Europe. In or out?

[Ramsey is god]

I'm very calm thanks.
I'm not the one having pre-menstrual-esque outbursts or throwing inaccurate accusations around about people wanting to "close borders" or "kick Eastern Europeans out" and making additional accusations of racism and slander whilst making derogatory remarks about people who aren't happy with the current amount of immigration, accusing them being too lazy to look for work.
Regarding your question relating to the "marketing ploy" it was loaded, as you well know.
As far as getting my back up, I'd say most people would be irritated by someone who is so up themselves they can't even be bothered to read someone else's posts properly before launching in with a reply. You've done it time and time again during this thread with various people.
Anyway, maybe we should draw a line under it now otherwise i imagine we'll end up in the slug out thread, somewhere you've had plenty of experience of with various posters.
I can't think why.

[bakes8]

Where's the Geography teacher in all this? I need a laugh.

[Hubble]

If anyone is interested this documentary is an eye opener on the subject

https://youtu.be/eYqzcqDtL3k

Thanks for posting this Gaz, it's not only a very interesting documentary, but it also lays out the case for Brexit very clearly. For that reason I think an analysis of what is said in the documentary could prove fruitful for everyone involved in this debate.

First up, let me say I am completely open to be persuaded by the case for Brexit. If I feel the case is strong enough, I will vote leave. But I am not persuaded by this documentary, and I'd like to explain why.

Before I do that, let me say that there are many things in this documentary that I do agree with. The situation, as we all know, is far from black and white. So perhaps I should start with what I agree with.

Transparency: I am 100% in agreement that there should be complete transparency in the workings or the EU, especially its finances. Anything that inhibits transparency is wrong, bad for democracy, bad for all of us. The EU has a problem with this and it needs to change. At the same time, we are far from having transparency in this country. If we believe in transparency for the EU, we should also believe in it for the UK. Whether we leave or remain, this has to change.

Bureaucracy: I am also in complete agreement that there is far too much bureaucracy in the EU. It has become top heavy and not only does it preclude transparency, it is a massive drain on resources. This needs to change. But again, at the same time, I am aware we have a similar bureaucracy in this country, also unelected. It's called the civil service. The democracy explains how high the wages are for EU bureaucrats, many of whom earn more than our Prime Minister. The same is true of the UK civil service. So again, leave or remain, if we believe this is wrong, we need to address this here too. At no point in the documentary is the situation on the UK mentioned as a comparison.

Regulations: I agree there are far too many regulations in the EU. This is a direct result of having a top-heavy, unelected bureaucracy. EU regulations need to be streamlined, of that there is no doubt. But we do need regulations. In many cases they are vital - such as in safety of goods; I don't think anyone would disagree with that. And this is a good place for me to start my critique of the documentary - what I don't agree with.

The documentary makes a very strong case for deregulation. Several of the talking heads involved state the following:

That regulation, protectionism and tariffs stifle trade and competition.

That the unregulated UK economy of the late 19th century was the most powerful in the world. UK benefited from global free trade. After the 1st world war, and more so after the second world war, increasing regulation stifled trade.

The documentary compares the UK economy after the 2nd world war with the German economy. It shows the UK economy in a very unfavourable light by comparison, and states that the reason was regulation and a programme of nationalisation. Now this is a complex picture, so I hope you will bear with me while I examine whether this is strictly true or not.

After the 2nd world war in broad terms to UK economy struggled, there was rationing and wages were low. In the aftermath of the war, Germany also struggled, but from the beginning of the 1950s it boomed. This boom was led by Ludwig Erhard, who removed most of the regulations and controls that had been placed on the economy and industry by the Nazi party. He embraced the Marshall plan and a programme of massive modernisation. This is cited by the documentary as the sole reason for its boom. Is this true? Not exactly.

The first difference between the UK and Germany after WW2 is that the UK is that the UK was saddled by having to maintain a vast armed forces, and it continued to police the world, fighting wars, quelling dissent, overseeing the transformation of emerging nations towards democracy and so on. This came at huge expense. In the late 1940s defence cost the UK a whopping 18% of its GDP. Germany had hardly any defence budget whatsoever as a consequence imposed upon it after losing the war. This gave Germany a huge competitive advantage.

At the same time - in comparison to Germany - the UK was saddled with huge debts, and when the U.S. suddenly and without warning cut off Lend lease funding in September 1945, bankruptcy loomed. Thanks a lot USA. So we can see that - ironically - losing the war hugely benfited the German economy, whilst severely damaging ours. However it has to be stated that towards the end of the 50s, the UK economy also boomed, despite all those problems and hindrances.

Now of course, removing regulations and modernising was a huge part of Germany's success - but across the North Sea, the UK didn't have enough money to modernise. At the same time, the Labour Government was elected on a platform of massive reform and social welfare. Implementing the welfare state was very expensive - and in the short term added to the economic problems. Similarly, the way many industries were nationalised was wrong. But this does not mean socialism per se is wrong - it's all about how it's implemented.

