Why are the British so anti Europe?

Philope · 16-01-2014 02:04AM

I also don't see how it would serve the EU to threaten Britian.

SpaceTime · 16-01-2014 02:08AM

Philope wrote: »

I also don't see how it would serve the EU to threaten Britian.

It wouldn't necessarily be threatening anything. It might just give them the option of leaving and then having to re-negoiate every aspect of the relationship.

There's really no precedent for it.
It's likely some kind of a flexible arrangement would be come to but who knows!

Some member states might have axes to grind. I mean, you could see the Eastern European states being very annoyed with a huge country getting full single market access without any of the burdens of EU membership.

It would seem rather unfair.

It could go lots of ways. Nobody really knows. I don't think it would the EU or the UK much good though.

sin_city · 16-01-2014 02:17AM

They have good reason to be anti EU.

Just look at how Norway and Switzerland do without being in the EU.

It was great for Ireland. We got so much free money.

Only problem for us was when the EU didnt respect our right to vote no in treaties and made us return with the correct vote

Scofflaw · 16-01-2014 02:56AM

Philope wrote: »

I think Ireland would be in big trouble if they supported, or failed to campaign against any EU motion to threaten Britain with that.

I also don't see how it would serve the EU to threaten Britian.

The rest of the EU wouldn't necessarily see it as "threatening" to withdraw single market access if the UK voluntarily left the EU. Indeed, without some other arrangement in place the UK would necessarily and automatically lose access and be on the outside of the EU's tariff walls until such an arrangement was negotiated.

As to how Ireland would fare - well, now, how would an extremely close English-speaking jurisdiction with very similar legislative and regulatory regimes and strong historic ties but still inside the single market fare if the UK were to leave....? I'd say the big question is would there be enough room in Dublin for all the UK companies that suddenly needed to relocate?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw · 16-01-2014 03:04AM

sin_city wrote: »

They have good reason to be anti EU.

Just look at how Norway and Switzerland do without being in the EU.

It was great for Ireland. We got so much free money.

Only problem for us was when the EU didnt respect our right to vote no in treaties and made us return with the correct vote

The EU can't (and didn't) make us re-run our referendums. Our own governments did that.

EU Treaties are written by the governments of the Member States. The institutional EU's role in such matters is passive - they are required to respect the outcome, and not to get involved in the process. Other EU countries may comment or encourage one or other side, but that is not the EU.

The Irish government didn't have the Lisbon Treaty or any other EU treaty imposed on them, but supported it because it was a deal they had negotiated with the other Member States. In the same way, they didn't have a referendum re-run imposed on them, but chose to do it because they wanted a Yes.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Philope · 16-01-2014 03:09AM

Scofflaw wrote: »

The rest of the EU wouldn't necessarily see it as "threatening" to withdraw single market access if the UK voluntarily left the EU.

The rest of the EU might not, but the UK probably would, and I doubt they'd be too happy if Ireland supported such a move.

Scofflaw · 16-01-2014 03:27AM

Philope wrote: »

The rest of the EU might not, but the UK probably would, and I doubt they'd be too happy if Ireland supported such a move.

There's not really very much they could do about that, though. We're a large export market of theirs, whichever way you look at it.

And legally, there isn't a case to be made as such. If the UK leaves without negotiating something like EEA membership, then it just doesn't legally have any right of access to the single market. Any Member State is free to withdraw from the EU at any time, but you can't both withdraw and keep the benefits of membership.

That simply cannot be described as "threatening". That's like saying you want a divorce but describing as "threatening" any suggestion that you won't then have marital rights. It's not a threat, it's a consequence of the action you're choosing.

About the only thing that could be done in a hurry is to negotiate a free-trade agreement that simply replicates the current access, but those have to be signed off in every EU country, so it only takes one veto. I doubt that veto would be Irish, but that's one out of 27.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Peregrinus · 16-01-2014 03:32AM

Philope wrote: »

The rest of the EU might not, but the UK probably would, and I doubt they'd be too happy if Ireland supported such a move.

I'm not sure why you would see this as a "threat". The fundamental pillars of the EU are the " the four freedoms" - free movement of goods, capital, services and persons as between all member states. If the UK decides to withdraw from the EU, then, as between the UK and the EU, none of these can be demanded as of right, or taken for granted; they are matters for negotiation as between the UK and the EU.

