Hillary Clinton urges Britain to remain in the European Union

[Ridgerunner]

Trust me, a lot more is being assumed by the Brexit side than the pro-EU side - hence why our camp is leading.

We at least have the benefit of being able to use both the status quo and the UK’s past outside the EU (pre-1973) as factual points of reference. These facts are clear and any economist or economic historian could point you to them on a graph. Before 1973 and when the EEC had existed since 1957, our economy was the sick man of Europe. Take out an economic history book. It’s true. Those who had joined the EEC were having miracle booms while we were languishing in industrial chaos.

And so we decided to join the EEC and have a piece of the cake. We thrived.

This isn’t the first time something like this happened. In the 19th century Britain was the pre-eminent industrial power. Then the German Confederation became a unified federal state under the Kaiserreich. Germany was vastly overtaking Britain on the eve of war in 1914. Only problem was we couldnt join the Kaissereich it waa our geopolitical enemy. Luckily for us, the Germans made terrible military gambles which caused an elongated slog fest in the trenches and even compelled the US to come in and smash them. As a result, Germany was decimated and for 20 years an uneasy situation transpired in which France and Britain were supposed to be the economic heavyweights keeping the status quo. Then WWII and the drive towards the EU in continental Europe immediately afterwards.

Not matter how bad the EU situation gets, you can be sure that businessmen will keep the well oiled wheels of the single market moving. We won’t have the luck we had in 1914. We will forever have to reckon with the EEC which is the largest market by GDP in the world.

What can Brexiters point too? A hypothetical as “might be” in character as my own prediction?

If our economy was presently suffering from the EU status quo, the Brexiters could string together a worthwhile argument. But as it is, our economy is not suffering from our special membership with opt-outs but has always gained substantially. As such, the economic argument is essentially won by our side and moot. IMHO there is no point in risking our prosperity for a dream of what ‘might’ happen outside the EU, when history can tell us otherwise. So all the Brexiters have to cling too are the twin mantras of immigration and sovereignty.

Do you think it is worth Britain potentially sacrificing it’s relatively strong, growing economy which is predicted to become Europe’s biggest by 2040, if trends persist, to take a leap into the unknown when - as you concede I “might be right”?

Please give me your betting odds up front. No poker face. I reckon I have a strong hand with this one

If, indeed, Britain’s economy is predicted to become larger than Germany’s by 2040, I was not aware of it. Not challenging you, but I would like to see something on that. It would be informative to know what factors are expected to bring that about.

One does wonder whether Britain’s recovery from the economic doldrums in the late 20th Centure came as a result of Thatcher and North Sea oil & gas more than it did from associating with the EU.

Just to satisfy my curiosity, Is Britain no longer in any kind of economic association with the Commonwealth countries?

 

[Vouthon]

If, indeed, Britain’s economy is predicted to become larger than Germany’s by 2040, I was not aware of it. Not challenging you, but I would like to see something on that. It would be informative to know what factors are expected to bring that about.

One does wonder whether Britain’s recovery from the economic doldrums in the late 20th Centure came as a result of Thatcher and North Sea oil & gas more than it did from associating with the EU.

Just to satisfy my curiosity, Is Britain no longer in any kind of economic association with the Commonwealth countries?

To your first question, there have been different predictions to that effect - I can point to one study off the top of my head:

cityam.com/231501/world-economic-league-table-uk-could-overtake-germany-and-japan-to-become-worlds-fourth-biggest-economy

The strength of the UK’s economic performance has been underlined as it was named the fifth biggest economy in the world for the second successive year and forecast to eventually overtake Japan and Germany.

In its annual league table of world economies, the Centre for Economic and Business Research (Cebr) forecast the UK to become “the best performing economy” in Western Europe while the under performing Russia, Italy and France risk expulsion from the G8.

With a gross domestic product (GDP) of £2.1trn, the UK was ranked the fifth largest economy in the world behind Germany, Japan, China and the United States - still the world’s largest economy with a GDP of $17.97trn (£12.11trn).

With faster growth, the UK is now expected to overtake Japan and Germany at some point during the 2030s - although Germany’s influx of Syrian immigrants is expected to keep the country ahead of the UK for a few further years as skill shortages are alleviated, wage growth restrained and profits boosted.

telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10537773/Britain-will-become-biggest-economy-in-Europe.html

Britain ‘will become biggest economy in Europe’

A global forecast shows Britain will become the most successful economy in the West after the United States over the next fifteen years

is on track to overtake France and Germany to become the biggest economy in Europe, according to an authoritative global forecast.

