'No UK trade benefit' being in EU

EU benefits to British trade are 'imaginary'

Report says Britain's membership to the EU has not helped it develop trade
links


British trade has not benefitted from being a member of the European Union, a
think tank has said.


It is “empty rhetoric” to suggest that being part of the EU has given the UK a
trade advantage and that any benefits are “imaginary”, a study by Civitas
has claimed.


Britain's trade with other EU nations accounts for no more of its trade with
all leading economies than it did on joining the European Economic Community
in 1973.


Meanwhile, exports to non-EU nations Iceland, Norway and Switzerland have
increased enormously over the same period, despite the relatively small
populations of such nations, according to the report.


The study will be welcomed by Eurosceptic critics of Britain’s membership of
the EU and seen as further justification for why the UK should pull out.




It also counters claims by Nick Clegg, the deputy Prime Minister, in his EU
debate with Nigel Farage, the UK Independence Party leader, last month.


Mr Clegg said that Britain was “richer, stronger, safer” in Europe and must
remain part of the EU “for the sake of our clout in the world”.


Michael Burrage, author of the report said: “While share of UK exports of
fellow EU members has been virtually stable, the share going to non-members
in Europe has risen steadily, leading one to suspect that both insider
advantages and outsider disadvantages are imaginary.”


The report also shows that the UK ranks only 28th of the world’s 35
fastest-growing exporters, with the UK’s exports to non-EU countries growing
at a much faster pace than exports to countries that are members of the
union.


Mr Burrage found that “Switzerland has been more successful than the EU in
negotiating freed trade agreements”.


This was because EU member states were often held back by “conflicting
interests, pressure groups delayed agreement about the negotiating stance to
be taken”.


In the case of Switzerland, he said, not having “a seat at the table” and
access to the European market in services looked like “decided advantages”.


His report concluded: “Without these complications it would be possible to be
a little more nimble in dealing with trading partners, and so it has turned
out for Switzerland.”


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/10807824/EU-benefits-to-British-trade-are-imaginary.html

So it's a trade arrangement with no trade benefit, it means we have an open door to unlimited immigration from EU countries and no control on our borders, and it means 75% of our laws and now made in Brussels instead of by us in our own parliament. And it costs us £55 million a day for this, And countless other billions a year on businesses through unnecessary EU regulations.




So where's the good bits about the EU?



Anybody?

Right-wing Think Tank Spouts Right-wing Talking Points

Breaking news here, folks!

Apparently didge knows what they are but is too selfish to tell the rest of us.

Tommy Monk wrote:So it's a trade arrangement with no trade benefit, it means we have an open door to unlimited immigration from EU countries and no control on our borders, and it means 75% of our laws and now made in Brussels instead of by us in our own parliament. And it costs us £55 million a day for this, And countless other billions a year on businesses through unnecessary EU regulations.
So where's the good bits about the EU?
Anybody?

Well?

Anybody?

Yes lots of claim with no evidence to back it up, the whole report is speculative, quite amusing in fact.

75% of our laws are not made in the EU either

depending upon what you consider to be a ‘law’, simply counting the totals made in Brussels and Westminster doesn’t account for the different importance and impact each has.
[size][color][font][url][/url][/font][/color][/size]

sphinx wrote:Apparently didge knows what they are but is too selfish to tell the rest of us.

Yes they are antii EU, is that the truth you are looking for?

Didge wrote:

sphinx wrote:Apparently didge knows what they are but is too selfish to tell the rest of us.

Yes they are antii EU, is that the truth you are looking for?

No I am looking for you to share these wonderful benefits that being in the EU has for us as you seem to be keeping them firmly to yourself.

Give it a couple of days and you will see this report utterly bashed for how poor it is and again off speculation and compared to the trade Britain has done to Norway, Iceland etc

sphinx wrote:

Didge wrote:



Yes they are antii EU, is that the truth you are looking for?

No I am looking for you to share these wonderful benefits that being in the EU has for us as you seem to be keeping them firmly to yourself.

Sure

http://www.cer.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/attachments/pdf/2014/pb_britishtrade_16jan14-8285.pdf

No I want benefits not threats of nasty things if we leave.

In other words pretend we are not a member and are considering joining - what is that £55 million a day going to get us?

Trade deal is not the answer because lots of countries who are not members have trade deals so you need to explain what members benefit from that non members do not.

sphinx wrote:No I want benefits not threats of nasty things if we leave.

In other words pretend we are not a member and are considering joining - what is that £55 million a day going to get us?

Trade deal is not the answer because lots of countries who are not members have trade deals so you need to explain what members benefit from that non members do not.

Try reading the report, it is all there hun





Yes they do have trade deals not as good as the UK being part of the EU, so you need to explain why they do not get better deals 

Take your time

Also people my wish to read this.
http://pinkindustry.wordpress.com/the-media-and-civitas/

Here are 5 reasons to be sceptical of the Sceptics’ alpine panacea…

Britain would be a smaller, more isolated country.
“Britain would have less diplomatic and military clout, too. For the Americans, a Britain that is disengaged from the rest of Europe would be a much less useful and influential ally. For NATO, a Britain that is semi-detached from Europe would weaken the ties that bind the continent and its defence to the United States at a time when those ties are already under strain because of slashed defence budgets and America’s strategic “rebalancing” towards Asia. Another likely casualty would be the budding Anglo-French defence treaty, seen by both countries as a way to help themselves continue to punch above their weight.”

