Just wondering what my fellow Escapees think of the EU. Despite being British in every sense of the word, including replacing much everyday language with sarcasm, actually support it. Sure, it may need to change somewhat first, but I quite like the idea of a European superstate.
Anyways, what do you think? And do I still have the right to call myself a Brit?
Canadian here, and I support the idea. A greater network of trade is usually a good idea, and the EU would serve to unify people. Granted it isn't doing too well at the moment but that is because Greece lied about its economy in order to get in.
I'm in favour. I'm one of those weirdos who wouldn't mind seeing the dissolving of all countries and uniting under a single Earth Sphere Federation though, so hey-ho.
PercyBoleyn: I think it's a great idea but it was badly implemented. The EU shouldn't have been so eager to encompass Eastern Europe.
I agree to an extent, countries such as Poland might have been economically advanced enough to properly integrate, but the disparity between them and western Europe was too great.
But, I think in time they could have easily integrated themselves, but the EU might have jumped on the idea too quickly.
I agree to an extent, countries such as Poland might have been economically advanced enough to properly integrate, but the disparity between them and western Europe was too great.
But, I think in time they could have easily integrated themselves, but the EU might have jumped on the idea too quickly.
The EU should have imposed stricter requirements for joining. Eastern European states face numerous problems and the EU should have worked towards helping them overcome those obstacles before allowing them to join. Corruption and economic instability for example are still rampant.
I just wish we would stop letting every backward ass country in.
Sorry guys, but if cutting your daughters nose off for adultery is still common practice in your lands, I do not want my money paying for you knifes.
Obviously theres bigger issues, but whatever. I'm very touchy when it comes to this kind of stuff. Every time I see a news headline from Afghanistan ("3 German soldiers and 5 women killed in failed operation") I think, great, I payed for that shit. Paying off some extremist asshole in Turkey is pretty much the same thing to me.
The idea is an appealing one. But at the end of the day I think all the European nations are just too different to fuse into one superstate. Some kind of economic alliance, yes, but a state with one government, no. How can it serve its people? What a German needs is different than what Spaniard needs and so on. Here in the US of A we have continent spanning nation that (mostly) speaks the same language and we can't do a damn thing. So I don't see a state made up of so many different languages and cultures working out in the long run.
SmashLovesTitanQuest: I just wish we would stop letting every backward ass country in.
Although it might work a bit better if the EU government did this. If you want a plant to be healthy, sometimes you have to prune off the bad leaves. So to speak.
Britain needs to be heading the EU along with Germany and kick out or dissallow the other countries who cant pull their own weight. I think Britain should get out though so I said abolished.
I'm not against the EU so much as against my country being a part of it. Outside of that I wish them all the best with it, with the proviso that I fully expect it will end in world war at some point.
I voted "I dislike it". But it's only really my countries membership of it that I actually dislike. Once we're allowed out, all that would leave me with is natural goodwill, tempered in some way by mild alarm.
Olie Warr: Britain needs to be heading the EU along with Germany and kick out or dissallow the other countries who cant pull their own weight. I think Britain should get out though so I said abolished.
Why would you favour impoverising Britain and politically weakening it in the grand scheme of things?
Other countries in such a position like Switserland and Norway are hating their hats for not joining when they had the chance, so now they're stuck with everything around them being EU-governed, greatly influencing them, but they don't get a say in how it's done.
A little more than the non-EU imports comes from EU countries, and vastly more export goes to EU than non-EU countries, so getting out of the EU would be a big mistake which disadvantages the UK a lot.
I support the idea in a "U.S.E." kinda way. I think the structure needs changing to bring greater consistency and more democracy. Some cost-cutting wouldn't go amiss, like the movement every year from one HQ to the other.
A little more than the non-EU imports comes from EU countries, and vastly more export goes to EU than non-EU countries, so getting out of the EU would be a big mistake which disadvantages the UK a lot.
We trade at a defecit with the EU and a profit with the US. So you will excuse us if we don't all value EU trade as much as we value theirs.
We'd actually be richer if we didn't trade with the EU at all. In a purely financial sense.
A little more than the non-EU imports comes from EU countries, and vastly more export goes to EU than non-EU countries, so getting out of the EU would be a big mistake which disadvantages the UK a lot.
We trade at a defecit with the EU and a profit with the US. So you will excuse us if we don't all value EU trade as much as we value theirs.
Er...
