Britain Considering Leaving the EU

[NobleSavage]

Someone at the Bank of England just lost their job. They accidentally e-mailed the Guardian details of a secret taskforce Project Bookend:

Bank of England officials are secretly researching the financial shocks that could hit Britain if there is a vote to leave the European Union in the forthcoming referendum.

The Bank blew its cover on Friday when it accidentally emailed details of the project – including how the bank intended to fend off any inquiries about its work – direct to the Guardian.

http://www.theguardian.com/business...tes-financial-fallout-brexit?CMP=share_btn_tw

1) I'm definitely not shocked. They would be negligent if they weren't at least looking into the issue.

2) I'm skeptical that this was an accident.

 

[dystopian]

I thought this was already known? Or maybe I'm confused with another report suggesting that yes... it'd be bad. (duh!)

In any case, I don't seriously expect the UK to leave. Afaik the majority of the populace is not in favor of an exit.

 

[Derec]

Cameron promised the referendum in order to win UKIP voters back and it worked for many of them. UKIP only won one seat (despite getting 12.6% of the vote but problems with the FPTP system are quite another issue) while Tories won outright majority of the seats. I don't think Cameron is in favor of a Brexit and will conduct the referendum accordingly.

 

[whichphilosophy]

It's about votes
UKIP gained a considerable amount of votes on immigration and leaving the EU. The other parties now see this as an issue to regain lost support by adjusting their policies accordingly.

 

[dystopian]

It's about votes
UKIP gained a considerable amount of votes on immigration and leaving the EU.

The majority of the people still favoring staying though; and none of the parties besides UKIP support an actual exit. Even the majority of UK euroskeptics don't want to actually leave.The whole referendum thing is nothing more than a cheap attempt to win some votes without actually risking an exit; and to provide a stronger position from which to negotiate with the EU (A kind of blackmail and which is not going to win the UK any favors in the long term). Of course, it might nonetheless be a huge miscalculation since even the potential, however remote, of an exit, will have negative consequences for the UK's economy.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Someone at the Bank of England just lost their job. They accidentally e-mailed the Guardian details of a secret taskforce Project Bookend:

Bank of England officials are secretly researching the financial shocks that could hit Britain if there is a vote to leave the European Union in the forthcoming referendum.

The Bank blew its cover on Friday when it accidentally emailed details of the project – including how the bank intended to fend off any inquiries about its work – direct to the Guardian.

http://www.theguardian.com/business...tes-financial-fallout-brexit?CMP=share_btn_tw

1) I'm definitely not shocked. They would be negligent if they weren't at least looking into the issue.

2) I'm skeptical that this was an accident.

It's called contingency planning.

 

[Draconis]

Perhaps the title should be "Britain going to ask the question about should it stay in the EU".

It's long overdue and I think it will be a reluctant "yes". The government is trying to settle the question instead of having the problem rumble on throughout the next 5 years. Although there might be some Conservative MP's leaving to join UKIP if it's "yes", I doubt it will be many. Cameron needs to win some significant concessions from the EU, but I doubt he will get much.

 

[whichphilosophy]

It's about votes
UKIP gained a considerable amount of votes on immigration and leaving the EU.

The majority of the people still favoring staying though; and none of the parties besides UKIP support an actual exit. Even the majority of UK euroskeptics don't want to actually leave.The whole referendum thing is nothing more than a cheap attempt to win some votes without actually risking an exit; and to provide a stronger position from which to negotiate with the EU (A kind of blackmail and which is not going to win the UK any favors in the long term). Of course, it might nonetheless be a huge miscalculation since even the potential, however remote, of an exit, will have negative consequences for the UK's economy.

This fairly recent poll suggests an even split in the middle http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8112935e-e2ca-11e4-bf4b-00144feab7de.html#axzz3b3ayMJul Other polls may vary.
Why will an exit have a negative effect on the UK economy since there is nothing to suggest it will?

 

[dystopian]

This fairly recent poll suggests an even split in the middle http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8112935e-e2ca-11e4-bf4b-00144feab7de.html#axzz3b3ayMJul

That sits behind a paywall.

Other polls may vary.

They do.

Why will an exit have a negative effect on the UK economy since there is nothing to suggest it will?

You have to be joking. Pretty much every major business in the UK is saying a departure would be bad for the economy; for obvious reasons. Let's see about just a few:

• Numerous studies have shown a significant increase in FDI in the UK as a direct result of EU membership. A UK exit will take away many of the reasons the UK is attractive to such investment. A UK that is not part of the EU has no influence over European economic policy, and will therefore no longer serve as a significant economic gateway into the European economy. If you're a multinational that wants to get a piece of the European economy, it doesn't make sense to invest in a country that isn't part of the massive free trade-bloc that dominates the continent. The UK could somewhat counteract this by entering into free trade negotiations with the EU; much in the way Norway does... but this is a poor alternative at best: it means the UK will have zero influence in EU economic/political policy, despite being forced to contribute to the EU budget and at *best* only getting the same benefits it gets today (at worst, the EU might tell the UK to piss off entirely). This is a poor price to pay for the illusion of sovereignty; which is what this is all about in the first place.
• Similarly, a UK exit will very likely end London's position as the financial center of Europe; something that authorities in London are very concerned about indeed. A number of major banks have already stated they are considering leaving London. Deutsche Bank has explicitly stated this would be the result of UK exit. HSBC has also announced it is considering it, and the possibility of a UK exit is believed to play a significant role there. Goldman Sachs and others have warned of an exodus. The financial industry overwhelmingly wants the UK to stay. Of course, while a UK exit would be very bad for London, it would probably be very good for the likes of Frankfurt, Paris, Luxembourg, and Amsterdam.
• A departure of the UK will mean it loses access to the free trade rules that exist within the EU; free trade rules that are very beneficial to companies in lowering barriers for trade. Such a loss will result in companies shifting their operations to the continent instead of the UK on the long-term. Losing this unfettered access to the European market would cost as much as 5% of UK GDP, according to the Confederation of British Industry. That's about 80 billion pounds of loss a year.
• UK businesses will not only have greater difficulty exporting to the rest of Europe, but will also face higher import costs.
• A departure will cause a great deal of uncertainty; which is generally bad for business and will serve to dissuade those companies from investment.
• Contrary to political rhetoric, multiple studies show that EU immigration is a net benefit to the UK economy. Immigrants pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits, and add economic activity; enabling the UK to deal with its aging population. Exiting the EU will likely be paired with clamping down on immigration, which will inevitably require the UK to eventually increase taxes or cut costs to make up for the offset.
• Likewise, UK citizens are able to move and work freely within the EU, which is an economic benefit to those people; a benefit they will lose upon leaving the EU.
• Studies suggest an exit would result in significantly less GDP growth. This could vary from anywhere between 0.6% of gdp to 3% of GDP in 2030, depending on trade isolation. That's purely from trade. Those same studies suggest that taking into account the effects on investment and innovation, it could result in as much as 14% of GDP growth loss.