In those negotiations, of course, each party will look to its own interests. And since the thesis behind the movement for UK withdrawal is that UK interests frequently do not align with those of the rest of the EU, that could make for some difficult negotiations; the parties will be hoping for different outcomes.

But none of that amounts to a threat. Any suggestion that the UK might leave the EU, but that being expected to live with the consequences of leaving is in some sense a "threat", is to my mind unrealistic.

That's not to say that the negotiations might not end up with the UK getting access to EU markets for its goods and services. Three other countries - Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway - have access to the four freedoms through participation in the European Economic Area, and I suspect this would be offered to the UK.

Whether the UK would want access on the same terms as those three countries is another matter - they effectively have to adopt relevant EU law with only limited rights to participate in making it - but the UK being offered it can hardly be described as a "threat".

Philope · 16-01-2014 09:44AM

Britain were also threatened with all sorts for leaving the Euro zone, but the EU came to their senses and realised such actions would be counterproductive for them, and many of their members.

Peregrinus · 16-01-2014 10:00AM

Britain never left the eurozone; they were never part of it. I don't recall Britain being threatened with anything for not joining. Various people made predictions about how this would turn out for Britain and, mostly, those predictions have not been borne out. But if anybody threatened action which they subsequently decided not to take, as your post implies, that escaped my notice at the time.

As for leaving the EU entirely, if the UK wants an external relationship with the EU, they're going to have to negotiate it. That's not a threat; it's a simple statement of reality. There are plenty of existing models for such a relationship; it's for the EU to decide which of those might be offered to a non-member UK, and for the UK to decide if what is offered is in their interests, or whether they want to make a counter-offer seeking some new model of relationship. If you can parlay that observation into a "threat" to the UK, I'm afraid we will suspect you of having a persecution complex!

Philope · 16-01-2014 10:03AM

Less of the ad hom please.

The UK negotiated an opt out from the eurozone, but at the time they were promised all sorts of disasters would befall them.

Peregrinus · 16-01-2014 10:09AM

Fair enough, I withdraw and apologise. But can you be more particular about the actions threatened against the UK which people later realised would be counterproductive? I still suspect you may be remembering something that didn't actually happen.

Scofflaw · 16-01-2014 10:11AM

Philope wrote: »

Less of the ad hom please.

The UK negotiated an opt out from the eurozone, but at the time they were promised all sorts of disasters would befall them.

Promised by whom? And when you say "promised all sorts of disasters" are you saying that people predicted these things would happen, or threatened to make them happen?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Boroso · 16-01-2014 10:45AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Fair enough, I withdraw and apologise. But can you be more particular about the actions threatened against the UK which people later realised would be counterproductive? I still suspect you may be remembering something that didn't actually happen.

All sorts of dire warnings of the apocalypse that will happen any country which dares to leave the full embrace of the EU will be predicted, as many of those who cherish the idea of ever closer union (which translates as transferring more and more power to the centre) simply can’t bear to contemplate that more and more Europeans no longer agree with that policy, and want to see it reversed.

Britain’s trade with the EU accounts for around 14% of its total trade. That’s a lot, and its 15% with non EU and 71% domestic. To suggest that the UK will be in limbo for a protracted time, and imply that it will be unable to trade with other countries in the EU, is as preposterous as it is ridiculous that all those other EU countries will be content to cease selling all their goods to the UK.

The WTO rules trump the EU, and the EU would be stupid to try to prevent, for example, Germany selling BMW’s and Mercedes and Volkswagen cars to the UK. If that, and similar, is what Scofflaw is suggesting might happen, it’s all the more reason for many as to why they no longer want to give the EU any more power, and want to take back powers from such an institution.

MarkK · 16-01-2014 12:27PM

Boroso wrote: »

All sorts of dire warnings of the apocalypse that will happen any country which dares to leave the full embrace of the EU will be predicted,

The question is predicted by whom?

It's also predicted that the UK will become some sort of nirvana free of regulations and illegal immigrants if they leave the EU.

Peregrinus · 16-01-2014 12:32PM

Let's get a little bit realistic. Nobody is suggesting that, if the UK leaves the EU, the EU will attempt to ban EU-produced goods from being sold to Britain. The issue is UK-produced good and services; they will no longer have free access, as a matter of right, to EU markets, as they currently do.

