In or out

[PBC_1966]

Of course the EU wants the trade. Do you think it would want to lose the exports to UK? Of course not!

Then isn't that a good bargaining position for Britain? Surely they would realize that if they were to try and "punish" the U.K. for leaving by imposing very high tariffs on British imports that the U.K. government would quite likely retaliate by imposing similarly high taxes on European goods?

Do you think it would want to lose the specialities that UK has to offer? (Scotch! Which is currently a fair bit cheaper in EU than UK. So much for your propounded theory of harmonisation of VAT, etc

Full "harmonization" of VAT hasn't happened yet, but the main reason for alcohol being cheaper in Europe is not the VAT but the high level of duty imposed in the U.K.

But it would do so at rates beneficial to EU! Just taking one example. It could easily raise the import duty of Scotch to bring the price in line with current UK prices!

Perhaps, but as above, they would surely realize that doing such would quite like provoke H. M. Government in the U.K. to impose similarly high tariffs on European imports, which would not be good for the EU if the latter really wants to keep up exports to the U.K. as you say.

Because it would have to start from scratch on creating trade agreements. We've seen, by Nige's (and thanks to F&I) hilarious example of the China agreement. which has taken 9 years and is still not in force, and only not only includes fish exports to China (probably includes some clauses to allow Chinese fishermen into Icelandic waters as well!) but also includes collusion on Human Rights and the environment!

China throws in a whole batch of extra problems, although as I said before, from my personal point of view I'd be happy to see a complete embargo on trade with China for various reasons.

But if whatever U.K. government of the time were working toward withdrawal from the EU by a certain date, do you not think it would already be trying to establish trade agreements with other countries before the actual withdrawal date?

 

[Himaginn]

Of course the EU wants the trade. Do you think it would want to lose the exports to UK? Of course not!

Then isn't that a good bargaining position for Britain? Surely they would realize that if they were to try and "punish" the U.K. for leaving by imposing very high tariffs on British imports that the U.K. government would quite likely retaliate by imposing similarly high taxes on European goods?

It might be interpreted as 'punishment' but would in reality be standard import duty to non-EU goods. If the UK retaliated it would make EU goods more expensive to the consumer, pushing up the cpi. Increases in wages, benefits and pensions would be needed to mainatin status quo.

Do you think it would want to lose the specialities that UK has to offer? (Scotch! Which is currently a fair bit cheaper in EU than UK. So much for your propounded theory of harmonisation of VAT, etc

Full "harmonization" of VAT hasn't happened yet, but the main reason for alcohol being cheaper in Europe is not the VAT but the high level of duty imposed in the U.K.

There's no plans to harmonise VAT, it's just your claim, indeed the Treaty allows for nations to set their own rates, within pre-determined limits which the UK has signed up to.

But it would do so at rates beneficial to EU! Just taking one example. It could easily raise the import duty of Scotch to bring the price in line with current UK prices!

Perhaps, but as above, they would surely realize that doing such would quite like provoke H. M. Government in the U.K. to impose similarly high tariffs on European imports, which would not be good for the EU if the latter really wants to keep up exports to the U.K. as you say.

And cpi in UK goes up, etc. Prices chase wages which chase prices, ad infinitum. Benefits and pensions are also affected.

Because it would have to start from scratch on creating trade agreements. We've seen, by Nige's (and thanks to F&I) hilarious example of the China agreement. which has taken 9 years and is still not in force, and only not only includes fish exports to China (probably includes some clauses to allow Chinese fishermen into Icelandic waters as well!) but also includes collusion on Human Rights and the environment!

China throws in a whole batch of extra problems, although as I said before, from my personal point of view I'd be happy to see a complete embargo on trade with China for various reasons.

Lots of other countries throw up different sets of problems, middle east countries, S African countries, etc.

But if whatever U.K. government of the time were working toward withdrawal from the EU by a certain date, do you not think it would already be trying to establish trade agreements with other countries before the actual withdrawal date?

As demonstrated, it's taken Iceland 9 years and it ain't finished yet. If Brexit is voted for, we could be out within 2 or 3 years. What then?
In fact, if we started now, we could have a trade agreement with countries like China by 2030. Think of all the imports that will come our way.
And it will still make our goods to China far more expensive than if we exported them to EU. Sure we could lower import tariffs to such countries leaving them to dump their goods on us. Good for them, not good for us. Possibly increasing dirty ( environmental wise) and unethical trade.

