Europe. In or out?

[bakes8]

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think we have to agree to disagree here.

1. Nothing wrong with immigration. My wife is a Polish immigrant, she would vote out of EU as well. I do contest open border immigration policy though, as I don't want any Tom, Dick or Harry let in the country. (This does not make me racist).

2. I don't underestimate China and Asia at all. I have seen first hand what these countries have to offer and design/creativity isn't it. Have a look at the top 20 Chinese companies on wiki (you realize anyone can write on wiki right?) . Zero world leaders in innovation.

3. My company manufactures in China and in England, I don't need educating in why we do this and who profits from it.

My point stands that deregulation from the EU will not lead to a flood of Chinese and Asian cheap imports as you have stated as that has already happened over the last 20 years. Being free from EU regulations, red tape, awful bureaucracy and laws and taking control of our own country is something I'm voting for.

[Hubble]

I think we have to agree to disagree here.

1. Nothing wrong with immigration. My wife is a Polish immigrant, she would vote out of EU as well. I do contest open border immigration policy though, as I don't want any Tom, Dick or Harry let in the country. (This does not make me racist).

2. I don't underestimate China and Asia at all. I have seen first hand what these countries have to offer and design/creativity isn't it. Have a look at the top 20 Chinese companies on wiki (you realize anyone can write on wiki right?) . Zero world leaders in innovation.

3. My company manufactures in China and in England, I don't need educating in why we do this and who profits from it.

My point stands that deregulation from the EU will not lead to a flood of Chinese and Asian cheap imports as you have stated as that has already happened over the last 20 years. Being free from EU regulations, red tape, awful bureaucracy and laws and taking control of our own country is something I'm voting for.

Fair enough on agreeing to disagree.

Yes, I do know how wikipedia operates, that was a bit unnecessary mate.

A list of top Chinese companies shows over 50 multi-billion dollar brands: http://www.millwardbrown.com/BrandZ/...0_Chart_EN.pdf so I think as you say, we'll have to agree to disagree there.

The wider issues that I've been discussing and mentioned several times in relation to deregulation and so on you've chosen to ignore. As I've already said, it's far more than about cheap imports.

However, I am still open to be persuaded. Would you be prepared to make your key points for Brexit? Can you explain how you think this will effect workers rights and wages? The Brexit documentary that Gaza posted has every single person in it advocating deregulation of trade and markets. I think this could decimate our country. Can you explain why you think it would in fact be beneficial? You say you're voting to break free of EU regulations, but as far as I can see, many of them have actually benefited this country, especially the ordinary workers. Similarly they have improved the environment, working conditions and workers rights.

I can understand why removing these regulations would be attractive to company owners, but not to ordinary workers. Unless you are advocating a stake-holder form of socialism, which I think would be a good thing. But none of those in the Brexit doc are advocating that - far from it - they are advocating the opposite.

One of my key points is that in the deregulated Victorian Britain that the Brexiter's praise so highly, we had an extremely poorly paid workforce who lived in terrible conditions. Can you explain how we wouldn't return to this situation? The neo-liberal government in power is already moving us towards this situation, and as far as I'm concerned, the only thing stopping them is that we are part of the EU. For me, the EU is a brake on extremism, including extreme economic policies.

Let me state for the record, I don't like the EU particularly, I am glad we are not in the Eurozone and have retained our currency, but I think, on balance, at this moment in time, we are still better off in it that outside it. We have the best of both worlds IMO - our own currency - a veto on all important matters - yet we are on the inside of a modern social democracy that is of great benefit to ordinary people.

How do you see ordinary people benefiting if we leave the EU? How do you know that we would be able to negotiate better trade deals with our largest trading partner than those we have already? What's to say they might not be worse?

[bakes8]

Good grief.

No-one can say what will or will not happen be an in vote nor an out vote, its all conjecture.

