. 2006, 2.7. 2007, 2.6. 2008, -0.5. 2009, -4.2. 2010, 1.5. 2011, 2.0. 2012 1.2. 2013, 2.2. 2014, 2.9. 2015, 2.3.

I recognize that stats. come after lies and damn lies, but it does illustrate how much better a country in charge of its currency can recover from a recession, if you care to look you will find that Denmark and Sweden fair even better than the UK.

But over the last ten years the £ has depreciated against the $ from about 1.8 to 1.4 and against the € from about 1.45 to 1.28 so in Purchasing Power Parity terms we get a different picture. This website is fun to play with, I tried entering 'United Kingdom' and Euro Area': http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY. ... play=graph. In the same period the population of the UK (different argument there!) has risen by a few million so the GDP/head does not look quite so rosy. In fact, a large part of our economic growth will have come about because of the influx of cheap labour.

You might argue that any particular country should not have joined the € but you cannot blame the currency itself for their problems. That's like blaming the speed limit for getting points on your licence.

[Mervyn and Trish]

EU failing miserably? Where should I start? "Refugees" pouring in through leaky borders and no one with a clue who they are or where they are. Britain taking in refugee children because they are not considered safe in other EU countries. Unemployment and debt at record levels in some EU countries. Crises in the Euro more frequent than elections to the Euro parliament. Budgets not signed off by the auditors.... ever. If it was a company we'd close it down. If it was a dog we'd put it down. Plus all the things Towny's already mentioned.

This is a complete myth. The budgets have been approved by the auditors for the latest seven years.

Even if that's true, and you seem to be the only one to think that QB, that's a pretty poor record in the time the EU has existed.

I'm beginning to think you're some sort of undercover plant for the leave campaign. Pretty much everything you post supposedly in the name of staying makes me more determined to vote leave. Surely you must be Boris's twin separated at birth!

Merv, just Google 'EU budget signed off' and you'll get all the truth that you might possibly want.

Yes QB, interesting, but hardly an endorsement for the EU. Perhaps rather than "not signed off" I should have said "only signed off with reservations". Because even the most optimistic "facts" revealed by that search suggests that around 4% of the EUs budget goes missing by fraud or error each year. And that amounts to around £10million per week of our nett contribution. That's a lot of money to lose. And that of course doesn't include the amount legally wasted on trecking between Brussels and Strasbourg every month.

[towny44]

[quote="Quizzical Bob]

But over the last ten years the £ has depreciated against the $ from about 1.8 to 1.4 and against the € from about 1.45 to 1.28 so in Purchasing Power Parity terms we get a different picture. This website is fun to play with, I tried entering 'United Kingdom' and Euro Area': http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY. ... play=graph. In the same period the population of the UK (different argument there!) has risen by a few million so the GDP/head does not look quite so rosy. In fact, a large part of our economic growth will have come about because of the influx of cheap labour.

You might argue that any particular country should not have joined the € but you cannot blame the currency itself for their problems. That's like blaming the speed limit for getting points on your licence.[/quote]
Bob, the problem really is that a one size fits all currency does not work, except when all the component regions are part of the same country eg USA. Even here the poorer regions complain bitterly that they do not receive enough from central govt.
Which is one of the main reasons I will vote leave because a federal state of europe is inevitable if the EU keeps the euro.

[Quizzical Bob]

This is a complete myth. The budgets have been approved by the auditors for the latest seven years.

Even if that's true, and you seem to be the only one to think that QB, that's a pretty poor record in the time the EU has existed.

I'm beginning to think you're some sort of undercover plant for the leave campaign. Pretty much everything you post supposedly in the name of staying makes me more determined to vote leave. Surely you must be Boris's twin separated at birth!

Merv, just Google 'EU budget signed off' and you'll get all the truth that you might possibly want.

Yes QB, interesting, but hardly an endorsement for the EU. Perhaps rather than "not signed off" I should have said "only signed off with reservations". Because even the most optimistic "facts" revealed by that search suggests that around 4% of the EUs budget goes missing by fraud or error each year. And that amounts to around £10million per week of our nett contribution. That's a lot of money to lose. And that of course doesn't include the amount legally wasted on trecking between Brussels and Strasbourg every month.

Merv, if you read all the detailed examples of the auditors' concerns you will see that the majority of these are to do with the spending at national level (80% of the budget) and not the EU itself. One example relates to helicopters supplied to Spain for assisting with patrolling the borders. It turned out that these were not being used for the agreed percentage of the time that they should. Not exactly fraud, more misuse. As a comparison the figure for the US government is over 5%. Either way the claim by UKIP that the accounts have not been approved is fraud in itself.

Let's not get mythled by soundbites.