 

[PBC_1966]

It might be interpreted as 'punishment' but would in reality be standard import duty to non-EU goods. If the UK retaliated it would make EU goods more expensive to the consumer, pushing up the cpi. Increases in wages, benefits and pensions would be needed to mainatin status quo.

"Standard" as in the rate that the EU stipulates all member countries must adopt for imports from the country concerned? Is there any reason the EU couldn't, as a hypothetical example, tell member countries that imports of widgets from the U.K. shall be charged at 5% while imports of widgets from the rest of the world shall be charged 10%?

And even if the cost of EU goods rose in the U.K., that could be compensated for by the cost of non-EU goods going down due to other agreements.

There's no plans to harmonise VAT, it's just your claim, indeed the Treaty allows for nations to set their own rates, within pre-determined limits which the UK has signed up to.

Again, you're using what current treaties, agreements or directives say about it, which obviously reflect the current situation. The aim of the EU has always been "harmonization" of everything. Have you not noticed over the years that the EU always tries to grab more power for itself, and more and more things become "harmonized" over time?

Lots of other countries throw up different sets of problems, middle east countries, S African countries, etc.

Indeed they do, but do they not throw up the same sort of problems with or without the EU being involved?

As demonstrated, it's taken Iceland 9 years and it ain't finished yet. If Brexit is voted for, we could be out within 2 or 3 years. What then?

Just because one particular agreement has taken that long doesn't mean that all such agreements must. But even without agreements in place, the U.K. would be better off out of the shackles that the EU imposes on its ability to negotiate freely with the rest of the world.

In fact, if we started now, we could have a trade agreement with countries like China by 2030. Think of all the imports that will come our way.

Well, as I suggested earlier, when it comes to China for a mixture of reasons I would like to see the U.K. (and the U.S.A.) have far less imports, not more!

And it will still make our goods to China far more expensive than if we exported them to EU. Sure we could lower import tariffs to such countries leaving them to dump their goods on us. Good for them, not good for us. Possibly increasing dirty ( environmental wise) and unethical trade.

China already dumps vast quantities of junk on us already, which is one of my reasons for believing we should have far less to do with Chinese imports.

 

[Himaginn]

It might be interpreted as 'punishment' but would in reality be standard import duty to non-EU goods. If the UK retaliated it would make EU goods more expensive to the consumer, pushing up the cpi. Increases in wages, benefits and pensions would be needed to mainatin status quo.

"Standard" as in the rate that the EU stipulates all member countries must adopt for imports from the country concerned? Is there any reason the EU couldn't, as a hypothetical example, tell member countries that imports of widgets from the U.K. shall be charged at 5% while imports of widgets from the rest of the world shall be charged 10%?

If the rate was preferential for UK, the other non-EU country would also be clamoring for it.

And even if the cost of EU goods rose in the U.K., that could be compensated for by the cost of non-EU goods going down due to other agreements.

If we traded with non-EU countries as much as, or more, then perhaps your argument might make sense, possibly. Would it, does it?

There's no plans to harmonise VAT, it's just your claim, indeed the Treaty allows for nations to set their own rates, within pre-determined limits which the UK has signed up to.

Again, you're using what current treaties, agreements or directives say about it, which obviously reflect the current situation. The aim of the EU has always been "harmonization" of everything. Have you not noticed over the years that the EU always tries to grab more power for itself, and more and more things become "harmonized" over time?

You keep referring to the EU as some autonomous body that has a life of its own. It's an amalgamation of countries and those countries determine the direction of the EU.

Lots of other countries throw up different sets of problems, middle east countries, S African countries, etc.

Indeed they do, but do they not throw up the same sort of problems with or without the EU being involved?

As demonstrated, it's taken Iceland 9 years and it ain't finished yet. If Brexit is voted for, we could be out within 2 or 3 years. What then?

Just because one particular agreement has taken that long doesn't mean that all such agreements must. But even without agreements in place, the U.K. would be better off out of the shackles that the EU imposes on its ability to negotiate freely with the rest of the world.

Purely an opinion not supported by any argument or reason.

In fact, if we started now, we could have a trade agreement with countries like China by 2030. Think of all the imports that will come our way.

Well, as I suggested earlier, when it comes to China for a mixture of reasons I would like to see the U.K. (and the U.S.A.) have far less imports, not more!

As one of the worlds largest markets, can we afford to have such a moral stance as avoiding trade with China?

