The Politics Thread

[thebish]

problem is, Cameron has made his own bed. he made SUCH a huge issue (populist) in his campaigning before the election that any change in our relationship to Europe would HAVE to go to the people in a referendum - including any change in "powers" being ceded to Europe - then passed a parliamentary bill to that effect - that he is kind of stuck...

Miliband (I hope) has hastened his own demise - and the emergence of his saviour brother (maybe that was the plan all along - to make older Miliband seem like a real saviour while younger brother has soaked up all the honeymoon period of the coalition?)

FWIW - I don't think Miliband was trying to bang any anti-Europe drum - but was TRYING to be subtler and expose the mismatch between Cameron's words and deeds - and thus poke a crowbar into the cracks between Cameron and his rabid backbenchers.

problem is - it didn't really come across like that and he makes himself look like a shallow opportunist...

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

We absolutely cannot go it alone.

What exactly do you mean by this though?

I actually think I agree with you (and, far less controversially, agree with everything the esteemed members of this board have said in describing what is good about continental Europe), but I'd be interested in knowing exactly what you mean.

We are now so reliant on Europe, for trade etc, that effectively it has created an artificial bubble of demand in this country. Now, that bubble doesn't necessairly have to pop, but it most definitely would without the cosy protectionism of Europe. Essentially, what worries me the most (and I believe its a fear shared by the more economically minded members of the Government) is that if we go to a referendum (which of course would be the democratic thing to do) on a new treaty, the likely outcome is a no. I don't know for certain where that would leave us, but I can't help but think we'd be shunted even more to the sidelines. I just don't think our economy is either big, enough, robust enough or diverse enough to face the world alone. Theres nothing splendid about isolationism. Its a tough world out there.

If you read between the lines of what Cameron has been saying about this, it seems pretty clear to me that we cannot skirt around the periphery of Europe forever. I do have sympathy with the difficult possition he's been put in ( I actually sympathised with Major on similar issues), because not only has he got to try to appease the right wing of his party (he is, after all, effectively in minority governemt), but also he risks the whole economy, because of the sheer power and strength of the financial services sector in this country, who are vehemently opposed to Europe, and have been since the eighties.

Its clear that the rhetoric coming out of Tory HQ recently (for me, anyway) is that they know what needs to be done on many issues (rebalancing our economy, investing in infrastructure, tackiling the power of the financial services , decentralising form London), but that they have a hell of a task in convincing people after 30-something years of consensus politics. Now whether they have the balls or sufficient mandate to achieve these things, I don't know, but now they've got their feet under the table and have stopped blaming the other lot, I'm starting to warm to a certain amount of their goals. I just wish they'd get rid of bellends like Eric Pickles, then it wouldn't be such a tough choice.

And I thought Miliband (E) gave a pathetic piece of political opportunism by simply joining in with the rabble. I'm not sure he grasps the gravity of the current situation either. At least he doesn't show it.

I agree with all of that.

And yes, European trade is vital, but in this respect would we be worse off simply being EEA members like Switzerland, rather than full EU members?

I ask this not has somebody who advocates a departure from the EU.

[Lord Kangana]

I think we're at the kind of crossroads where it might be more detrimental long-term to be in a "second tier" of Europe. That is my major worry. Not so much now, but 5-10 years time we may find ourselves second class citizens, both politically and economically..

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I think we're at the kind of crossroads where it might be more detrimental long-term to be in a "second tier" of Europe. That is my major worry. Not so much now, but 5-10 years time we may find ourselves second class citizens, both politically and economically..

Again, I'm sorry but I don't know what you mean in substance.

I guess what I'm saying is that I feel these phrases around the dangers of 'going it alone' and being in Europe's 'second tier' have now become part of the currency of political debate at the expense of actual discussions of the issues involved.

[thebish]

And yes, European trade is vital, but in this respect would we be worse off simply being EEA members like Switzerland, rather than full EU members?

I ask this not has somebody who advocates a departure from the EU.

there are arguments back and forth about this one... but one issue is that as part of the club then we do at least have some input/influence on the terms of trade and the rules of trade and details such as product safety legislation that underpin European trade. To sell goods in the EU - there are legislative hoops to be jumped through and quality-control standards (no - not straight bananas!) If we are content to trade in Europe and not have nay say over those terms and conditions - then - fair enough. I suspect that we would also be out in the cold on special trade agreements set up between member states...

