Ok I agree with what you are saying but I don't think its the way it will go, up until now the EU have said no commitment no Trade negotiations. I just don't think they will let it get to the stage where its all or nothing, they believe in the concept of the EU and actually believe we owe the money. If we don't believe we owe it we should probably argue on that basis rather than use it a leverage which we appear to be poor at.
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Politics, politics, politics
- Thread starter markysimmo
- Start date
Ok I agree with what you are saying but I don't think its the way it will go, up until now the EU have said no commitment no Trade negotiations. I just don't think they will let it get to the stage where its all or nothing, they believe in the concept of the EU and actually believe we owe the money. If we don't believe we owe it we should probably argue on that basis rather than use it a leverage which we appear to be poor at.
I thought the agreed "price" was net rather than gross, it takes in account the assets?
Grays_1890
Colin Calderwood
Would you join the EU if you was not a member already?
Boris?
Grays_1890
Colin Calderwood
Does not vindicate him though, in an individual case Juncker is a clam, he is no less a clam because of Boris
Sorry I Know Sweden had the special status same as us, I meant I am surprised there has not been more attempts for them to get rid of Krona.
I was responding to "Farrage is a clam though and is not representative of the UK in the same way Juncker is for the EU."
As Secretary of state he does represent the UK to other countries.
Grays_1890
Colin Calderwood
of course he does but like I said Juncker is no less of a clam just because Bojo is a huge one
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
Except vote somebody else in at the next election, which is never that far off. A very direct and decisive action the public can take.
Which should really do much to keep the incumbent government on their toes.
I think its fair to say that they have hidden behind the EU for a long time, become complacent. That will change.
People have appetite to have their say. There are more opposing views between parties, different "solutions" to vote for. Its an interesting time in poiltics, I think. And, I think, its fair to say UK politics will change from now on.
You may well be right, we will get more of an idea when talks resume.
I dont think there is any doubt we owe them money, the talk was always how much. And it seems we made major concessions in this area to try and advance the talks - agreeing to a much larger sum than intended.
I can well see us revisiting that "good will" if the EU doesnt show us some in turn. Though really we are just talking about negotiating mechanisms, which will of course be revealed in time.
Of course not, I do think he is a clam - I personally don't see it as aggressive but he has to be blunt as our negotiation style does not match theirs. They came to the table with a list of red lines and what can be offered and not, were transparent and open about it. Our style was that everything is negotiable and has a price and we wish to hold our cards to our chest as we do not want to strengthen the others hand.
Its a clash, I assume on cultures, with each sides method annoying the other.
Total goods and services exports to the EU are 14% of the UK's overall economy. So you're predicting a 45% reduction in trade with the EU over what, in most cases, is a 1-2% tariff cost. That's a massive, massive drop and doesn't seem to be grounded in any realistic assumptions.
Even the paper @milo linked uses the assumption that our standard for goods and services we sell to the EU would diverge (for no apparent reason) and the somewhat bullish assumption of EU growth for 12 years, which seems unlikely unless they can get to grips with the Greece/Spain/Italy/France problems. That also assumes our industries can't negate the tariff costs with cheaper and/or better imports - for my business, the savings would be >100% of any tariff costs on export. For some it might be less, but it will be significant.
I'll turn that question around - why do we need the EU? We have a system of law that works perfectly well - so well that much of the Western world adopted it. What is the point of an institution that is at arm's length from our county making those decisions?
So what do we want from Brexit? As above, I want imports that aren't barred by a protectionist state that refuses to allow outdated industry to fail. I want to be able to buy what I want from wherever I want without the EU taking their bite. I want to be relieved of EU bureaucracy and legislation for products I sell in the UK and around the world that have nothing to do with the EU. I want us to be able to refuse in and out of work benefits to any and all immigrants at any time for reasons of our choosing. I want our financial systems extricated from the ticking time bomb that is a single currency containing countries like Greece. I want our government to be free to compete with EU nations for business through lower tax and regulations. I want us to be able to set immigration targets based on the skills and abilities required at that time in our society, not based on the nationality of that person. I want to have the warm fuzzy feeling that comes from knowing we're not part of an institution that condemns thousands of African farmers to a lifetime of poverty because we don't want them undercutting our prices. I'm sure that if I thought about it there would be more too.
Partly dealt with above. I think it's important that we have a decent level of immigration in this country and I don't think that number should be drastically smaller than it currently is.
What is of utmost importance though, is that we are free to adjust the level and the nature (skills) of that immigration whenever suits us. If we were to leave the EU tomorrow, I'd expect immigration to stay fairly flat as unemployment is fairly low right now. But if in 3 month's time we need immigration to double or to halve, we should be able to do that in a flash, without having to resort to requiring our entire population to carry ID cards.
Cool - wait and see as it will come out in the wash, I am making the prediction that we are on the hook regardless of talks.
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
Right now, technically, we arent (it seems). Of course, I fully expect it to be the next stumbling block. I think you are right, the EU will try to cement that payment before moving on, we will of course try not to. Given how things have gone so far I expect your prediction will come true!
SpurMeUp
Jimmy Cantrell
Its not my assumption or a back of a fag pack calculation, it's the projections of a respected US economics think tank Rand Corporation. 4.7% out of the UK economy or appx £100bn per year. What is it you know that they don't? Are we to believe your calculations or theirs?