So... where do you get this absurd idea that there's nothing to suggest there will be a negative effect? There's been plenty of studies and a majority of the experts agreeing that there will be serious consequences.

People who imagine there won't be a fall-out from leaving the EU are deluding themselves. They think they can just walk away from the agreements they've made; get back their perceived 'sovereignty', and have it be business as usual. No such luck I'm afraid. The UK is faced with two options really:

Either it accepts that it has to play by EU regulations, and reaps the economic rewards of the single market and integration.

Or it gets back the illusion of sovereignty but ultimately will still have to accept EU regulations in order to stay economically competitive. They'd become like Norway; able to set their own rules on a few small issues, but forced to accept EU regulation on everything else in order to have economic access. And they'd lose any and all European influence for the privilege. It's not much of a choice, is it?

 

[whichphilosophy]

That sits behind a paywall.

Other polls may vary.

They do.

Why will an exit have a negative effect on the UK economy since there is nothing to suggest it will?

You have to be joking. Pretty much every major business in the UK is saying a departure would be bad for the economy; for obvious reasons. Let's see about just a few:

• Numerous studies have shown a significant increase in FDI in the UK as a direct result of EU membership. A UK exit will take away many of the reasons the UK is attractive to such investment. A UK that is not part of the EU has no influence over European economic policy, and will therefore no longer serve as a significant economic gateway into the European economy. If you're a multinational that wants to get a piece of the European economy, it doesn't make sense to invest in a country that isn't part of the massive free trade-bloc that dominates the continent. The UK could somewhat counteract this by entering into free trade negotiations with the EU; much in the way Norway does... but this is a poor alternative at best: it means the UK will have zero influence in EU economic/political policy, despite being forced to contribute to the EU budget and at *best* only getting the same benefits it gets today (at worst, the EU might tell the UK to piss off entirely). This is a poor price to pay for the illusion of sovereignty; which is what this is all about in the first place.
• Similarly, a UK exit will very likely end London's position as the financial center of Europe; something that authorities in London are very concerned about indeed. A number of major banks have already stated they are considering leaving London. Deutsche Bank has explicitly stated this would be the result of UK exit. HSBC has also announced it is considering it, and the possibility of a UK exit is believed to play a significant role there. Goldman Sachs and others have warned of an exodus. The financial industry overwhelmingly wants the UK to stay. Of course, while a UK exit would be very bad for London, it would probably be very good for the likes of Frankfurt, Paris, Luxembourg, and Amsterdam.
• A departure of the UK will mean it loses access to the free trade rules that exist within the EU; free trade rules that are very beneficial to companies in lowering barriers for trade. Such a loss will result in companies shifting their operations to the continent instead of the UK on the long-term. Losing this unfettered access to the European market would cost as much as 5% of UK GDP, according to the Confederation of British Industry. That's about 80 billion pounds of loss a year.
• UK businesses will not only have greater difficulty exporting to the rest of Europe, but will also face higher import costs.
• A departure will cause a great deal of uncertainty; which is generally bad for business and will serve to dissuade those companies from investment.
• Contrary to political rhetoric, multiple studies show that EU immigration is a net benefit to the UK economy. Immigrants pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits, and add economic activity; enabling the UK to deal with its aging population. Exiting the EU will likely be paired with clamping down on immigration, which will inevitably require the UK to eventually increase taxes or cut costs to make up for the offset.
• Likewise, UK citizens are able to move and work freely within the EU, which is an economic benefit to those people; a benefit they will lose upon leaving the EU.
• Studies suggest an exit would result in significantly less GDP growth. This could vary from anywhere between 0.6% of gdp to 3% of GDP in 2030, depending on trade isolation. That's purely from trade. Those same studies suggest that taking into account the effects on investment and innovation, it could result in as much as 14% of GDP growth loss.

So... where do you get this absurd idea that there's nothing to suggest there will be a negative effect? There's been plenty of studies and a majority of the experts agreeing that there will be serious consequences.

People who imagine there won't be a fall-out from leaving the EU are deluding themselves. They think they can just walk away from the agreements they've made; get back their perceived 'sovereignty', and have it be business as usual. No such luck I'm afraid. The UK is faced with two options really:

Either it accepts that it has to play by EU regulations, and reaps the economic rewards of the single market and integration.

Or it gets back the illusion of sovereignty but ultimately will still have to accept EU regulations in order to stay economically competitive. They'd become like Norway; able to set their own rules on a few small issues, but forced to accept EU regulation on everything else in order to have economic access. And they'd lose any and all European influence for the privilege. It's not much of a choice, is it?

Not a single link, so I shall not attempt to disprove any negatives but provide actual facts and source references


You didn’t provide any links to what you said so there is no need to disprove any negatives but instead I will quote some statistics.


Do you think that Britain would be in one day and the next day it has left and all trade suddenly changes in a split second?
Joining and leaving the EU is a very complex process due to intricacies of the agreements over trade. Britain and its Europeans countries traded before and after it left Europe.

