The EU: IN or OUT?

EnglishMohican

JohnRo wrote: »

Of course it does. The cost of electricity is going up if nothing else changes. When the £90 you had been paying doesn't cover the bill because the unit cost is higher, and you're cold and hungry, what are you going to do? Where is the rebate going to go?

Now you are just being a troll posting irrelevant nonsense.

Or are you suggesting that the EU was going to demand more than £350M and that the UK was going to starve as a result? That is the meaning from the analogy and that would make Brexit even more desirable.
And those are exactly the sort of circumstances when the rebate would be removed.

JohnRo

EnglishMohican wrote: »

Now you are just being a troll posting irrelevant nonsense.

Or are you suggesting that the EU was going to demand more than £350M and that the UK was going to starve as a result? That is the meaning from the analogy and that would make Brexit even more desirable.
And those are exactly the sort of circumstances when the rebate would be removed.

That just reads like word salad. I don't know how much more simply a fairly complex scenario can be explained to you.

This country pays a membership fee to the EU based on the size of the country's economy and also gets a rebate on that fee. We pay in considerably less than everyone else in GNI percentage terms, about 0.65% of GNI compared to an EU28 average of about 1% of GNI, but that's by the by.

When we leave and stop paying that fee, we don't simply have that money available to spend on ourselves and everything else simply carry on as before. Anyone who thinks that is utterly naive.

By leaving we also change the way this country's whole economy works, not immediately but over time. We change the costs of goods and services in both directions and we also change the value of the currency we use to pay and get paid for them. The country's GNI will also change.

If as a result of these changes this country's income shrinks, because of these changes, which will happen according to the experts who've looked into it, then the membership fee we no longer pay, which was last measured as 0.65% of our GNI before leaving, stops being a saving and instead gets swallowed by having to pay all the other bills with a reduced national income.

If the net result of all this change is that the country's income is reduced by an amount greater than the fee we were paying, and the bills for everything else aren't reduced by a similar amount, then there is every likelihood we are no better off by leaving and a very strong possibility we will be much worse off.

That leaves us having to either borrow more, make cut backs on spending or do both.

typistretired

I keep hearing that the Leave Voters wanted Boris Johnson to be the next PM. NO they didn't, they thought Cameron would accept the result and carry on as PM, which he stated he would do before the result. Boris Johnson may appeal to Londoners, but not to anyone in this part of the country.

masonic

JohnRo wrote: »

When we leave and stop paying that fee...

I think you mean when we leave and if we stop paying that fee. As I'm sure you know only too well, but for the benefit of others, leaving the EU does not necessarily mean we will stop paying into the EU budget, or even that our contribution will necessarily decrease from its current level.

On the subject of the cost of Brexit, I think the explanation of the price we have already paid by ermine explains the situation very clearly.
"If somebody asks you to take a pay cut of 10% there’s hell to pay and rioting on the streets. If you get the same pay and you [sic] currency drops by 10% then there’s the same fiscal result but no rioting."

BucksLady

typistretired wrote: »

I keep hearing that the Leave Voters wanted Boris Johnson to be the next PM. NO they didn't, they thought Cameron would accept the result and carry on as PM, which he stated he would do before the result. .

I agree with you. It is also ironic that David C was forever stating 'Brits' don't quit' and yet that's exactly what he did.

typistretired

We will be in control of fixing our VAT rate, perhaps a reduction in that will be beneficial for future high street spending.

JohnRo

masonic wrote: »

I think you mean when we leave and if we stop paying that fee. As I'm sure you know only too well, but for the benefit of others, leaving the EU does not necessarily mean we will stop paying into the EU budget, or even that our contribution will necessarily decrease from its current level.

On the subject of the cost of Brexit, I think the explanation of the price we have already paid by ermine explains the situation very clearly.
"If somebody asks you to take a pay cut of 10% there’s hell to pay and rioting on the streets. If you get the same pay and you [sic] currency drops by 10% then there’s the same fiscal result but no rioting."

Similar scenario with interest rates and inflation, which is something else this decision is likely to excite in the medium and longer term.

EnglishMohican

JohnRo wrote: »

That just reads like word salad. I don't know how much more simply a fairly complex scenario can ..................................................................................................
That leaves us having to either borrow more, make cut backs on spending or do both.

You gave the gist of this answer back at post 896.

At post 957, Ballard asked me a reasonable question so at the very next post, 958, I tried to answer it, using an analogy to my electricity payment,

It was essentially about gross value versus net value and the value of the UK contribution as it stands now.

At post 960, you introduced the unit cost of electricity which had no bearing on the analogy at all and did not contribute to the point being discussed. You have banged on about it ever since, clearly losing track of the equivalences in the analogy altogether.

I have no problem with you making your rare, long, explanatory posts as above. You are entitled to your depressing opinion though you are a bit too keen to treat your opinion as fact for my liking and everybody except you as an idiot. Your frequent, short, one line replies are simply offensive, inane and pointless.

However, it just confuses everybody when you insist on tying your hobbyhorse onto an element of the discussion to which it is not relevant. Please try to keep up with the threads within a thread.

EnglishMohican

masonic wrote: »

On the subject of the cost of Brexit, I think the explanation of the price we have already paid by ermine explains the situation very clearly.
"If somebody asks you to take a pay cut of 10% there’s hell to pay and rioting on the streets. If you get the same pay and you [sic] currency drops by 10% then there’s the same fiscal result but no rioting."

Its not true though is it.

We are payed in pounds and we (mostly) spend in pounds. If we take a 10% pay cut we have 10% fewer pounds to spend and that effects all of our purchases.

If we get the same number of pounds but the currency drops by 10% we are worse off by a percentage that depends on what we are buying but overall much less than 10%. The greater the foreign content, the higher the price increase will be but something that is wholly UK in origin could be no more expensive than it was before the devaluation

Even the totally made abroad item will be imported at a price to the importer that will go up, but then a large proportion of the retail price is the retailers costs and profit which will be pound based.

For example, petrol will not go up by 10% as so much of the price we pay is tax - only the raw material cost has to increase, the rest is optional.

JohnRo

Play the ball, and take your own advice while you're at it. I'm not sure you understand the basic mechanics of what's being discussed. You introduced the silly electricity analogy, I responded to that. For what it's worth the Santander account fee and rebate analogy was slightly more appropriate.

However since you're obviously still reaching for some sort of victory, no problem, you win.