It is worth noting at this point that the biggest and most successful European economy at the end of the 19th century was not Britain, it was Germany. And whereas and the British economy had boomed on unregulated free trade and its empire, the Germany economy was even more successful, and it was based on a social economy that foreshadowed the welfare state. It is also very important to state that in the Victorian era of huge commercial success, the majority of British workers lived in poverty, in shameful conditions. This fact is omitted from the documentary.

Now I hope you don't mind, but I will quote directly from wikipedia here, because it is vital to this whole argument to understand how the most successful European economy operated before the 1st world war:

Bismarck built on a tradition of welfare programs in Prussia and Saxony that began as early as in the 1840s. In the 1880s he introduced old age pensions, accident insurance, medical care and unemployment insurance that formed the basis of the modern European welfare state. His paternalistic programs won the support of German industry because its goals were to win the support of the working classes for the Empire and reduce the outflow of immigrants to America, where wages were higher, but welfare did not exist. Bismarck further won the support of both industry and skilled workers by his high tariff policies, which protected profits and wages from American competition, although they alienated the liberal intellectuals who wanted free trade.

Welfare state, high tariffs, protectionism. All the things that the documentary states are bad were actually contributing factors in making Germany the most successful economy before the 1st world war.

And this leads me to ask a very important question. Many of you have cited how we need to look after our own workers. Yet the policies of all the people in this documentary would actually threaten UK workers and UK wages. It is no coincidence that every single person in this documentary is right wing. They all believe that free trade and competition are the only way forward, and that being part of the EU inhibits this. But what would happen if we opened up to free-trade and competition without any protections, tariffs or regulations? We would be swamped by cheap goods from China, India and elsewhere. The UK manufacturing base would be devastated. Wages would be driven down in an attempt to match prices. It could make the average person in the UK a lot worse off.

There is a reason that India and China can produce goods so cheaply - and it's not competition, as the documentary cites, but low wages. They also of course, have vast resources. And India and China also have vast populations compared to the UK, and many of those people work in sweat-shop conditions - virtual slave labour - in order to provide super cheap goods. Is this what we want in the UK? Of course, for the owners of major companies, this means vast profits - but not for the rest of us. I think all of you who think deregulation and being part of the EU is supremely damaging for our workforce and economy need to consider this.

There is another reason why the European economies have grown far less than Asian ones on recent times: they are mature economies. This is nothing to do with regulation or protectionism - it's to do with the fact that we are years ahead of Asia. The Asian economies have grown from being almost rural -- equivalent to Europe before the industrial revolution - to industrialised in the space of 50 years. This boom will not continue. Like Europe's, Asian economies will also start to mature and slow down. Constant massive growth is not possible. On all of the above, the documentary is very misleading.

I think it's extremely important to make decisions based on being well informed. The documentary is very picky regard to which facts it chooses to mention. It conveniently avoids many facts that would be detrimental to the case for Brexit.

For example, the documentary states that we do not need any trade agreements, they inhibit trade. And it states outright that China does not have a trade agreement with the EU. This is in fact a lie. China does have a trade agreement with the EU. You can read about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%...nion_relations


The EU cannot change, it is undemocratic, it inhibits trade. Is this 100% correct? I think I have argued that although to some extent it is true, it is in many cases not true at all. It is complex. In may ways, we do benefit from being part of the EU. It is also worth noting at this point that several of the people in the documentary actually agree that the EU can change, does change and has improved. John Redwood clearly states that:

"the EU has made huge progress by sweeping away tariffs"

Douglas Carswell says "Protectionism impoverishes all of Europe, it makes all of us worse off" - but then admits, like Redwood, that tariffs have been significantly lowered by the EU and that it HAS opened itself up to competition and continues to do so.

Clearly, I think, it all about balance.

We need the right balance between regulation, tariffs, trade agreements and so on. If, as John Redwood agrees, the EU is capable of making changes and getting the balance right, then why leave? Why expose our fragile economy to the harsh winds of global competition, when we simply cannot compete in terms of labour pool and low wages?

I agree we need to reform the EU, but reform IS possible within it, and outside of it, we can reform it at all, and we may find our economy is devastated. What guarantees can any of the people in the documentary offer that we would be better off? None. Despite all of them saying it, this is far from proving it. Deregulation in and of itself is not enough to create a successful economy that benefits all of the population, not just those at the top.

I believe the best model for a successful modern society is a social democracy. The people with the highest standards of living in the world all live in social democracies. The people in the video all want to remove the things that make social democracies work in order to provide for a purist, free-market economy. All of you who say you support these ideas need to think very carefully as to whether this is right.