You will find this from the House of Commons Library
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/RP13-42/RP13-42.pdf

The parties will still trade with each other as indeed Britain did before (even when entry was vetoed by France) and as the countries that left did Norway and Iceland. Likewise countries such as Switzerland and Lichtenstein have traded within and outside Europe as free trade partners

You say that HSBC has been considering moving its HQ back to Hong Kong but if you read this article the HSBC appears to want to leave for another reason.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...ches-review-into-whether-to-leave-the-UK.html
So the HSBC will leave for two reasons
Do you really think that HSBC will want to lose billions of pounds of customer business in the UK

The DEUTCHE BANK has only CONSIDERED leaving as you mention and no decisions have been made on this as shown here.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/deutschebank

The Financial Times said it was the first financial giant to formally review its position and would consider whether to move some parts of the business back to Germany.

Does it matter anyway where is HQ is? It operates in around 70 countries.

Norway and Switzerland are not in the EU, yet they export far more per capita to the EU than the UK does; this suggests that EU membership is not a prerequisite for a healthy trading relationship.

Furthermore, Britain’s best trading relationships are generally not within the EU, but outside, i.e. with countries such as the USA and Switzerland.

-The largest investor in the UK is not even an EU country, but the US.
Norway is an important trading partner with the UK as you can see here

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/exporting-to-norway/exporting-to-norway

Benefits for British businesses exporting to Norway include:
• UK brand has a positive reputation in Norway
• English widely used as business language
• high living standard
• stable economy
• an open market
END OF QUOTE
QUOTE: Norway has a population of only 5 million but is one of the world’s wealthiest nations per capita .END OF QUOTE




There is no evidence that countries who left the EU will do worse as the actual examples of countries left refutes this.

Take Norway and Iceland.
NORWAY
http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/countries/norway/
• Norway belongs to the leading group of the richest countries in the world measured by GDP per capita. Norwegian public finances are boosted by significant revenues from the petroleum sector. Traditional economic activities are shipping (fourth largest fleet in the world), fisheries and fish farming.
• Norway is also a very important exporter of metals. Norwegian companies are major producers of Ferro-alloys and, in particular, of aluminium.
• The EU's main source of primary aluminium is Norway.
ICELAND
http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/countries/iceland/
• Iceland's exports to the EU are dominated by fish and fishery products to the EU. Iceland is the fourth largest exporter of fish and fishery products to the EU after Norway, China and Ecuador in value terms. In 2013, Iceland’s exports totaled more than €945m which is equivalent to 5.4% of all EU fish imports. The EU has a trade deficit towards Iceland in this sector.
• Iceland grants duty free market access for most fish and fishery products. The EU also applies tariff concessions on some fish and fishery products originating in Iceland, e.g. cod.
• In recent years Icelandic exports of manufactured goods have been growing rapidly, led by aluminium and medical and pharmaceutical products.
• Iceland's exports of services increased significantly in the years before the economic and financial crisis.
This is one of the great myths
http://www.betteroffout.net/the-case/10-eu-myths-about-withdrawl/

The EU sells a lot

– The EU sells a lot more to us than we sell to them. In 2011 there was a trade deficit of nearly £50bn, which had risen to £109.2bn by 2014. It seems unlikely that the EU would seek to disrupt a trade which is so beneficial to itself.
– Moreover, the Lisbon Treaty stipulates that the EU must make a trade agreement with a country which leaves the EU.
– World Trade Organization (WTO) rules lay down basic rules for international trade by which both the EU and UK are obliged to abide. These alone would guarantee the trade upon which most of those 3 million jobs rely.



Earlier official figures showed eurozone GDP was flat.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ost-Britain-3000-a-year-each-says-report.html
Study by MigrationWatch UK challenges findings of earlier academic report which said immigration made positive contribution to public coffers,

Immigrants have cost the taxpayer more than £22 million a day since the mid-1990s, totting up a bill of more than £140 billion, according to a new report.
MigrationWatch accused the authors of the UCL report, Prof Christian Dustmann and Dr Tommaso Frattini of the Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration, of burying a crucial figure in an annexe of their original report, published in November.
It was claimed the UCL study found the overall impact of immigration had been £95 billion but this “was not even mentioned in the text of the report”, said MigrationWatch.
It added that the omission was “truly astonishing”. ENDOF QUOTE


You said, Uncertainty, but uncertainty about what?

You stated multiple studies but just said multiple studies. This is meaningless.

Taking illegal immigration, all the main parties now agree this is a problem.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...taxpayer-more-than-4000-a-head-each-year.html

The Home Office Report on ILLEGAL immigrants states
Illegal immigrants cost taxpayer more than £4,000 a head each year

A Home Office report reveals illegal immigrants cost the public purse up to £4,250 and disclosed the controversial 'Go Home' ad vans were more successful than previously thought
Every illegal immigrant in Britain costs the taxpayer up to £4,250 a year in costs for public services such as the NHS and education, according to a new official report.

It means the total cost to the public purse could be up to £3.7 billion a year, based on previous estimates which said there were as many as 860,000 illegal immigrants in the country.

The figure emerged in an official Home Office document which showed the Government’s controversial “Go Home” advertising campaign - which included ad vans touring the streets of multicultural areas - saved the taxpayer up to £830,000.


Leaving and entering is in accordance to the Lisbon Treaty

Rules allow for a negotiated exit and even for re entry. Britain is a major importer from EU countries so it would be senseless to not apply the EU rules on amicable exiting.
http://openeurope.org.uk/intelligence/britain-and-the-eu/what-if-there-were-a-brexit/

but it actually states when fully in context the following:
http://openeurope.org.uk/intelligence/britain-and-the-eu/what-if-there-were-a-brexit/
Worst case scenario: Impact of Brexit on UK GDP
In a worst case scenario, where the UK fails to strike a trade deal with the rest of the EU and does not pursue a free trade agenda, Open Europe estimates that UK GDP would be 2.2% lower in 2030 than if the UK had remained inside the EU
Best case scenario: Impact of Brexit on UK GDP

These figures cannot take into account all variables such as Britain entering into further deals with all its trading partners.


In response to your generalized claim with no source backup I can quote this again for convenience for which the first point is pretty much common knowledge

http://www.betteroffout.net/the-case/10-eu-myths-about-withdrawl/

The UK also lies at heart of the Commonwealth of 54 nations. Moreover, London is the financial capital of the world and Britain has the sixth largest economy. The UK is also in the top ten manufacturing nations in the world.
-Far from increasing British influence in the world, the EU is undermining UK influence. The EU is demanding there is a single voice for the EU in the UN and in the IMF. The EU has also made the British economy and City of London less competitive through overregulation, and negotiates more protectionist and less effective trade deals on behalf of the UK.

