Trade with EU

[jockscott]

So your cosmetic surgery won't be covered.

But any costs incurred can be reimbursed (as long as you have receipts) from UK.

Himmy , yet again you try to cloud the issue of healthcare abroad by mentioning "cosmetic surgery" . Which part of "taken ill " are you struggling with? I'll say it again slowly so you might understand,,, "W h i c h p a r t o f " t a k e n i l l " a r e y o u s t r u g g l i n g w i t h ? ?

Also it does mention ," either at a reduced cost or free " ,, so there could well be some cost associated with this "free" treatment. I'll do some further research, but I'm fairly certain that this reduced cost won't be recoverable once someone returns back to the UK

 

[PBC_1966]

Much like the Pro EU lot bandying round words like "Doom and Gloom.

The funny thing is that only you and PBC have been using those words.
So either you and PBC are secretly pro-euro, or you are telling fibs again.

I think I was the first one to use the actual phrase "doom and gloom" in this thread, in relation to the forecasts the EU supporters make about how trade will be devastated, millions in the U.K. will be put out work because of that, and so on. In view of those predictions, is not "doom and gloom" a reasonably accurate term to describe what they are claiming would happen?

(Although personally I still don't think that they all believe it would happen at all; they just like to use it as a scare tactic.)

 

[JohnD]

I don't recall seeing the reference to "millions" and "devastated." Where did you see them?

I don't think any sensible person will try to deny that leaving the EU will damage our trade with them. It may be particularly bad in our financial services sector, which is bigger than our manufacturing.

I imagine BMW will continue assembling minis here, unless they find it would be advantageous to make them in the EU; Volkwagen and BMW may continue assembling Bentleys and Rolls-Royces, and Tata will probably continue making Jaguars. But if any of them want to build a new factory for the EU market, or enlarge an existing one, what will make them choose RUK above Poland?

 

[jockscott]

Unsurprisingly BMW wrote letters to all of it's Rolls Royce Motorcar employees here in the UK today asking them to think about how they are going to vote in June. Strange why a German company should write to UK employees. Hmmmmm

 

[ajstoneservices]

I doubt Jaguar will want or need a factory in both Slovakia and Poland.

 

[PBC_1966]

I don't recall seeing the reference to "millions" and "devastated." Where did you see them?

For a start, a little way up this thread somebody suggested what would happen to U.K. exports to EU countries after withdrawal:

I think the figures suggested by that change would count as "devastated."

There are so many EU threads now I really can't remember which one has the comments about jobs, but a certain person was trying to suggest that so many million jobs were dependent upon being in the EU and would be in jeopardy if the U.K. withdraws.

what will make them choose RUK above Poland?

RUK?

 

[Himaginn]

Unsurprisingly BMW wrote letters to all of it's Rolls Royce Motorcar employees here in the UK today asking them to think about how they are going to vote in June. Strange why a German company should write to UK employees. Hmmmmm

Unsurprisingly BMW wrote letters to all of it's Rolls Royce Motorcar employees here in the UK today asking them to think about how they are going to vote in June. Strange why a German company should write to UK employees. Hmmmmm

More of Jock's preconceived prejudicial opinions. He doesn't actually give an opinion, this time, on which he could be proven wrong! He just gives strong inferences that BMW have an ulterior motive in wanting UK to REMAIN in EU.
So what if they prefer their car plants to remain in UK?
So what if they think that situation could be jeopardised in the event of a Brexit?
So what if they advise their workforce to vote to Remain?
So what if they suggest there will be a risk to their jobs in the event of a Brexit.

They are entitled to their opinion, and they are entitled to offer their advice to their workforce. Just like USA and China are entitled to an opinion.

Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's immoral, or unacceptable, or that there are ulterior motives.

Just for Jock, a link to the actual letter, so that for once, or maybe the second time in his life, he actually does some research.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35712537

 

[Himaginn]

I don't recall seeing the reference to "millions" and "devastated." Where did you see them?

For a start, a little way up this thread somebody suggested what would happen to U.K. exports to EU countries after withdrawal:

I think the figures suggested by that change would count as "devastated."

What's your projection?

There are so many EU threads now I really can't remember which one has the comments about jobs, but a certain person was trying to suggest that so many million jobs were dependent upon being in the EU and would be in jeopardy if the U.K. withdraws.

You're regurgitating old comments. A sure sign that you've exhausted your arguments.