A rapidly growing population, relatively low taxes and independence from the ailing Eurozone will make Britain the most successful economy in the West after the United States over the next fifteen years, according to the Centre for Economic and Business Research.

In an upbeat assessment of the country’s prospects, the CEBR said Britain, the sixth biggest economy in the world, will see its GDP grow from £1.59 trillion to £2.64 trillion by 2028.

In the same period, Germany’s output will grow more slowly from £2.2 trillion to £2.69 trillion, with growth hampered by a weak euro, an ageing population and the prospect of future Eurozone bailouts. It puts Britain on course to surpass Germany by 2030.
Britain is also due to overtake France by 2018. Its global ranking is set to slide as Francois Hollande’s high tax regime and weak exports suffocate growth.

By 2050 with declining birth rates in Germany, Britain will likely be the largest state by population:

cityam.com/221125/population-growth-uk-become-biggest-country-european-union-2050

Population growth: UK to become biggest country in European Union by 2050

The UK will become the most populous country in the European Union by 2050, according to new estimates. That is, as long as we are still in the EU by then.

Eurostat’s predicts that the UK’s population will continue to rise, from 65 million in 2015 to 67m in 2020. By 2050 it will have reached more than 77m. In 2080, Eurostat believes the UK will have a population of more than 85m.

Conversely, Germany’s population is in decline, marginally between 2015 and 2020 (80.7m to 80.6m) but by 2050 it will have dropped to 74.7m. By 2080, the country’s population will have reached 65.4m.

It’s also thought it could be the largest economy - but ONLY if current trends continue. We could have a drastic socialist government that nationalises every industry and heavily regulates business in the intervening period - highly unlikely but hypotheticals can’t be relied on and frequently shift. Remember the predictions about Japan in the 1990s - these things are not set in stone. All I’m saying is that the omens are good, why pursue an uncertain path, uncertain timeline for the process, uncertain post-Brexit model…and take a leap when we don’t need too?

We seem to have reached a compromise membership in the EU that suits us.

In terms of the EU impact on our GDP see this study in economic history:

voxeu.org/article/britain-s-eu-membership-new-insight-economic-history

**Why did Britain join the EU? A new insight from economic history

Nauro F. Campos, Fabrizio Coricelli 03 February 2015

Britain eschewed EU membership in the late 1950s but changed its mind in the early 1960s, only to be rebuffed by Charles de Gaulle. Membership came only in the early 1970s. This column argues that, among others, Britain joined the EU as a way to avoid its economic decline. The UK’s per capita GDP relative to the EU founding members’ declined steadily from 1945 to 1972. However, it was relatively stable between 1973 and 2010. This suggests substantial benefits from EU membership especially considering that, by sponsoring an overpowered integration model, Britain joined too late, at a bad moment in time, and at an avoidably larger cost.**

 

[Vouthon]

A little bit more from that study of history:

**In 1950, the British Labour government declined to join the Schuman Plan’s European Coal and Steel Community[3] (Dell 1995). With the EU6 catching-up almost finished, by 1950 the difference in per capita GDP between the UK and EU6 was 28%. Seven years later, when the Treaty of Rome was signed, it stood at 15% (Figure 1).4 There were notable failures and successes amidst. The main failures were the proposals for a political and a defence union. Rome was the major success. The Treaty added an atomic energy community and an economic community (EEC) to the coal and steel community. The British Conservative government declined to participate but in 1960 unveiled an organisation embodying rival ideals, the European Free Trade Area (EFTA.)

The 1960 Stockholm Treaty launched EFTA.5 Tellingly, in July 1961, the UK opened membership negotiations with the European Communities. In 1961 the difference in per capita GDP between UK and EU6 reached 10%. After long and difficult, yet somewhat successful, negotiations, De Gaulle vetoed the British application in 1963.

This was the time when perception about the economic role of the Commonwealth started to turn.[6] As an export market it was less competitive, less sophisticated, and less demanding than markets in developed countries. Further, EFTA’s performance from the outset was clearly inferior to that of the EC (Aitken 1973, Bayoumi and Eichengreen 1997).

The 1964 election returned the Labour party to power after thirteen years in opposition. Harold Wilson made another attempt at preserving the Commonwealth option. It failed: in 1967 Britain applied for membership for a second time (Tatham 2009.) Again, De Gaulle vetoed. The difference in per capita GDP between the UK and the EU6 average was 6% in 1967.