-The European External Action Service (EEAS) and its EU ‘Foreign Minister’ Federica Mogherini are undermining national diplomatic representation and the furtherance of British political and commercial interests through


Lisbon Treaty’s Article 50 provides the right of member states to leave the Union.
The same article requires the EU to seek a free trade deal with a member which leaves. Greenland for instance established a precedent for a sovereign nation by leaving the EEC in 1985. It is now booming.
What do you mean play by the EU regulations since it is clear that EU regulations are entered into willingly by all sides,without which any such clauses would be void ab intio.

What are rewards?
Straight from WIKIPEDIA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austerity#cite_note-europa.eu2-14
. Eurostat reported that unemployment in the 17 Euro area countries (EA17) reached record levels in March 2013, at 12.1%,[ up from 11.0% in March 2012 and 10.3% in March 2011; and that the overall debt-to-GDP ratio for the EA17 was 70.1% in 2008, 80.0% in 2009, 85.4% in 2010, 87.3% in 2011, and 90.6% in 2012. Further, real GDP in the EA17 declined for six straight quarters from Q4 2011 to Q1 2013.[ from 2010 to 2011, the unemployment rates in Spain, Greece, Ireland, Portugal, and the UK increased. France and Italy had no significant changes, while in Germany and Iceland the unemployment rate declined.[ Eurostat reported that Eurozone unemployment reached record levels in March 2013 at 12.1%,] up from 11.6% in September 2012 and 10.3% in 2011.

BRITAIN has a trading alliance with 54 commonwealth nations outside the EU. In addition very good trade deals with Norway and the US. The EU countries export far more to the UK than the UK exports to the EU countries.


Illusions of Sovereignty

Norway is booming as a sovereign nation. Iceland is booming. Trade with them is unavoidable. They are EFTA members. Incidentally Norway is a founding member of EFTA Their own laws are independent of EU laws. However there are some which may well have been adopted. For instance even Russia accepts the European Court of Human Rights.

Meanwhile Greece, Italy and Spain are doing their best to avoid bankruptcy and the Euro is in trouble. The problem with a single currency is that when the value sinks, everybody goes down with the ship. Lucky for Britain that it retained the £Sterling.

 

[dystopian]

Not a single link, so I shall not attempt to disprove any negatives but provide actual facts and source references

You didn’t provide any links to what you said so there is no need to disprove any negatives but instead I will quote some statistics.

I had assumed these reports were common knowledge to anyone with even a passing interest in the subject.

Here, just a sprinkling of the expert opinions on the matter:

http://www.cer.org.uk/sites/default/files/smc_final_report_june2014.pdf
https://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de...economic-consequences-if-the-uk-exits-the-eu/
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2...nomic-consequences-of-britain-leaving-the-eu/
http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/EA022.pdf
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ghbouring-countries-study-finds-10207704.html
http://news.sky.com/story/1486638/deutsche-bank-mulls-leaving-uk-on-eu-exit
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/09/03/uk-britain-europe-interview-idUKBRE9820SK20130903
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...ty-defenceless-against-regulatory-attack.html
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/dec/04/goldman-sachs-warns-london-exit-britain-eu

Do you think that Britain would be in one day and the next day it has left and all trade suddenly changes in a split second?

Well, yes... actually. The nature of the trade *will* quite literally change in a split second the moment the UK leaves the EU because it is no longer subject to the rules of the single market. Tariffs will immediately go up and affect trade. This isn't even a question; it is a simple fact.

Of course, the question you posed is the same kind posed by euroskeptics everywhere; and it is a simple-minded one that seems predicated on having only little understanding of international trade. The euroskeptics think that because the volume of trade is substantial enough, that nothing will change... or seek to ridicule those wanting to say by arguing against a strawman where they imagine the position is that all trade will suddenly collapse. Of course trade will still happen, and in large volume. However, changes to things such as tariffs *will* result in substantial losses; that is simply inevitable.

Joining and leaving the EU is a very complex process due to intricacies of the agreements over trade. Britain and its Europeans countries traded before and after it left Europe.

Yes. And it was much more expensive for the UK to do so before the single market; and will be again if it chooses to leave.

You will find this from the House of Commons Library
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/RP13-42/RP13-42.pdf

Have you actually *read* that document? It's saying pretty much exactly what I am; and does not paint a pretty picture for UK trade independence. Indeed, it argues there might not even BE any real 'independence' in that regard.

The parties will still trade with each other as indeed Britain did before (even when entry was vetoed by France) and as the countries that left did Norway and Iceland. Likewise countries such as Switzerland and Lichtenstein have traded within and outside Europe as free trade partners

And as I've explained, in exchange being part of the European single market and the enormous trade benefits that brings, those countries are subject to European economic laws and regulations without representation. That is the price they pay. Those in the UK who want to leave want to leave because they think the EU takes too much of their sovereignty. What you and they seem to not understand is that leaving can *only* result in one of two scenarios: Economic decline as the UK becomes fully sovereign... or maintain its economic access and actually give up more sovereignty than it would by staying in the EU. In order to maintain current levels of European access, the UK must comply with European laws and regulations; which it will no longer have any say over unlike it has now. In this regard, a UK exit is like protesting doctor's fees by shooting yourself in the foot and then paying the same doctor to fix it.

Of course, its entirely possible; plausible even; that the UK would give up both sovereignty and economic prosperity with a departure. Why? First of all, because it is almost a certainty that Scotland will have another referendum if the UK leaves, and at that time Scotland's independence is essentially guaranteed. Secondly, the EU will almost certainly not agree to negotiate with the UK on equal terms.

You say that HSBC has been considering moving its HQ back to Hong Kong but if you read this article the HSBC appears to want to leave for another reason.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...ches-review-into-whether-to-leave-the-UK.html
So the HSBC will leave for two reasons

Indeed, that is what they publically say. You'll note concerns over an EU exit were also mentioned in the article; and indeed one would have to be quite gullible to just blindly trust what the bank says publically as to their reasoning.