There are about 3.4 million jobs dependent on export to EU.

Dependent in what sense? Are you really trying to suggest that if exports to the EU started to decline that 3.4 million jobs would be lost?

Certainly under jeopardy. How many would be lost, and over what kind of time frame is difficult to predict. But there may be a further influence. If EU imports to UK become more expensive (tit for tat tariffs) the the cost of living in UK could rise significantly, thus reducing disposable income, thus reducing domestic consumption, thus jeopardising further job losses.

In jeopardy means that they could be lost. It doesn't mean they would be lost or devastation. It means there is a possibility of them being lost.

Reliable data on the number of UK jobs and businesses is hard to come by, but the European Institute estimates that 3.4 million UK jobs depend on exports to the EU

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...ndum-What-will-Brexit-mean-for-migration.html

what will make them choose RUK above Poland?

RUK?

RUK = Rest of UK (after Scotland exits UK), i.e. breakup of UK.

 

[Himaginn]

So your cosmetic surgery won't be covered.

But any costs incurred can be reimbursed (as long as you have receipts) from UK.

Himmy , yet again you try to cloud the issue of healthcare abroad by mentioning "cosmetic surgery" . Which part of "taken ill " are you struggling with? I'll say it again slowly so you might understand,,, "W h i c h p a r t o f " t a k e n i l l " a r e y o u s t r u g g l i n g w i t h ? ?

Talk about getting desperate now. You're resorting to bluff and bluster.

Also it does mention ," either at a reduced cost or free " ,, so there could well be some cost associated with this "free" treatment.

Yes, a percentage towards prescription charges, just like a Spanish citizen pays. Depending on your status in UK, i.e. whether you pay prescription charges or not, it's recoverable.

The Spanish healthcare service is regularly rated among the world’s best, guaranteeing universal coverage and no upfront expenditure from patients apart from paying a proportion of prescription charges.

I'll do some further research,

"by jove, I think she's got it!"? (Pygmalion) George Bernard Shaw
I think you're getting the hang of this!
Instead of giving us the benefit of your preconceived prejudicial opinion, perhaps you ought to take a minute to think about the advice that you're about to offer. Is it prejudicial? Is it accurate? Do I know what I'm talking about?
Invariably you don't know what you're talking about which is why your opinion is perceived as misinterpretation, misrepresentation or intentional disinformation.
I suspect it's the latter which makes you the master of disinformation in order to further your own political agenda.

 

[PBC_1966]

Just for Jock, a link to the actual letter, so that for once, or maybe the second time in his life, he actually does some research.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35712537

From the letter:

When it comes to regulation, whether the UK remains inside the EU or leaves it, with Europe as the UK's largest export market by far, we would have to abide by European rules and regulations in any case.

And there's somebody else conveniently omitting to mention that while selling into the EU might mean compliance with some EU regulations for imports, it does not mean the continued compliance with thousands of other petty EU regulations.

 

[PBC_1966]

What's your projection?

I suspect trade with the EU may drop by a small amount, which will ultimately be compensated for by increased trade with other parts of the world.

You're regurgitating old comments. A sure sign that you've exhausted your arguments.

Not really - I think that I and other anti-EU people have presented a fairly broad range of reasons as to why the U.K. should be out. The only argument the pro-EU side seems to be able to come up with and keeps repeating is how trade with the EU will plummet, jobs will be lost because of that, resulting in economic crisis etc. - The "doom and gloom" sceanrio for British manufacturing and employment, which simply has nothing to back it up.

There are about 3.4 million jobs dependent on export to EU.

Dependent in what sense? Are you really trying to suggest that if exports to the EU started to decline that 3.4 million jobs would be lost?

Certainly under jeopardy. How many would be lost, and over what kind of time frame is difficult to predict.

That's one of your comments about the jobs, thanks. But now you've just admitted that even though you think that trade with the EU will be decimated, or worse, that you can't predict any such job losses. So if you can't be sure that any of those jobs would be lost following a withdrawal from the EU, how can you claim that 3.4 million jobs are dependent upon continued membership of the EU?

But there may be a further influence. If EU imports to UK become more expensive (tit for tat tariffs) the the cost of living in UK could rise significantly, thus reducing disposable income, thus reducing domestic consumption, thus jeopardising further job losses.

And that would be down to the U.K. government of the time to keep under control, just as in the past. But as you've pointed out before, you're now into the realms of "maybe" and "if" anyway.