If you are in a trade deficit with a country, that means you import more from them than you export to them.
Which probably means you should value their trade a lot more, because you obviously need it.
We are in a very large current account deficit with the EU:
We are also in a current account deficit with the non-EU group, too.
We'd actually be richer if we didn't trade with the EU at all. In a purely financial sense.
Money in vs money out.
In a purely financial sense we are, despite the financial problems, in a surplus.
We send our money abroad, and receive goods in return. The Balance of Payments always equals out. Deficits and surplus' exist in individual accounts only.
Equally, it means I should find a better trade partner who greater values my trade. There is not much point attending an open market in which no one is intrested in buying the goods you produce.
Finding a country who wants to sell goods to us is not a big problem, they all do. Finding a country who wants to buy goods from us however, that is the difficult part.
The balance of payments does not always equal out. A defecit means they are not balanced out. A surplus means they are not balanced out.
When imports>exports we have to borrow money to pay for them.
So we make money on a lot of our non EU trade partners, but we lose money on our EU trade.
Obviously none of us joined the EU because we wanted to lose money trading in the EU. We all joined for the exact opposite reason. To make money trading with the EU
So it's been a bit of an epic fail for us really.
We did want to make money in an open market and we didn't want to become part of a political union, and instead, we lose money in the open market and we have become part of a political union. Epic fail.
Outside of the EU we could do something about this. We could be outside the political process and able to tariff EU goods to correct the trade imbalance.
PercyBoleyn: I think it's a great idea but it was badly implemented. The EU shouldn't have been so eager to encompass Eastern Europe.
I agree to an extent, countries such as Poland might have been economically advanced enough to properly integrate, but the disparity between them and western Europe was too great.
But, I think in time they could have easily integrated themselves, but the EU might have jumped on the idea too quickly.
Why though? I mean it's not like they're the irresponsible and incompetent countries which drag the rest of the EU down like Greece, Portugal, Spain and Italy, sure they have problems of their own but I don't see why it's something to regret.
Well, y'know, if you weren't importing your imports from the EU countries, you'd be importing your imports from somewhere else. You'd still pay for it.
You don't import something you can produce more cheaply on your own, you import something you can't produce more cheaply on your own, but still need. So, sure, close the trade with the EU, that won't stop the money flying off for importing your imports. It will just fly off somewhere else.
I support it, but I do think it has expanded too fast. Political-economical integration surpassed the cultural integration that legitimizes the EU as an institution. That's, I think, where the disenchantment with the EU stems from.
Anyway, it is absolutely ridiculous for Europe to retreat into parochialism. Unity is the only way forward if Europe as a cultural and economical power wants to survive. I don't believe that the EU will ever break down the cultural borders, just the political ones.
Consider my vote a mixture of "I like it." and "I'd support it, but it needs to change.", because while I'm definitely in support of it (especially long term), we certainly need to iron out some of the problems with it. But overall, I'm in favour.
Vegosiux: Well, y'know, if you weren't importing your imports from the EU countries, you'd be importing your imports from somewhere else. You'd still pay for it.
You don't import something you can produce more cheaply on your own, you import something you can't produce more cheaply on your own, but still need. So, sure, close the trade with the EU, that won't stop the money flying off for importing your imports. It will just fly off somewhere else.
You are dealing in extremes.
If we leave the EU we shall still trade with the EU. They still wish to sell their goods to us. They wisht o selltheir goods to everyone, the same as we do. But we shall be able to tariff our imports to get a trade balance with them.
Also we should not be embargoed from making trade cartels with people who will buy our exports in return for theirs. Commonwealth countries, emerging economies and the like.
Baff: Equally, it means I should find a better trade partner who greater values my trade. There is not much point attending an open market in which no one is intrested in buying the goods you produce.
Finding a country who wants to sell goods to us is not a big problem, they all do. Finding a country who wants to buy goods from us however, that is the difficult part.
Well the point of trade is that each party benefits from the exchange. Saying that trade is more 'valuable' if it's exports rather than imports forgets the fact that you're exchanging, not just dumping or stealing.
They clearly do value our trade. Our demand for their export goods no doubt creates tonnes of jobs and lots of money for them. If anything, our current account deficit could reflect over-specialisation, greed (excess demand), or a lack of productivity.
The balance of payments does not always equal out.
Yes it does. This is a fact. I don't think you understand what the 'balance of payments' is.
