Originally posted by Toby
View Post
Economically it is clear that free access to the EU market is a necessity for Britain - doing free trade deals with the rest of the world could take years and though it could certainly be done in time all the time the UK would be weaker economically the debt to GDP rising, as the new Government since the vote has done but full time for 10 or 20yrs is not possible. I am afraid that George Osbourne was right and getting a surplus and paying down the debt was wisdom - it has to be done sometime and the larger the deficit the more painful it will be. Hold on to your pensions.
So suppose the UK retains free access to the single market and somehow manages to curtail the free movement of people rules that are part of it? (Yes I know they have said they will not accept this - and for good reasons - but they have important reasons to keep the UK in the single market as well). Then you will end up paying in - for access - but with no say on the mad ideas they come up with... Pay without say when you had pay and say (and on some issues veto) does not seem a good choice to me; I'd stick with the pay and say where at least I can stop things.
Geo-politically it is frankly dangerous to Britain and Europe as a whole. "Splendid Isolation" from Europe without an Empire (as in Lord Salisbury's time) is no longer possible even if it were wise, which it was not then. You are leaving the Krauts to have a free run and conceding the whole damn lot before the first innings is out. The dangers of a new Ribbentrop - Molotov deal are real - look at North Stream 2 and where Gerhard Shroeder is now (who gave the German financial guarantee to North Stream 1 weeks before leaving office) - you think the UK won't be effected? That the yanks will always bail the UK out? They have other problems with China as well now. Within the EU could have a say on such things - outside none but yet should the worst happen it will come for you and destroy precisely those liberties you claim to uphold.
Sure I know all the philosophical things about not breaking one's principles and I can respect and admire those who take that choice personally when it only them that is effected; Socrates took the hemlock etc... But when dealing with economics and strategic facts one cannot afford to have the principles of Socrates but must act in one's own long term interests. This the UK have - in my opinion - failed to understand.
Comment