This is a Premium feature
To use this feature subscribe to Mumsnet Premium - get first access to new features see fewer ads, and support Mumsnet.Start using Mumsnet Premium
If UK left EU, then why couldn't UK...(34 Posts)
just pay the (?) 10% non-EU tarriff for all non-EU imports to EU.
No need to pay a massive annual fee for access to common market & swallow rules of free movement of labour with that, just pay the tarriff for importers to EU to ease the UK exporter-to-EU cost burden.
As for being nice to EU-non-UK citizens currently living in UK: UK could grant (?) 3 yr work permits to well-behaved EU citizens already here 6+ months, gives them time to get ILR at end of that if they want. New EU applicants to work in UK would be granted whatever time period work permits at UK govt. discretion.
British citizens living elsewhere in EU would have to get local equivalent to leave-to-remain like non EU citizens do within rest of EU.
What I mean is, could EU stop Britain from having post-Brexit policies that looked like that? And would that all work out reasonably cost-effective compared to other ways to make access to EU market affordable?
We are totally fucked if we leave the EU.
We lose so much funding and cooperation it will devastate us.
fwiw I am definitely voting STAY, myself. And I am a nonEU immigrant.... who worked for EU until recently(!)
But I just wondered about logical arguments why the plan I outlined above would work badly. If we have to leave EU because people really are that anti-immigrant it seems like the above is only way to get Out Voters what they want. Isn't it?
Nice to have some threads about practical issues of the EU thing, rather than in/out threads, thanks OP.
I have no clue though . Would love to read others opinions.
But it's not just the annual fee for access, in order to sell goods to EU member states they have to comply with EU regs, e.g. CE marking, no matter what, but would lose a seat at the table that agrees those regs.
Not even going into your waffle about immigration. You'd pull the rug under a lot of people's feet, who may simply not easily be able to find the money for a citizenship application they otherwise wouldn't need.
Agree, complying with regs is inevitable.... but only for those who export to EU. For those who never export from UK, they'd only have to comply with whatever UK regs might be about manuf./safety/product standards ...or to be commercially viable with whatever standard was needed to make their products compatible with stuff manuf. elsewhere (thinking technology especially).
We discussed at work today the £2k to become UK citizen. My entire office is non-EU born people.... not sure how many have Brit citizenship.
I'm not against the EU because of immigration, I'm against it because its a dumping ground for failed politicians. I also don't like the fact it is a money pit, one of the reforms I would want is an end to shuttling back and forwards between Brussels and Strasbourg.
(Just looking up the 4 fundamental freedoms of EU...)
Is free movement of capital the big hangup, maybe? UK govt can allow that in from EU with no trade barrier. UK govt could afford to subsidise against EU tarriffs on non-EU services or goods... but investment from UK into EU ... would that be taxed in some way beyond UK budget to subsidise, is that what EU does right now, somehow taxes outside-EU capital?
...just pay the (?) 10% non-EU tarriff for all non-EU imports to EU.
Because that 10% would probably make our current payments seem like chump change in comparison. I don't think people realise just how much business we do with the EU countries. In 2014, 44% of our exports were to EU countries. 10% of that....... source
Plus as also pointed out, we'd still need to comply with all EU safety standards and policies in order to sell to them. Rules & regulations that we'd no longer be able to help shape.
There was an interesting article I read recently where Norway almost had an important industry of theirs decimated by the wave of an EU pen because of a sudden planned change to the law. In the end it was France who also objected and the rule was killed. We'd end up in a similar position.
And the problem with the whole immigration paranoia is more the press than facts. If you look at the facts objectively, overall immigration has been good for the economy. Immigrants are less likely to commit crime than locals. Less likely to claim benefits.
But we don't hear that. All we hear is story after story of Abdul coming over on a dinghy with his family of 14, getting a £1m mansion on the taxpayers dime, stealing a job from Fred the hardworker because he's willing to work 80 hours a week on less than minimum wage. At the same time he's claiming benefits, demanding Sharia law and committing violent crime. And so many seem to think it's all true as well.
