In or out

[Himaginn]

The benefit of leaving is simple. Freedom and Democracy

Precisely. Whatever financial arguments might exist for staying or leaving, the issue of freedom is a far more important one. On the surface, people might think that some of the EU's activities actually support that, but in reality, if you look more closely you find that they're actually setting up the stage to remove freedoms. Read the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, for a start.

That would be a lot of reading to disprove your claim. Why don't you reprint the relevant bit(s) for us to check?

Edit: I felt really sorry for a small businessman interviewed on tv on Friday. He not only had to spend thousands of pounds having to introduce new packaging with words on the back to the effect that "This contains fish" on a packet of herring or some other fish, but also had to discard the already bought and paid for packaging which did not require such a statement.

The compliance with legislation which has been passed only in order to comply with EU directives has imposed huge and unnecessary costs on British businesses. To take another example, look at all the business premises which have had to replace perfectly good exit signage with the new, mandated "running man" signs. It's cost businesses, collectively, millions of pounds, and apart from that thousands upon thousands of perfectly serviceable exit signs have gone to the scrap heap. So much for not wasting resources!

But if we're to continue trading with EU, we'll have to abide by their legislation! Your alternative model of trading with every other nation except EU doesn't stack up.

But to be fair, sometimes the problem lies with Whitehall bureaucrats who "gold plate" rather vague EU directives with their own ideas, and a simple one-page directive written in very broad terms ends up as 20 pages of detailed regulations, so some of the blame lies firmly at home.

So in the event of a Brexit, it won't change.

I read that one of the IN arguments is that the EU create jobs by investing in EU countries (including the UK) Surely this is easily countered by saying that the £billions saved from membership fees/ contributions , can easily be invested in this once great country? Instead of giving them money and receiving less back, it can be invested in Britain's future?

Exactly. And as I said some pages back, the argument in support of the EU that Britain gets EU grants for projects is just ridiculous set against the fact that the U.K. is putting more money into the EU in the first place. As I also said earlier, if anyone would like to send me £1000 I'll willingly send you £400 by return with conditions attached as to how you may spend it. That is effectively what happens with the "generous" EU grants.

If we continue to trade with EU, we're still obliged to make similar payments. As I said your alternative model of trading anywhere else but EU doesn't stack up.

They've so far been extremely vague and noncommittal. PBC's model doesn't stack up. We export 50% of our goods to EU. There's no way we could easily find new markets for that amount of goods.

There would be no need to, because all of those exports wouldn't simply stop. Yes, over time perhaps there might be a reduction, but to imply that withdrawal from the EU would immediately result in 50% of the U.K.'s exports drying up is just scare tactics.

Your use of 'immediately' is your use and only your use. I didn't mention it.
But it's utterly obvious to anyone that the exports would reduce dramatically faster than the other markets could be found. If those markets exist why aren't we already trading with them?

 

[gasbanni]

It is. It's what you think about something. It's your opinion.

I'd better not hold my breath awaiting a reply, I don't think Jonnie will answer but hey that's only my opinion!

 

[Himaginn]

It is. It's what you think about something. It's your opinion.

I'd better not hold my breath awaiting a reply, I don't think Jonnie will answer but hey that's only my opinion!

It's been answered, here:

Read more: //www.diynot.com/diy/threads/in-or-out.451748/page-40#ixzz40pH3VILs

but you're just refusing to see the answer.
How stupid is that!
Thanks again for allowing me the opportunity of reminding everyone of F&I's confession of lying.
You still don't know when to quit.

 

[PBC_1966]

That would be a lot of reading to disprove your claim. Why don't you reprint the relevant bit(s) for us to check?

Article 52, paragraph 1:

Any limitation on the exercise of the rights and freedoms recognised by this Charter must be
provided for by law and respect the essence of those rights and freedoms. Subject to the principle of
proportionality, limitations may be made only if they are necessary and genuinely meet objectives of
general interest recognised by the Union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others.

Read that very carefully. After setting out many supposed rights that are to be recognized, this section then says that any of those aforementioned "rights" may be restricted in order to meet "objectives of
general interest recognised by the Union."

But if we're to continue trading with EU, we'll have to abide by their legislation!