De Gaulle’s presidency was a victim of the 1968 student protests. One of Pompidou’s first foreign policy actions was to encourage the UK to apply for membership for the third time (Young 1998). Pompidou is also credited with establishing a system of individual country contributions to the Community budget. He did so before (i.e. without) the British. When the UK applied in 1969, per capita GDP was 2% below the EU6 average.**

I think the above also answers your commonwealth question

Ie

Today, advocates of Britain leaving the EU parade two economic alternatives, one based on the Commonwealth and another on bilateral free trade treaties. As shown above, these did not work as well, so it is unclear why they would now be superior to EU membership (Campos et al. 2014).

 

[Ridgerunner]

From one of your articles:

"In the same period, Germany’s output will grow more slowly from £2.2 trillion to £2.69 trillion, with growth hampered by a weak euro, an ageing population and the prospect of future Eurozone bailouts. It puts Britain on course to surpass Germany by 2030.
Britain is also due to overtake France by 2018. Its global ranking is set to slide as Francois Hollande’s high tax regime and weak exports suffocate growth. "

“A weak Euro, an ageing population and the prospect of future Eurozone bailouts.” This is a reason to be part of the EU?

 

[Kaninchen]

“A weak Euro, an ageing population and the prospect of future Eurozone bailouts.” This is a reason to be part of the EU?

Well, perhaps you might give us the benefit of your explanation and ‘road map’ of how Brexit and the mechanics of Brexit would work?

 

[Vouthon]

From one of your articles:

"In the same period, Germany’s output will grow more slowly from £2.2 trillion to £2.69 trillion, with growth hampered by a weak euro, an ageing population and the prospect of future Eurozone bailouts. It puts Britain on course to surpass Germany by 2030.
Britain is also due to overtake France by 2018. Its global ranking is set to slide as Francois Hollande’s high tax regime and weak exports suffocate growth. "

“A weak Euro, an ageing population and the prospect of future Eurozone bailouts.” This is a reason to be part of the EU?

That was back in 2013, when predictions were more alarming about the fracturing of the EU. After Greece’s acquiescence to Germany, that’s petered out. The Eurozone crisis is being mended and the Eurozone will likely become more fiscally integrated, now that Grexit has been avoided and the populist furore led by the socialists Syriza is dying down.

Plus, yes it actually is good in a weird sense - Britain get’s the best of both worlds. There’s a reason we opted-out from the Euro - we’re much more far-sighted than people think. Many over here predicted that the EU needed a more unified approach to fiscal policy and less disparities between weaker southern European countries like Greece and hegemons in the North like Germany before adopting a currency union - tying weaker economies with a different approach to finance to stronger ones with a more conservative approach like Germany.

The truth is, the EU expanded too quickly. Greece wasn’t ready to join the EU when it did, that’s an open secret. We wanted Athens, for its heritage purposes, in the EU. The Greeks still want to stay and are telling Britain we are mad to even consider leaving - even after all the Greek bail-out quakes.

When the Community consisted primarily of the big boys in Western and Central Europe, along with some smaller but strong economies, there weren’t any major crises. Being tied to newer, weaker economies is what caused the issue in 2008.

But the UK has been shielded from this, to a great extent, by not being in the Euro. We get the benefits of single market trade and free trade, as well as subsidies for our agriculture etc. without some of the negatives that have afflicted “core” Europe since 2008.

 

[Kaninchen]

But the UK has been shielded from this, to a great extent, by not being in the Euro. We get the benefits of single market trade and free trade, as well as subsidies for our agriculture etc. without some of the negatives that have afflicted “core” Europe since 2008.

If we hadn’t spent our time moaning and carping (because of a Conservative Party civil war), we might have played a positive role in avoiding many of the things that have gone wrong with the EU.

 

[Vouthon]

If we hadn’t spent our time moaning and carping (because of a Conservative Party civil war), we might have played a positive role in avoiding many of the things that have gone wrong with the EU.

That is very true

The Tories have been naval-gazing over Europe ever since the Maasstricht rebels of 1993, rather than maximising on our advantageous position.

 

[Kaninchen]

That is very true

The Tories have been naval-gazing over Europe ever since the Maasstricht rebels of 1993, rather than maximising on our advantageous position.

It’s deformed the Party, it’s deformed UK politics and it’s prevented the development of a sensible reform policy.

 

[Vouthon]

It’s deformed the Party, it’s deformed UK politics and it’s prevented the development of a sensible reform policy.

Can’t disagree

 

[Vouthon]

In terms of the single market, it is really quite simple: it is right on our doorstep, there are no tariffs and there is one set of product rules and standards, thus removing all non-tariff barriers and making business a heck of a lot easier for both large firms and SMEs.

What’s not to love about that?