A defecit means they are not balanced out. A surplus means they are not balanced out.
When imports>exports we have to borrow money to pay for them.
The Balance Of Payments is not simply stuff in vs stuff out. It consists of three accounts:
1. Current Account 2. Capital Account 3. Financial Account
A deficit on any one account has to be balanced out by surpluses on the other two accounts. Value in equals value out. It's a mathematical inevitability.
Currently, we are in Current Account deficits with pretty much everyone. We are in Financial Account Surpluses with pretty much everyone. I forget the capital accounts position- it's orders of magnitude smaller than the other two.
What this basically means is we're exporting more debts than we're importing(that's the financial account), and using the money gained from those debts to plug the Current Account deficit- where we're importing more goods than we're exporting.
This is why the UK financial sector is so massive and influential- it's very important.
I've got to admit the Balance of Payments is probably the most confusing area of Economics I've studied so far. It's all very convoluted. I'd have to find my notes to coherently explain it to you and show why it's not equilibrating.
So we make money on a lot of our non EU trade partners, but we lose money on our EU trade.
It's a lot more complicated than you seem to think.
Outside of the EU we could do something about this. We could be outside the political process and able to tariff EU goods to correct the trade imbalance.
Not really. The issue is our excess demand due to an arguably overheated domestic economy for the last couple of decades spilling over into a demand for imports which outpaces foreign demand for our goods. This has led to specialisation and improvement (due to increased profits attracting more competition) in those foreign suppliers to the point where we're just not competitive with them any more. This means we get stuff cheap. Good for consumers. Not so good for inefficient British producers. Stick a tariff up and keep those prices higher than they should be and those producers in business if you like, but you wouldn't be able to even if you want to. Even the USA can't really get away with it.
You couldn't put a tariff on them anyway for two main reasons: 1) The WTO will fuck us up big time 2) They probably[1] have the balance of power in their favour.
[1] I assume that most of their trade is not with us even if most of our trade is with them- China's buying a lot etc.
That they value ours more than we value theirs would be a negotiating position that we could profit from if we were outside of the EU. From inside the EU we are always outvoted in on any position which we would increase out profits from at the expense of other EU memebers.
Balance of payments is purely and simply money in vs money out.
Anyone attempting to overcomplicate this is esentially a con artist. Someone you should stay away from. Always remember, if it sounds too good to be true, it is.
Our service industries are included in our trade statistics. If you wish to isolate and look at the financial sector you can. I don't care what we trade as long as we make money on it.
It's a lot simpler than you seem to think. Money in vs money out.
This is the fundamental relationship of a balance of payments that cannot be removed from it. As complex as you can possibly make it, that relationship is always 100% true at all times.
Any time you think it isn't, you have made an error. Any time someone tells you it isn't, you have chosen to listen to the wrong person, or perhaps just misunderstood them.
I agree that the balance of payments is not equilibrating, but it should be. This is not a good thing, or even "just the way it is" it is a bad thing that should be addressed. Minor imbalances from month to month or year to year, that taken over a period of years and decades comes into balance is fine. But long term trends and massive imbalances are not fine.
We can put tariffs on whatever we please. We are a soveriegn nation. We have nuclear weapons. And if the WTO doesn't like it we can quit the WTO too. This is exactly the method we pursued to get us out of the Great Depression and we were the first country of all of them to do so.
We are in a recession and a very deep one. Also a debt crisis.
The EU doesn't have the balance of power in their favour. They sell more to us than we sell to them. If we stop trading with the EU they become poorer and we become richer. Only inside the EU parliamentry system does the balance of power fall in their favour.
The USA can also do the same. In fact as a country capable of self sufficientcy where ours is not, they are far more capabable of it than we are. Doing so is never far from the political discussion int he US and they routinely protect any number of their industries. Not necessarily via direct tariff of course. All countries do to some significant extent.
I like the EU, and i'm proud not be luxembourgish, but to be european. The EU pulled off something unthinkable 80 years ago, peace and stability in the continent. I hope to one day see a Global Union that will bring the same to all the planet, but without a security council vetoing everything.
Before someone mentions the U.N. remember, it isn't the same kind of organization.
Go European Union! Honestly. . Speaking against it would be like speaking against America being united. The countries rely on eachother now (More than ever, as the crisis has shown), we cant break it again. And 'thankfully' even the Brittish euro-sceptics (Being the most loud group of their kind in Europe) is a small (but vocal) minority. And hopefully in the future we will be able to improve the union, and at some point if we get our shit together and enough people stand in favour for it. We will have a more united-states feel.