The U.K. exports to the U.S. - Does it have to comply with every piece of American legislation? It exports to Canada - Does it have to comply with every Canadian law? Pick any other non-EU country you like with which the U.K. trades and ask the same question.

So in the event of a Brexit, it won't change.

I did say sometimes, not all the time. But the "gold plated" Whitehall regulations might never have come into existence at all had it not been for the EU directive in the first place. Besides, just because the U.K. government might come up with bad regulations all by itself is not exactly a convincing reason against withdrawing from the EU and all its dictatorial regulations.

If we continue to trade with EU, we're still obliged to make similar payments.

Why would the U.K. continue to pay "membership fees" to a "club" in which it was no longer a member?

But it's utterly obvious to anyone that the exports would reduce dramatically faster than the other markets could be found.

Is it? Why is it "obvious" that such would happen?

 

[gasbanni]

You're very first paragraph is correct if the EU decides that cash machines in a particular country should not be able to dispense cash in the interests of the EU then they won't.

This is exactly what happened in Greece at the behest of the EU, it can happen in any EU country is been written in to the rules.

 

[Himaginn]

That would be a lot of reading to disprove your claim. Why don't you reprint the relevant bit(s) for us to check?

Article 52, paragraph 1:

Any limitation on the exercise of the rights and freedoms recognised by this Charter must be
provided for by law and respect the essence of those rights and freedoms. Subject to the principle of
proportionality, limitations may be made only if they are necessary and genuinely meet objectives of
general interest recognised by the Union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others.

Read that very carefully. After setting out many supposed rights that are to be recognized, this section then says that any of those aforementioned "rights" may be restricted in order to meet "objectives of
general interest recognised by the Union."

You omitted the 'or'. Therefore the interests of the union cannot over ride 'the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others'.
The 'or' means that the one cannot over ride the other.

But if we're to continue trading with EU, we'll have to abide by their legislation!

The U.K. exports to the U.S. - Does it have to comply with every piece of American legislation? It exports to Canada - Does it have to comply with every Canadian law? Pick any other non-EU country you like with which the U.K. trades and ask the same question.

In so far as the legality and regulations of the trade, they must comply.

So in the event of a Brexit, it won't change.

I did say sometimes, not all the time. But the "gold plated" Whitehall regulations might never have come into existence at all had it not been for the EU directive in the first place. Besides, just because the U.K. government might come up with bad regulations all by itself is not exactly a convincing reason against withdrawing from the EU and all its dictatorial regulations.

Similarly, it's not a valid reason for Brexit either.

If we continue to trade with EU, we're still obliged to make similar payments.

Why would the U.K. continue to pay "membership fees" to a "club" in which it was no longer a member?

Existing non-EU countries trading with EU have to make payments to the EU. We've already discussed the Norway model, and the comparable amounts for UK to pay would be about £4bn per year.

But it's utterly obvious to anyone that the exports would reduce dramatically faster than the other markets could be found.

Is it? Why is it "obvious" that such would happen?

The goods exported to EU would be subject to the import tariffs as soon as the exit came into force, within two years, making them much more expensive in EU. EU consumers would soon switch brands.
If those new markets existed we'd already be trading in them.
How long did it take Iceland to formulate the agreement with China?

 

[Himaginn]

You're very first paragraph is correct if the EU decides that cash machines in a particular country should not be able to dispense cash in the interests of the EU then they won't.
This is exactly what happened in Greece at the behest of the EU, it can happen in any EU country is been written in to the rules.

Nonsense!

Greece will keep its banks closed and cut the cash withdrawal limit,

http://uk.businessinsider.com/greec...not-open-monday-and-atm-limits-reduced-2015-7

 

[JohnD]

This is exactly what happened in Greece at the behest of the EU, it can happen in any EU country is been written in to the rules.

Just to check, did you make that up yourself, or did you read it on the kippers' site or somewhere? Have you seen these "rules" you mention?

 

[PBC_1966]

You omitted the 'or'. Therefore the interests of the union cannot over ride 'the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others'.
The 'or' means that the one cannot over ride the other.

I think you need to read that paragraph again more carefully. That's not what it says at all.

In so far as the legality and regulations of the trade, they must comply.