Do you really think that HSBC will want to lose billions of pounds of customer business in the UK

I don't think you understand what is meant with "leaving". It doesn't mean they get rid of their customers. It means they will move their headquarters and will base themselves elsewhere. And that will cost the UK jobs and corporate tax income.

The DEUTCHE BANK has only CONSIDERED leaving as you mention and no decisions have been made on this as shown here.

Right; because the UK hasn't actually left the EU yet.

The fact that they're telling you they're considering leaving if the UK *does* leave, though, is incredibly telling.

Does it matter anyway where is HQ is? It operates in around 70 countries.

If you think it doesn't matter, you clearly don't understand economic matters very well. Yes, it matters. Deutsche Bank's UK HQ leaving costs the city 600 jobs; plus who knows how many millions in tax revenue. Such a major financial institution leaving also tarnishes London's position as a financial center power, which will have many unforeseeable ripple-effects.

Norway and Switzerland are not in the EU, yet they export far more per capita to the EU than the UK does; this suggests that EU membership is not a prerequisite for a healthy trading relationship.

Norway has access to the European Economic Area without being a member; the single market I've mentioned. *That* is why they have a healthy trading relationship with the EU. In exchange for this access, Norway must follow relevant European laws and regulations without having influence over them. Norway is effectively an economic colony of the EU; a vassal state. Switzerland is not a participant in the EEE, but it does have it's own set of trade agreements that give it access to the single market; but again, it it subject to European laws and regulations in a great number of areas (for instance, it's part of the Schengen area).

If the UK leaves, it will instantly lose access to the single market. It would have to re-negotiate access in order to gain that same sort of privileged trading relationship that Norway and Switzerland have... and the EU has absolutely nothing to gain from giving the UK that for free.

Furthermore, Britain’s best trading relationships are generally not within the EU, but outside, i.e. with countries such as the USA and Switzerland.

I don't know where you get this idea from; it's so wrong it isn't even funny. The EU is easily the UK's biggest trading partner... there isn't even a question. Sure, if you look at it individually then Switzerland is the biggest (although again, keep in mind that Switzerland has free trade access to the EU, so can't really be seen as separate), and the US is just behind Germany. However, if you add up all UK trade with the rest of the EU, the total figure is more than 50% of all UK trade being with the EU.

The largest investor in the UK is not even an EU country, but the US.

Again though, this paints a distorted image. Yes, the US is the single largest provider of foreign investment in the UK. But again, if we add up all EU foreign investment, the EU comes out on top again: more than half of all foreign investment in the UK comes from the EU. 556 billion pounds compared to 325 billion out of the US. And US foreign investment in the UK is sure to drop as a result of an exit; for reasons already addressed. Namely, the UK exerts considerable influence within the economic superpower that is the EU. This makes it an attractive investment target for Anglosphere investments. Leaving will mean it no longer has influence in the EU, and subsequently its attractiveness for foreign investment will dim considerably.

Norway is an important trading partner with the UK as you can see here

Norway is not one of the UK's main trading partners. It counts for only 300 million pounds of UK exports.

Norway has a population of only 5 million but is one of the world’s wealthiest nations per capita.

Again; Norway is an economic vassal state of the EU. It is part of the EU's economic area. It gets the same benefits of EU trade that the UK currently enjoys, and none of the influence. Your argument is a non-sequitur.

Furthermore, a country's population is irrelevant to its gdp per capita, so I'm confused as to why you would mention it. Luxembourg (Member of the EU) has only half a million people, and it's GDP per capita is a lot higher than that of Norway.

There is no evidence that countries who left the EU will do worse as the actual examples of countries left refutes this.

Take Norway and Iceland.

Neither of which have ever *joined* the EU; so can't be used as arguments against leaving the EU. And again, for the umpteenth time, these nations are part of the EEE (yes, Iceland too); they do not serve as valid examples for your argument since they are part of the single market.

The EU sells a lot

– The EU sells a lot more to us than we sell to them. In 2011 there was a trade deficit of nearly £50bn, which had risen to £109.2bn by 2014. It seems unlikely that the EU would seek to disrupt a trade which is so beneficial to itself.
– Moreover, the Lisbon Treaty stipulates that the EU must make a trade agreement with a country which leaves the EU.
– World Trade Organization (WTO) rules lay down basic rules for international trade by which both the EU and UK are obliged to abide. These alone would guarantee the trade upon which most of those 3 million jobs rely.

The idea that a trade deficit means you're getting the short end of the stick is an idea born from economic ignorance; and one not particularly relevant to the issue of a UK exit resulting in serious economic consequences for the UK.

Earlier official figures showed eurozone GDP was flat.

Uhm, no, they didn't. Eurozone GDP growth may not be high, but Eurozone GDP *is* experiencing growth and has been since 2013. And it's been bigger than the UK's for 2015 so far, btw. Not that I see what this has to do with anything.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ost-Britain-3000-a-year-each-says-report.html
Study by MigrationWatch UK challenges findings of earlier academic report which said immigration made positive contribution to public coffers,

You can't expect me to take you seriously when you present "studies" by MigrationWatch UK.

Immigrants have cost the taxpayer more than £22 million a day since the mid-1990s, totting up a bill of more than £140 billion, according to a new report.
MigrationWatch accused the authors of the UCL report, Prof Christian Dustmann and Dr Tommaso Frattini of the Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration, of burying a crucial figure in an annexe of their original report, published in November.
It was claimed the UCL study found the overall impact of immigration had been £95 billion but this “was not even mentioned in the text of the report”, said MigrationWatch.
It added that the omission was “truly astonishing”.

MigrationWatch has been widely criticized as a right wing astroturf group; it has no credibility.

You said, Uncertainty, but uncertainty about what?

Uncertainty about the economic consequences, obviously. Uncertainty about new rules, whether or not the government can negotiate free trade arrangements with the EU on favorable terms. Etc etc. Are you seriously dense as to not understand the concept of general uncertainty and the effect this can have on economic activity?

Taking illegal immigration, all the main parties now agree this is a problem.

