European Union in or out

trisher,

The French could even sell good quality boats and life jackets in Calais!

There would be no obligation to stop anybody at Calais or allow British border officials on to French soil. They could let anybody on to the ferries.

The farming community is no doubt divided, granjura. Subsidies, subsidies, subsidies. DH has been out of farming for fifteen year now so we're out of the loop.

Will farmers be guaranteed support with money saved by not paying the EU levy?

Maybe things will improve for dairy farmers as we may need to produce more milk but they will have to be offered a better price. As mentioned on another thread.....it's currently cheaper than water.

Changes won't happen overnight so we will have to wait and see.

Yes I did mean N not F, think most understood it was a typing error but thank you for correcting me

That would be useful Whitewave - I remember your excellent analyses of the health services in other countries.

Why let Obama affect a decision which will last for years? Do you honestly prefer to listen to Barmy Boris?

I think Obama was just giving the American perspective, by the way. The US is our biggest export market, after all.

Boris is too busy trying to put Obama back in his place, half Kenyan , British colonies and all that, even managed to anger Soames

No, I don't prefer to listen to Barmy Boris, daphne. That's why I'm still undecided.

Someone above asked if we 'outers' would still vote for out if no hard facts were forthcoming from the Brexit camp by 23/6. Actually, I feel sure there will be some hard facts well before then but, failing that, I feel it is incumbent upon us all to do our own research insofar as we can. There is masses of stuff on the internet that can be sifted through but the difficult part is in deciding what is true and what is only conjecture.

Teetime if you have found your way to this thread from the other one it appears that "the EU says you can't sell pork chops with kidneys attached" is a myth.

Myth: Our traditional pork chop is under threat due to the EC’s Red Meat Directive (91/497), which decrees that butchers have to remove kidneys for health inspection, therefore denying retailers the chance of selling the two together.

Response: This is untrue. Though it is quite clearly stated in this directive that kidneys must be inspected for hygiene purposes, it also specifies that the fat that surrounds them should be peeled away but in no way should the kidneys themselves be removed. If they are disloged then that is the fault of the slaughterhouse and in no way that of the Community directive.

I am sorry but I set up a second "How will you vote in the EU referendum? (Thread 3)" without noticing this one.

There are two questions I wanted to ask. Firstly, which will influence you the most when it comes to voting; the economy, immigration or sovereignty?

Secondly, if it is sovereignty (being "run by Brussels") is the one of the reasons you want to come out which EU regulation would you want immediately abolished? I never hear which exact regulations are involved.

I am leaning but listening.

(hopefully the other thread will now die on the vine)

Starting with Single market

If I get anything wrong or miss something can you but in please?

1957. EEC formed Treaty of Paris. Enshrined the Single Market.

Germany's economy has whizzed off as a result of 2 things.
1. It invested loans from the Marshall Plan into its industrial base.
2. It operated a strict monetary policy based on price stability - as a result of its experience of hyperinflation in the 30s. Germany to this day continues with this policy, which I think is why so many of the EU countries have problems with Germany as they are culturally and economically opposed to this economic model.

What I don't get at this point is that Germany, whose economy was more stable even than the USA, could have presumably become once again a world power, but instead chose to shackle itself to Europe.

However back to 1957 Plan for an internal market. 6 countries joined initially, with us knocking on the door. I am beginning to understand a bit why we were rejected. The EEC was formed as a reaction to Americas Bretton Woods plan. Europe and in particular France have always been keen to distinguish itself from USA. Briton has always tended to face across the Atlantic, and so I think was mistrusted by France in particular.

Single Market based on 41/2 freedoms of movement. Actually it's 4 but you will see what I mean in a minute.
1. Goods - a customs union is formed
2. Capital - self evident
3. People - initially only the economically active. The non economically active were added later - allowing us freedom to roam?
4. Services added later and
41/2 Establishment which means that the self employed can establish themselves anywhere in the EU.

There are plans in line to have a Digital Single Market

So now I have turned to the House of Common Library notes to look at the Economic Impact of EU membership on UK. That's the next lot of stuff.

Gracesgran for me the economy is the most important factor. Without a strong economy every area of daily life will be adversely affected and I do not see how my grandchildren will be able to have the opportunities that we and their parents had. I don't think the UK economy is in great shape now, but the complete lack of a plan (There is no Plan A) from the Brexiters leaves me very, very worried. Financial and trade organisations and leaders of other countries are lining up to say that in their opinion Brexit is a bad idea, but all I hear in response is an airy "oh it will be fine". I don't think the UK economy has the capacity to withstand the uncertainty of financial turmoil and lengthy negotiations and I hear no firm ideas about how this will be managed..
I also believe in cooperation and countries working together and I feel very much a European. I would hate it if the UK was no longer a part of this community of nations.