But complying with whatever rules are put in place with regard to imports is a far cry from being subject to thousands of other regulations as well which have nothing to do with trade.

Similarly, it's not a valid reason for Brexit either.

But being subject to thousands of EU directives which are damaging to the U.K. most certainly is

Existing non-EU countries trading with EU have to make payments to the EU. We've already discussed the Norway model, and the comparable amounts for UK to pay would be about £4bn per year.

For EFTA? So keep out of it. It's far too expensive.

If those new markets existed we'd already be trading in them.

Not necessarily. Outside of the EU, Britain might become more attractive to certain other foreign markets again, just as it used to be 40 years ago. And free of the burdensome EU bureaucracy and expense, British manufacturing might actually be able to reduce costs to compensate for the EU import duties on goods anyway.

 

[jockscott]

If we continue to trade with EU, we're still obliged to make similar payments.

Perhaps there will be some form of payment,,,,, but it won't be anything like the £55million a day we're paying at the moment. Surely we can join the EFTA and enjoy trade with an ever decreasing EU and the individual countries that will surely follow Britain in an exit ?? Mark my words a Brexit almost certainly spells the end of the EU as we know it.

 

[Fire and Ice]

Truth rarely is

How would you know?

It's not being posted by you..

Kindly suggest who is posting the truth.
Don't forget, I know where the post is that you claim that you post the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
And the post by you that confesses to being a wind-up merchant, as well.

Good, go find them and post them...

I did say I would, so here you go:

None of my posts are untrue and you know it John. The statements that I have made are all verifiable.

I lied and you bit..Hook, line and sinker...

I think it's safe to say, you are now a right plonker.

Super... That's more of your time wasted trawling through dull posts

 

[Himaginn]

If we continue to trade with EU, we're still obliged to make similar payments.

Perhaps there will be some form of payment,,,,, but it won't be anything like the £55million a day we're paying at the moment. Surely we can join the EFTA and enjoy trade with an ever decreasing EU and the individual countries that will surely follow Britain in an exit ?? Mark my words a Brexit almost certainly spells the end of the EU as we know it.

Wishful thinking. It will leave EU with EU moving toward ever increasing integration, and enlargement, because UK won't be there to put the brake on it.

However, it will mean the end of the UK.
Scotland another referendum to leave UK, which will be successful. Then Scotland will join EU,accepting all the conditions laid down, including Schengen Agreement. England now has another land border with an EU country in the Schengen Agreement. Border checks along that border!

Wales holds a referendum......

NI holds a referendum......

Little England will be what's left.
We'll have to go back on our hands and knees to rejoin the EU, on their conditions.
Now it's not UK in the EU with equal shares as Germany, France and Italy as the four big ones. It's Scotland with 2%, Wales 2%, NI 2% and England 2%.

 

[Fire and Ice]

The EU minions have themselves already admitted that everything that Cameron claims to have won amounts to nothing. Luxembourg have already stated that they will challenge the "Brake" and the Polish leader has already been crowing about her victory over Cameron.... How many manhours and how much money has it cost us to arrive at such a meaningless deal?

Correction, it isn't meaningless... It has highlighted just how much influence we have in Europe. And that is when they need us to stay.

 

[Himaginn]

The EU minions have themselves already admitted that everything that Cameron claims to have won amounts to nothing. Luxembourg have already stated that they will challenge the "Brake" and the Polish leader has already been crowing about her victory over Cameron.... How many manhours and how much money has it cost us to arrive at such a meaningless deal?

Correction, it isn't meaningless... It has highlighted just how much influence we have in Europe. And that is when they need us to stay.

As a self-confessed liar, anything you say must be viewed with suspicion.

 

[Fire and Ice]

The EU minions have themselves already admitted that everything that Cameron claims to have won amounts to nothing. Luxembourg have already stated that they will challenge the "Brake" and the Polish leader has already been crowing about her victory over Cameron.... How many manhours and how much money has it cost us to arrive at such a meaningless deal?

Correction, it isn't meaningless... It has highlighted just how much influence we have in Europe. And that is when they need us to stay.

As a self-confessed liar, anything you say must be viewed with suspicion.

Everything I see is viewed with suspicion....Question everything.