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

And yes, European trade is vital, but in this respect would we be worse off simply being EEA members like Switzerland, rather than full EU members?

I ask this not has somebody who advocates a departure from the EU.

there are arguments back and forth about this one... but one issue is that as part of the club then we do at least have some input/influence on the terms of trade and the rules of trade and details such as product safety legislation that underpin European trade. To sell goods in the EU - there are legislative hoops to be jumped through and quality-control standards (no - not straight bananas!) If we are content to trade in Europe and not have nay say over those terms and conditions - then - fair enough. I suspect that we would also be out in the cold on special trade agreements set up between member states...

Ok, but first I would ask how many times do we disagree with the prevailing EU view on what these T&Cs should be?

And of that number, how often do we succeed in getting our way?

And when you add all that up, does it make being part of the club worthwhile? (Obviously your view of the 'costs' side of this equation will depend on your viewpoint.)

Now, the truth is, I don't know the answers here, but these should at least be the grounds for the debate, but they rarely are!

Instead, otherwise intelligent people just exchange cliches about being 'left in the cold' etc!

[BWFC_Insane]

And yes, European trade is vital, but in this respect would we be worse off simply being EEA members like Switzerland, rather than full EU members?

I ask this not has somebody who advocates a departure from the EU.

there are arguments back and forth about this one... but one issue is that as part of the club then we do at least have some input/influence on the terms of trade and the rules of trade and details such as product safety legislation that underpin European trade. To sell goods in the EU - there are legislative hoops to be jumped through and quality-control standards (no - not straight bananas!) If we are content to trade in Europe and not have nay say over those terms and conditions - then - fair enough. I suspect that we would also be out in the cold on special trade agreements set up between member states...

Ok, but first I would ask how many times do we disagree with the prevailing EU view on what these T&Cs should be?

And of that number, how often do we succeed in getting our way?

And when you add all that up, does it make being part of the club worthwhile? (Obviously your view of the 'costs' side of this equation will depend on your viewpoint.)

Now, the truth is, I don't know the answers here, but these should at least be the grounds for the debate, but they rarely are!

Instead, otherwise intelligent people just exchange cliches about being 'left in the cold' etc!

In the immediate future I think you are right, but in the longer term less predictable future I think vague worries about "being left in the cold" and "outside the club" are a genuine concern that can be held legitimately. It may prove to be completely unfounded, or otherwise but I think the longterm consequences are much more of a concern than what might happen in the next few years....

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

In the immediate future I think you are right, but in the longer term less predictable future I think vague worries about "being left in the cold" and "outside the club" are a genuine concern that can be held legitimately. It may prove to be completely unfounded, or otherwise but I think the longterm consequences are much more of a concern than what might happen in the next few years....

The architecture of the discussion is still the same though.

In the long term what could be the issues on which we:

a) Disagree with others in Europe.
b) Would be in a position to cast the decisive vote.

And would getting our way on those issues then be worth the costs of the whole exercise.

[BWFC_Insane]

In the immediate future I think you are right, but in the longer term less predictable future I think vague worries about "being left in the cold" and "outside the club" are a genuine concern that can be held legitimately. It may prove to be completely unfounded, or otherwise but I think the longterm consequences are much more of a concern than what might happen in the next few years....

The architecture of the discussion is still the same though.

In the long term what could be the issues on which we:

a) Disagree with others in Europe.
b) Would be in a position to cast the decisive vote.

And would getting our way on those issues then be worth the costs of the whole exercise.

Is a fair point....but you can't influence a club you're not a part of either and if said club "works" in the longer term and starts to protect its own interests with more aggression, being on the outside may not be good!

[thebish]

And yes, European trade is vital, but in this respect would we be worse off simply being EEA members like Switzerland, rather than full EU members?

I ask this not has somebody who advocates a departure from the EU.

there are arguments back and forth about this one... but one issue is that as part of the club then we do at least have some input/influence on the terms of trade and the rules of trade and details such as product safety legislation that underpin European trade. To sell goods in the EU - there are legislative hoops to be jumped through and quality-control standards (no - not straight bananas!) If we are content to trade in Europe and not have nay say over those terms and conditions - then - fair enough. I suspect that we would also be out in the cold on special trade agreements set up between member states...

Ok, but first I would ask how many times do we disagree with the prevailing EU view on what these T&Cs should be?

And of that number, how often do we succeed in getting our way?