In jeopardy means that they could be lost. It doesn't mean they would be lost or devastation. It means there is a possibility of them being lost.

Then it's wrong to suggest that they are dependent upon continued EU membership, since that is clearly not necessarily the case.

RUK = Rest of UK (after Scotland exits UK), i.e. breakup of UK.

Ah, O.K. But again, that's getting into more "ifs" about what might happen later.

 

[JohnD]

I suspect trade with the EU may drop by a small amount, which will ultimately be compensated for by increased trade with other parts of the world.

It's lovely to see such a vague and meaningless belief. Which

simply has nothing to back it up.

Indeed it doesn't.

So you think that losing exports to the Single Market, which is close and huge, especially for our financial services sector, which is bigger than our manufacturing industry, can be compensated by selling to, er... Somalia? Russia? Uzbekistan? Zimbabwe? Taiwan?

Or do you think there are large, prosperous and untapped markets itching to buy our goods and services somewhere? Which we haven't bothered trying to sell to already because... er... er... er...? You tell me.

into the realms of "maybe" and "if" anyway.

Indeed you are.

 

[Himaginn]

Just for Jock, a link to the actual letter, so that for once, or maybe the second time in his life, he actually does some research.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35712537

From the letter:

When it comes to regulation, whether the UK remains inside the EU or leaves it, with Europe as the UK's largest export market by far, we would have to abide by European rules and regulations in any case.

And there's somebody else conveniently omitting to mention that while selling into the EU might mean compliance with some EU regulations for imports, it does not mean the continued compliance with thousands of other petty EU regulations.

The average person can make the appropriate assumption without someone else's clarification.

 

[Himaginn]

What's your projection?

I suspect trade with the EU may drop by a small amount, which will ultimately be compensated for by increased trade with other parts of the world.

Time frame?

You're regurgitating old comments. A sure sign that you've exhausted your arguments.

Not really - I think that I and other anti-EU people have presented a fairly broad range of reasons as to why the U.K. should be out. The only argument the pro-EU side seems to be able to come up with and keeps repeating is how trade with the EU will plummet, jobs will be lost because of that, resulting in economic crisis etc. - The "doom and gloom" sceanrio for British manufacturing and employment, which simply has nothing to back it up.

Time frame?

There are about 3.4 million jobs dependent on export to EU.

Dependent in what sense? Are you really trying to suggest that if exports to the EU started to decline that 3.4 million jobs would be lost?

Certainly under jeopardy. How many would be lost, and over what kind of time frame is difficult to predict.

That's one of your comments about the jobs, thanks. But now you've just admitted that even though you think that trade with the EU will be decimated, or worse, that you can't predict any such job losses. So if you can't be sure that any of those jobs would be lost following a withdrawal from the EU, how can you claim that 3.4 million jobs are dependent upon continued membership of the EU?

It's not my claim. It's a well published industry comment.

But there may be a further influence. If EU imports to UK become more expensive (tit for tat tariffs) the the cost of living in UK could rise significantly, thus reducing disposable income, thus reducing domestic consumption, thus jeopardising further job losses.

And that would be down to the U.K. government of the time to keep under control, just as in the past. But as you've pointed out before, you're now into the realms of "maybe" and "if" anyway.

But relevant possible scenarios. What's your opinion on UK introducing tariffs?

In jeopardy means that they could be lost. It doesn't mean they would be lost or devastation. It means there is a possibility of them being lost.

Then it's wrong to suggest that they are dependent upon continued EU membership, since that is clearly not necessarily the case.

Then take it up with industry and tell them they're wrong.

RUK = Rest of UK (after Scotland exits UK), i.e. breakup of UK.

Ah, O.K. But again, that's getting into more "ifs" about what might happen later.

A considered definite rather than an "if".

 

[Himaginn]

.

There are about 3.4 million jobs dependent on export to EU.

So if you can't be sure that any of those jobs would be lost following a withdrawal from the EU, how can you claim that 3.4 million jobs are dependent upon continued membership of the EU?

When Danny Alexander, pictured above, was at the Treasury in 2014 he said the figure was 3.3 million......
... The Treasury worked out what proportion of the country's total economic output is made up of exports to the EU. Then it calculated that proportion of the UK labour force. And that's the answer!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-p...&13:03&ns_fee=0#post_56d986663e0000b7a426ba63