UK service & thing exports to EU are worth (maybe) £211 bn/yr (FT.com).
EU import Tarriff on non-EU imports = max 10%, but probably more like 5% on avg.
Uk Contribution to EU after rebate but before EU investment back in UK, is around £6 bn/yr.
So if UK just coughed up the EU tarriffs, UK might pay about £12 bn... that's double what UK pays now, and means very much lower EU investment back to UK.
Still, may be only way for EU-leavers to truly get what they want.
Would be even weirder to demand of a club they change their rules (free movement of labour etc) even though you refuse to be part of the club.
I am totally confused by all this as one side argues we benefit greatly economically from exports to the EU and the other side argues that we import more than we export so they need us more than we need them. We don't have media who can be trusted to give us unbiased information (I notice today The Times has an article where the pictures of In supporters are bigger and with more info attached than those of the Out supporters which tells me more than any words) so how do we find out?
I need a simple list of pros and cons and am hoping soon the threads will appear on MN discussing this as I find the opinions and discussion on here usually inform me far better than news coverage
Me too Kummerspeck, the simpler the better.
Because a lot of rules within the EU say that many products have to be made within in (regardless of tax). Is the reason we have Nissan and Toyota. The loss of any jobs at Nissan in the north east would be unsustainable for the area.
There's not a rule that says that people living in EU can only own cars made in Europe.
I've made up my mind - if George Galloway wants us out of the EU that's good enough for me. I'm voting to stay in.
Galloway is an establishment plant being used to discredit the leave campaign. It's the only explanation I can think of.
In answer to your op ...
The problem would be, which companies would decide to locate in the UK, or keep production in the UK, if they (or rather their customers in the EU) had to pay an additional 10% import duty on UK goods?
To offset this additional cost, the UK would have to offer cheaper cost of production ie lower wages and/or lower employment standards.
We could do this (although not good for workers) because we would no longer be an EU member.
This is based on the assumption that we would have to pay the 10% import duties in to the EU.
There is a trade off, but it would be the workers in the UK who would have to fund the additional costs.
My concern is that many companies would not give UK workers the choice of accepting lower wages and would simply move production inside the EU.
If this happened, I think we would all agree it would be an economic disaster!
If the alternative happened and we were given a preferential free trade agreement (like Switzerland and Norway) we would still have to contribute to the EU funds anyway, but, as mentioned previously, without having any ability to control EU policy
Completely on the fence, swaying one way and then the other. Need a thread like this instead of the media/political circus we have and displayed outside Boris Johnson's house yesterday. Listening to LBC this morning Nick Farrari interrupted an interesting input from a listener to cut him off excitedly as Boris was just leaving his house once more! So what! Of course he had nothing to say but is this the way we want to go before considering such a momentous decision. So Mumsnetters keep posting in a common-sense, non aggressive way, give us facts and figures. Please, please, please.
Yes we could, and on paper it would actually be beneficial for us.
The reason being that trade with the EU is worth about £100 billion, but £68 ( iirc) Billion of that is imports.
Hence the imports would gain us a few billion per year in tariffs.
It works on paper but not so much in reality. The reason being that most businesses tend to run on a roughly 10% profit margin, as a huge generalisation.
Hence if you are looking to make 10% but face 10% tarifs you are unlikely to make money unless you jack your prices up. This makes you uncompetitive.
It still works for luxuries are these are not as price sensitive. Europeans would still pay top dollar for Scotch whiskey or Aberdeen angus steak etc. More mundane things however would see demand being met by cheaper, non tarif more domestic producers.
Hence whether we would profit or not is highly contested by economists.
Most likely result it appears would be an increase in income from tarifs but a reduction in overall trade which would not be balanced by the exchequer's gains. Or put in a more specific way we'd make lots of money from German cars but lose most of it on our agricultural produce.
Oddly though one thing I've noticed about the economists who are most doom laden in this regard is that they ignore fish. Once we leave the EU our EEZ becomes ours again and any fish contained could be protected and policed for our fishermen only.