Yes, WTO rules will still apply, but currently UK producers enjoy access to other EU countries on considerably more advantageous terms than the WTO requires. Should Britain choose to rely simply on its WTO rights, it will enjoy the same right of access to EU markets as, say, the US or India. That is significantly less advantageous than the current terns.

Of course, this cuts both ways. Producers in the EU-26 will enjoy correspondingly restricted rights to enter the UK market. But, let's be honest, this is a much bigger issue for the EU than for the UK. More than half of the UK's external trade is with the EU-26; I don't have a figure for the proportion of the EU-26 external trade which is with the UK, but it's nothing like that.

There's no doubt that (a) the EU will want more favourable access than the WTO would entitle them to, and (b) that they can get it. But there is equally no doubt that they won't get it on the terms they now have it as EU members. Most likely the best deal they can get will be as EEA members.

The thing is, is this what the UK (or the proponents of UK withdrawal) want? In particular, if you're of the Daily Mail school of euroscepticism, EEA membership is a really bad deal - fully subject to, and bound by, all the "straight banana" EU regulations that the Daily Mail imagines to abound, but practically no right to influence the making or content of those regulations. Plus, still subject to an obligtation to make financial contributions to the Eu budget. If your object in withdrawing from the EU is avoid all that, then you don't want EEA membership either. That leaves you relying on your WTO rights, plus whatever extra you can negotiate with the EU, in a situation where the EU has a much stronger bargaining position than the UK does.

I'm not saying that this could never be in the interests of the UK. I'm saying that there are real risks for, and costs to, the UK in withdrawing from the EU, and pointing that out is not a "threat".

SpaceTime · 16-01-2014 12:47PM

The other issue is with freedom of movement and of residence.
This seems to be one of the driving forces behind the debate in the UK.

If the UK were to ban EU migrants having left the EU where would that leave the well ovet 1m UK citizens who are permanently resident in other EU states.

It would probably be ok for Irish-British freedom of movement as there are pre-EU agreements and legacy arrangements covering that that go well beyond EU interconnections.

However, what would happen to all other aspects of it? Britons currently enjoy a huge range of health and social benefits when resident elsewhere in the EU.

Would all the insolvent pensioners suddenly be stuffed onto the next flight back from Malaga?

Would UK citizens suddenly be no longer able to work in bars, cafes, participate in Erasumus exchanges etc etc

What would happen to the rather large number of UK citizens working for EU institutions and agencies?

Would structural funding paid to UK regions be refunded to the EU?

Would British farming function without CAP or would it suddenly be forced to be economically viable on its own?

There are vast numbers of issues that would arrise once you get beyond the simple political rhetoric.

For all the down sides there are upsides that the tabloid arguments don't mention.

This could end up being an absolute mess. The timing (during a major global recession / economic instability) couldn't be worse either.

I know for a fact many people in the EU institutions see it like being kicked while they're down and can't understand why the UK parties are adding more instability to what's already a mess.

I don't necessarily think some people will be very happy to bend over backwards to facilitate anything. They could be left in the cold much more dramatically than they think.

Boroso · 16-01-2014 12:54PM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Of course, this cuts both ways. Producers in the EU-26 will enjoy correspondingly restricted rights to enter the UK market. But, let's be honest, this is a much bigger issue for the EU than for the UK. More than half of the UK's external trade is with the EU-26; I don't have a figure for the proportion of the EU-26 external trade which is with the UK, but it's nothing like that.

14% of the UK's trade is with other EU countries, and 15% with non EU countries.

If your argument is that the UK should remain in the EU because it will lose all that 14% of its trade, then tell us. Teshnically, thats less than half and not "more than half" as you claim, although its a small issue.

Or if your argument is that the EU should remain in the EU, and hand over more and more powers to the EU in the coming years, to retain that 14% ( or however much of that 14% you estimate it will lose), then tell us that also.

The problem with this sort of argument is that, across Europe, the growing number of Europeans who are dissatisfied with the EU, and the growing number of those who want to stop handing over more power to the EU and to take powers back frmm the EU, these sorts of arguments are trumped by the what are considered to be more fundamental issues of democracy and self determination.

No one wants to lose what they see as their never ending right to self determination, for a few percent of todays trade. That would be a pretty rotten bargain.

SpaceTime · 16-01-2014 12:59PM

Are you sure about those stats?