This, of course, suits the isolationist Ukip very well. But for those of us who are internationalists becoming an irrelevance on the world-stage isn’t an attractive option.

It took the Swiss a decade to negotiate the trade treaties we already enjoy.
“The British would doubtless try to negotiate a special deal with their former partners, using the argument that trade benefits both sides and that Britain is itself a large market for many. But the process could take many years (it took a decade for the much smaller Switzerland).”

Sure, it would probably take the much larger Britain less time. But that’s a long period of instability tied-up doing little else but try to get back to where we were.

And those deals Switzerland does negotiate tend to be less good – say the Swiss.
“The EFTA countries tend to rush in behind the EU, though in some cases—South Korea, for example—they go first. But the bigger club can win slightly better terms. “The EU is more powerful than we are,” says Didier Chambovey of Switzerland’s state secretariat for foreign affairs.”

Hardly surprising: if you’re part of the world’s biggest economy, as the UK within the EU is, then you get a better deal.

The British would get less generous treatment than the Swiss.
“There is little chance that Britain, a far bigger country with a history of being difficult, would be allowed to squeeze in alongside Switzerland. … The halfway options of Norway and Switzerland were offered largely in hopes of tempting both to become full members one day. Britain would be travelling in the opposite direction, without a map. In this, as in so many other ways, leaving the EU would be a colossal gamble.”

There’s every incentive for the EU to woo a country it hopes will become a member. There’s very little incentive to treat a country well that has walked out on it.

The Swiss have less power outside the EU than the British have in the EU.
“[Switzerland] is not beyond the reach of Brussels. The Swiss are currently exercised over several European directives, including those covering finance, chemical factories and the movement of labour. Switzerland is hampered by the lack of an accord with the EU on financial services and by its lack of representation in Brussels. In the broader fight against protectionism and financial over-regulation in Europe, it relies on an informal alliance with another country that also has a big financial-services industry, as well as a valuable seat at the negotiating table: Britain.”

More dodgy waffle and not answered the points raised...!

Tommy Monk wrote:More dodgy waffle and not answered the points raised...!

Really, sorry but you have to be the biggest forum dodger of all questions posed to you let alone when people answer you, that you ignore everything, is quite sad and pathetic, but you clearly have a low IQ, so is not your fault really

 ::D::

Apparently the only benefit of being in the organisation called the European Union is money.

I quite enjoy reading some of the old books from the days of the British Empire - it's wonderful to imagine the dirty stinkingly poor countries under Empire rule nice and clean and prosperous, even though they were pretty much our slaves...

Now - what do people want - 3 square meals a day and be told where to sit, or do they want to be able to forge their own way in the world - to make mistakes and learn by them?

Come on - will you stick by what you have said in the past (think Mandela) or will it completely change to fit this situation?

BigAndy9 wrote:Apparently the only benefit of being in the organisation called the European Union is money.

I quite enjoy reading some of the old books from the days of the British Empire - it's wonderful to imagine the dirty stinkingly poor countries under Empire rule nice and clean and prosperous, even though they were pretty much our slaves...

Now - what do people want - 3 square meals a day and be told where to sit, or do they want to be able to forge their own way in the world - to make mistakes and learn by them?

Come on - will you stick by what you have said in the past (think Mandela) or will it completely change to fit this situation?

That shows you know very little History Andy, especially about the British Empire

Great tune, but you still know little history Andy

Ben_Reilly wrote:Right-wing Think Tank Spouts Right-wing Talking Points

Breaking news here, folks!

Civitas right wing?

Do you know anything about England Benji?

http://www.civitas.org.uk/about.php#personnel

Looks like a load of lefties to me....!





And Didge, you are not called dodge for nothing!


You constantly ignore answers given and then later claim no answer has been given at all, it gets a little tiresome repeating myself.


You also dodge answering questions by just posting up waffle about something else, then claim you have answered the questions.


All very familiar tactics of yours and not fooling anyone except for maybe one or two of The more stupid on here.

Tommy Monk wrote:So it's a trade arrangement with no trade benefit, it means we have an open door to unlimited immigration from EU countries and no control on our borders, and it means 75% of our laws and now made in Brussels instead of by us in our own parliament. And it costs us £55 million a day for this, And countless other billions a year on businesses through unnecessary EU regulations.
So where's the good bits about the EU?
Anybody?

Interesting, nobody has been able to post up any good points about the EU.


I think that is quite conclusive.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:So it's a trade arrangement with no trade benefit, it means we have an open door to unlimited immigration from EU countries and no control on our borders, and it means 75% of our laws and now made in Brussels instead of by us in our own parliament. And it costs us £55 million a day for this, And countless other billions a year on businesses through unnecessary EU regulations.
So where's the good bits about the EU?
Anybody?

