Brexit the economy and house prices part 7: Brexit Harder

Herzlos

movilogo wrote: »

I think that is a good thing. UK businesses should focus on value and not on price. We can never be cheaper than China/Phillipines/Vietnam etc. anyway.

And we'll struggle to be more convient too. We can still manage higher quality for now (how long before we fall behind?), but can we maintain higher quality/reputation than, say, Germany, who is in the EU?

EU should have stayed as a trading block. Over the years EU has morphed itself into a super state. It uses few net paying countries to prop several net receiver countries. Then uses votes from those receiving countries to play down UK.

Bringing everyone up helps everyone, and it's not really doing anything outside the remit of trading block, it's just integrating further to make trading easier.

UK's economy is bigger than smallest 15 EU countries economies combined. So, UK leaving EU is not just 1 of 27 leaving but more like 20% of the bloc leaving!

Yup, we're a big economy and the EU will hurt without us. So?

Zxcv_Bnm

movilogo wrote: »

EU should have stayed as a trading block. Over the years EU has morphed itself into a super state.

it hasn't morphed

this was always the goal

'acquis communautaire' means national sovereignty taken away and given to Brussels never to be given back

to make sure this can't stop there are no elections - MEPs do nothing and there's no opposition

it's like the USSR where all the candidates are communists

if that's what people want to argue for fine, but I didnt hear anyone in the referendum say let's stay in the eu to become a protectorate

Zxcv_Bnm

Herzlos wrote: »

Bringing everyone up helps everyone, and it's not really doing anything outside the remit of trading block, it's just integrating further to make trading easier.

that's either a lie or really shocking ignorance, really shocking

movilogo

'acquis communautaire' means national sovereignty taken away and given to Brussels never to be given back

This is why EU is adamant on freedom of movement. Using FOM they can change the local demography of a country so that individual country identity will be lost over long term.

Euro, EU army etc. all steps towards super-state.

Don't you guys ever get bored with this tinfoil hat stuff?

Not until Remoaners stops blaming everything on Brexit.

AlanP_2

movilogo wrote: »

Didn't stop Airbus to put the blame on Brexit previously.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46984229

I searched that article and saw no reference to A380 - So care to try again with a more relevant answer?

Herzlos

movilogo wrote: »

This is why EU is adamant on freedom of movement. Using FOM they can change the local demography of a country so that individual country identity will be lost over long term.

Euro, EU army etc. all steps towards super-state.



Not until Remoaners stops blaming everything on Brexit.

That's why they have a department for local culture identity and spend a lot of money on local cultural projects?
Freedom of movement has nothing to do with being able to replace a local population, they'd have no way to force people to move or settle them for a start. They aren't the Roman empire.

melanzana

Zxcv_Bnm wrote: »

The EU's price for backing up Ireland will be tax harmonisation

Ireland won't be able to set its own corp tax rates, UK will

So Ireland will be just as expensive as anywhere else in EU and more expensive than UK

UK could always set its own corporate tax rates. Why didn't they reduce them when they could, and attract more business in like Ireland did? They didn't need Brexit for that. 7.5% and the place would be booming. But no, blame it all on the EU again, sigh.

Hungary has a CT rate of 9%, now if you think Mr. Orban is going to agree to a harmonisation of much higher than that, I think not. He has successfully batted off the unfettered immigration that Merkel wanted.

ROI CT rate is 12.5%. Malta is 35%. Two ends of the spectrum.

UK should have reduced Corporate Taxes years ago. Ireland did, and look at them now. Even after IMF intervention. Good luck to them.

I doubt harmonisation will come in much higher than 12.5% anyway. The trend worldwide is for CT rates to come down, for obvious reasons. Competitiveness in attracting business being one of them.

phillw

movilogo wrote: »

I think that is a good thing. UK businesses should focus on value and not on price. We can never be cheaper than China/Phillipines/Vietnam etc. anyway.

We can't compete on value either. We resent the idea of efficiency.

movilogo wrote: »

This is why EU is adamant on freedom of movement. Using FOM they can change the local demography of a country so that individual country identity will be lost over long term.

No, it's because if you don't have FOM then countries can prevent foreign competitors from doing business by restricting their ability to enter the country. "Oh look, we have to award the contract to a local company, because none of the foreign competitors turned up". All the while sending their employees to other countries, thereby taking advantage. All you would need to do is make an MP a director of your company.

The EU would fall apart very quickly without FOM. It keeps people honest and it reduces costs to government and business.

I'm not sure what this "individual country identity" is that you mention. I'm white British and I don't identify with white British on the other side of the county I am from, let alone with white British on the other side of the country. While my friend from Turkey eats more roast dinners than I do.

You like what you like, I like what I like. FOM doesn't invalidate either of us.

SouthLondonUser

Zxcv_Bnm wrote: »

'acquis communautaire' means national sovereignty taken away and given to Brussels never to be given back

to make sure this can't stop there are no elections - MEPs do nothing and there's no opposition

it's like the USSR where all the candidates are communists

if that's what people want to argue for fine, but I didnt hear anyone in the referendum say let's stay in the eu to become a protectorate

Care to back this up with a modicum of facts and evidence? Or otherwise admit that what you have said is factually false, apologise and stop spreading fake news?

It seems to me you are quite unfamiliar with the key EU insitutions and the EU law-making process. Let me refresh your memory. In summary (the comparative Constitutional Law scholars will forgive me for the imprecisions):

The 4 key institutions of the EU are (yes, there are also the ECB, the Court of Justice, etc etc):

The European Parliament, with MEPs elected directly from EU electors. I’d also add that the proportional system with which they are elected is not distortive the way the British First-past-the-post system can be; aberrations like the SNP winning something like 90% of the Scottish seats with 55% of the votes are much more unlikely with a proportional system.

The European Council, ie the group of heads of state or government of each member state.

The Council of the EU, or Council of Ministers, with ministers from the government of each country.

The Commission, which can be thought of as a cabinet government – the key executive body of the Union, with one member appointed by each member state. The President of the Commission is appointed by the European Council and approved by the European Parliament.


It is indirect democracy, but democracy nonetheless. Last time I checked, the British electorate does not choose cabinet ministers directly. Not just that, the British PM can change because of power plots internal to the ruling party, with no input whatsoever from the electorate.

Zxcv_Bnm

mayonnaise wrote: »

No it doesn't.

Don't you guys ever get bored with this tinfoil hat stuff?
EUSSR, European Army, superstate...

You genuinely do not understand what you voted to Remain in

You literally have absolutely no idea

A common misunderstanding about these entry ‘negotiations’ is that the applicant country may seek to change the rules to suit its particular needs. But one of the most fundamental principles on which Monnet had established his ‘government of Europe’ was that, once the supranational body has been granted a particular power or ‘competence’, it can never be returned. Power can only be handed by individual states to the supranational entity; never the other way round. Once those powers or ‘competences’ are ceded, either by treaty or by passing laws over a particular area of policy, they constitute the Community’s most sacred treasure, the ‘acquis communautaire’. This represents the sum of the treaties and the accumulated laws which have been ‘acquired’ over the years as the Community’s inalienable possession. The whole point of the acquis is that it is non-negotiable. All that accession countries can achieve, therefore, are temporary ‘derogations’ or transitional concessions, designed to make it easier for those countries to adjust to the requirements of the acquis, with which they will eventually have to comply in full.

Booker, Christopher. The Great Deception

Which part of that is factually incorrect ?

Do you know what organisation the EU is based on? Go on have a guess