[Mervyn and Trish]

Wherever it's misused it's still our money going to waste. I don't care how much the US wastes. We don't pay into their budget. And I'm not mythled by soundbites - yours or anyone else's!

[Manoverboard]

The recent BBC progs on the subject have been quite interesting-ish.

My latest thinking is that the amount of money involved is peanuts and should not play any part in one's final decision.

Immigrants are quite interesting too, remember. We had zillions of them in the 60s to drive our buses, work in the hospitals and open restaurants that produced interesting food unlike the boring British meat and two veg variations. One of the immigrants said " We helped to build this nation " ... tis true.

ps .... Corby has the highest total, more than twice as many as Boston .... no idea why though.

[Golden Princess]

Naive question, please be gentle.

If the vote now is to stay in. Is there any reason why at some time in the future there could not be another referendum to vote out?

If the vote is to leave, would we ever be allowed to go back in?

[Quizzical Bob]

Wherever it's misused it's still our money going to waste. I don't care how much the US wastes. We don't pay into their budget. And I'm not mythled by soundbites - yours or anyone else's!

You're right, it is a lot of money but the questions are:

1) What do we get for our money?
2) Is it worth what we pay?

1 - What we get is completely free access to the largest single trading bloc in the world with a GDP bigger than China and comparable to the USA and we have a full right to participate in any aspect of this market and a veto over any changes to it.

2 - It would only need a drop of less than 0.5% of GDP to offset our net payment. It is almost universally accepted that our economy would drop by more than that if we left. We can compare our widely-banded net figure of around £8bn with our foreign aid spending of 0.7% of GDP or £10.7bn. Interestingly £1bn of what we contribute to the EU goes as foreign aid and is included in our total figure of foreign aid spending so Britain is committed to this sum anyway and would still be paying it after Brexit.

[Quizzical Bob]

Naive question, please be gentle.

If the vote now is to stay in. Is there any reason why at some time in the future there could not be another referendum to vote out?

If the vote is to leave, would we ever be allowed to go back in?

We can have a referendum whenever we choose. Personally I think they are a ridiculous idea and no way to govern any country,

We can apply to go back in but the terms would be nothing like as generous as they are now and we would be obliged to adopt the €Euro€. For a start we would lose our rebate which Thatcher got for us. It's not actually a rebate, it's deducted from what we pay before we pay it.

More figures to fog the debate: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-e ... m-35943216

[barney]

Naive question, please be gentle.

If the vote now is to stay in. Is there any reason why at some time in the future there could not be another referendum to vote out?

If the vote is to leave, would we ever be allowed to go back in?

good point Princess

I personally think it is an issue that will never go away until all baby boomers are pushing up daisies

Just say, for example, Remain win by a narrow margin of say, 53% to 47%.
That means that almost half don't agree with the decision and will bleat on about it
And the reverse is also true.
Remain would be moaning about 'taken out against our will'

In my very humble opinion, I'd suggest that even if Leave won, it is unlikely the UK would exit from the EU.

Cameron would be finished as PM and the new leader would go back to the EU table and negotiate fundamental change, properly, which Dave clearly didn't.
There is no way in a million years that the Germans, French & Italians could continue on their European Project without UK funds supporting it.
The financial hole would just be too big.
£13 billion a year is the actual figure that the other member states would have to find should we take our ball home.

[david63]

Just say, for example, Remain win by a narrow margin of say, 53% to 47%.
That means that almost half don't agree with the decision

The crucial bit that is missing is of those who vote

In my opinion the outcome of any referendum should be 50% + 1 of the electorate

[Silver_Shiney]

Just say, for example, Remain win by a narrow margin of say, 53% to 47%.
That means that almost half don't agree with the decision

The crucial bit that is missing is of those who vote

In my opinion the outcome of any referendum should be 50% + 1 of the electorate

or we could make it compulsory to vote.... after all, they know who has voted in elections and how. And there was me thinking it was a secret ballot

[Quizzical Bob]

Naive question, please be gentle.

If the vote now is to stay in. Is there any reason why at some time in the future there could not be another referendum to vote out?

If the vote is to leave, would we ever be allowed to go back in?

good point Princess

I personally think it is an issue that will never go away until all baby boomers are pushing up daisies

Just say, for example, Remain win by a narrow margin of say, 53% to 47%.
That means that almost half don't agree with the decision and will bleat on about it
And the reverse is also true.
Remain would be moaning about 'taken out against our will'

In my very humble opinion, I'd suggest that even if Leave won, it is unlikely the UK would exit from the EU.

Cameron would be finished as PM and the new leader would go back to the EU table and negotiate fundamental change, properly, which Dave clearly didn't.
There is no way in a million years that the Germans, French & Italians could continue on their European Project without UK funds supporting it.
The financial hole would just be too big.
£13 billion a year is the actual figure that the other member states would have to find should we take our ball home.