With services exports included (most of the UK economy is services) the figures I have seen are more like 48%

I'm on a mobile but a casual Google brings up ;

Office of National Statistics (British Government)

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/itis/international-trade-in-services/2011/sty-international-trade-in-services.html

There are a lot of inaccurate stats being thrown around in this debate.

MarkK · 16-01-2014 01:09PM

Boroso wrote: »

14% of the UK's trade is with other EU countries, and 15% with non EU countries.

Trade figures usually refer to foreign trade.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/trade-figures

SpaceTime · 16-01-2014 01:11PM

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_278439.pdf

Sample period:

UK goods exports to EU in July 2012 £12.5 bn (48.6%)
UK goods exports to non EU in July 2012 £13.2 bn (51.4%)

I think someone may be quoting trade figures including the domestic economic activity within the UK itself (money being circulated not being earned on global markets) to make the export figures seem less significant.

Be very wary of selectivity quoted stats from tabloids and vested interests of either side of the debate!

The facts would seem to indicate the EU is the UK's single largest trade partner by a very long shot.

The Office of National Statistics and Eurostat are probably your safest sources!

Peregrinus · 16-01-2014 02:03PM

Yes. Slightly less than half (and not more than half, as I said earlier) of the UK's external trade with is other EU countries. That's very significant to the UK.

It's not the case that, if the UK leaves the EU, this trade simply disappears. As a non-member, the UK can still trade with the EU; lots of non-members do.

What changes is the terms on which that trade is conducted. At the moment, as a member state, the UK enjoys the right to sell goods and services into other EU countries without any barriers of any kind. If the UK leaves, they lose this right, unless they become members of the EEA instead (which would mean giving up many of the advantages which they would hope to gain by leaving, like the right to deny residence rights to EU nationals).

So, are they simply going to walk, and let the trade consequences fall where they may? That's very unlikely, not just because it would be very stupid but also because it would be very contrary to the interests of powerful figures in the British establishment. If they do leave they'll want to negotiate the terms of their leaving, and in particular to negotiate the most favourable access they can to EU markets for the UK's goods and services. My point is that their negotiating position will not be a particularly strong one; they have much more to lose than the EU-26, and if (following a referendum) they have a political commitment to leave they have given away their main bargaining point. And, the more the UK's access to EU markets is restricted or constrained, the further the UK moves from its current right of free trade on terms of absolute equality with other member states, the more the UK's trade with the EU will shrink.

Boroso invites me to say whether I think the UK should stay or leave. I hope they stay, because I think it's in the interests of Ireland that they do. But as to whether it's in the UK's interests, that's not for me to say; it's a decision for the UK. The point is that it's a tough decision; there are significant downsides (from the UK's perspective) to leaving; there are difficult choices to be made, and the UK's bargaining position in leaving negotiations would not be a strong one. And my other point is that to say all this is not to "threaten" the UK.

Philope · 16-01-2014 02:14PM

I hope they don't leave either, but if they do decide to do so, I'm sure they will be doing so in full knowlege and in their own overall best interests.
The UK is not stupid.

Scofflaw · 16-01-2014 02:32PM

We don't seem to have an answer here to the question "who threatened the UK?". It's not necessarily a very important question, but the claim was made, has been challenged, and now we seem to be wandering off without answering it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

SpaceTime · 16-01-2014 02:35PM

The thing is that when push comes to shove, the British business lobby does not want the UK to leave the EU and I think you'll find there'll be a rather serious shift in opinion as they start to rollout the big PR and lobbying guns!

You're already seeing a rather serious softening of a lot of senior Tory members' positions and I think that's because they're being given quite a lot of straight talking by the business and banking lobby.

It plays well to the tabloids, but it plays very badly to business people and the financial sector which basically *is* the UK economy.

The UK's also suffering from a pretty serious trade deficit at the moment too which needs to be turned around. Part of that is probably down to £ being over valued and loss of competitiveness relative to the € and $.

Placing any further question marks over the ability of UK companies to export easily to what is the world's largest consumer market, is really risky stuff.

I think this is a discussion you have during boom times, not during a deep recession.

On the immigration issue, it's also quite frightening for UK-based companies in some regards too. If you have a situation where it suddenly becomes difficult to access a pool of talent from continental Europe, the cost of employment would go way up.