Pointing out that the British are a bunch of xenophobic pricks does little to convince me or the experts of anything. So WHAT if all the main parties agree? Surely you understand they're agreeing primarily for the sake of appeasing people like yourself, right? It's just politics. Telling the public what it wants to hear; not what's true.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-immigrants-is-worth-1636bn-to-uk-472164.html
The Home Office Report on ILLEGAL immigrants states
Illegal immigrants cost taxpayer more than £4,000 a head each year

What a surprise, claims thrown about without any breakdown as to how they arrived at it. Did they take into consideration the economic activity generated by them? Of course not. Illegal immigrants are really not an economic problem; but they make for an easy scapegoat when a country falls to reactionary sentiment.

Meanwhile; http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-immigrants-is-worth-1636bn-to-uk-472164.html

Leaving and entering is in accordance to the Lisbon Treaty

Rules allow for a negotiated exit and even for re entry. Britain is a major importer from EU countries so it would be seness to not apply the EU rules on amicable exiting.

Sure, the UK has the right to leave. So what? Once it's left, then what? One has to be pretty clueless as to the political winds blowing around Europe to think the EU will be happy to ignore everything and be best friends with the UK. The UK has not been making itself popular these past few years. Indeed, there's a growing sentiment in Europe to just kick the UK out before they can leave on their own; the UK has a habit of acting like a bunch of self-righteous selfish bastards, and people are getting sick of it. If you imagine the UK will leave and then the EU will play nice with it in trade negotiations, you are living in a fantasy world.

These figures cannot take into account all variables such as Britain entering into further deals with all its trading partners.

Which it won't, and wouldn't even be able to do in any appreciable timeframe to avoid economic downturn.

The UK also lies at heart of the Commonwealth of 54 nations.

Irrelevant. How much trade does the UK do with the commonwealth? Not a great deal compared to the EU.

Moreover, London is the financial capital of the world and Britain has the sixth largest economy. The UK is also in the top ten manufacturing nations in the world.

Yes, and? An independent UK is an economic dwarf compared to the EU. An independent UK will never be an equal trading partner. And as already explained, London remains the financial capital it is because it is part of the EU. It will *not* remain in such a privileged position if it leaves; banks will simply move to Frankfurt.

ar from increasing British influence in the world, the EU is undermining UK influence. The EU is demanding there is a single voice for the EU in the UN and in the IMF. The EU has also made the British economy and City of London less competitive through overregulation, and negotiates more protectionist and less effective trade deals on behalf of the UK.

This is nothing more than political claptrap from the UK's rightwing; it certainly isn't based on facts. Even if true, it's an argument for reform, not against membership.

-The European External Action Service (EEAS) and its EU ‘Foreign Minister’ Federica Mogherini are undermining national diplomatic representation and the furtherance of British political and commercial interests through

Again, political claptrap.

The same article requires the EU to seek a free trade deal with a member which leaves.

No, it doesn't. Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty does NOT make ANY mention of a free trade agreement with the departing state, and most certainly does not make it a requirement. The EU is under no obligation to negotiate a free trade agreement with a departing state.

Greenland for instance established a precedent for a sovereign nation by leaving the EEC in 1985. It is now booming.

Greenland is not a sovereign nation. And Greenland remains subject to EU treaty law since it is considered part of the EU's Overseas Countries and Territories framework and thus still has access to the single market to a degree. A UK exit would NOT mirror that of Greenland since the UK would not be a subject territory of a state remaining in the EU the way Greenland is.

What do you mean play by the EU regulations since it is clear that EU regulations are entered into willingly by all sides,without which any such clauses would be void ab intio.

I made it quite clear what I meant. States that wish to have access to the EU's single market are subject to EU regulations. I don't know how much simpler I can make it. The EU is big and powerful enough to state that if you want to engage in free trade with it, you are going to have to follow its rules.

Here, perhaps this helpful little video will clarify things for you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O37yJBFRrfg

Eurostat reported that unemployment in the 17 Euro area countries (EA17) reached record levels in March 2013, at 12.1%,[ up from 11.0% in March 2012 and 10.3% in March 2011; and that the overall debt-to-GDP ratio for the EA17 was 70.1% in 2008, 80.0% in 2009, 85.4% in 2010, 87.3% in 2011, and 90.6% in 2012. Further, real GDP in the EA17 declined for six straight quarters from Q4 2011 to Q1 2013.[ from 2010 to 2011, the unemployment rates in Spain, Greece, Ireland, Portugal, and the UK increased. France and Italy had no significant changes, while in Germany and Iceland the unemployment rate declined.[ Eurostat reported that Eurozone unemployment reached record levels in March 2013 at 12.1%,] up from 11.6% in September 2012 and 10.3% in 2011.

Yes, you may have noticed there's been a worldwide financial crisis resulting in economic woes.

BRITAIN has a trading alliance with 54 commonwealth nations outside the EU. In addition very good trade deals with Norway and the US.

Yet the EU accounts for well over half of all UK exports and imports. Trade with Norway represents maybe 1% at most and the UK exports more to Germany alone than it does the US. As for the percentage of the total that trade with those 54 commonwealth nations combined? A mere 10%.

Boasting about having a trading alliance with 54 commonwealth nations (it's 52 actually, the commonwealth has 53 members and one of them is the UK, so you have trade with 52 countries) sounds very impressive... until you realize that the vast majority of them consist of tiny islands or dirt-poor third world countries. Only a few of them have any significant value for UK trade; present or future.

The EU countries export far more to the UK than the UK exports to the EU countries.

And? Economy welfare isn't a simple metric of "the nation exports more than it imports". Imports generate economic activity WITHIN the UK as much as exports do. You don't seriously imagine that if imports were to drop that this would be a *good* thing, do you?

Norway is booming as a sovereign nation.

Again though, its sovereignty is questionable. It is subject to EU laws, it just doesn't have a say in them. Also, Norway's economy is NOT booming.

Iceland is booming.

No, it's not. Iceland is a tiny and inherently volatile economy. It rapidly swings between growth and contraction. Also, hailing Iceland as some sort of economic miracle independent from the EU is an utter joke given that it had to be bailed out by Europe just a few years ago.

Trade with them is unavoidable.

Trade with them is tiny.

