Part 2  The Case for Remain

Pros

• The Devil we know
• Loath it or really loath it then we know what we have. We can also try and reform it. Brexit is a real leap in the dark which the only reassurance from the Brexit side seem to be hopeless optimism and jingoism.  
• Yes we can trade with tariffs through WTO or directly with countries but never knowing exactly what you are buying either. Recall massive problems with Chinese baby food and dry walling in the US. 
• Quantifiable trade benefits for larger manufacturers
• Having a single market with one set of standards has helped electrical appliance, car and pharma companies and sped up access to the market for things like drugs as only one set of tests are necessary. 
• Quantifiable benefits for consumers
• Consumers can buy knowing that they are getting the same product Europe wide. 
• Both official and grey markets dramatically lowered prices on electrical goods and cars in particular. 
• That combined with cases in the ECJ and stronger anti-competion laws and enforcement has generally meant a good deal for consumers
• Real improvements in workers rights in all countries
• Part of the regulation in the single market is to harmonise workers entitlements. It stops larger manufacturers shopping between countries to get the lowest wage costs. 
• In the US new manufacturers either US or foreign are lobbied to set up in states that are "Right to Work" states which outlaw compulsory unionism and maximise employer's rights. 
• While a bit of a double edged sword as jobs have been lost to BRIC economies it has maintained and improved working standards here with regard paid leave particularly paid paternal and maternal leave. 
• A Britain desperate to conclude trade deals maybe tempted use flexibility on workers rights to attract investment.
• Real improvements in competition for consumers
• Having a large market has meant things such as grey markets to keep prices down
• Prior to single market car makers would tend not to offer a standard specification and charge a premium to UK car buyers
• Reduction in roaming charges, the halt to differential selling on things from cars to satellite TV. 
• Investigations in to multinationals from Microsoft, Intel, Google and Apple on market monopolies. 
• Real improvements in environmental laws and protections
• Do you recall UK beaches before the EU. Dirty and unfit for human use. 
• Removal of unhealthy food additives and colourants
• Ban on GMO foods and excessive use of antibiotics
• I do not recall huge BSE issues or foot and mouth issues in Europe. They have protected our food
• Human rights clauses for access to the market
• Removal of death penalties acknowledgement of standards in treatment of the press and dissidents has distinguished the EU from its neighbours and peers
• Contributed to a massive improvement in human rights in Turkey prior to the rise of Erodgan. Since then Turkey has gone backwards and is unlikely to gain membership in my lifetime
• Peace and Stability for over 70 years in western Europe
• One of the founding aims of the original Coal and Steel board and an undoubted success. Wars between Western European powers had been raging for centuries prior.
• Less party political i.e. does not change every election cycle.
• Less party political. While Vote Leave wants more local control over spending and tempts us with the fact it could all go to the NHS, the fact is it would really depend on the party in power at the time. It could easily be used to fund tax cuts as fund social services. EU farm subsidies and grants are independent from our party political bun fights and tend to go where needed rather where the ruling party is likely to get more leverage.
• Stronger Collective bargaining
•  A real strong point and not to be underestimated. The EU is the largest single market and has over 500 million consumers and a lot of bargaining power. 
• For example open skies travel. Prior to the EU, American airlines were able to gain advantages in terms of access to EU airports by bargaining with each individual country in return for that countries limited access to the US market.  US airlines were able to fly all over Europe whereas European airlines typically had to fly to the nearest US airports and then passengers were required to transfer to US airlines to complete their journeys. The open-skies agreement redressed a lot of that imbalance but not all.
• Trade deals take a long time to negotiate largely because they do not want to concede too much
• Less impact if we hit recession? 
• Recession is due and may happen either way. However adding uncertainty particularly with regard to investment and potentially credit has to exacerbate the situation. Leavers like to point out that the EU held back the UK back from entering into trading arrangements like China, India and the rest of the BRICS. However as they like to point out the US does not need free trade to trade with China, and as far as I know there is no free trade agreement other the WTO protocols between the US and China so their argument is more than a bit specious.

