Brexit, The Economy and House Prices (Part 2)

A_Medium_Size_Jock

ilovehouses wrote: »

We plan to take on the full costs of these agencies whereas we currently cost share with 27 other member states. Bonkers.

Ignoring completely the fact that those 27 extra other member states will undoubtedly be adding considerably to those costs.
(And we know who pays more of these costs, don't we?)

It is usually cheaper to look after the needs of one than that of 28 - ask anyone with a family about how expenses increase with each addition.;)

A_Medium_Size_Jock

Yet another piece of the Brexit jigsaw puzzle is being prepared, ready to slot neatly into place:
"UK proposes new start-up fund as EU finance risks drying up"

"It's vital that we make sure our cutting-edge firms have the funding they need to meet their potential," chancellor of the exchequer Philip Hammond said in a statement of the proposed National Investment Fund.
Key details such as the size of the fund and how it will be financed are yet to be decided, and will be part of a government consultation with industry.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-investment-idUKKBN1AG2MV?il=0

A_Medium_Size_Jock

Herzlos wrote: »

And you claim that part of the reason we want to leave the EU is to cut down on bureaucracy within the EU, whilst being happy that we'll need to duplicate the work of 20 new agencies. How is it "duplication" if we are no longer a member of the EU and instead are forming our own agencies?
Does any other major none-EU country rely solely upon EU agencies?:think:

That's a lot of jobs that are adding nothing to the economy but costing us a lot in tax. They are either going to be mirroring work done by their EU equivalent, or spending a lot of time converting from one system to the other. Again no for reasons as above. It seems strange that every other country does this yet you think the UK should not - and we did before membership too you know.

It'd certainly be good if they were based up North somewhere, but we'll need to see how that pans out.
Indeed, quite so - yet at least the intent to spread the load around has been clearly stated.

Oh dear, what a blinkered approach you seem to have.
Firstly see my post above, # 2366.
Secondly my responses are highlighted above in red.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

Herzlos wrote: »

Do you have any reference to this? All I've found is a 2015 Daily Mail article written by a woman trying to sell a book.

I should add though, that the chlorine in the chicken scandal is only a small part of it, and some small quantity of chlorine isn't particularly unhealthy. My bigger concern with US chicken is the fact it spends most of it's life sat in faeces and surrounded by dead, rotting chickens.

Do you have any evidence for that part of your quote which I have highlighted in red above?

There are quite a few sources explaining why salad produce is washed with added chlorine; here are just a few:

Unfortunately because of food safety scares in the US, UK and Japan with E.coli and Salmonella causing serious illness in people eating salad vegetables, processors must use this chlorine rinse for safety

https://www.healthyfood.co.nz/articles/2008/january/ask-the-experts-lettuce-and-chlorine

Pre-packed salads are often washed in a low-chlorine solution to kill off the bugs, according Ms Schneideman,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36822962

kabayiri

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Ignoring completely the fact that those 27 extra other member states will undoubtedly be adding considerably to those costs.
(And we know who pays more of these costs, don't we?)

It is usually cheaper to look after the needs of one than that of 28 - ask anyone with a family about how expenses increase with each addition.;)

Ooh, elephant in the room time.

Only about 8 of the EU states actually contribute positively. Even our favourite tax haven Luxembourg likes to feed off the EU teet.

But when it comes to moaning, I think it will be more like 27 willing to have a go at UK.

Do you know what they call a club in the UK where just 1/3 pay in more than they take out? Answer : BUST.

kabayiri

Herzlos wrote: »

...
It'd certainly be good if they were based up North somewhere, but we'll need to see how that pans out.

You're SOOO passionate about the North that you are struggling to name any places actually in the North.

Yep...sounds about right.

Herzlos

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Do you have any evidence for that part of your quote which I have highlighted in red above?

Literally every single article talking about chlorinated chicken contains citations as to why it's done.

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Oh dear, what a blinkered approach you seem to have.
Firstly see my post above, # 2366.
Secondly my responses are highlighted above in red.

If you say so. We're still going to have to follow a lot of EU rules, or mimic a lot of EU rules because we're still going to have to interact with them.

I don't follow your point about cost sharing. Sure the costs overall are bigger when shared with the EU, but it's going to be split across all 28 members. It's very unlikely we'll be able to save any money by going it alone. The phenomena is called "economies of scale", and seems pretty well understood.

Say we have 2 organizations who's sole concern is the shape of bananas. One for the UK and one for the EU27. The UK has a team of 100 banana measurers, 10 managers, 1 HR, 1 admin, 1 cleaner. EU27 has 300 measurers, 30 managers, 3 HR, 3 admin and 3 cleaners.

Assuming the wages and expenses are the same, UK is still paying 9x more than any other country for the same function.

You'd need the EU27 one to be, err, 27 times the size of the UK one before the UK one became any cheaper.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

Herzlos wrote: »

Literally every single article talking about chlorinated chicken contains citations as to why it's done.

Is that a "no" then?
None of those articles provides evidence of poor standards - in fact generally they describe the EU ban as a result of EU protectionism.

So evidence please of your assertion " My bigger concern with US chicken is the fact it spends most of it's life sat in faeces and surrounded by dead, rotting chickens."


And I won't even delve into the rest if your response is an insight into your understanding of simple arithmetic.

Eric_the_half_a_bee

Herzlos wrote: »

We're still going to have to follow a lot of EU rules, or mimic a lot of EU rules because we're still going to have to interact with them.

Only 1 in 20 businesses exports to the EU. For the other 19, EU rules will be irrelevant.

kabayiri

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Is that a "no" then?
None of those articles provides evidence of poor standards - in fact generally they describe it as a result of EU protectionism.
...

Chlorinated chicken is just a buzzword that social justice warrior students can throw about. They probably don't know that sausages can contain any old crud.

It's the buzzword bandwagon folks.

Speaking of chicken, check out this girl crying because our vote to leave the EU, to her means not being able to eat at Nandos ! :rotfl:
https://youtu.be/Bn_6sU7O43w?t=1m2s

Meanwhile, Holly in this clip thinks that one of the best things about us staying in the EU is the NHS ! :rotfl:

https://youtu.be/Bn_6sU7O43w?t=1m32s