Whether you take exception to the said documentary as a Socialist or you take exception to the BBC report bias as a 'Right winger' is neither here nor there for me. I try to make my mind up with what I see and hear myself, not propaganda.

I took umbridge to your point of But what would happen if we opened up to free-trade and competition without any protections, tariffs or regulations? We would be swamped by cheap goods from China, India and elsewhere. The UK manufacturing base would be devastated. Wages would be driven down in an attempt to match prices. It could make the average person in the UK a lot worse off. which was clearly nonsensical as I have already pointed out.

I'm clearly not a Socialist and I'm not voting out because it may or may not help my workforce. I'm voting out as I feel long term we will be better off out the EU than in it. Governing ourselves for the interests of ourselves. I shudder at the idea of a Federal nanny undemocratic superstate which believe me they want to create.

[Hubble]

Good grief.

No-one can say what will or will not happen be an in vote nor an out vote, its all conjecture.

Whether you take exception to the said documentary as a Socialist or you take exception to the BBC report bias as a 'Right winger' is neither here nor there for me. I try to make my mind up with what I see and hear myself, not propaganda.

I took umbridge to your point of But what would happen if we opened up to free-trade and competition without any protections, tariffs or regulations? We would be swamped by cheap goods from China, India and elsewhere. The UK manufacturing base would be devastated. Wages would be driven down in an attempt to match prices. It could make the average person in the UK a lot worse off. which was clearly nonsensical as I have already pointed out.

I'm clearly not a Socialist and I'm not voting out because it may or may not help my workforce. I'm voting out as I feel long term we will be better off out the EU than in it. Governing ourselves for the interests of ourselves. I shudder at the idea of a Federal nanny undemocratic superstate which believe me they want to create.

Okay, you've made your position clear. I think this is something people who are ordinary workers need to be aware of; Brexit may benefit business owners, but not their workforce. This is something that was clear from the documentary.

[bakes8]

Okay, you've made your position clear. I think this is something people who are ordinary workers need to be aware of; Brexit may benefit business owners, but not their workforce. This is something that was clear from the documentary.

Possibly. Again, conjecture.

Jeremy Corbyn is all for us staying in tho. Why's that?

All if, but's and maybe's mate. I respect your opinion but not one I can agree with (on this point).

[Hubble]

Possibly. Again, conjecture.

Jeremy Corbyn is all for us staying in tho. Why's that?

All if, but's and maybe's mate. I respect your opinion but not one I can agree with (on this point).

Corbyn is an interesting case as he was originally pro-Brexit. I think, like left-wing economist Paul Mason, his view is that right now the conditions aren't right for Brexit. In a speech he made on staying in, he was highly critical of the EU. I am of a similar mind in that I think in principle Brexit is a good idea, but not right now.

At least we're having a civilised debate on this!

Like you say, everything is conjecture.

[Itsonlyagame]

Okay, you've made your position clear. I think this is something people who are ordinary workers need to be aware of; Brexit may benefit business owners, but not their workforce. This is something that was clear from the documentary.

Surely that depends on whether the owners of the business are willing to reward their workforce and invest their additional profits into developing their company, thus potentially providing their workforce with long term security.
Some will, some won't.
Isn't that a bit of a generalisation on your part there ?

[bakes8]

Corbyn is an interesting case as he was originally pro-Brexit. I think, like left-wing economist Paul Mason, his view is that right now the conditions aren't right for Brexit. In a speech he made on staying in, he was highly critical of the EU. I am of a similar mind in that I think in principle Brexit is a good idea, but not right now.

At least we're having a civilised debate on this!

Like you say, everything is conjecture.

Corbyn is defo an interesting case bud.