They are EFTA members. Incidentally Norway is a founding member of EFTA Their own laws are independent of EU laws. However there are some which may well have been adopted. For instance even Russia accepts the European Court of Human Rights.

EFTA states which join the EEA (Ie; Norway and Iceland) are able to participate in the EU's single internal market without being EU members, adopting almost all the relevant EU legislation other than laws regarding agriculture and fisheries. So no, they are not independent of EU laws.

Meanwhile Greece, Italy and Spain are doing their best to avoid bankruptcy and the Euro is in trouble. The problem with a single currency is that when the value sinks, everybody goes down with the ship. Lucky for Britain that it retained the £Sterling.

I'm sure that's why UK gdp growth is below that of the Eurozone now. In fact, the UK's gdp growth is currently at the same level as that of Greece, whereas Spain is actually doing really well.

 

[bilby]

The Euroskeptic position, at the grassroots level, is based on a false belief that the faceless men in Brussels are worse than the faceless men in Westminster simply on the basis of their nationality.

Given that neither set of faceless men has any more or less reason to give a flying fuck about the ordinary Briton, that is no justification for preferring one over the other.

Xenophobia aside, the EU is clearly good for the UK, and the UK is clearly good for the EU.

But nationalism always raises its ugly head when times are hard for the man in the street. He is ruled by people who have nothing in common with him at all; and believes that the empty commonality of being born in the same nation state will somehow improve his lot. It would be funny if it wasn't so serious.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The Euroskeptic position, at the grassroots level, is based on a false belief that the faceless men in Brussels are worse than the faceless men in Westminster simply on the basis of their nationality.

Given that neither set of faceless men has any more or less reason to give a flying fuck about the ordinary Briton, that is no justification for preferring one over the other.

Xenophobia aside, the EU is clearly good for the UK, and the UK is clearly good for the EU.

But nationalism always raises its ugly head when times are hard for the man in the street. He is ruled by people who have nothing in common with him at all; and believes that the empty commonality of being born in the same nation state will somehow improve his lot. It would be funny if it wasn't so serious.

Unfortunately your post just like DYSTOPIANS lacked any clear evidence.
The UK and the European countries are good for each other through Free Trade out of Europe. See my previous post. T Your last point has no meaning because there are people on the left, right and centre of politics, some of whom are pro EU and some are against membership of the EU.

 

[bilby]

The Euroskeptic position, at the grassroots level, is based on a false belief that the faceless men in Brussels are worse than the faceless men in Westminster simply on the basis of their nationality.

Given that neither set of faceless men has any more or less reason to give a flying fuck about the ordinary Briton, that is no justification for preferring one over the other.

Xenophobia aside, the EU is clearly good for the UK, and the UK is clearly good for the EU.

But nationalism always raises its ugly head when times are hard for the man in the street. He is ruled by people who have nothing in common with him at all; and believes that the empty commonality of being born in the same nation state will somehow improve his lot. It would be funny if it wasn't so serious.

Unfortunately your post just like DYSTOPIANS lacked any clear evidence.
The UK and the European countries are good for each other through Free Trade out of Europe. See my previous post. T Your last point has no meaning because there are people on the left, right and centre of politics, some of whom are pro EU and some are against membership of the EU.

Fortunately, I don't give a flying fuck about your unevidenced opinion of my post, which was a statement of my opinion, and not intended as a scientificly sound treatise.

Your entire post is based on a false premise, and therefore has neither meaning nor value.

Xenophobia is not exclusive to any particular point on the political spectrum, and nothing I said in any way supports your poorly thought out critique.

 

[dystopian]

Given that neither set of faceless men has any more or less reason to give a flying fuck about the ordinary Briton, that is no justification for preferring one over the other.

At least having the EU there provides an additional difficulty for local politicians to screw over their citizens; the way the UK clearly wants to. You'd have to be the most gullible idiot on the planet to think that when the government says it wants to scrap the Human Rights Act; that's going to be a good thing for you. And that's one of the things the UK government wants to do; get rid of the human rights laws so that it is no longer subject to the intranational decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. That, is a political aspiration that should genuinely terrify any Briton, and it's the sort of thing that presents a clear argument for why it is a *good* thing for governments to be beholden to powers above them. The EU (like the court, which is not a part of the EU) can serve as the means to keep local governments in check.

But nationalism always raises its ugly head when times are hard for the man in the street. He is ruled by people who have nothing in common with him at all; and believes that the empty commonality of being born in the same nation state will somehow improve his lot. It would be funny if it wasn't so serious.

It's quite interesting how euroskeptic parties across western Europe always blame everything on someone else; and usually the same three somethings: The EU, Eastern Europeans, and Muslims, in no particular order. They protest far and wide that they're not racists and bigots, but consistently blame *everything* on foreigners. And when they're finally not blaming the foreigners for something, they're blaming the people who aren't blaming the foreigners.

Unfortunately your post just like DYSTOPIANS lacked any clear evidence.

Curious how you haven't addressed any of that "not clear" evidence then.

The first time you addressed what I'd said, you apparently did so without actually fully reading or understanding some of the arguments made; necessitating me to clarify those arguments once again. Now it seems you've just given up and dismiss every bit of logic, fact or research that compromises the delusional fantasy you have of the UK leaving without any ill effect whatsoever. Easier to maintain the illusion that way, I suppose.

 

[whichphilosophy]

At least having the EU there provides an additional difficulty for local politicians to screw over their citizens; the way the UK clearly wants to. You'd have to be the most gullible idiot on the planet to think that when the government says it wants to scrap the Human Rights Act; that's going to be a good thing for you. And that's one of the things the UK government wants to do; get rid of the human rights laws so that it is no longer subject to the intranational decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. That, is a political aspiration that should genuinely terrify any Briton, and it's the sort of thing that presents a clear argument for why it is a *good* thing for governments to be beholden to powers above them. The EU (like the court, which is not a part of the EU) can serve as the means to keep local governments in check.

But nationalism always raises its ugly head when times are hard for the man in the street. He is ruled by people who have nothing in common with him at all; and believes that the empty commonality of being born in the same nation state will somehow improve his lot. It would be funny if it wasn't so serious.