On no it isn't!

Our net payments are around £8bn so where do you dream up this figure?

[Silver_Shiney]

On no it isn't!

Our net payments are around £8bn so where do you dream up this figure?

I reckon it's the £8m actually paid + £5m rebate = £13m

However, the rebate has to be funded from somewhere already, so the other countries would "only" have to find another £8m

[Mervyn and Trish]

In my very humble opinion, I'd suggest that even if Leave won, it is unlikely the UK would exit from the EU.

Cameron would be finished as PM and the new leader would go back to the EU table and negotiate fundamental change, properly, which Dave clearly didn't.
There is no way in a million years that the Germans, French & Italians could continue on their European Project without UK funds supporting it.

I agree 100% Barney. They don't want us to leave but if our government get a mandate to do so they'll take the threat a lot more seriously.

If we head for the door there are several other countries who will consider doing so too and if those that remain are increasingly the net beneficiaries it will financially implode.

[barney]

Naive question, please be gentle.

If the vote now is to stay in. Is there any reason why at some time in the future there could not be another referendum to vote out?

If the vote is to leave, would we ever be allowed to go back in?

good point Princess

I personally think it is an issue that will never go away until all baby boomers are pushing up daisies

Just say, for example, Remain win by a narrow margin of say, 53% to 47%.
That means that almost half don't agree with the decision and will bleat on about it
And the reverse is also true.
Remain would be moaning about 'taken out against our will'

In my very humble opinion, I'd suggest that even if Leave won, it is unlikely the UK would exit from the EU.

Cameron would be finished as PM and the new leader would go back to the EU table and negotiate fundamental change, properly, which Dave clearly didn't.
There is no way in a million years that the Germans, French & Italians could continue on their European Project without UK funds supporting it.
The financial hole would just be too big.
£13 billion a year is the actual figure that the other member states would have to find should we take our ball home.

On no it isn't!

Our net payments are around £8bn so where do you dream up this figure?

Gross payment is £18 billion minus rebate of £5 billion which means we actually pay in £13 billion
£8 billion is actually our deficit, not our net payment

That is, we end up £8 billion down on the deal.
Don't know where you get your figures from ??

While we're at it QB, would you like to tell us all how much we will be expected to contribute in 2020 !

[Quizzical Bob]

Naive question, please be gentle.

If the vote now is to stay in. Is there any reason why at some time in the future there could not be another referendum to vote out?

If the vote is to leave, would we ever be allowed to go back in?

good point Princess

I personally think it is an issue that will never go away until all baby boomers are pushing up daisies

Just say, for example, Remain win by a narrow margin of say, 53% to 47%.
That means that almost half don't agree with the decision and will bleat on about it
And the reverse is also true.
Remain would be moaning about 'taken out against our will'

In my very humble opinion, I'd suggest that even if Leave won, it is unlikely the UK would exit from the EU.

Cameron would be finished as PM and the new leader would go back to the EU table and negotiate fundamental change, properly, which Dave clearly didn't.
There is no way in a million years that the Germans, French & Italians could continue on their European Project without UK funds supporting it.
The financial hole would just be too big.
£13 billion a year is the actual figure that the other member states would have to find should we take our ball home.

On no it isn't!

Our net payments are around £8bn so where do you dream up this figure?

Gross payment is £18 billion minus rebate of £5 billion which means we actually pay in £13 billion
£8 billion is actually our deficit, not our net payment

That is, we end up £8 billion down on the deal.
Don't know where you get your figures from ??

While we're at it QB, would you like to tell us all how much we will be expected to contribute in 2020 !

Not so, check your logic again. If we make a net payment of £8bn (for argument's sake) then the other states would need to find £8bn, not the £13bn (the part in bold). We get a rebate which comes off the gross payment before anybody pays anything. Then, of the £13bn we get a large £5bn lump back meaning that our net contribution is 'only' 8bn or so (2014 figures). Therefore the only shortfall for the EU is the net figure of £8bn and not £13bn. Have another look at this link, and many others http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-e ... m-35943216

Nobody knows the figures for 2020, the only certainty is that if we left the EU our GDP would be much lower than if we stayed in and the reduction in government income would dwarf any payments to the EU.

[towny44]

QB, how do you know for certain our GDP would be smaller if we left, there is a lot of speculation from a whole host of so called experts, but they have been wrong so many times in the past.
Do you perhaps have a direct line to the man in charge?

[Quizzical Bob]

QB, how do you know for certain our GDP would be smaller if we left, there is a lot of speculation from a whole host of so called experts, but they have been wrong so many times in the past.
Do you perhaps have a direct line to the man in charge?

Everybody, but everybody, agrees that if would reduce. Maybe even to a recession.