Even the most ardent Brexiter doesn’t actually want to forgo this market access - they just don’t have a scoobie what to do post-Brexit to find anything even remotely resembling the cushy number we have right now with our special membership replete with opt-outs. Absolutely clueless so they are.

 

[Kaninchen]

Can’t disagree

The thing that gets me about the whole business is that after all this time, after all this row, the Brexit campaign seems to be a vacuum rapidly filling with outrage and magical thinking.

You’d have thought they’d have spent a decade or so thinking out in some detail of how it’s all going to work rather than just telling us that, somehow, it’ll all be not only OK but wonderfully better.

 

[Vouthon]

The thing that gets me about the whole business is that after all this time, after all this row, the Brexit campaign seems to be a vacuum rapidly filling with outrage and magical thinking.

You’d have thought they’d have spent a decade or so thinking out in some detail of how it’s all going to work rather than just telling us that, somehow, it’ll all be not only OK but wonderfully better.

The uncertainty is certainly unforgiveable given the time they’ve had to work something out. We would be a headless chicken on 23 June if we vote “out” as it is. They haven’t told us the model, haven’t told us how long it will take, what kind of agreements will be made and with whom etc. Nothing. And yet they expect everyone to jump with them into the blue lagoon.

I should also note that the SNP juggernaut up north will become a more deadly wound post-Brexit as well. Queen Nichola of Scotland will not keep quiet One of the main promises from Better Together during the Scottish IndyRef was that independence would drag us out of the EU and we would have to apply to get in like a fresh state. Brexit could create another unnecessary constitutional crisis within the UK. A Pro-EU Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland stacked up against a ‘Pro-Leave’ England in a Brexit Britain does not make for a happy family.

It isn’t entirely inconceivable that, decades down the line, England might be a rump successor to the UK outside the EU while Northern Ireland has reunified with the Republic (an EU member state), Scotland has become an independent country in the EU and Wales is hoping for the same. That’s a plausible, even if seeming unlikely, Brexit future. At the very least, we’ll have more unnecessary navel-gazing within the UK for decades too come over this.

The Brexiters haven’t the faintest idea how to put out that fire either.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The uncertainty is certainly unforgiveable given the time they’ve had to work something out. We would be a headless chicken on 23 June if we vote “out” as it is. They haven’t told us the model, haven’t told us how long it will take, what kind of agreements will be made and with whom etc. Nothing. And yet they expect everyone to jump with them into the blue lagoon.

I should also note that the SNP juggernaut up north will become a more deadly wound post-Brexit as well. Queen Nichola of Scotland will not keep quiet One of the main promises from Better Together during the Scottish IndyRef was that independence would drag us out of the EU and we would have to apply to get in like a fresh state. Brexit could create another unnecessary constitutional crisis within the UK. A Pro-EU Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland stacked up against a ‘Pro-Leave’ England in a Brexit Britain does not make for a happy family.

It isn’t entirely inconceivable that, decades down the line, England might be a rump successor to the UK outside the EU while Northern Ireland has reunified with the Republic (an EU member state), Scotland has become an independent country in the EU and Wales is hoping for the same. That’s a plausible, even if seeming unlikely, Brexit future. At the very least, we’ll have more unnecessary navel-gazing within the UK for decades too come over this.

The Brexiters haven’t the faintest idea how to put out that fire either.

Do I understand you to say that Scotland and Wales (or at least majorities there) want to stay in the EU while England (or a majority there) doesn’t? If so, why is there a difference?

And England would put up with it if Scotland or Wales decided to secede? Why?

 

[DaveBj]

The thing that gets me about the whole business is that after all this time, after all this row, the Brexit campaign seems to be a vacuum rapidly filling with outrage and magical thinking.

You’d have thought they’d have spent a decade or so thinking out in some detail of how it’s all going to work rather than just telling us that, somehow, it’ll all be not only OK but wonderfully better.

There’s a lot of this going around, and not just in the UK:

“You say you want a revolution?”
'Yes!!! Yes!!!"
“And then what plans do you have for after the revolution?”
“Haven’t a clue.”

 

[Vouthon]

Do I understand you to say that Scotland and Wales (or at least majorities there) want to stay in the EU while England (or a majority there) doesn’t? If so, why is there a difference?

And England would put up with it if Scotland or Wales decided to secede? Why?

Hi Ridge,

Not quite. There are a sizeable number of regions in England, such as London, that are largely pro-EU. However most of the Brexit people - actually make that overwhelmingly all of them - come from England, especially rural or working class areas - such as in parts of the South East and Northern England. Euroscepticism is an ideology that really only has currency in regions of England. People from other parts of the UK, and within England too, refer to it as the “Little Englander” mentality because it doesn’t reflect Britain as a whole.