There are loads of multilingual and high tech jobs being filled by continental graduates who have specific skills.

In an Irish context for example, our ability to attract major multinationals to Ireland to run customer service and sales facilities comes down partially to our ability to be able to attract in lots of enthusiastic continental Europeans who are attracted to Ireland by availability of jobs, a relatively attractive lifestyle and the fact that it speaks English.

A large number of companies are in the UK for similar reasons to that.

You also have to look at the long game too. The EU has proven itself to be able to encourage economic growth and value-added economics to kick start in countries that have joined.
The Czech Republic, Poland, Estonia and quite a few others have gone from being relatively poor iron curtain states to quite showing very serious promise of being quite major economies thanks to opening up to EU trade.

So, rather than seeing this flood of emigration from the East into the UK and Ireland and elsewhere as a terrible thing. I'd actually say it's a really positive thing. All those people who come to England, Ireland, France, Germany etc tend to mostly only do it for a few years and go back again. However, they build linguistic connections, trade links, transfer ideas, and boost trade.

I really think this whole notion of returning to being insular little states is not going to do anything for the economies that opt for that in the long run.

I'm not saying the EU's perfect, it's far from it and has a lot of problems and flaws that need to be ironed out. However, I think the choice between the EU or a bunch of little nation-states and going back to old animosities really isn't much of a choice at all.
The EU (warts and all) still stands for a very optimistic, positive, vibrant ideal and I think it's being totally lost in this debate.

We need to fix the EU's problems and make it more democratically accountable. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater's pretty stupid.

Scofflaw · 16-01-2014 02:41PM

It seems the Norwegian PM is, er, 'threatening' the UK:

[Norwegian PM] Solberg says she understands that Cameron uses Norway as a counter-example in his argument and she states that the EEA agreement as an alternative of full membership to EU, Norway has committed , is not something she recommends to the British politicians.

Erna Solberg told Cameron not to push Britain towards an EU exit. Citing the experience of Norway - which is not an EU member but has very close trade ties through its membership of the European Economic Area - Solberg said: "Those in the British debate who look at Norway’s association underestimate how closely connected we actually are with many of the laws and rules they are annoyed with.

http://www.tnp.no/norway/politics/4248-norway-warns-uk-not-to-exit-european-union

cordially,
Scofflaw

SpaceTime · 16-01-2014 02:48PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

It seems the Norwegian PM is, er, 'threatening' the UK:

http://www.tnp.no/norway/politics/4248-norway-warns-uk-not-to-exit-european-union

cordially,
Scofflaw

Well that's the other risk, at present the EU has a lot of British influences and has actually followed quite a British-influenced economic model in many areas, particularly on opening up of markets, privatisation and free trade which very much fits into a slightly modified UK-esque model of how to build an economy.

Take the UK out of that driving seat, and you've suddenly got a Franco-German axis at the helm which would be much more fond of draconian regulation of various industries (especially banking!).

The UK would be an EEA member, meaning it has to implement all the EU's rules and regulations with almost zero input into how they're shaped and they could become a lot more like German and French ideas rather than British ones.

The UK has most definitely been one of the biggest voices for liberal economics in the EU right back to the Thatcher days. (Not that I'm a huge fan of Mrs T, but you get my point..)

I would also argue that Norway and Switzerland are quite inappropriate models for a large, mixed, open, trading economy like the UK.

Norway's a one trick pony - small, liberal democratic socialist country living on vast oil wealth.
Switzerland's basically a tax/regulation haven that lives off secretive banking primarily.

Both are quite small, and somewhat 'unusual'.

The UK doesn't have vast mineral wealth that's sufficient to sustain the entire population nor is it small enough to live as a regulation/tax haven.

While the tabloids and the euro-sceptics in the UK may not believe it, the UK actually wields a huge amount of power in the EU and with a bit more engagement, it could actually wield more than France and nearly as much as Germany.

The UK also has a lot of like-minded countries that would probably support it across many issues, more so than they'd be likely to jump in behind Germany or France. A lot of the smaller countries (including Ireland, probably the Netherlands, many new members from the Eastern bloc, even to a degree the Spanish and Portuguese) are probably more aligned to UK-style interests than German ones.

