Brexit

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

CLAPTON wrote: »

seems strange that,
such a small country,
without the massive benefits of being part of the largest 'free' trade areas in the world
and one with major tariff barriers to trade
appears to attract immigrants with some modest qualifications in economics
and appears modestly prosperous
and enjoys a decent quality of life

maybe one rule for others and another rule for oneself?

Why don't you just admit you like wearing 1950's tinted glasses?;)

PixelPound

Reality needs separating from media hype. What can/can't be imported isn't always due to EU restrictions but usually commercial viability, the restrictions are simply a convenient excuse.

Generali

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Such a shame Bovril doesn't command the same smuggling arbitrage as, say, illegal drugs.

That is true across the market as a whole but Chez Generali Bovril commands a definite premium.


For example, to secure my last supplies I had to enjoy a very pleasant evening drinking beer with a smuggler who had brought some in from the EU. The time cost was huge, if fun.

schneckster

antrobus wrote: »

£55 million a day would be equivalent to slightly over £20 billion a year. The actual UK net contribution to the EU budget is anticipated to be less than £10 billion for 2013-14. (See In brief: UK-EU economic relations, HOC briefing paper Number 06091, 3 June 2015.) Thus your number is wrong by a significant margin.

If you note the smiley that followed, I used the gross figure more for some comic effect and to illustrate a point that the so-called free market is anything but free. It's hard to write tongue in cheek in plain text. However, our net contribution (£11bn a year after rebate) isn't the whole story as the EU keeps demanding more - various additional contributions, plus of course, £2.1bn in one hit last year because our economy did better than expected (but only because they added illegal drugs and prostitution to our GDP!)

In actual fact, though, various different reports from various different bodies show that the cost of EU membership to the UK economy is between £150bn to £180bn (House of Lords say £150bn, UKIP £180bn) a year in understanding and implementing EU law, red tape, restrictions, etc, as well as paying "fines" for transgressions the EU perceives us to have made - the government actually has an annual fund now for EU fines. Taking those figures, the daily cost is near £410million per day.

antrobus wrote: »

You do realise, don't you, that it's not neccesary to actually sign off your posts? We can see who posted what anyway, and thus it is entirely superfluous.:)

A pro-EU going pedant on me over signatures? At least it's tongue in cheek pedantry, I suppose (yes?). Usually, you see pedantry from pro-EU'ers when they have no argument to points made. Not seen that with your posts, Antrobus, but there are one or two others I've replied to I could say that about. As for signing off, its force of habit from work, again despite people knowing already who it came from. Superfluous or not, I doubt that will change

Schneckster

oops! See what I mean?

CLAPTON

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Why don't you just admit you like wearing 1950's tinted glasses?;)

To the extend that I do indeed, believe that e.g Aus, NewZealand etc can be viable (and good) places to live, even without being part of a 500 million people superstate, then you may have an element of truth in your observation.

Just seem odd however, that people without my believe in the viability of these small states, actually choose just places to live: but then why should I be surprised?

schneckster

BobQ wrote: »

You should read what you post you asked for a pro-EU article like Hannons.

What I said was:

schneckster wrote: »

To me, the madness is staying in and the rewards for leaving are far far greater. But I'm not eloquent enough to give you a positive vision of what it would be like if we left. Instead, I'll leave it to this guy. It's worth a read if only for a balanced debate...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11644904/A-vision-of-Britain-outside-the-EU-confident-successful-and-free.html
If you know of an article for a positive vision for staying in, I'd be happy to see it. I haven't found one so far, though, that isn't just pro-EU propaganda.

That didn't ask for proof, did it?
Hannan's article gave a positive vision of leaving the EU. So far, all I've heard from pro-EU types is the doom and gloom based on myths, half truths, dodgy research, or downright lies: "Britain would no influence...", "No-one would trade with us...", "3 million jobs lost...", "Industry leaving..." etc., etc. How about a positive vision instead of prophecies of apocalypse?
I wasn't asking for proof at all. I was giving you the opportunity to make me challenge my own view and I am genuinely interested in see opposing arguments. The fact you haven't taken it suggests that such positivity isn't possible.

BobQ wrote: »

It is our closest international market and it is the largest market in the world.

