BREXIT - Why?

CLAPTON

colsten wrote: »

Can you post the link to where the EU made the UK charge 20% on those products?

can provide any evidence that the EU forced the UK (or any other country) to drive diesel cars? Can you provide evidence that 10s of thousands were killed for the reasons you say? Can you provide the evidence of when the UK have tabled the issue to the EU, or even to the UN?

I accept your correction and will edit my post accordingly

if you truely know so little about the subject matter then I don't feel it's my job to provide such an education: most should be known from general reading of the media or you could use a search engine.

but I offer one

http://www.grantuk.com/support/reduced-vat-rate/

BookerTee

jimjames wrote: »

Paid annual leave - are you joking?
No roaming charges across EU - only occurred in last year, no use to vast majority
Equal pay - you are joking
Time off work - there was no time off before the EU...!
Maternity pay up to 12 months - meaning few want to employ women
Parental leave - worthless, few have taken it up
Healthcare across EU - try it see how far you get
Right to live (and work) across EU - taken up by many Brits in France and Spain - tiny compared to the millions that come here and live on the benefits system
EU wide standards for products - we had the best standards in the world before the EU.
2 year warranty on goods - Consumer goods act would have covered this anyway.

You may not think they're important but things like workers rights are likely to be first in the firing line if we leave.

They are mostly unimportant and will be covered by the new British bill of rights anyway.

An exit would mean,
We regain control of our boarders.
We can spend the £13 Billion EU budget in our own country.
We can restore the British legal system, not the EU version.
We can dump costly EU interference (120,000 regulations)
We can develop British economy without EU penalisation.
We would have freedom for UK fisheries.
We can protect the NHS from being an international health service.
We would have freedom to trade with whoever we want to.

The EU wants ever more control and interference in member states and are pushing for ever more 'integration'.
Turkey and the Balkan states are waiting for their free ride in the EU. Britain would be obliged to pay nearly £1.8 billion by 2020 to encourage Albania, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey to join the EU. Hundreds of millions would then be free to come here...and live on our streets.

mrginge

colsten wrote: »

I don't know how they have arrived at £4,300 or whether this is the right number.

I am, however, totally convinced that Brexit would cost us dearly, for many years if not decades to come.

Even the most ardent Out-campaigners admit there would be a negative financial impact. They can't even tell us what a post-Brexit UK would look like, and they have no reputable economist supporting their idea. I will not be voting for a gigantic leap into the unknown and for the tearing up of 40 years worth of organic improvement. All we know is that we would have to spend enormous amounts of money and time to re-negotiate perfectly good existing arrangements, with absolutely no guarantee that the outcome would be better than what we already have. Whilst all those expensive and time-consuming negotiations are underway, progress and investment would be stifled and delayed, perhaps forever.

So you like to criticise the leave campaign for making unsubstantiated economics.
And then you do exactly the same.

Well done.

colsten

CLAPTON wrote: »

if you truely know so little about the subject matter then I don't feel it's my job to provide such an education: most should be known from general reading of the media or you could use a search engine.

but I offer one

http://www.grantuk.com/support/reduced-vat-rate/

I freely admit I am not a VAT or renewables energy expert, nor have I ever claimed that I know everything. If I had known the answer, I would have asked the question. This is a discussion forum, after all.

I appreciate you provided a link.

I don't know why the UK has set the standard VAT rate at 20%, as the minimum under the EU VAT Directive - which the UK agreed to - is 15%. I also don't know the ins and outs of what is subject to standard or reduced VAT rates but it appears the products in question are classed as attracting standard VAT.

colsten

mrginge wrote: »

So you like to criticise the leave campaign for making unsubstantiated economics.
And then you do exactly the same.

Well done.

I have argued, and will continue to argue, that specifically the claim that £350m a week could be saved and used elsewhere is grossly misleading.

colsten

BookerTee wrote: »

We regain control of our boarders.

Whenever the word 'boarder' is used in any Brexit debate, I dis-engage with that debater.

CLAPTON

colsten wrote: »

I freely admit I am not a VAT or renewables energy expert, nor have I ever claimed that I know everything. If I had known the answer, I would have asked the question. This is a discussion forum, after all.

I appreciate you provided a link.

I don't know why the UK has set the standard VAT rate at 20%, as the minimum under the EU VAT Directive - which the UK agreed to - is 15%. I also don't know the ins and outs of what is subject to standard or reduced VAT rates but it appears the products in question are classed as attracting standard VAT.

we, the UK chose to charge 5%: the EU instructed us to charge 20%
the important point is that we are not free to decide these matters ourselves

TheTracker

colsten wrote: »

I don't know how they have arrived at £4,300 or whether this is the right number.

It is a nonsense figure, even a misleading one. The government divided a forecast reduction in GDP by the number of households to arrive at it. But it really has little meaning in that sense. A household wouldn't be £4300 out of pocket if the GDP did reduce by this much.

It's poor communication. They should have just said the savings recouped from not contributing are small compared to the impact on the economy. They tried to make it real for readers, but instead made it nonsense and did damage to the remain campaign.

Campaigns make mistakes. Once this inaccurate figure was pointed out they should have dropped any future use of it.

savings_my_hobby

lisyloo wrote: »

Another person that knows more than the ex-head of MI6.
Do tell us how you know or is it classified :-)

Paris attacks, enough said.

savings_my_hobby

colsten wrote: »

That is so much nonsense and smacks of xenophobia.

How does that remotely resemble xenophobia?

All Britain has done since 1973 is slow down the European project we must be driving the commission mad.

We rely on Nato for security. The major European countries would be obliged to help if say Russia attacked us, they certainly would not do it for the love of Britain.#

Not that Russia would have any reason to attack us unless U.S planes were bombing Russia from one of their bases here.