Baff: I agree that they clearly do value our trade.
That they value ours more than we value theirs would be a negotiating position that we could profit from if we were outside of the EU.
We both value the trade. US because it lets us get what we want cheaper than we could otherwise get it, them because they get to sell their stuff to us.
Balance of payments is purely and simply money in vs money out. Anyone attempting to overcomplicate this is esentially a con artist. Someone you should stay away from. Always remember, if it sounds too good to be true, it is. Our service industries are included in our trade statistics. If you wish to isolate and look at the financial sector you can. I don't care what we trade as long as we make money on it. It's a lot simpler than you seem to think. Money in vs money out.
This is the fundamental relationship of a balance of payments that cannot be removed from it. As complex as you can possibly make it, that relationship is always 100% true at all times. Any time you think it isn't, you have made an error. Any time someone tells you it isn't, you have chosen to listen to the wrong person, or perhaps just misunderstood them.
All of this is just... wrong.
Please stop using terms you're seemingly not understanding. The Balance of Payments always equals out because it is mathematically inevitable. There is no 'con' about this. It is not "Too good to be true." It just is. If you want to continue to spit in the face of and ignore standard economic theories to support your prejudices about trade then feel free. Just don't expect me to continue to bother persuading you.
We have a deficit in the Current Account. That is what you're complaining about.
I agree that the balance of paymentscurrent and financial accountsisare not equilibrating, but itthey should be. This is not a good thing, or even "just the way it is" it is a bad thing that should be addressed. Minor imbalances from month to month or year to year, that taken over a period of years and decades comes into balance is fine. But long term trends and massive imbalances are not fine.
Why? Can you even tell me why? Why should they be equilibrating? Why is it a bad thing? I don't think you even know the negatives of it in their fullest, do you? You do? Prove it.
We can put tariffs on whatever we please. We are a soveriegn nation. We have nuclear weapons. And if the WTO doesn't like it we can quit the WTO too. This is exactly the method we pursued to get us out of the Great Depression and we were the first country of all of them to do so.
There was no WTO back then. Do you know how the WTO works? Go and look up its two principals, then come back and tell me how you think leaving it or going against it could possibly go well for us.
We are in a recession and a very deep one.
No we're not. The recession ended in 2007, dipped again in 2008, and now we're kinda in the middle. As of right now, no recession.
Also a debt crisis.
Again, not really. Our national debt is at about 60% of GDP which actually isn't all that bad. Our credit ratings are all still AAA and our outlook from S&P is stable, Fitch and the other one say negative not due to our debt problem but the problems on the mainland.
The problems are the deficit and the levels of household debt, not the national debt.
The EU doesn't have the balance of power in their favour. They sell more to us than we sell to them. If we stop trading with the EU they become poorer and we become richer. Only inside the EU parliamentry system does the balance of power fall in their favour.
*Facepalm*
There's more than two countries in the world. Who else does the EU trade with more than us? China, Indonesia, USA, etc... etc...
We may do 60% of our trade with the EU, but that doesn't mean it does 60% of its trade with us. It's not rocket science, man.
The USA can also do the same.
1. No it can't. 2. Why the hell would it?
In fact as a country capable of self sufficientcy where ours is not, they are far more capabable of it than we are.
ROFL. Don't be stupid. No country has ever nor will ever be able of autarky. The USA has a colossal current account deficit with China, much bigger than ours, which is persisting purely due to protective measures enacted by the People's Republic.
Doing so is never far from the political discussion int he US and they routinely protect any number of their industries. Not necessarily via direct tariff of course. All countries do to some significant extent.
If you want to see what a significant extent is I suggest you analyse medieval/early empire Britain. Now that is protectionism. The Economy is more globalised than it has ever been, despite the wishes of certain countries. This is mostly due to the WTO and groundwork laid by the USA while it was in a position to exploit its huge comparative advantage in almost everything after the war.
It's never far from the political discourse, and it is rarely ever enacted. There are good reasons for this.
The USA has an agricultural subsidy. This annoyed Brazil because they also produce the same agricultural goods. Brazil went to the WTO, and even the mighty USA had to concede. It now also pays the subsidy to the Brazilian farmers, using US taxpayer money.
I'm not discussing the financial accounts and current accounts and the balance of payments. I am discussing the UK trade defecit with the EU.