Sure. Is it a good thing that if your EU flight is delayed, you have statutory rights to real compensation? Or that roaming phone charges in the EU can't be excessive as they used to be? Or that air pollution from factories can't be above certain limits? Or that laws allow the continent to trade with each other on fair and equal terms, which facilitates free trade? None of these things can be delivered by UK law in isolation.
UK input has been fundamental to EU laws. We have helped shaped them. In the future, we'll probably have to observe at least some of these laws without any input.
Do you think you will realise all of things post Brexit? Its a 'cake an eat it' approach that is blinkered and fails to recognise the complex reality. For example, the EU will not let us undercut them with lower standards of regulation say on workers pay rights/costs, or taxation, and then hand us a free trade agreement. Why would they? Its a bonkers suggestion! And most of our exports are to the EU. All over the world, countries trade most with their neighbouring countries. A simple fact that seems to be ignored.
Would it make you feel warm and fuzzy to have no UK based farmers? Because if it wasn't for the CAP or a similar system countries would not have an indigenous agriculture industry. After WWII and the pain of rationing for decades, countries realised that a free market for all food was dangerous and left them vulnerable. We need to keep some, if not all, of our farmers. Or are you suggesting we put them out of business? All very well listing a Christmas list of things you want (which is still more than anyone else has and interesting) but you have to see these wishes in the context of global trade. The UK can work in isolation but w'll be significantly poorer for it. Everything we know about trade tell us that free trade especially with out neighbours leads to prosperity. The UKs economy from the 70s to now - in short whilst in the EU - has grown massively.
Okay so the big one immigration. We're to leave but keep immigration as it is for now? How would that be digested by voters do you think?
Furthermore, if we don't have EU migration, where will menial workers come from? Will they be able to work seasonally? Travel to the UK to work and then return home? How quickly can you take people on, if its going via a government ministry, applications etc? Quick than you can now?
You think immigration post Brexit will follow a biz orientation first and foremost. But that is exactly what we have had for the past decades, and people have voted against it.
Last edited:
Grays_1890
Colin Calderwood
Happens in alot of other places in the world
SpurMeUp
Jimmy Cantrell
For example...?
Grays_1890
Colin Calderwood
I worked in Dubai and lost by job due to market conditions and had to leave, infact its happened to me or a number of people in Middle East and also in Canada.
In their own paper they state their assumptions. I have no reason to believe their assumptions are accurate and I suspect a brief skim of their paper would lead you to the same conclusion.
Think about the divergence logically. I supply services to the medical sector and the construction industry (among others). I don't apply medical standards to construction clients because it's excessively expensive to do so. That doesn't mean I can't and won't apply the same standards to the work for the medical industry. The EU is essentially forcing us to apply their standards to everything we do, regardless of destination. If it turns out to be cheaper for businesses to do everything to EU standards and sell the same product, great. If it doesn't then there are savings to be made. There is no logical reason to believe that standard divergence will result in a drop in trade - no business would voluntarily stop applying EU standards if it was more costly to do so.
The other assumption is EU growth. For every respected economist who thinks that's likely there's another who thinks its foolish. It's far from an uncommon position to believe that unless the EU kicks Greece out (and possibly Spain/Italy too), or allows countries to use their own currencies and the mechanisms that provides, that the Euro will come into some serious medium term difficulties. That's massively increased without the UK in the EU - less contribution from us, less bailout money when it's next needed, a smaller asset basis on which to borrow, lower average ratings for debt, etc. The EU is less financially stable without the UK and filling the huge hole in their spending is just one small part of that.
Only use airlines that compensate you.
Use the mobile network that charges you the least
Don't buy from polluting factories if you don't like it.
I don't want equal terms, I want competition.
But they can be delivered by markets.
Only for those products and services traded with the EU. 86% of our GDP is not EU trade and should not have to conform.
I don't expect them to give us anything, I expect us to compete it away from them.
I don't believe in propping up any industry with my taxes. If that means all farmers go out of business (it doesn't) then so be it. The same discussion was had around mining once - nobody claims we need working mines any more.
Don't care, the public are stupid.
They'll come from wherever the fudge we want them to - that's the whole point! You don't think there's a whole world of people who would come and do seasonal work for £4 per hour? That's probably a fudging fortune in plenty of countries. If processing applications for temporary or unskilled work is something we do all the time then there will be a floating stock of unskilled labour moving between jobs - it's unlikely to cause that much hard work - especially not in seasonal work when the demand is known well ahead of time.
I don't think they have. Most polling showed that many people who were pro Brexit would vote remain if Cameron had achieved the small alterations he wanted from the EU. That being in control of immigration is more important than "getting rid of those fudging foreigners".
SpurMeUp
Jimmy Cantrell
I didn't like you losing your job, but the example! Of course, we know now, that within the EU, if you don't have a job as an immigrant within 3 weeks, you could be sent home. So happens in the EU too, just the UK doesn't enforce it.
Read back a couple of pages for my discussion with @r-u-s-x01 - it's full of loopholes that are far too easy to exploit. Plus, the enforced free movement of labour means that if we were to enforce it, we'd have to have an ID card system.