It's quite interesting how euroskeptic parties across western Europe always blame everything on someone else; and usually the same three somethings: The EU, Eastern Europeans, and Muslims, in no particular order. They protest far and wide that they're not racists and bigots, but consistently blame *everything* on foreigners. And when they're finally not blaming the foreigners for something, they're blaming the people who aren't blaming the foreigners.

Unfortunately your post just like DYSTOPIANS lacked any clear evidence.

Curious how you haven't addressed any of that "not clear" evidence then.

The first time you addressed what I'd said, you apparently did so without actually fully reading or understanding some of the arguments made; necessitating me to clarify those arguments once again. Now it seems you've just given up and dismiss every bit of logic, fact or research that compromises the delusional fantasy you have of the UK leaving without any ill effect whatsoever. Easier to maintain the illusion that way, I suppose.

The reports I have read and those you quoted have given a somewhat speculative analysis, because they don't know what exactly will be agreed. However the departure of Norway and Iceland has not proven detrimental to either the EU nor these countries.
I agree that there is logic in probably and probably not which are in the reports that you quoted. Even these reports are not actually stating there will be definite negative effect.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Unfortunately your post just like DYSTOPIANS lacked any clear evidence.
The UK and the European countries are good for each other through Free Trade out of Europe. See my previous post. T Your last point has no meaning because there are people on the left, right and centre of politics, some of whom are pro EU and some are against membership of the EU.

Fortunately, I don't give a flying fuck about your unevidenced opinion of my post, which was a statement of my opinion, and not intended as a scientificly sound treatise.

Your entire post is based on a false premise, and therefore has neither meaning nor value.

Xenophobia is not exclusive to any particular point on the political spectrum, and nothing I said in any way supports your poorly thought out critique.

Good to get a short reply. However examples of Norway and Iceland show that departure has not been detrimental. In the long term Britain will benefit also. It is a resourceful country and trading is all about negotiation. What has Xenophobia got to do with it or is it just more drivel.

 

[dystopian]

However the departure of Norway and Iceland has not proven detrimental to either the EU nor these countries.

Oh for fucks sake. You have absolutely no ability to comprehend what people write, do you?

I already explained to you that 1) Norway and Iceland were never members of the EU and thus haven't 'departed', and 2) explained to you that they are part of the European Economic Area, for which they pay a heavy price. There is absolutely NO guarantee whatsoever that the UK could negotiate access to it. Neither Norway's situation, nor that of Iceland, is remotely similar to that of the UK; and you can not point to either of them as evidence for your delusional and unsubstantiated belief that the UK will be 'just fine'.

I agree that there is logic in probably and probably not which are in the reports that you quoted.

I have absolutely no idea what this sentence is supposed to convey. Speak English.

Even these reports are not actually stating there will be definite negative effect.

No, they just basically state that 'Yeah, there'll probably be negative effects. You know, we're pretty sure. Here's all these scenarios that could happen where we get royally fucked. You know, just saying. We suppose it COULD be possible that none of it happens and that actually we'll strike gold and everything will be super-awesome. Yeah, that could totally happen. Maybe. Well probably not. Probably all this bad stuff will happen.'

Reading your dismissal of the consequences is like watching someone go to the doctor for a tiny growth on their skin, having the doctor tell them 'It's harmless. We *could* get rid of it, but it isn't necessary and doing so carries a 99% of you dying,' and then having the patient go 'well, 99% of death means there's a chance I could live right? Let's do it!'

 

[whichphilosophy]

At least having the EU there provides an additional difficulty for local politicians to screw over their citizens; the way the UK clearly wants to. You'd have to be the most gullible idiot on the planet to think that when the government says it wants to scrap the Human Rights Act; that's going to be a good thing for you. And that's one of the things the UK government wants to do; get rid of the human rights laws so that it is no longer subject to the intranational decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. That, is a political aspiration that should genuinely terrify any Briton, and it's the sort of thing that presents a clear argument for why it is a *good* thing for governments to be beholden to powers above them. The EU (like the court, which is not a part of the EU) can serve as the means to keep local governments in check.

But nationalism always raises its ugly head when times are hard for the man in the street. He is ruled by people who have nothing in common with him at all; and believes that the empty commonality of being born in the same nation state will somehow improve his lot. It would be funny if it wasn't so serious.

It's quite interesting how euroskeptic parties across western Europe always blame everything on someone else; and usually the same three somethings: The EU, Eastern Europeans, and Muslims, in no particular order. They protest far and wide that they're not racists and bigots, but consistently blame *everything* on foreigners. And when they're finally not blaming the foreigners for something, they're blaming the people who aren't blaming the foreigners.

Unfortunately your post just like DYSTOPIANS lacked any clear evidence.

Curious how you haven't addressed any of that "not clear" evidence then.

The first time you addressed what I'd said, you apparently did so without actually fully reading or understanding some of the arguments made; necessitating me to clarify those arguments once again. Now it seems you've just given up and dismiss every bit of logic, fact or research that compromises the delusional fantasy you have of the UK leaving without any ill effect whatsoever. Easier to maintain the illusion that way, I suppose.

I agree with your point on the European Court of Human Rights with just some reservations. Britain however wants to protect its borders against economic migrants from all countries. People can come over on work contracts. This means they come with a job. Who said anything about Muslims and Eastern Europeans? I work for a Muslim corporation and am married to a non European.

 

[dystopian]

Britain however wants to protect its borders against economic migrants from all countries.

Which is nothing more than xenophobia in disguise. In reality, economies *benefit* from economic migration. *Especially* aging western economies. Protecting your borders from them is basically shooting yourself in the foot.

"They took our jobs!"
"Let's kick 'em out!"
"Yeah! And make sure none of 'em get back in!"
"Yeah!"

later

"I'm ooold... why is everything dirty? Where is the nurse?"
"Sorry sir, some idiots a couple of decades back decided to limit immigration, and now nobody wants to do the crap jobs like washing you and keeping your toilet clean."

People can come over on work contracts.

Ah, the good old 'guest workers'; that worked out so well for Europe's xenophobes in the past.

Who said anything about Muslims and Eastern Europeans?

UKIP candidates. Or indeed, just about any European euroskeptic party.