[Snaxo]

I lead a (services) business unit WW for one of the worlds largest corporates. Before that, I led Europe. It's very very difficult for anyone to know with any accuracy the ramifications of leaving Europe (which alone, is enough to make me vote stay - why take such a considerable risk??) but from my personal experience (all I can go on), being part of Europe has led to significantly LESS red tape (day to day business) than if we were outside. Within Europe I can utilise resources across EU borders (send deep skill where it's needed on specific projects etc) without any fuss whatsoever - as soon as those resources need to leave (or we need to use resources from outside) the complexity increases by orders of magnitude. Complexity = Cost. In the end, who foots the bill (ultimately). I'm sure you don't need me to tell you it won't be the corporates. A clear vote IN for me

[gaza09]

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

But what use is a veto if we're not going to use it?
It is government policy to support Turkeys accession into the EU

[gaza09]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That regulation, protectionism and tariffs stifle trade and competition.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Clearly, I think, it all about balance.

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

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

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

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

What a great detailed analysis of the documentry, some of which I agree with and some I don't.

You are right in that it is a right wing argument for brexit, but if we vote to leave it doesn't mean we will follow this right wing path. It just means we have the ability to put these policy's in a manifesto at a general election and ask the electorate to vote for it, at the moment we can't do that.

I will put put my cards on the table and admit I'm unashamedly right wing and agree with most of the points made in the film.
But I'm sure you will interested to know that left wing brexiters are trying to raise money to produce their own film called "Lexit the movie"
Which sets out the left wing case for leaving.

If you truely believe we should leave, then please don't wait till a better time, that time may never come. Their is never the perfect time to make such drastic changes, sometimes you just have to bite the bullet and do what's right even If it's not the perfect time.

Either way you're obviously an intelligent man, and there's really no right or wrong answer to this question, so I'm sure you will do what's right for you, as we all will.

Thanks for such a detailed analysis of the documentry I enjoyed reading it.

[Hubble]

What a great detailed analysis of the documentry, some of which I agree with and some I don't.

You are right in that it is a right wing argument for brexit, but if we vote to leave it doesn't mean we will follow this right wing path. It just means we have the ability to put these policy's in a manifesto at a general election and ask the electorate to vote for it, at the moment we can't do that.

I will put put my cards on the table and admit I'm unashamedly right wing and agree with most of the points made in the film.
But I'm sure you will interested to know that left wing brexiters are trying to raise money to produce their own film called "Lexit the movie"
Which sets out the left wing case for leaving.

If you truely believe we should leave, then please don't wait till a better time, that time may never come. Their is never the perfect time to make such drastic changes, sometimes you just have to bite the bullet and do what's right even If it's not the perfect time.

Either way you're obviously an intelligent man, and there's really no right or wrong answer to this question, so I'm sure you will do what's right for you, as we all will.

Thanks for such a detailed analysis of the documentry I enjoyed reading it.

Thanks for that Gaza, I'm really glad you enjoyed reading it, and thanks for ignoring the many typos that I have since noticed! I would be interested to see the 'Lexit' movie if it comes together. I do think that it's possible we could have another referendum - this may not be our last time to decide, but I respect your opinion and your reasons for wanting to vote leave now. Hove has just sent me a video setting out reasons to leave from someone on the left wing side of Brexit, so I will have a look at that now. I'm still willing to be persuaded! But I also note what Snaxo has said just above your post. This is a very interesting debate, that's for sure.

[stainrodisalegend]

But what use is a veto if we're not going to use it?
It is government policy to support Turkeys accession into the EU

No way France or a host of other countries would allow Turkey in, especially now their government has gone more Islamic.

[Itsonlyagame]

No way France or a host of other countries would allow Turkey in, especially now their government has gone more Islamic.

I see David Camerons campaign is now trying to frighten the bejesus out of the elderly saying there will be a shortage of people to care for them if we leave Europe.
Here's a novel idea Mr Cameron. Given the importance of what they do, pay nurses and carers a proper wage, we might not have to rely on migrants to fill the vacancies so much then.

[gaza09]

No way France or a host of other countries would allow Turkey in, especially now their government has gone more Islamic.

They will when Turkey have them over a barrel regarding the migration crisis, who would have thought they would allow the visa free travel to the schengan area?