Cons

• Immigration: Free movement combined with recession in peripheral Europe and accession countries and exacerbated by refugee/economic migrant crisis means unfettered immigration from the EU is possible. 
• Two speed Europe: core Euroland is marching ever quicker to complete integration and ignoring issues that effect the whole of the whole EU
• Ongoing crisis in peripheral states : Greece/Italy/Portugal/Spain contributing to migration
• Unaudited spending :  Budget not been audited for over 20 years. Most likely rife with corruption
• Sovereignty : as discussed before a bit of red herring see prior post. However increasingly EU is issuing regulations which the UK is forced to adopt without modification rather than directives which are implemented by local parliaments. This is because of either previous directives being ignored, not implemented or changed by governments to render a different intent. If you belong to a club, a club has rules and the rules should be the same for everyone so suck it up in my view. However that has meant that rules the UK would not have wanted to implement on bankers bonuses for example, they were forced to accept.

Red Herrings

• Turkey A complete red herring as currently Turkey are unlikely to be in a position to meet their obligations for the recent treaty on migrant exchange because of issues around treatment of their press and their anti-terror laws let alone complete the 20+ steps for consideration of EU membership
• Financial Armageddon : no likely to occur but if recession does occur it is likely to be worse
• Financial Transaction Tax: will not apply  in the UK but institutions using EU instruments will have to pay. This would occur whether in the EU or not so a red herring.
• Bailouts : most of the bailout money UK has provided is through the IMF and not the EU. As a member of the IMF, the UK has treaty obligations which it has not choice but to fulfil.
• TTIP: most of EU is pushing back on TTIP. Our own government is a large supporter and would probably accept a even more disadvantageous treaty with US if it went alone.

Questions

What protection do we get on further transfers of power to Europe?

How can we make it more accountable?

How can we reduce or control unwanted immigration?

Winners

• Manufacturers of cars, electrical, aerospace and pharma
• Financial service providers  particularly foreign banks (i.e. large employers)
• Agriculture

Losers

• Sky and some media outlets who do not like EU interference on competition
• Bankers bonuses (shame eh)
• Foreign agro/food business looking to introduce GMO and reduce foods standards
• Local communities who feel under siege from excess migration

Summary

The EU has definitely benefited the UK and helped revive its manufacturing industry from the dark days of Maggie's post industrial view of Britain. Britain has attracted and retained car makers with the benefit of the single market. However much of the growth in car exports has been to the BRIC economies, particularly at the luxury end e.g. Rolls Royce, Bentley, Land Rover, Aston Martin, Jaguar, McClaren.  Family car marker such as Nissan, Ford, Vauxhall rely on access to the single market.

Undoubtably the EU has had a positive effect on most peoples lives (except perhaps fishermen), but you do get a sense that most people feel this is largely in the past and there is a bit of "what have you done for me lately?" mentality.  There is a sense for non-Euroland EU countries that important issues are being pushed to the back of the queue because of the rush to complete Euro integration.

The single market undoubtable is an attractive proposition for most foreign investors looking to invest in jobs and business in the UK: a stable and secure environment with access to over 500 million consumers.  Further development of the single market could further improve that by completing a market in services with standardisation of contract rights for example. However the concerns over the priorities of the Euro region mean that they may take a lower priority.

Its is also clear that the EU is out of touch with the general populace, not only in the UK but EU wide, particularly on the issue of migrants from outside the EU. 

It also seems that unless there is a change of heart in the EU, unbalanced migration of people  will continue to occur much to the distress of local communities, as they feel alienated  and overwhelmed by foreign culture and that housing  and access to services becomes more difficult. 

Again in summary it seems to me that we are better by economically and with a higher standards of for health, food and living by being in the EU, but we cannot control the numbers of internal EU migration.

So immigration vs economics and standards is remains the  crucial question.