So when I am talking to you about the balance of payments, I am discussing the balance of trade payments between the UK and the EU and not whatever it is the teacher and students in your classroom were. Class is over, you're in the real world now.
That deficit is met by taking on debt. That debt may be private debt or national debt depending on whether the goods were bought privately or by the state.
And that is one reason why deficits are bad. Every time I borrow money, I have to pay it back with intrest. So the costs of everything I buy are raised by the use of credit.
A defecit in your "current account", whatever that may be, is still a defecit.
We are argueably in or almost in a recession right now. 2 periods of negative growth in a row depending on which economists you asked to work it out for you.
I have no private debt. That's not my concern at all. The national debt is indeed a very big issue in the UK currently. It'a not just private debt that is a concern. We would expect the trade deficit however to show up as private debt, not national debt.
What difference to our trade negotiations does it make if The EU trades with other countries? Do you feel that because they make money in other places than the UK that they no longer wish to make money in the UK too?
I assure that they still do.
The US can indeed support itself. It has an abundance of natural resources. Why would it do so? So that it didn't have to fight in foreign wars. So that it didn't have domestic industries outsourcing to developing countries and the unemployment that brings. So that it doesn't end up repaying massive foreign debts. Because it can.
America has a history of isolationism and the political concept holds a lot of traction there.
Every country has an agricultural subsidy. Protectionism is to be found in all countries to some degree or another.
Not at all. In a trade war with the UK, the EU will lose.
Because the UK trades at a deficit, it will literally be better off if it ceases all trade with the EU entirely.
Loss making trade isn't the sort of trade we are looking for. That we make bigger loses in the EU than anywhere else is not much of a bonus for us.
So while the UK really doesn't care about a trade war with the EU at all, the EU really does care about a trade war with the UK. Because that is a significant and profitable export market for many of it's member countries.
So not only do we not lose from any trade war, we don't think the EU has the balls to declare one because it does. To whit it's an empty threat and nothing more.
Now I'm not expecting a trade war obviously because I am not a teenage mind and I don't have to deal in extreme responses only. But some element of protectionism would be reasonable. I would expect a backlash of some description from the EU if the UK left. More of an emotional one from the rejection than an economic act of war. You don't get to stick your fingers up at people and them not respond in kind.
In the end all of our countries get on well and like to trade with each other. We don't need the EU to do that. We just want to get a good deal for the UK and the EU is not a format in which that has ever been possible for us.
Isolationism is good when your goods can't compete on the global market and bad when they can. So if the British made as many goods that the world wanted to by as the Germans do, then free trade agreements would be beneficial to the UK economy. But if no one wants ot buy our goods, we have just opened up our markets to external competition without any sales gain in return.
So if the UK makes goods that not many in the EU want to buy, then a free trade agreement works against it.
Now clearly the best option for us is the flexibility option. To be able to employ protectionism when it suits us to do so, and to be able to trade freely in markets when it is best to do so. Within the EU, we don't get to make these decisions for ourselves. Outside the EU we do.
Baff: Not at all. In a trade war with the UK, the EU will lose.
Uh.... right. The country that'll see half it's trade hurt and thus a sizeable shrinking of the economy will be better off than a bunch of countries who see a digit behind the comma change on their trade balance...
Baff: Because the UK trades at a deficit, it will literally be better off if it ceases all trade with the EU entirely. Loss making trade isn't the sort of trade we are looking for. That we make bigger loses in the EU than anywhere else is not much of a bonus for us.
So can you prove we're still living in a 1930's autarky based situation then, and globalisation doesn't exist? Because if you can't, all of that is not relevant at all. This isn't the industrial revolution anymore. It's not about having the biggest factories who export the most.
Baff: Isolationism is good when your goods can't compete on the global market and bad when they can.
Well they can because there's a service-based economy, so by your own logic, the UK shouldn't leave the UK even if a majority wanted to commit economic suicide like that.
They thought exactly the same about the US steel producing sector, and they went for heavy protectionism. Despite an internal market the UK's size several times over, those areas are now being described as 'the rust belt', go figure.
Just wondering what my fellow Escapees think of the EU. Despite being British in every sense of the word, including replacing much everyday language with sarcasm, actually support it. Sure, it may need to change somewhat first, but I quite like the idea of a European superstate.
Anyways, what do you think? And do I still have the right to call myself a Brit?