And it will still make our goods to China far more expensive than if we exported them to EU. Sure we could lower import tariffs to such countries leaving them to dump their goods on us. Good for them, not good for us. Possibly increasing dirty ( environmental wise) and unethical trade.

China already dumps vast quantities of junk on us already, which is one of my reasons for believing we should have far less to do with Chinese imports.

Without being in the EU, China might be in a more advantageous position to dump even more goods on UK.

 

[Himaginn]

I note that even the RMT Union has concluded that Brexit is good for their members.. !

The TUC have said:

Meanwhile, unions warned that leaving the EU would put workers' rights at risk.
Speaking ahead of talks with Mr Juncker, TUC general secretary Frances O'Grady said the debate so far had focused on "benefits to business", adding: "Leaving the EU would risk lots of the rights at work we all rely on - like paid holidays and breaks, parental leave, health and safety, and equal treatment for part-time workers."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35592466
So the RMT, who happily inconvenience millions of London commuters and will pobably eventually vote themselves out of existence, back a Brexit, whereas the rest of the unions recognise the benefits of remaining in EU.
That figures.

ps what a pleasant surprise to discuss with F&I on a real issue!

 

[PBC_1966]

If the rate was preferential for UK, the other non-EU country would also be clamoring for it.

That's their perogative and for them to negotiate with the EU themselves. It's also something for the EU to take into account as a possibility when it negotiates rates with the U.K.

If we traded with non-EU countries as much as, or more, then perhaps your argument might make sense, possibly. Would it, does it?

I certainly believe that outside the EU Britain's trade with the rest of the world would be able to increase substantially.

You keep referring to the EU as some autonomous body that has a life of its own. It's an amalgamation of countries and those countries determine the direction of the EU.

Of course, but a certain number of the representatives of those countries who form the higher levels of the EU have a vision of gradually taking more and more power in that "ever closer union." That's the guiding principle of the EU which can be seen at every level.

Purely an opinion not supported by any argument or reason.

I belive it's supported by the argument that the U.K. has already handed over far more powers to the EU that it should have done, that the EU has already damaged British trade and the British economy with its policies (the common agricultural policy, common fisheries policy, VAT, and on and on), and that British citizens have already lost many freedoms because of the EU and are in danger of losing even more.

As one of the worlds largest markets, can we afford to have such a moral stance as avoiding trade with China?

I don't see why not. There are many reasons why the U.K. would be far better off without all the cheap imports from China.

Without being in the EU, China might be in a more advantageous position to dump even more goods on UK.

Only if the U.K. government at that time let it. But as I said, I would hope that such a future government would reduce the amount of junk coming in from China, not increase it.

 

[Himaginn]

If the rate was preferential for UK, the other non-EU country would also be clamoring for it.

That's their perogative and for them to negotiate with the EU themselves. It's also something for the EU to take into account as a possibility when it negotiates rates with the U.K.

Precisely why it wouldn't want to offer a preferential tariff for UK.

If we traded with non-EU countries as much as, or more, then perhaps your argument might make sense, possibly. Would it, does it?

I certainly believe that outside the EU Britain's trade with the rest of the world would be able to increase substantially.

I wouldn't disagree. I've been asking, "at what cost."

You keep referring to the EU as some autonomous body that has a life of its own. It's an amalgamation of countries and those countries determine the direction of the EU.

Of course, but a certain number of the representatives of those countries who form the higher levels of the EU have a vision of gradually taking more and more power in that "ever closer union." That's the guiding principle of the EU which can be seen at every level.

If that is the case, UK have been signing up to the same treaty/changes. Did they not read the wording, or did you understand something which they did not?
Additionally,without the UK the EU would become ever stronger, ever more powerful. And they're only 20 miles away!

Purely an opinion not supported by any argument or reason.

I believe it's supported by the argument that the U.K. has already handed over far more powers to the EU that it should have done, that the EU has already damaged British trade and the British economy with its policies (the common agricultural policy, common fisheries policy, VAT, and on and on), and that British citizens have already lost many freedoms because of the EU and are in danger of losing even more.

It doesn't make you right. I've mentioned "pious deception" where people are deceived by others who genuinely believe they are right.
There are many illustrations in history. Some of them horrific examples.

As one of the worlds largest markets, can we afford to have such a moral stance as avoiding trade with China?

I don't see why not. There are many reasons why the U.K. would be far better off without all the cheap imports from China.

Ethically, morally perhaps.

Without being in the EU, China might be in a more advantageous position to dump even more goods on UK.