Currently Europe gets a great deal of it's fish from our waters ( Norway and Iceland make a killing in this regard) effectively for free. It's probably worth north of £10 billion a year if you include regeneration of coastal areas and dole dependence in the equation, and more than that if you factor in supporting industries with a few fair assumptions.
I'll also try to keep it simple and do my best to avoid my bias as I see it.
Pro exit camp argue that on the Economy we will be better off in the long run because we are free to trade with the rest of the world and make new trade agreements. They are also glossing over the short term economic shock and as Boris described it as " a price to be paid"
On immigration that we can stop it if we leave as we control our own borders, let in who we want based on skills we need.
That it's all about control and we would be masters of our own destiny. Set our own laws. Design our own immigration rules.
Pro-Remain camp argue that the extra business we generate by remaining in the EU dwarfs the relatively small amount of money we spend on the EU.
The vast majority of economists, financial experts, business experts and organisations like the BoE, IMF, WTO agree that we're better off in the EU. Ie. Our economy would be larger and thus our tax revenues higher and in turn have more money to spend on public services.
That immigration has been a net benefit to the economy, not a hinderance. Sure it's not been perfect but overall it's been more good than bad.
Leading international politician's who think we should stay in include: every EU leader including Angela Merkel, Obama, Chinese president, Japanese PM. Even the Norwegian PM thinks we should be in rather than out like them.
Leading international politician's who think we should get out. Kim Jong Un, Donald Trump, Putin.
There's also an argument for the other costs to businesses; every business supplying services to an eu based business customer would need to be vat registered in that country.
Fine if youre a larger multinational but smaller businesses would struggle with the administrative burden and this would impact business expansion.
Freedom isn't free, and yes there would be costs involved.
Trouble is the treasury report only found a tiny difference in the rate of growth due to Brexit and didn't include any benefits whatsoever. Do you notice whether GDP growth is 1.9% or 2%? Well the treasury can't even predict GDP growth to within 0.1% 3 months out, never mind 180 months.....
It also rather strangely claimed that Brexit would have no effect upon immigration, hence the two scenarios presented both saw immigration carrying on at record levels out to 2031. Brexit would clearly reduce immigration massively so I'd love to see how they came up with this assumption.
It assumed we wouldn't sign a single trade deal in 15 years! Hardly a ringing endorsement of the government.
All costs for brexit, all benefits for remain. No costs or uncertainty for remain, no benefits for Brexit.
Whether Brexit or remain though the treasury predicted strong growth, and the difference between the two was purely down to the length of time. The 'economy' would be 34% larger in 2031 with remain, or 32% larger with Brexit, though the headline figure of 6% is actually a compound one. The economy would have grown by an extra 6%, not be 6% larger.
Also worth pointing out here that the 'economy' here is mainly related to London and the South East....
Scary figures quoted but remarkably little to see once you crunch the numbers. Indeed well within the margin of error.
I would like to know exactly what's taken into account when the Remain camp talk about the cost/benefit of EU immigration. I can well believe the argument that immigrants pay in more than they take out but does that include some kind of estimate of the cost of public services used (NHS care, education provision for children etc) or is it purely based on tax paid in versus benefits paid out? I'm struggling to see how any of us can make any kind of informed decision when we're being given completely contradictory 'facts' by both sides and we have no way of checking who is telling the truth about a lot of the claims being made. I'm finding it all genuinely stressful now because it doesn't feel right to vote on something I don't understand
There have been various reports from various different economists on the economic benefit of migrancy.
They all give different answers.
Personally I think it is unfair on our youngsters to have to compete with masses of middle aged people for the same jobs. We were all ( some might argue!) a bit useless in our late teens and twenties. Having our own youngsters out of work or in dead end jobs however doesn't figure into an economist's calculations.
I am struggling to decide. I am leaning towards exit because at least we can choose to get rid of our government. We cannot do that with the EUreps. However I do like the EU environmental policies, I cannot ever see a British government doing anything to protect the environment.
Please login first.