And when you add all that up, does it make being part of the club worthwhile? (Obviously your view of the 'costs' side of this equation will depend on your viewpoint.)

that is indeed the question... and you are right - economists and think-tanks come up with VASTLY different answers - and they almost always correspond with their political view!

FWIW - these are (I think) the key issues...

1. the EFTA countries are often invoked here (as you do!) - and it is often said - "look! they're doing OK!" but... for one thing - the UK economy is an entirely different ball-game to the economies of Norway, Switzerland, Liechstenstein and Iceland... and it is a moot point whether there is a simple causal link between non-membership of the EU and their economic situations.. also - since they found themselves so horribly exposed (out in the cold) in the 2008 meltdown - Iceland is applying for full member status! (grass is greener on the other side of the fence?)

2. it is generally (though not universally) agreed that EU trade accounts for over 60% of our UK trade. This adds up to over 3million jobs and 12% of our entire economic activity - it is significant! Now - nobody is arguing that ALL of that would go - but many economists reckon a significant proportion would... why? many argue that foreign-owned firms and multinationals would relocate so as to position themselves properly inside the EU to benefit fully from the internal advantages of being part of the trading block... they also argue that with emerging economic heavyweights (china, India), we would lose out big-time on the advantages of trade deals done with the powerful EU trading block (the biggest trading block in the world I believe)... they also believe that inward foreign investment in out economy would take a big hit as it re-routed to full EU member states..

of course - skeptics would argue that withdrawal from the CAP and not having to pay our annual EU subs (a not inconsiderable amount!) more than balance all of this economic cost..

in the end - you pay your money and pick your expert...

it is probably summat - given the massive complexity of the EU and the global economy - that you simply cannot predict - you could only measure it after it happened - and even then it would not be a straightforward task to be too precise what caused what!

my own feeling is that this would be a MASSIVE gamble to take with our economy - and anyone taking it had better be damn sure they know what they are doing!

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

that is indeed the question... and you are right - economists and think-tanks come up with VASTLY different answers - and they almost always correspond with their political view!

FWIW - these are (I think) the key issues...

1. the EFTA countries are often invoked here (as you do!) - and it is often said - "look! they're doing OK!" but... for one thing - the UK economy is an entirely different ball-game to the economies of Norway, Switzerland, Liechstenstein and Iceland... and it is a moot point whether there is a simple causal link between non-membership of the EU and their economic situations.. also - since they found themselves so horribly exposed (out in the cold) in the 2008 meltdown - Iceland is applying for full member status! (grass is greener on the other side of the fence?)

2. it is generally (though not universally) agreed that EU trade accounts for over 60% of our UK trade. This adds up to over 3million jobs and 12% of our entire economic activity - it is significant! Now - nobody is arguing that ALL of that would go - but many economists reckon a significant proportion would... why? many argue that foreign-owned firms and multinationals would relocate so as to position themselves properly inside the EU to benefit fully from the internal advantages of being part of the trading block... they also argue that with emerging economic heavyweights (china, India), we would lose out big-time on the advantages of trade deals done with the powerful EU trading block (the biggest trading block in the world I believe)... they also believe that inward foreign investment in out economy would take a big hit as it re-routed to full EU member states..

of course - skeptics would argue that withdrawal from the CAP and not having to pay our annual EU subs (a not inconsiderable amount!) more than balance all of this economic cost..

in the end - you pay your money and pick your expert...

it is probably summat - given the massive complexity of the EU and the global economy - that you simply cannot predict - you could only measure it after it happened - and even then it would not be a straightforward task to be too precise what caused what!

my own feeling is that this would be a MASSIVE gamble to take with our economy - and anyone taking it had better be damn sure they know what they are doing!

I mention the EFTA countries, not to say 'look, they're doign ok' (we have seen that Iceland's success was illusory and I think Switzerland's success may have been founded on banking practices that won't endure for too much longer) but merely to set up the important, simple question which is: "How much would we lose if we had their arrangements and why?"

My reason for asking these questions is not that I don't want an EU or that I don't want the UK to remain a member, but I do think their answers inform our thinking about what kind of EU we want and what kind of costs are worth bearing.

The question of international companies relocating is an interesting one, and again it would help to be precise in our thinking about what benefit companies have basing themselves inside the EU and what would they lose if the UK moved to an EFTA arrangement.