I am far from content with the way the EU is run. I agree it has huge problems. I believe we do need to get more democratic, similar to how things are run in Switzerland. But we need to do this carefully. For my money, withdrawing from the EU at this stage could be devastating to the UK economy and especially to ordinary people, to the workers. I do agree that we possibly should leave at some stage, but only when the time and conditions are right. I do not think that time is now. By choosing to remain now, does not mean we can't leave at a future date. That is important to state I think.

[bakes8]

Hubble. You say the EU needs reform, and it does. There is no way in a zillion years they're gonna reform into a sleek efficient operation, not in a zillion years. I get the point that the UK Government is no great shakes in that department either but at least that's what I voted for, my vote counted.

Turkeys don't vote for Christmas, no internal EU reform. Vote OUT.

[Hubble]

Hubble. You say the EU needs reform, and it does. There is no way in a zillion years they're gonna reform into a sleek efficient operation, not in a zillion years. I get the point that the UK Government is no great shakes in that department either but at least that's what I voted for, my vote counted.

Turkeys don't vote for Christmas, no internal EU reform. Vote OUT.

No, it will never be sleek mate, but then that's almost impossible in any large industrialised economy. China and India do not have sleek operations and they have massive bureaucracies! What about my other points Bakes? The points about whether a deregulated market is really best for us or not, and so on? I think all this needs to be considered carefully.

[bakes8]

Tbh Hubble, I haven't seen the documentary, nor do I intend to as my mind is clear.

[Hubble]

Tbh Hubble, I haven't seen the documentary, nor do I intend to as my mind is clear.

Okay mate, but I honestly think it's worth noting the analysis I've made above. The documentary clearly lays out the case for Brexit and I think I've shown that many of the reasons - although they seem on the surface to be good reasons to leave - are in fact potentially very dangerous to the UK, our economy and our workforce.

I know it's a long read, but I'd be happy to debate with anyone whether they think my analysis is correct or not.

[bakes8]

Okay mate, but I honestly think it's worth noting the analysis I've made above. The documentary clearly lays out the case for Brexit and I think I've shown that many of the reasons - although they seem on the surface to be good reasons to leave - are in fact potentially very dangerous to the UK, our economy and our workforce.

I know it's a long read, but I'd be happy to debate with anyone whether they think my analysis is correct or not.

UK Manufacturing has already been devastated by cheap Chinese Imports Hubble. That boat has long passed. And I travel to HK and Shenzhen at least twice a year and it's not 'virtual slave labour' over there, in fact a lot of people are very well off and their infrastructure puts ours to shame.

[Hubble]

UK Manufacturing has already been devastated by cheap Chinese Imports Hubble. That boat has long passed. And I travel to HK and Shenzhen at least twice a year and it's not 'virtual slave labour' over there, in fact a lot of people are very well off and their infrastructure puts ours to shame.

I agree Bakes, our manufacturing was very badly damaged by cheap Chinese imports - so what's to stop that happening again, and not just in manufacturing? I also agree without doubt there are some great examples of modern practices in China, but I think you'd agree those places are by no means the norm. And that there are still vast industrial sweat shops across China, India, Bangladesh, Pakistan and elsewhere, where workers work for extremely low wages. And these are huge countries with massive resources compared to us. So my point is that opening up our markets to these countries without any regulations, trade agreements or tariffs (which is what every single person in that documentary advocated), is not likely to be good for the UK.

[bakes8]

I agree Bakes, our manufacturing was very badly damaged by cheap Chinese imports - so what's to stop that happening again, and not just in manufacturing? I also agree without doubt there are some great examples of modern practices in China, but I think you'd agree those places are by no means the norm. And that there are still vast industrial sweat shops across China, India, Bangladesh, Pakistan and elsewhere, where workers work for extremely low wages. And these are huge countries with massive resources compared to us. So my point is that opening up our markets to these countries without any regulations, trade agreements or tariffs (which is what every single person in that documentary advocated), is not likely to be good for the UK.

But we're already flooded with cheap Chinese, Pakistani and Indian imports so I fail to see your point.

Problems with the goods from these countries is that they are of a lower quality than in the West, that's where they wont compete and can't compete. They also have little design or creative skill where we excel. All they can do is knock cheap stuff off en masse. I fail to see how being in/out the EU will affect this either way.

[Hubble]

But we're already flooded with cheap Chinese, Pakistani and Indian imports so I fail to see your point.

Problems with the goods from these countries is that they are of a lower quality than in the West, that's where they wont compete and can't compete. They also have little design or creative skill where we excel. All they can do is knock cheap stuff off en masse. I fail to see how being in/out the EU will affect this either way.

Because that's not true Bakes. Not only are there loads of poor quality imports, there are also swathes of high quality imports. Pretty much all of Apple's devices are made in China for example. Nearly all mobile phones are made there or in Asia. TVs, flat screens, sound systems... on and on...