Only if the U.K. government at that time let it. But as I said, I would hope that such a future government would reduce the amount of junk coming in from China, not increase it.

What about the consumers who are price conscious?

 

[Fire and Ice]

This is it guys.... Brexit campaign is GO!

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/64...nite-Ukip-Leave-EU-cross-party-campaign-group

 

[PBC_1966]

Precisely why it wouldn't want to offer a preferential tariff for UK.

So it just depends upon how badly they want the imports from the U.K. then, surely? Either they come up with a better rate for British imports and risk other countries trying to bargain for a similar rate, or they tell the U.K. "That's the rate on offer, take it or leave it," and trade will sort itself out accordingly. I really don't see it as a big issue.

I wouldn't disagree. I've been asking, "at what cost."

For a start, don't forget the £33 million per day that the U.K. would be saving. That would offset an awful lot of additional costs of building up trade elsewhere, even if such extra costs arose in the first place.

But are you looking at EU membership purely from a financial point of view? There are more factors to consider than just monetary ones.

If that is the case, UK have been signing up to the same treaty/changes. Did they not read the wording, or did you understand something which they did not?

What makes you think that some of the EU supporters in H.M. Government aren't as equally in favor of a federal European superstate as their counterparts on the Continent? There are many things in the various treaties which the U.K. government should never have agreed to as a matter of principle.

Additionally,without the UK the EU would become ever stronger, ever more powerful. And they're only 20 miles away!

Stronger and more powerful how, if a member which is a substantial net contributor withdraws? Besides which, no member has ever pulled out yet: Perhaps if the U.K. did so it would provide a catalyst for other countries to examine the mess they've gotten into and do likewise, over time, and the EU would start to lose power as its membership dwindles.

It doesn't make you right. I've mentioned "pious deception" where people are deceived by others who genuinely believe they are right.

As I said, I believe far too much power has been handed over already, but the constitutional law of the U.K. might have something to say about it as well if future governments try to go any further. They simply have no right to hand over sovereignty of the nation to foreign powers. For the moment, it could be argued that hasn't happened since, as mentioned way up the debate somewhere, as far as U.K. law is concerned parliament could simply repeal the act which took the country into EEC and all legislation which has followed from that, and the U.K. would be out as of that moment, regardless of any negotiations with the EU.

But when the govenment is signing treaties which "irrevocably" hand over powers to the EU, and seems set to keep on doing so, there must come at point at which that is an attempt to hand over sovereignty, and that is actually treason.

I don't see why not. There are many reasons why the U.K. would be far better off without all the cheap imports from China.

Ethically, morally perhaps.

And what is wrong with ethics and morals? I realize that recent governments don't seem to believe in them, but if you abandon ethics and morals as being sound reasons to take action against another country, then where do you want to draw the line?

What about the consumers who are price conscious?

They'll still be so. They'll just have to accept that they won't be able to buy their junky £5 toasters and £25 DVD players which last only a couple of years before being sent to landfill and that they'll need to start paying realistic prices for things which are of better quality. Buying cheap junk rarely saves money in the long run anyway.

 

[Himaginn]

Precisely why it wouldn't want to offer a preferential tariff for UK.

So it just depends upon how badly they want the imports from the U.K. then, surely? Either they come up with a better rate for British imports and risk other countries trying to bargain for a similar rate, or they tell the U.K. "That's the rate on offer, take it or leave it," and trade will sort itself out accordingly. I really don't see it as a big issue.

I wouldn't disagree. I've been asking, "at what cost."

For a start, don't forget the £33 million per day that the U.K. would be saving. That would offset an awful lot of additional costs of building up trade elsewhere, even if such extra costs arose in the first place.

But are you looking at EU membership purely from a financial point of view? There are more factors to consider than just monetary ones.

If that is the case, UK have been signing up to the same treaty/changes. Did they not read the wording, or did you understand something which they did not?

What makes you think that some of the EU supporters in H.M. Government aren't as equally in favor of a federal European superstate as their counterparts on the Continent? There are many things in the various treaties which the U.K. government should never have agreed to as a matter of principle.

Additionally,without the UK the EU would become ever stronger, ever more powerful. And they're only 20 miles away!

Stronger and more powerful how, if a member which is a substantial net contributor withdraws? Besides which, no member has ever pulled out yet: Perhaps if the U.K. did so it would provide a catalyst for other countries to examine the mess they've gotten into and do likewise, over time, and the EU would start to lose power as its membership dwindles.