Euroscepticism is negligible in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland where you have clear Pro-EU majorities. Not saying you find Eurosceptics here buy not many I should think. Scotland in particular is overwhelmingly pro-EU and our First Minister (head of the devolved Scottish government and parliament) has threatened to push for another independence referendum if England votes for Brexit and by its greater population drags a Pro-EU Scotland out of the EU. As to why this is, I’m not entirely sure. I’m pro-EU and most other Scots I know are too - I only know about one Brexiter. Its seems to be sort of cultural. I mean the Republic of Ireland is too, so those English Eurosceptics are the odd ones out if you take the British Isles as a whole.

This could create another internal constitutional crisis in the UK by infuriating Scots, in particular, who were told during the 2014 referendum campaign by Better Together campaign that independence for Scotland would have led us to be evicted from the EU and have to apply as a fresh member state - like Serbia and all the rest.

Northern Ireland also gets many subsidies from the EU and does not want any complications in its relations with the Republic in the South, which is an EU member state and will continue to be so post-Brexit.

Wales is much like Scotland. London also has its own devolved assembly and is largely like Scotland, Wales and NI as far as I am aware despite its Mayor bring for Brexit…

See:

bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35602861

** Is Scotland the most pro-EU part of the UK?

Polls suggest Scotland is more likely than other parts of the UK to vote to remain in the European Union. Why?

“Euroscepticism exists in Scotland - of course it does - but, in my view, not to a great extent, and not with the same virulence as we sometimes see in some other parts of the UK.”

Those were the words of Scotland’s First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, when she spoke to an audience in Brussels last year about why she believes “unequivocally that membership of Europe is in Scotland’s best interests”.

The leaders of the other parties represented in the Scottish Parliament - Labour, the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens - have all said they will campaign to stay in.

Just UKIP and a few individual campaigners have said they will join the side in favour of ‘Brexit’.

And evidence suggests support for Europe goes beyond the political bubble.

‘Firmly remain’

Prof John Curtice, the polling expert, says polls indicate Scotland is “firmly” in the remain camp.

He says: "There is no doubt: Scotland is markedly more pro-European, markedly more likely to say it’s going to vote to remain, than is the UK as a whole.

“Typically it’s of the order of 12, 13, 14 points or so more likely to say they are going to vote to remain.”…

We went to speak to some voters to see what they were enthusiastic about - if anything - when it came to the EU.

On Edinburgh’s Princes Street, one mother told us she thought maternity rights were enhanced by EU membership.

A man told us he thought being part of the bloc had been good for union rights.

Another told us he simply liked the idea of being in the European Union bloc.

Our unscientific survey in the Scottish capital found just one man who wanted to leave, blaming money spent on the project and human rights legislation. **

The SNP (Scottish National Party) is a formidable force among the opposition in the British Parliament and has a majority government in Holywood, the Scottish Executive. So they won’t be quiet if the worst did come to the worst.

 

[estesbob]

People listen to her HRC because she understands the world stage. What she has to say about foreign affairs will always matter in our lifetime.

Worked out well for Ambassador Stevens

 

[Kaninchen]

There’s a lot of this going around, and not just in the UK:

“You say you want a revolution?”
'Yes!!! Yes!!!"
“And then what plans do you have for after the revolution?”
“Haven’t a clue.”

Unfortunately, this isn’t just a case of some election result emerging from a transient feeling of political futility. That can be reversed over time - what we face here is a make/break situation.

 

[Vouthon]

See this also from late last year:

theguardian.com/politics/2015/dec/02/eu-referendum-english-votes-offset-by-scotland-wales-northern-ireland-uk

** Because the backing for the EU is so much higher in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, their pro-EU vote could swing the result narrowly in favour of staying in. If the English pro-EU vote was less than 47.5%, the overall UK vote would be to leave.

The analysis shows an even divide in England, with 48% wishing to leave and 52% voting to remain. By contrast, up to 75% of Northern Irish voters want to stay in, with 64% of Scots and 55% of Welsh voters.

The findings could reignite the debate about national sovereignty provoked earlier this year by Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s first minister, who said the different parts of the UK should have a veto if English votes meant Britain had to leave the EU. **

And:

yougov.co.uk/news/2016/02/28/eurosceptic-map-britain/

** London contains five of the top 10 most europhile areas **

A lot has changed since these early polls though and I think remain looks set to be ascendant in England. By how great a margin I can’t predict.

 

[Vouthon]

In an earlier post my phone auto - corrected the name of the Scottish Parliament to Hollywood when it is in fact Holyrood