And you say they have little design or creative skill. I disagree. Not only are they close to being technically superior, they are fast catching up in design and innovation. Don't forget they have come up very fast from being way behind Europe in all areas. It would be very dangerous to underestimate them on this basis.

[bakes8]

Because that's not true Bakes. Not only are there loads of poor quality imports, there are also swathes of high quality imports. Pretty much all of Apple's devices are made in China for example. Nearly all mobile phones are made there or in Asia. TVs, flat screens, sound systems... on and on...

And you say they have little design or creative skill. I disagree. Not only are they close to being technically superior, they are fast catching up in design and innovation. Don't forget they have come up very fast from being way behind Europe in all areas. It would be very dangerous to underestimate them on this basis.

Again. I fail to see how being in the EU or out will affect this either way.

If a Chinese company could make a product better than an Iphone I'm absolutely certain they would be doing this already, and it would be mass produced and purchased. They don't and they can't hence the job gets done in the USA and the components are put together en masse in a Chinese factory for cheaper than it would cost in the USA so Apple do it.

How does being in/out the EU change any of this?

[Hubble]

Again. I fail to see how being in the EU or out will affect this either way.

If a Chinese company could make a product better than an Iphone I'm absolutely certain they would be doing this already, and it would be mass produced and purchased. They don't and they can't hence the job gets done in the USA and the components are put together en masse in a Chinese factory for cheaper than it would cost in the USA so Apple do it.

How does being in/out the EU change any of this?

Because we're talking not just about manufacturing, but the wider issue of regulation, which means workers rights, wages, conditions and so on. I think it would be helpful if you watched the documentary, so we were on the same page. All of the people in the video - politicians, economists, journalists agree that leaving the EU is all about deregulation. That is one of the key economic planks of the Brexit campaign. My argument is clearly laid out above as to why I think this could in fact be extremely dangerous, for several reasons.

At the same time, there is absolutely nothing to back up the claims made in the documentary that we'd be better off. There are a lot of soundbites, but no hard evidence. The sole reason cited for the UK being better off if it Brexited is deregulation (and all that goes with it). My argument is that advanced social democracies that we have in Europe rely on a regulated market. I also compared the late Victorian UK economy with that of Germany's at the same time, to show that despite having an unregulated, ultra low-wage industrial base, the UK (although highly successful) was not as successful as the German economy. And the German economy employed all the practices the Brexit people in the documentary want to remove.

You argue that because Apple in the US have designed the iPhone they are superior to China, who only manufactures it. There are several problems with that argument. The first and foremost being that a huge amount of design and R&D work done in the US is done by immigrants. Non-US born immigrants have been crucial to the success of US design and manufacturing, and they have revitalized it. I think the stat is that there are more non-US born people graduating from MIT that there are US born. This goes gainst the argument for limiting or stopping immigration.

Secondly, I think you underestimate what China and Asia are capable of in terms of design (as I've already said).

Thirdly, when something like an iPhone is manufactured in China, the only profits seen in the US accrue to the shareholders. It does not benefit the US as a whole, not least because most of those profits are not paid back into the US economy via taxes and so on, but put in offshore accounts. The same would apply to anything designed in the UK but manufactured in China.

Also - the deregulation of the banking industry led directly to the financial collapse of 2008. And again, this is what those in the documentary who want Brexit are pushing for - deregulation. Like I said, it's a complex issue, but if you read through what I wrote, I hope you'll see my argument is that on balance, I believe we're better off in Europe. I do not for one minute think the EU is perfect, I accept all the flaws cited, but again, I have covered that in my argument.

[stainrodisalegend]

I'm 100% OUT but it's got nothing to do with immigration for me. I'm out for totally different reasons as I highlighted earlier in the thread. It's clear to me that many people are voting out but often for very different reasons, which is fine of course and just shows how wrong it all is on so many levels.

Or alternatively that people who are disenchanted with wildly different aspects of life in modern Britain - often for entirely contradictory reasons - are choosing to latch onto this referendum and blame all challenges (be they immigration, globalisation, the refugee crisis, the rise of China, the housing crisis, anger with political elites, economic hardship lingering from the last recession, etc etc) on the EU. If we left all these problems would remain. And even a pro-Brexit Prime Minister coming in would almost certainly end up trying to renegotiate with the EU to come up with joint policies to tackle them.

[stainrodisalegend]

some on here hate the Tories so much they'd vote Remain knowing full well Turkey and it's millions will be let into this country. Once that happens, it will be a one party state. Job done

The Tory minister who tried to claim that Britain would have no veto on Turkish entry - and thus on allowing millions of Turkish people to come here and work - was ripped to shreds and even her allies on the Brexit side were forced to admit this was just plain factually wrong