We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
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!
Brexit
Comments
-
schneckster wrote: »I'll go back and have a look at your examples. I hope for the sake of your argument Airbus isn't amongst them
OK, BobQ:
1. Deutsche Bank - I guess the name itself is a clue. Its HQ is in Frankfurt, but is looking at whether to move its UK business? If we left the EU, then surely moving its UK business out of the UK makes any business it conducts in the UK more complicated. If they employ 9000 people in the UK, then clearly the UK business is significant enough for them not to want to lose. The company I work for has a US office to reduce complications and make it more cost effective so the headlines for Deutsche's comments seem very strange.
2. HSBC are already moving so clearly the possibility of Brexit has had no bearing on their decision. One of their reasons is increases in regulations which, as we know, come from the EU. Not to mention that 11 EU members are trying to bring back the Tobin Tax with France & Germany in that number. Perhaps if we leave the EU, reduction of regulatory burdens will entice them back again.
We keep seeing news items where company X is considering moving. Yet when you look at their actual words, the headline of "We would leave UK if it leaves EU" doesn't usually correlate. Their words are usually along the lines of "We'll look at it and decide what to do then. Could leave, or could stay. Too early to say". Deutsche have said exactly that.
This is a reasonable thing for any business to say. It's a pity the headlines don't say the same.
Schneckster0 -
schneckster wrote: »...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 ...
The relevance is that when BobQ refers to Article 49A, he is talking about Article 49A in the original text of the Treaty of Lisbon.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12007L/TXT
As you can see Article 49A in the original treaty, says exactly the same thing as Article 50 in the current consolidated version of the treaty.
The EU does a lot of that sort of thing.
See: Renumbering/equivalences tables of E.U. Treaties
http://www.hssph.net/legalrm/Research_book_2-Edition_Appendix_4.pdf0 -
I wouldn't be following an example set by you in that, would I?Ah, so you use a 'smiley' as some sort of all-purpose get out clause for being wrong. Good to know.
(ah! Smiley says I'm wrong doesn't it...)
I put the smiley to show I was being playful whilst making a point but it seems I misjudged you in thinking such good natured debate was welcomed. I'll bear that in mind in future.
As for wrong, I used the quite correct gross figure which I agreed was reduced by rebates and knowing you'd come back on.
However, you were wrong using the figure of £10billion a year as a) it was an estimate from the year before it was applied, b) overstates the rebate we get, of which Blair reduced it by £4billion in return for CAP reform which never happened, and c) it turned out to be over £12bn and then had on top additional contributions on demand by the EU, somewhere in the region of an extra £3bn to £4bn including the much publicised £2.1bn that apparently was reduced to only half by George Osborne - who tried to keep quiet that it was half this year, half next!
I notice you haven't disagreed with the £150bn figure. Perhaps next time I wish to make the same point, I should £410million a day instead?
Your arguments show you to be pro-EU and your fixation over someone signing off with their name as vanity suggests otherwise about pedantry. I put my name on the bottom because I always have and always will - force of habit, I guess. Many people on this forum do the same. Yet I'm the only one you deem vain enough to take the p*** out of for it? Is that because I disagree with you or because I'm better at tiddlywinks??I am neither pro-EU nor a pedant. But, yes I was taking the p*** out of your vanity. (for clarification, it was a joke! You could be a world champion at tiddling your wink for all I know - if so, congratulations!!)
Do what the UK could do if we left the EU... whatever you like!Should I put a smiley after that?
Schneckster0 -
The relevance is that when BobQ refers to Article 49A, he is talking about Article 49A in the original text of the Treaty of Lisbon.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12007L/TXT
As you can see Article 49A in the original treaty, says exactly the same thing as Article 50 in the current consolidated version of the treaty.
The EU does a lot of that sort of thing.
See: Renumbering/equivalences tables of E.U. Treaties
http://www.hssph.net/legalrm/Research_book_2-Edition_Appendix_4.pdf
Ah! I understand now. Like many people, I was unaware there are two versions of the Lisbon Treaty, or was one the failed EU Constitution?
And yes, they do it a lot... more people have to guess, the less they can disagree, I suppose! :rotfl:
BobQ, I stand corrected.
Schneckster0 -
schneckster wrote: »I wouldn't be following an example set by you in that, would I? ...
No, I don't use emoticons that much. But when I use a 'smiley' it's to indicate I have just made a joke.schneckster wrote: »...However, you were wrong using the figure of £10billion a year.....
The figure comes from the stated source. (See In brief: UK-EU economic relations, HOC briefing paper Number 06091, 3 June 2015.)
Other than that. You don't half go on.0 -
-
Wild_Rover wrote: »...
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
^This
I suspect most voters won't even know or care about things such as the Lisbon treaty.
The EU politicians will come under scrutiny in the coming months/year though.
Greece ; Calais ; the African refugees. These are issues requiring a coordinated response. So far, the response has been underwhelming.
The challenge for the pro-Europe campaigners will be to focus the referendum on to the normal things which affect the masses, such as job security.0 -
The challenge for the pro-Europe campaigners will be to focus the referendum on to the normal things which effect the masses, such as job security.
Job security - with entirely open borders? What happens when we have another crisis - it may just be round the corner - and we cannot control the numbers moving to the UK from eastern and southern Europe?
I suppose if you are a Brit wanting to compete for minimum wage jobs - its wonderful?
We won't be allowed to leave though - even if it were a leave vote we would be asked to keep voting until we voted the right way. No one took any notice of the Dutch, French or Irish referenda!0 -
Job security - with entirely open borders? What happens when we have another crisis - it may just be round the corner - and we cannot control the numbers moving to the UK from eastern and southern Europe?
...
I believe any system can adapt to changing needs if required, but it would require political concensus.
I am not sure the politicians at the heart of Europe share Camerons' concerns though.
Are they rushing through further integration? The EU concept is a long term vision. Why should we think we get it right first time?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.8K Spending & Discounts
- 244.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.1K Life & Family
- 257.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards