06-16-2016, 10:31 AM
Very good article in The Economist on why Britain should not leave the EU, here a few bits:
Britain initially stood aloof from the project but then spent a decade trying to join, as its poor economic performance became clear; between 1946 and 1965, British GDP per capita grew at half the rate of other industrialised countries. Since joining the EU, Britain’s relative economic performance has improved; GDP per capita has grown faster than France, Germany and Italy since 1973. Is this all down to the EU? Probably not. But it is hard to argue, as some do, that the EU has damaged British growth.
EU referendum: The arguments for voting Remain | The Economist
With 72% of investors citing access to the European single market as important to the UK’s attractiveness, the referendum has the potential to change perceptions of the UK dramatically, posing a major risk to FDI. Our survey indicates that 31% of investors will either freeze or reduce investment until the outcome is known.
EU referendum: The arguments for voting Remain | The Economist
What about the Leave campaign’s arguments? The first is that Britain is overregulated because of EU membership. But that isn’t what international comparisons show (see chart). The World Bank’s survey on the ease of doing business ranks Britain sixth, one spot above the US. Nor is it clear what regulations the Leave campaigners want to scrap; a Daily Express list of the eight worst EU rules includes one on the prevention of cruelty to animals in transport and another on the elimination of excessive packaging, things most Britons would like to see controlled. When the Leave campaign talks of scrapping rules, they may well mean regulations that protect workers; something they don’t mention for fear of alienating their working-class support.
EU referendum: The arguments for voting Remain | The Economist
Then there is the question of the EU budget contribution. Leave has used the £19 billion, or £350m a week, figure which the head of the Statistics Authority has twice slammed as “potentially misleading”. A rebate is applied before Britain sends the money to the EU and then around £5 billion comes back in the form of regional grants and industry subsidies. The remaining contribution is around 1% of government spending. And the IFS, a body that every politician has been happy to quote in support in the past, estimates that the hit to British tax revenues in the event of Brexit will be much larger than £8 billion. There will be no “extra money” to spend, on the NHS or anything else.
EU referendum: The arguments for voting Remain | The Economist
Finally, we come to immigration, which may be swaying the most votes. It is sad that immigrants who play such a positive role in the Britain are being so derided; especially when they make a net positive contribution to public finances. (That is quite a feat when Britain has a big deficit; the rest of us take out more than we put in.) Yes, there are local problems when services get stretched but that is something the British government should be tackling with more resources. Nations that welcome immigrants have prospered; in the early modern era, the British economy took in Huguenots and others fleeing persecution to help establish the textiles industry. This is perhaps the most dishonest part of the whole Leave campaign. Here are a bunch of largely free-market Tories arguing that governments should decide which workers companies should employ. Instead of sweeping away regulations, a points system would involve the imposition of new ones. In any case, last year slightly more people came to the United Kingdom from outside the EU than from within it. Eliminating all EU migration will not get the total down to the “tens of thousands”.
EU referendum: The arguments for voting Remain | The Economist