The largest market is the rest of the world to which we export far more than the EU, where exports are declining. If you want the largest bloc, then the EU is second to NAFTA.

BobQ wrote: »

I started this thread with two examples. I'm sure you can find your own list but it includes several financial institutions and car manufacturers. In fact any UK based firm that exports more to the EU than it sells in UK is probably considering their position. And not all firms will state this in public.

I'll go back and have a look at your examples. I hope for the sake of your argument Airbus isn't amongst them

BobQ wrote: »

I agree that facts and figures are not clear on either side of the argument and that is why we are stating our "views". The problem is the decision is fundamental and has major consequences. It really does not matter why a firm relocates (a pure business decision, an EU subsidy etc). If they leave then there will be consequences.

Something we agree on. However, the credibility of some businesses is called into question when, during the decision to join/not join the Euro, those same businesses were saying "If the UK doesn't join, we're leaving..." and then they stayed and invested more. Nissan and Airbus were prime examples of that. Airbus, too.

Schneckster

schneckster

BobQ wrote: »

You keep quoting Article 50 of Lisbon yet when challenged to quote it earlier you failed to do so. All the Treaty states as far as I can see in Article 49A is that when a nation votes to leave the EU, there is a phased withdrawal which is based on an agreement for the transition which expires within 2 years of signing it. There is no guarantee after leaving that we will have an agreement on anything as far as I can see.

I didn't quote Article 50 for fear of my posts becoming too wordy (a well placed fear, obviously! ). However, since you insist:

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.
A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.

If you've counted the times I mentioned Article 50, I trust you will have read what I said about it. Since you appear to like quotes, here's what I said:

schneckster wrote: »

Yes I can but I see where you're going and I take it back - Article 50 does not explicitly demand an FTA (that was a logical conclusion from one legal analysis), only that a relationship is negotiated with the leaving nation. Legal opinion is divided about the nature of said relationship as the wording is ambiguous - is it just during leaving negotiations, or after the country has left. However, an FTA is pretty much inevitable given the fact the UK is the EU's biggest export market.

Now, how about you reciprocate and quote article 49A, since you mentioned it?

And while you're at it, can you explain the relevancy of Article 49 given that this discussion is about the UK leaving the EU

Schneckster

antrobus

schneckster wrote: »

If you note the smiley that followed,....

Ah, so you use a 'smiley' as some sort of all-purpose get out clause for being wrong. Good to know.

schneckster wrote: »

...A pro-EU going pedant on me over signatures? At least it's tongue in cheek pedantry, I suppose (yes?)....

I am neither pro-EU nor a pedant. But, yes I was taking the p*** out of your vanity.

Should I put a smiley after that?

[Deleted User]

schneckster wrote: »

A pro-EU going pedant on me over signatures? At least it's tongue in cheek pedantry, I suppose (yes?). Usually, you see pedantry from pro-EU'ers when they have no argument to points made. Not seen that with your posts, Antrobus, but there are one or two others I've replied to I could say that about. As for signing off, its force of habit from work, again despite people knowing already who it came from. Superfluous or not, I doubt that will change

Schneckster

oops! See what I mean?

G'on yersel Schneckster! Some eejit had a go at me ages ago for having my initials at the end of my posts. Within the general rules of the forum, do what you want. There's enough folk around telling others what to do and think without the style police telling us how to present it.

IMO the EU, like every other organisation, should be judged on what it does for PEOPLE. If the proponents on either side of the debate concentrate on that, the debate might get somewhere. It might be sad to say, but most folk don't give a t0ss about GDP, imports and exports, exchange rates and so on as the UK the education system produces robotic consumers - big kids with just enough disposable income to participate in the obsession of buying "toys". Meanwhile the rich skew the tax system to their advantage, and the commoners keep paying up.

"National" or " international", in or out, will make no difference to most people most of the time.

WR

[Deleted User]

antrobus wrote: »

Ah, so you use a 'smiley' as some sort of all-purpose get out clause for being wrong. Good to know.



I am neither pro-EU nor a pedant. But, yes I was taking the p*** out of your vanity.

Should I put a smiley after that?

Vanity? For closing with a name?

Get over yourself!

WR