Scofflaw · 16-01-2014 04:51PM

SpaceTime wrote: »

Well that's the other risk, at present the EU has a lot of British influences and has actually followed quite a British-influenced economic model in many areas, particularly on opening up of markets, privatisation and free trade which very much fits into a slightly modified UK-esque model of how to build an economy.

Take the UK out of that driving seat, and you've suddenly got a Franco-German axis at the helm which would be much more fond of draconian regulation of various industries (especially banking!).

The UK would be an EEA member, meaning it has to implement all the EU's rules and regulations with almost zero input into how they're shaped and they could become a lot more like German and French ideas rather than British ones.

The UK has most definitely been one of the biggest voices for liberal economics in the EU right back to the Thatcher days. (Not that I'm a huge fan of Mrs T, but you get my point..)

They're the strongest opponents of French dirigisme, and a regular and important ally of Ireland on matters business and financial. I'm not necessarily a fan of the outcomes there, mind you, since I think the yardstick that gets used in the Anglo model to measure success is one unduly influenced by the success of the wealthy.

I would also argue that Norway and Switzerland are quite inappropriate models for a large, mixed, open, trading economy like the UK.

Norway's a one trick pony - small, liberal democratic socialist country living on vast oil wealth.
Switzerland's basically a tax/regulation haven that lives off secretive banking primarily.

Both are quite small, and somewhat 'unusual'.

The UK doesn't have vast mineral wealth that's sufficient to sustain the entire population nor is it small enough to live as a regulation/tax haven.

To be fair, it's hardly just the eurosceptics who consider those countries as desirable models. The Tories are essentially trying to protect their Switzerland in London (supported by the Irish over our Switzerland in the IFSC), while successfully shooting down EU attempts to regulate their possible Norway of shale gas (supported by Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic).

Mind you, the UK has actually had a 'Norway' in their North Sea oil and gas, and Thatcher blew it on lowering taxes for the wealthy.

While the tabloids and the euro-sceptics in the UK may not believe it, the UK actually wields a huge amount of power in the EU and with a bit more engagement, it could actually wield more than France and nearly as much as Germany.

The UK also has a lot of like-minded countries that would probably support it across many issues, more so than they'd be likely to jump in behind Germany or France. A lot of the smaller countries (including Ireland, probably the Netherlands, many new members from the Eastern bloc, even to a degree the Spanish and Portuguese) are probably more aligned to UK-style interests than German ones.

This is already the case, but successive UK governments have been happy enough to downplay their influence in Europe. To be fair, though, the UK is the Member State most often in a minority position on the Council - but although that sounds dramatic, it only means 10.5% of the time, so it's on the side of the consensus 90% of the time. The next most regularly outvoted country is Germany (6.5%), then Austria (5.6%). Ireland is in the minority 1.9% of the time, about the same as most countries, and France is somehow never in a minority.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Boroso · 16-01-2014 05:01PM

MarkK wrote: »

Trade figures usually refer to foreign trade.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/trade-figures

The I suggest you don't look at the "trade" figures as they give a misleading picture of the overall position.

14% of the Uk's business is done with countries within the EU

15% of the UK's business is done with countries outside the EU

71% of the UK's business is done within the UK.

It's impossible to get any sense of proportion if you say that 48% of the UK's trade is done with countries within the EU, as it's a meaningless figure which does not tell the proportion of british business which is dependant on other countries within the EU.

Scofflaw · 16-01-2014 05:22PM

Boroso wrote: »

The I suggest you don't look at the "trade" figures as they give a misleading picture of the overall position.

14% of the Uk's business is done with countries within the EU

15% of the UK's business is done with countries outside the EU

71% of the UK's business is done within the UK.

It's impossible to get any sense of proportion if you say that 48% of the UK's trade is done with countries within the EU, as it's a meaningless figure which does not tell the proportion of british business which is dependant on other countries within the EU.

External trade is very widely used as an indicator, and is generally regarded as more than slightly relevant to relations with other countries. To be honest, it's pretty obvious that the only reason you want to concentrate on the figures you're giving is because they can be used to make the EU figure look small.

Out of the 71% of business done within the UK, do you have any idea what proportion in turn relates to companies that do external trade? Or what proportion of national GDP relates to external trade as opposed to internal? The UK's trade as a proportion of GDP looks to be about 68%, which isn't exactly a trivial figure, and the UK prides itself on being a trading nation - but perhaps that's all irrelevant?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Why are the British so anti Europe?

Comments