It doesn't make you right. I've mentioned "pious deception" where people are deceived by others who genuinely believe they are right.

As I said, I believe far too much power has been handed over already, but the constitutional law of the U.K. might have something to say about it as well if future governments try to go any further. They simply have no right to hand over sovereignty of the nation to foreign powers. For the moment, it could be argued that hasn't happened since, as mentioned way up the debate somewhere, as far as U.K. law is concerned parliament could simply repeal the act which took the country into EEC and all legislation which has followed from that, and the U.K. would be out as of that moment, regardless of any negotiations with the EU.

But when the govenment is signing treaties which "irrevocably" hand over powers to the EU, and seems set to keep on doing so, there must come at point at which that is an attempt to hand over sovereignty, and that is actually treason.

I don't see why not. There are many reasons why the U.K. would be far better off without all the cheap imports from China.

Ethically, morally perhaps.

And what is wrong with ethics and morals? I realize that recent governments don't seem to believe in them, but if you abandon ethics and morals as being sound reasons to take action against another country, then where do you want to draw the line?

What about the consumers who are price conscious?

They'll still be so. They'll just have to accept that they won't be able to buy their junky £5 toasters and £25 DVD players which last only a couple of years before being sent to landfill and that they'll need to start paying realistic prices for things which are of better quality. Buying cheap junk rarely saves money in the long run anyway.

I was watching a bit of HardTalk yesterday evening, well this morning, Otmar Issing - Executive Board, European Central Bank 1998-2006. One comment he made was that EU would become more protectionist if UK left EU. (about 18 minutes into the interview)

The best-case scenario, according to think tank Open Europe, is that the UK would be better off by 1.6% of GDP a year by 2030. That is assuming the UK carried out widespread deregulation after its exit and managed to strike favourable trade deals. The think tank adds: "A far more realistic range is between a 0.8% permanent loss to GDP in 2030 and a 0.6% permanent gain in GDP in 2030, in scenarios where Britain mixes policy approaches".

The Centre for Economic Performance, at the London School of Economics, says the worst-case scenario is a 6.3% to 9.5% reduction in GDP, "a loss of a similar size to that resulting from the global financial crisis of 2008/09". The best case, according to their analysis, is a loss of 2.2% of GDP

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32793642

BTW, I realised this morning that UK was one of the founders of EFTA, prior to entering EU. If it was to re-enter EFTA it would be a great backward step compared to our current status, never mind our probable re-negotiated status.

As any kind of trading partner we would have to pay into EU (about £4bn per year, approx half of what we currently pay) so the argument that we would be financially better off is mistaken. Additionally, we would have no EU funded projects, so nothing returned from EU, and no influence in EU policy, etc.

Not only does Norway suffer the indignity of implementing whatever regulation or directive comes off the fax machine, but it also pays around €340m a year into the EU budget. Under similar circumstances, the UK, given its size, would probably pay £2.5bn-£4bn a year, which is close to half of our current net contribution. But imagine being told what to do by a body over which we had no influence.
The balance of power, and the rules we would have to accept, would inevitably tilt in favour of less liberal policies.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/dec/16/britain-would-be-diminished-by-leaving-eu

We would contribute to EU funds, but get nothing back.

As for UK initiating a breakup of EU, that's just fanciful dreaming.

As is your comments about treason, it's just whimsical fancies.

There's nothing wrong with ethics and morals. I'd be labeled a right hypocrite if I suggested anything else. But there is usually a cost associated with ethics and morals and I'm not a supporter of a pyrrhic victory in cases of going solo to prove a point or as a matter of pride and prejudice. The gamble is just not worth the risk because the risk of serious decline in UK is far greater than the possible rewards.

As far as consumers being price conscious, well you can't really legislate for that. Indeed if you do it might create a political backlash against whatever party is in power.

 

[Fire and Ice]

Himaginn, how do you manage to type with your backside?

 

[Deleted member 63160]

Have to say. The more I think about it the more risky leaving seems. I'll still vote out though. Life is boring without risk☺

 

[Fire and Ice]

When the thought of risk worries you, remember what it is that our forefathers fought and died for... How would they regard us now?

 

[gasbanni]

Himaginn, how do you manage to type with your backside?

He doesn't he dictates to someone from it !

 

[gasbanni]

We can manage without the European union it remains to be seen if they can manage without us.
Look up the Greek situation with closed borders they're seeming to now blame the Greeks but really how would we manage with tens of thousands turning up on the beaches it's hardly Greece fault.