As an aside, I'm currently working on the 'novation' of a load of contracts for a company that is primarily American, but is changing its international HQ (and therefore its main subsidiary that contracts outside the US) from Belgium to Ireland for tax reasons - it is ironic to read the Merkel - Sarkozy plan to remove the possibility of different corporation tax rates within the EU!

Oh well, it pays my bills....

As for trade block deals... again, it would be great to think about these in a less abstract way and work out exactly what it is the EFTA countries are missing out on.

Incidentally, of course Iceland want in now - too many have been burned for them to be able to borrow ever again if they stay out!

[thebish]

it would help to be precise on all these issues - but I am yet to find someone with the expertise and wearing an unbiased hat whose figures I entirely trust!

can you be precise?

I was just laying out what I see to be the key factors to be weighed up...

like I said - I actually think the effects of withdrawal are impossible to forecast with any precision -there are too many unknowns (both known and unknown!) - all of the forecasts are wild stabs in the dark on both sides of the political fence...

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

it would help to be precise on all these issues - but I am yet to find someone with the expertise and wearing an unbiased hat whose figures I entirely trust!

can you be precise?

I was just laying out what I see to be the key factors to be weighed up...

like I said - I actually think the effects of withdrawal are impossible to forecast with any precision -there are too many unknowns (both known and unknown!) - all of the forecasts are wild stabs in the dark on both sides of the political fence...

Sadly I share your ignorance.

I just think that if more people demanded a debate on these terms then there might be more clever people working on the answers to our questions!

[thebish]

it would help to be precise on all these issues - but I am yet to find someone with the expertise and wearing an unbiased hat whose figures I entirely trust!

can you be precise?

I was just laying out what I see to be the key factors to be weighed up...

like I said - I actually think the effects of withdrawal are impossible to forecast with any precision -there are too many unknowns (both known and unknown!) - all of the forecasts are wild stabs in the dark on both sides of the political fence...

Sadly I share your ignorance.

I just think that if more people demanded a debate on these terms then there might be more clever people working on the answers to our questions!

however clever the people - it would still be a stab in the dark. What people SAY they will do in advance of an event is not always what they ACTUALLY do when that event occurs. On that basis we could never work out what the impact on foreign investment would be - or how we might be affected by potential trade-block agreements with India or China. Nor is it possible with any precision to determine what portion of Norway's economic situation is attributable to non-EU membership - simply because there isn't a Norway over the same span of years that WAS part of the EU to compare it with...

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Don't be so defeatist Bish - none of that is an argument against having a stab!

Otherwise we'd never change anything and I'm sure you're not advocating conservatism...

[thebish]

Don't be so defeatist Bish - none of that is an argument against having a stab!

Otherwise we'd never change anything and I'm sure you're not advocating conservatism...

you were asking for precision!! not a stab!

[Prufrock]

Can we just have the French lifestyle, and some money, and I'll be happy. I think I may be being swayed, spent the other day's EU law lecture making a 'Vote UKIP' poster.

[Wandering Willy]

Would we have to sit around in cafes shrugging and gurning?

[thebish]

Don't be so defeatist Bish - none of that is an argument against having a stab!

Otherwise we'd never change anything and I'm sure you're not advocating conservatism...

I'm quite happy with the status quo in this instance!

however - you're misjudging the situation if you think politicians will ever make this decision based on unbiased economic arguments for or against - it will be a political decision either way (based on dogma) - so precision is irrelevant - all they need are some banner-statistics to wave around...

[Lord Kangana]

On the subject of Iceland, there was a fantastic programme on BBC 2 last night that interviewed a couple of academic economists about how they were paid by The Icelandic Chambers of Commerce to produce documents that, in short, said "invest in Iceland, its ace, by the way".

When asked whether they felt this represented a conflict of interests (being paid to produce an academic paper that, lets be clear here, lied) they both reared up, and were unwilling to continue. To understand the context of that, most major institutional investors used those documents to make their investment decisions in Iceland. Once that happened, the goldrush started.

Anyway, mummy, on the subject of platitudes, I believe that the Germans are going to push soon for an either in-or-out decision from several EU member states. I think we're one of them.

As I say, its fairly clear to me, that based on the size of our economy and our reliance on European Trade when compared to commensurate economies from around the world, that to maintain the standard of living we now enjoy, we will need to remain in Europe. Now that is where the discussion begins, because I believe that "remaining in Europe" will effectively mean "more Europe" for us to remain in it. If you see what I mean.