Brexit, the economy and house prices part 5

cepheus

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Not in the EU's wider interest for the UK to crash out. There's some benefits to doing so though.

It'll set an example to other countries that the EU means business, like Churchill's attack on the French at Mers El Kebir in WW2.

In practice they know that the UK Parliament wouldn't allow it and even might use the tactic to force another referendum.

Rough_Justice

cepheus wrote: »

My understanding is that the £40bn divorce bill has been agreed irrespective of whether we crash out, these are our commitments.Wrong. I suggest you read more around the subject. If we didn't pay that then our credit rating would crash to banana republic status which would be far more expensive. Wrong. Evidence please & this has been discussed here already. It's a bit like a young person refusing to pay out for a gas bill, which sounds like a good idea until you apply for a credit card, loan or mortgage, then it'll cost many times more. Wrong. Any bill is minimal; frankly ridiculous EU attempts at what is little more than extortion WILL NOT be viewed as binding by anyone outside the EU. In short, nobody outside the EU cares.

Our annual fee isn't as much as you think since we would normally get much it back, for our farmers for example, as part of the CAP. We have agreed to continue to pay them directly of course. As you know that 350 million/week figure was largely false, or at least a far greater exaggeration than the 2000 million/week it'll lose us in lost trade.

I see you're trying this thread after being so roundly rebuked elsewhere.
Misleading won't work here either.
If you MUST try to mislead it might help if facts opposing your misleading statements were not readily available.

So the UK’s ‘net contribution’ was estimated at about £8.6 billion.

https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/

ukcarper

cepheus wrote: »

It'll set an example to other countries that the EU means business, like Churchill's attack on the French at Mers El Kebir in WW2.

In practice they know that the UK Parliament wouldn't allow it and even might use the tactic to force another referendum.

If the EU is so great why does it have to set an example of us just because we want to leave especially when you considered it will hurt their own economy.

Rough_Justice

cepheus wrote: »

It'll set an example to other countries that the EU means business, like Churchill's attack on the French at Mers El Kebir in WW2.

In practice they know that the UK Parliament wouldn't allow it and even might use the tactic to force another referendum.

And here's us thinking it was only Europhobic Brexiteers that harked back to WWII for examples of how the UK used to be.
It seems Anglophobic remainers feel the need too, even if their usage is completely irrelevant.

Herzlos

Rinoa wrote: »

There is a very easy solution to this problem.

The EU offers a super free trade agreement thereby negating any need for one.

Balls in the EU court.

They have made us some great offers, but we can't accept them because of Mays red lines.

Put yourself in the EU's shoes a monent; what can they do?
If they give us a better deal than being a member, or split the core freedoms, the eu falls apart.
If they give us a better trading deal than anyone else, every one will want concessions and it becomes a nightmare.

Rough_Justice

Herzlos wrote: »

They have made us some great offers, but we can't accept them because of Mays red lines.
Oh, not because they are unacceptable and would in at least some form concede jurisdiction to the EU then?

Put yourself in the EU's shoes a monent; what can they do?
Leave well alone. The only ones insisting are the EU; there is no international legal requirement.
If they give us a better deal than being a member, or split the core freedoms, the eu falls apart.
Not the UK's problem. The EU are being advised by many inside the EU that reform is needed too you know for fear of collapse from within.
If they give us a better trading deal than anyone else, every one will want concessions and it becomes a nightmare.
Again not a UK problem. Besides, are the EU not supposed to be democratic and do what member countries want them to do?

You're really just highlighting problems with the EU.
You do realise this, right?

Herzlos

Lornapink wrote: »

I've noticed that Remainers wont say whether the EU is cherry picking what it wants from us such as our £40bn and to benefit from our delivering on the NATO 2% spending commitment.


Are you boys a little scared to admit the EU is cherry picking?

Wanting us to settle the €40bn debt is not cherry picking. I'm not sure NATO commitments are either.

Rough_Justice

Since there are so many posts I think a round-up from the weekend might be in order.

* Remainers think discussing Champagne is more important than discussing the increasing likelihood of a WTO Brexit being forced because of EU intractibility.

* US investment banks hire more in London than anywhere else in Europe.

* Siemens are building a new train factory in Goole.

* Protectionism and the applying of tariffs on goods is not a form of price rigging it seems. (Yes, the Champagne" saga again.) Somebody should explain this to Trump & the EU and see if they agree because currently it seems not.

* UK business growth is at a 2-year high.

* Italy will (eventually) have a government which AT BEST wants revised treaties with the EU and also wants protectionism for Italian products which the EU does not allow. At worst they will want out of the Euro and even their own referendum if Italians don't get what they want.

Herzlos

Rough_Justice wrote: »

You're really just highlighting problems with the EU.
You do realise this, right?

I'm not really. But it's irrelevant. What can the eu actually offer us?

Rough_Justice

Herzlos wrote: »

Wanting us to settle the €40bn debt is not cherry picking. I'm not sure NATO commitments are either.

Wanting access to our market and expecting us to pay for it is.
£80 billion more per year comes from the EU to the UK.