Interesting, nobody has been able to post up any good points about the EU.


I think that is quite conclusive.

As seen you ignored that 75 of our laws are not made in the EU ha ha again you prove my point of the artful dodger and even the Swiss took over a decade to get any deals of which they admit are not as good as the EU. It also does not cost us 55 million a day, and countless times this has been debunked
Thanks for proving my point you dodge all points

During the debate on the European Union with Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, UKIP leader Nigel Farage claims that the UK's membership of the EU costs the country £55 million a day. When the host pointed out that this figure did not include the funds the UK receives from Brussels, Mr. Farage conceded that this was the gross cost of membership. But is this really true?

On the European Commission's website, we find the figures for the 2012 budget. By selecting "Revenue" in the first dropdown menu and "Total national contribution" in the fourth, we see that the UK is the fourth largest contributor to the EU budget (after Germany, France and Italy) with roughly €13.5 billion. If we divide this by the number of days in the year we find that the "membership fee" is about €36.8 million a day. If we convert this into pounds using the Eurostat exchange rate for 2012, the figure is actually about £30 million a day, almost half of what Mr. Farage claimed.

The situation changes only slightly if, instead of the total national contribution, we look at the "Total own resources" (page 238), which includes the tariffs levied on goods coming from outside the EU. As the EU is a single market, the common tariff is collected at the first entry point into the EU, even if the goods' final destination is in another member state. For this reason, this source of income is considered to be European, while the country processing the goods can keep 25% of the tariffs for its operational costs. When the tariffs are factored in, the UK's contribution to the EU budget rises to €16.2 billion, or roughly £36 million a day.

Indeed, as the host noted, it is more appropriate to measure the net contribution, i.e. including what the UK gets back from the EU, to have a better picture. The EU's 2012 budget (select "operating budgetary balance" from the dropdown) shows that the UK's net contribution in 2012 was approximately €7.4 billion, which translated into pounds is roughly £16.4 million a day, far below the figure quoted by the UKIP leader.

Mr. Farage's claim is therefore "Rather daft".

https://factcheckeu.org/factchecks/show/342/nigel-farage



Boom, Matti exposed as wrong again

What Ms Reding said (82 mins in) was: “For what should they vote, they do not know. They for instance do not know that the most powerful parliament in Europe, is the European Parliament… Why? Because the European Parliament is co-decider with the member states on European laws. And European laws are integrated into national laws in the member states. So 70% of the laws in this country are made, co-decided, by the European Parliament”.

We contacted Ms Reding’s press office to find out what source she was basing this on. In fact, the percentage was actually referring to something entirely different – where the European Parliament (consisting of elected representatives for each EU country) has an equal say to the European Council (made up of the governments of all EU countries) on EU laws, not UK laws.

The remaining 30% is where EU laws are either decided solely by the Council, or with Parliament giving the Council consent to them being passed.

We know from previous factchecks that estimates of the percentage of UK laws coming from the EU vary significantly, from under 10% to around 50%. We’ve taken a look at why we can’t really trust any of these figures for a conclusive interpretation of EU influence in our Spotlight on how much of our law the EU makes.


https://fullfact.org/europe/eu_make_uk_laws_70_per_cent-29589



Boom Matti wrong again ha ha

Still massive cost however you add up or fudge the figures, and still no good points about the EU.

Tommy Monk wrote:Still massive cost however you add up or fudge the figures, and still no good points about the EU.

Not massive when you see the benefits and that report failed to offer any evidence and as seen we are way better off than nations not in the EU

You always get your facts wrong and I prove again you are the artful dodger

Read the OP.


There are no benefits.

Tommy Monk wrote:Read the  OP.


There are no benefits.

I have it was crap, it bases most of it on assumptions and of those got it wrong compared to how the UK is with non EU European countries.

Rubbish.

Tommy Monk wrote:Rubbish.

yes we know 99% of your posts are rubbish

Still waiting for someone to point out some good parts of EU membership.....?

Tommy Monk wrote:Still waiting for someone to point out some good parts of EU membership.....?

Try reading the link posted, as I say, I know you are the artful dodger, but all the information you need is within

Good luck

The good points of EU membership have been made so many times over the years, by so many people more knowledgeable on this subject. If you haven't seen them, you live in a fact-resistant bubble.

I still say, it would be funny to see the result of the scaredy-cat brigade's apparent oncoming success in their endeavor -- if it weren't for the fact that it will hurt a lot of people who don't deserve it, to the tune of roughly 4 million unemployed in the UK and a ripple effect in practically every major industry -- including, and especially, tourism.

But if UKIP prevails, then yeah -- I see the future UK being about as big a world economic power as, say, Estonia. In fact, y'all might be looking at the Estonians with envy once UKIP has had its way with you. But don't mind me, I'm just the crazy asshole who has a knack for making counter-intuitive predictions that end up being bang-on accurate in the end. Nobody listened to me back in 2010 when I said Mitt Romney would be the 2012 Republican presidential nominee and that Obama would spank him in the election, either After all, I hate the Republicans, how could I possibly anticipate their moves?