House of Commons Note SN/EP/6730

The Economic Impact of EU Membership on the UK

Movement of Goood and Services
This stimulates trade, and benefits all member states because it allows them to specialise in those goods ans services they are relatively more efficient at producing. Enables companies to reap the economies of scale.
All these effects serve to lower prices for consumers and raise overall economic welfare.

Movement of Capital and Labour
Increases efficiency with which inputs to the production process are allocated by allowing investment and labour to flow to where returns are highest.
Theoretically this serves to reduce prices and rIse overall economic welfare.
To achieve this in practice it means the elimination of capital and exchange controls, freedom for business to invest and locate anywhere.

Next I'll deal with what these notes say about the concerns with immagration.

This is nothing to do with the notes just an observation on my part.

It seems to me that the vexed question of freedom of movement can never be conceded as it would make a total nonsense of the single market.

Notes cont. To be honest I have a feeling that we have covered this before, but I guess it is worth repeating.

Economic impact of Immigration.

1.5million non UK EU nationals work in UK. Total 5% of employment.

Effects of these nonUK EU nationals vary significantly by locality. e.g. 17% Tottenham and 0.6% Rhondda.

There are no widely accepted estimates of the effects of EU immigration on economic welfare of UK.

Most studies on the impact of migration on UK economy as a whole have found weak or ambiguous effects on living standards, employment and wages.
A few studies, however, show some depression of wages or displacement of residential employment on low skilled jobs.

Overall living standard
Effect per GDP per capita, found in a number of studies a small but positive effect.

Employment and wages
It depends on whether the particular skills and qualities possessed by migrants substitute those possessed by native workforce or complement them.
For lowest paid wages have declined by about 0.5%
But for highest paid wages have increased.

Impact on public finances
Immigrant net fiscal contribution is small but positive

Housing

Impact will depend on how responsive the supply of housing is to change in demand. (Blimey even we could have worked that one out).

So it seems to me that the effect of immigration is actually neutral except in housing. And that would be the same if they got their arse in gear and started building.

This study did not look at the NHS which I know isa concern, but we have looked at that before.

A quick reminder here, and an important one. Switzerland and Norway only got special trade and other agreement with the EU BY ACCEPTING THE FREE MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE - THIS IS NOT NEGOTIABLE (Switzerland has been trying for years... but computer definitely says NO).

An angry Europe would NOT agree to negotiate on this, I am absolutely certain.

From a paper written by the DWP.
Eastern Europeans inwork benefits.
£3.1 billion of the annual £27.2 billion inwork benefits bill goes to EEA nationals.
They represent around 6% of the working age population, but receive more than 10% of the inwork benefit spend.

Any, I am relieved- as I totally disagree on this ;)

I can truly understand how Obama's comments could have put your back up and hackles rising- totally. But then making up one's mind as a gut reaction to this would be totally non-sensical. Surely on such massive decisions, one just has to engage brain over red rags to bulls or guts- as grown-ups. (ducking out fast)

Someone mentioned waiting 2 weeks for a Doctors appointment. Your lucky, at least 3 weeks here in Southend unless you want to queue outside the surgery at 8 in the morning. I've been doing this for 3 years at least.
Tomorrow I have to do it for a friend who can't get to the surgery.

That may be more to do with the spending cuts and lack of doctors than anything else.

What I don't get at this point is that Germany, whose economy was more stable even than the USA, could have presumably become once again a world power, but instead chose to shackle itself to Europe
I wonder if that was because, at that time, Germany was divided and West Germany needed the security of the West rather than forging ahead on its own but with the threat of the Eastern Bloc forever hanging over it.

Just as an aside, we are always offered alternatives and always within a day or two. The appointment time is always more or less kept to.

Switzerland and Norway only got special trade and other agreement with the EU BY ACCEPTING THE FREE MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE - THIS IS NOT NEGOTIABLE (Switzerland has been trying for years... but computer definitely says NO).
To me that sounds like a form of blackmail.

jalima Yes maybe. But apparently most of the world was relying on the Germany economic stability. So presumably the west was ready to defend it. You have to admire them though. They seem to set a goal and absolutely go for it, as opposed to us who fiddle around and may or may not get there.