Brexit the economy and house prices part 7: Brexit Harder

Thrugelmir

andrewf75 wrote: »

But do you not understand that net contributer only means we pay in more than we get back *in direct payments*
It is not the entire picture!

The EU as a whole is also a net exporter to the UK. Then there's the contribution that UK makes in the form of tourism. Then there's the US Companies that shelter their company tax liabilities by operating out of Eire.

Financially very much a one way relationship.

Herzlos

Financially it's a very 2-way relationship, we both benefit greatly from membership. The UK benefits from the membership by orders of magnitude more than the maintenance payments. It's a no-brainer.

Thrugelmir wrote: »

There's no agreements in place. The EU wanted the divorce settlement agreed first. Before they would consider any other factors.

The commitments have been in place for potentially years already.


Why wouldn't the EU want the divorce settlement before talking about a future deal? The future deal relies heavily on the logistics of the divorce - do we still want access to x, y or z?


Given that we're still talking about whether or not we should pay what we owe, and have made it clear we're unreliable, I think the EU is being generous in continuing talks before we've handed the money over.

Kohoutek

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Financially very much a one way relationship.

It's only "very much a one way relationship" if you chose to ignore reality and make bold false assertions.

1. 45% of UK trade is with the EU + another c. 10% to countries where the EU has negotiated a trade deal (which, in most cases, Liam Fox has failed to roll over).

2. Hundreds of thousands of jobs in the UK are supported by EU and non-EU companies using the UK as a base for the EU.

3. The UK makes administrative savings from pooling of resources (e.g. EU regulatory agencies which will now longer cover the UK and now the UK has to set up a separate UK regulator).

Thrugelmir

Trade isn't profit.

Likewise the 45% you quote is a gross figure. From it you need to deduct the imports together with the exports/reimports.

How much does Brussels cost to run? Sending people all over Europe adds up as well. Public sector organisations unlike their private sector counterparts. Are renowned for wasting money.

Enterprise_1701C

Herzlos wrote: »

I don't understand this mentality, where we need to abandon ship without a plan because we don't like a potential future course. Why not wait until we either have a suitable replacement, or the things we don't like happen? We're a long way from a United States of Europe, and will have plenty of opportunity to veto it or walk away.

In fact, a USoE will be more likely once we've left, and we'll still need to follow most of their rules, so it's counter productive.


It's a bit like leaving a golf club because some jobsworth has suggested that they might run for club president. Or amputating your leg because you've stubbed your toe.



What's wrong with a United States of Europe, anyway?

Simple, now that we have started the process we need to get out because if we do not they will likely seal up the gap that allows escape.

As it is the eu has been trying to get first us then France to give them the permanent seat on the UN Security Council.

As for what is wrong with a us of e. Everything would be taken out of our hands, A us of e would run absolutely everything. We would no longer be a country, we would be a "state".

There is already talk of the veto disappearing meaning that the eu can simply do as they please, qmv is not a good idea when things as important as national identity are concerned, it will be used to force countries to take on more rules that are unsuitable, God knows what else they are trying to avoid being voted down, I can't be bothered to look into it.

As it is Germany have taken things a step too far by saying that they welcome all refugees then saying other countries had to take in those that they invited. It's a bit like hiring a field for a party, finding too many have arrived and simply taking over neighbouring fields without permission.

And of course there is the small matter of the fact that a us of e would require us to be in Schengen and the euro. That has worked out well for Germany, they have manipulated the euro to suit their economy, but there is a number of countries where it has been used as a cosh to make them bow down to their masters. No, we do not know what the Greek economy would have been like outside the euro, but at least they would have had the choice of devaluing! And of course we all know that Schengen has turned into a farce.

Herzlos

But there can be nothing that can stop us leaving if they find a way to remove our veto. Worst case we just shut the border and get kicked out but it'd never come to that. There's no talk of changing article 50.

Our veto is going nowhere, and QMV is only for things approved by our PM. If either of those change somehow without us agreeing, we can always take our ball and go home.

Lets wait for it to go wrong and then bail, rather than bailing because we think it might go wrong. We're tied to the ship either way.

So the problem with USE is that we'd have closer integration? I don't agree with the Euro but Shengen would be great for us.

I do love the circular argument that we should leave because we're leaving, though.

Thrugelmir wrote: »

How much does Brussels cost to run? Sending people all over Europe adds up as well. Public sector organisations unlike their private sector counterparts. Are renowned for wasting money.

It costs a lot less than having all 28 members doing it themselves, with even more travel.

fatbeetle

Thrugelmir wrote: »

How much does Brussels cost to run? Sending people all over Europe adds up as well. Public sector organisations unlike their private sector counterparts. Are renowned for wasting money.

A lot!

According to the EU's accounts for 2011, it spent €8.4 billion of its €129.4 billion budget on administration costs, some 6.5% of the total.

The EU employs a total of 55,000 people, and spends about €8bn (£7.1bn), or 6% of the total, on administering its various institutions. European Parliament administrative costs, including interpretation and translation services for 24 official languages, came to €1.7bn (£1.5bn) last year. The rest went to the European Council, the European Court of Justice, Court of Auditors and the EU foreign affairs and diplomatic service.

Lets not forget...

In 2014, the court found that €666m (£524m) from the EU fund that is given to countries to finance projects in underdeveloped areas, was "poor value for money". Poland, for example, built three airports, in Lodz, Rzeszow and Lublin, which have received more than €100m of EU funding, but which have not attracted enough customers to keep them in business.

In 2012, a mountain lift was constructed in the Sicilian village of Sutera, to improve access to a mountain monastery to attract tourism. The project reportedly received around €2m of EU regional development money. However, due to high operating costs, the lift has never been in use.

There are UK-based examples too. In 2008, the Canolfan Cywain rural heritage centre opened in Gwynedd, Wales, after it received £900,000 from the EU structural development fund. It ran into financial difficulties in September 2011 and closed a year later.

On 28 April 2016, the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee called on the UK government to improve how it spends EU funds.

scaredofdebt

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

Simple, now that we have started the process we need to get out because if we do not they will likely seal up the gap that allows escape.

As it is the eu has been trying to get first us then France to give them the permanent seat on the UN Security Council.

As for what is wrong with a us of e. Everything would be taken out of our hands, A us of e would run absolutely everything. We would no longer be a country, we would be a "state".

#ProjectFear

Enterprise_1701C

scaredofdebt wrote: »

#ProjectFear

Which part?

LHW99

I don't understand this mentality, where we need to abandon ship without a plan because we don't like a potential future course. Why not wait until we either have a suitable replacement, or the things we don't like happen?

Something I didn't / don't like has already happened - the EEC changed to the EU, there was no chance given for a "People's vote on that".
There are problems leaving after this length of time, mainly it seems because of how intertwined out procedures etc have become. If we leave it another 10 or 20 years that is only going to get more so.