We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
USA Warns Cameron not to leave EU
Comments
-
Of course but if our interests dont coincide with theirs political and economic reality means its more our bad luck than theirs.
Why are they going to expose us to their corporate bullies."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
...
The elephant in the room, of course, is Norway.
Norway isnt a major trading nation of anything other than oil and gas. It also has no desire or expectation of having global influence on anything.
As for the US, it has been State Dept policy to encourage British membership of the EU for decades. The CIA even helped fund the original European Movement (look it up). This has at least as much to do with the traditional trade and influence rivalry between the UK and USA as it does any trading advantage it affords US-owned companies.
It suits America just fine for UK companies to be handicapped in international trade.
I would have thought that their concern is that when they want to push through some global policy they dont want to have to negotiate with too many people. If we arent in the EU we wont get any real influence at the negotiating tables.
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa0 -
If we are in the EU we won't have any influence, to talk of, either.aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
If a company makes Jammy Dodgers in Germany then they can be sold anywhere in the EU without the hindrance of import checks. If those Jammy Dodgers are made in the USA then the factory will need to be on an approved factory list (cost), the consignment will need health certification (cost) and there will be import checks (cost). The EU won't accept that Jammy Dodgers being made to US standards is acceptable - the factory will have to meet all the requirements of a factory in Germany. If that doesn't put off the American Jammy Dodger maker then there will probably be an import tariff added to make them less competitive.
The German government has a say in what standards should apply to Jammy Dodgers in both the EU and in the US (if the US want to enter the lucrative EU biscuit market). The US have no say or influence over Jammy Dodger regulation in the EU but still have to comply to trade.
It's possible that the UK could leave the EU and enter into a bi-lateral agreement to allow easier trade (like Switzerland) but I rather suspect that if the UK left things would be made as difficult as possible and there would be little we could do about it other than lodge a complaint with the WTO.
We already meet all of that criteria.
So what would need to change? Unless of course, the EU implemented stricter conditions...which would in turn, see them imposing it on themselves, unless of course singling us out in way of retaliation.0 -
All sorts of free trade agreements have existed in the past and continue to do so without anything remotely like all the red tape and ballyhoo that the EU imposes being in place. That's about existence-justifying for the bureaucrats on the Brussels gravy-train, and is perceived as necessary steps towards federalism by the Europhile idealogues.
Given the very large volume of trade between the UK and other EU countries, business and commerce in those countries is not want to see it all go to pot for the sake of making a political point. Plus, the Brussels gravy train is not going to want to lose the huge net contribution that we put up that helps to keep it in clover.
There's a huge amount of posturing going on at the moment, including the predictable scare campaign by the Europhiles and others with a vested interest, in the UK and elsewhere. Once the creation of the federal state is on the roll in earnest, it will have to be faced by all that to expect any country that is not in it to be subject to so much of its legislation, including in areas that have nothing to do with free trade, just for the sake of maintaining free trade is ridiculous and completely untenable. At that point a degree of reality will begin to emerge and some serious negotiation can begin to take place regarding what the countries not in the federal state, but who want to trade with it and who it wants to trade with, can reasonably be expected to comply with for a sensible level playing field like exists for other free trade agreements, past and present.
The federalists would dearly love the UK in the federal Europe because the bigger it is the more powerful it would be. But it ain't going to happen and at some point that dream has to come to and end, and the reality of the situation dealt with in a sensible fashion.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
As I have said here before, the real paymasters of this bureaucratic, undemocratic lunatic asylum, the likes of Bosch, VW, Mercedes, Renault, Fiat, Bayer- and all the rest whose products fill our roads, our homes and our offices - are never going to allow the political dwarves who run the system to inhibit access to one of their most lucrative markets: the UK.
It is not going to happen. They need our business too much.0 -
???? My take on it is that we will be gently wheeled out by the rest of the EU. When Cameron starts negotiating the rest will listen politely and offer nothing - but if he persists they will offer a heap of obviously derisory 'concessions' which they know full well will not satisfy the likes of you.As I have said here before, the real paymasters of this bureaucratic, undemocratic lunatic asylum, the likes of Bosch, VW, Mercedes, Renault, Fiat, Bayer- and all the rest whose products fill our roads, our homes and our offices - are never going to allow the political dwarves who run the system to inhibit access to one of their most lucrative markets: the UK.
It is not going to happen. They need our business too much.
And then some French politician will seize the mantle of General DeGaulle and start baiting us with rhetoric which will make us all so wound up that we will make darned sure we go and slam the door on the way out.
To a large extent, I believe that one of DeGaulle's most enduring legacies is the way that this country has never warmed to the EEC or the EU and has always let itself feel alienated.You might as well ask the Wizard of Oz to give you a big number as pay a Credit Referencing Agency for a so-called 'credit-score'0 -
And the reality will be what? If Europe doesn't get its act together, it'll end up being carved up between the new economic world powers in the same way that Europe once carved up Africa.GeorgeHowell wrote: »But it ain't going to happen and at some point that dream has to come to and end, and the reality of the situation dealt with in a sensible fashion.
Too many people don't have the imagination to see that it's not our automatic right to be top dog, like we're born superior or something."It will take, five, 10, 15 years to get back to where we need to be. But it's no longer the individual banks that are in the wrong, it's the banking industry as a whole." - Steven Cooper, head of personal and business banking at Barclays, talking to Martin Lewis0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »We already meet all of that criteria.
So what would need to change? Unless of course, the EU implemented stricter conditions...which would in turn, see them imposing it on themselves, unless of course singling us out in way of retaliation.
We meet the criteria now and, crucially, we had a say in what those criteria were.
The first thing that would change is that we'd have no legal right to free movement of goods within the EU - we take this for granted - don't underestimate just how easy it is to trade with our EU partners. There'd be a raft of new paperwork and costs.
It's not just about making the EU making stricter conditions - it's about them changing conditions and us not having a say but having to comply. Of course trade would continue but it would be significantly more difficult.
Need to be careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater.0 -
The first thing that would change is that we'd have no legal right to free movement of goods within the EU
----
Need to be careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
I;ve heard this stated before, and even a pro EU commentator said this was a mere scare tactic, as while we would have no free trade, the EU countries we trade with would be cutting their nose off to spite their face.
As much as we need to sell our goods, the reason people buy our goods right now is because they cannot get the same item with the same quality, characteristics and price somewhere else. They may be able to get an inferior, or better version, but that's not the same thing. If they could buy these things elsewhere for the same price or cheaper, why are they not doing so? This argument relies on trying to convince the EU sceptic that the EU is just being darn nice to us and buying our goods to do us a favour.
It works both ways. While we can see problems with exports, they will see problems with imports. This could cause a shortgage of supply, leading to increased prices for those who buy our goods.
They buy our goods for good reason. They don't do it just to be nice to us. If they could buy the same goods elsewhere cheaper, they would. So this whole scare story concentrates FAR too much on what we lose, without taking any notice of what those using our goods will lose.
Theres 2 sides to every story, and it seems many only want to concentrate on the UK side, and tell us how bad it will be for us when we can't export, however, no one seems to care to even reference how this may damage those reliant on our goods.
It's a compelling argument, certainly. I'm just not convinced...at the moment.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.3K Spending & Discounts
- 247.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.4K Life & Family
- 261.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards