The EU Referendum

[kendor]

This is the old rubbish that is always thrown up Kendor-----------regardless if Britain can or cannot succeed on her own out of the Eu, you could argue that all day long, facts are Britain has before and by her accounts could well do so again maybe even more so without all the restraints of the EU.

But your point is that If Britain goes it alone she will lose trade with the EU---------total rubbish for a number of reasons, one is it is against EU and World trade agreements where barriers are at this moment being broken down, and a member country isnt going to stop buying British goods because one they are cheap and 2 because of the quality.

What you are inferring is that Britain only trades with the EU because other member states are forced to buy her goods because she's a member of the EU and that is EU political b u l l s h i t.

Also when this argument was first thrown up, Britain was in the doldrums because of the last Labour goverment and the main trading block at the time was the EU and America, so at the time there may have been an element of truth in that argument. Since then the rest of the world has took off and the EU trading block isnt as important as it was in the late 70's because of the emergence of other markets

after all your sprouting off freddie read my post again i said if you believethen vote against.
point i'm making is that you are either in or out but you can't have it both ways, cooled down now? as for the rest of your reply that's your opinion and not defacto!

 

[Freddie]

I understood you post exactly, the fact i mentioned was that Britain succeeded before, i did miss a " may " out of my sentance though..

As for my opinion well thats as worthwhile as anybody elses who says Britain would not succeed if she pulled out.

 

[Damocles]

I am certain Britain would do worse out of the EU. And I would not be surprised if the special relationship with America suddenly became very frosty because America wants friends inside the EU, not outside.

This country has the largest population of horses ever in all its history. We hardly rear any horses for meat, so they are all for riding and leisure. Anyway, it is not classed as farming or agriculture for the purposes of calculating your business rates. Quite a lot of farmers do not know this, or if they do are in no hurry to point it out to their local council. My experience suggests that most stables are not rated at present. This was a source of some annoyance to us when discussing the matter with the rating office. Perhaps they have caught up with a few more people by now, but I doubt it. The rating office couldn't be bothered to sort the issue out properly. They just think of a number, double it, and send you a bill. Then when you complain they offer to reduce it a bit and they have an easy life. So i you keep horses on your farm, watch out. If you keep them at your house, watch out too.

I have never been a civil servant to anyone. Nor am I a consultant.

I don't think I have to answer any questions on vat either. ARGGGHHHH*****###$$%$$%%%^$##

ok ok i give in

I have no idea which country's charge VAT at exactly what rate on what classes of goods. Tax harmonisation means there is an organised attempt to keep taxes at similar levels in different EU countries. This makes life easier for anyone wanting to do business in different countries. Including those day-tripping across the channel to buy cheap goods. With a bit of luck you will not need to.

Maggie was one of the chief supporters of enlarging the EU. If only because she believed in a wider shallower EU than a narrower deeper one. I don't know what she thinks now. Did you see her on the telly yesterday in a documentary made just before she became leader?

I don't think we were misled into the EU at all. I think it has worked out well, as advertised. Just watch all those manufacturers run to Europe if we were outside it. no one would set up a manufacturing company here to sell to Europe if we were outside.

 

[AdamW]

I am sure that many of you have read "Animal Farm", remember the signs "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others"?

That is how I see the past and current state of the EU. The EU founder members saw the UK as a milk-cow. Since we joined, our industries and agriculture have been stripped, in order to let the "more equal" countries boost their own economies.

What we need is for our leaders (as well as the leaders of any other countries that might be getting milked by the whole thing) to say "Enough is enough! Your culture dictates apathy and laziness, that's cool. That is a valid life choice. But we aren't paying for it!"

Look at the US. You get rich states and you get poor states. You get states that are good at some things and states that are good at others. It works. Do people in Utah demand that Michigan gives them a share of their motor industry? Do people in Ohio demand that California gives them subsidies towards their film industry? No. Because that would be silly.

But, British farmers were forced to reduce their output of our traditional produce to let farmers in other countries grow crops that they hadn't really grown before. Yet I am yet to see hundreds of acres of olive groves and vineyards in the UK, in return...

 

[david and julie]

Damocles, I apolise about saying "have to" it was only a turn of phrase,not meant in a bad way, obviously none of us have to say something we don't want to.
You answers have obviously led to further questions though.

I am certain Britain would do worse out of the EU. And I would not be surprised if the special relationship with America suddenly became very frosty because America wants friends inside the EU, not outside.

I was under the impression the UK was the biggest European investor in the US. Besides why should our membership of the EU bother the them? You being certain we would be worse off by leaving the EU is meaningless, almost like me saying we would certainly be better off by leaving. None of us would know for certain until after the fact, it is pure guesswork. Except our payments to them that is, that would definately stop, that is a fact, and the ammount can be calculated beforehand.

I have never been a civil servant to anyone. Nor am I a consultant.
I don't think I have to answer any questions on vat either. ARGGGHHHH*****###$$%$$%%%^$##

I have answered part of this earlier but I find your reply bemusing. You are stressing you haven't been a servant rather than saying I haven't worked for the civil service. Which is not the same. None of us in the UK have been servants to anyone.

I have no idea which country's charge VAT at exactly what rate on what classes of goods. Tax harmonisation means there is an organised attempt to keep taxes at similar levels in different EU countries. This makes life easier for anyone wanting to do business in different countries. Including those day-tripping across the channel to buy cheap goods. With a bit of luck you will not need to.

I find this answer odd, you know every aspect of the EU you have been asked yet don't know about VAT on new houses, which is common knowledge. I would suggest you would rather not say it is true because people are concerned about it after harmonisation. I fail to see what channel crossings have to do with it but here goes. The part which makes our booze and fags more expensive is mainly the duty not VAT. The crossings are also one of the main area's that annoy people too. We pay the heavy price of being in a so called free trade market and yet are restricted in what you can buy. Whats all that about then, where's the advantage to us there? I know this is our Gov's fault but the EU is happy to let them do this. They are therefore not on the side of the consumer at all.

I don't think we were misled into the EU at all. I think it has worked out well, as advertised. Just watch all those manufacturers run to Europe if we were outside it. no one would set up a manufacturing company here to sell to Europe if we were outside.

Hypothetical claptrap and you know it, as we have said before WTO agreements make this pointless. I would of thought it may even be the opposite, companies may take advantage of a lower taxed and less regulated UK. They can still trade with Europe and they would still do so.

The exodus to China as proved that companies ,wherever possible,are more interested in costs than location, These goods still end up in Europe anyway EU or not. Companies prefer lower costs and simplicity not bureaucratic nightmares.

 

[Damocles]

Well here we are again.

The EU founder members did not see it as a 'milk cow'. If you think about it, that is impossible because they were the only ones putting in money. It was not such an issue then because they were all on similar economic levels. The original idea was not about money. It was about bringing the countries closer together and allowing trade between them. Not so close as to turn them them into one country, but rather closer than they had been, which was shooting at each other for centuries.

The two main original members were France and Germany. On the whole it has been poorer countries joining each time the EU has enlarged.

I am not an expert on American federal law or taxation. But I think you will find that the federal government does tax the rich states and give it to the poor ones. Quite possibly rather more than the EU does. The EU redistribution is quite small compared to national budgets..

Farners in this country have been subject to quotas and do not like it. They may blame this on the EU but that is not comparing like with like. Before we joined the EU there was already a whopping subsidy in this country on farming. It was a different system to the EU but basically it gave farmers money.

Right now there are agricultural surplusses within the EU. So somehow we had to reduce the amount being grown. Even if we were not in the EU there would still be exactly the same surplus of food. The EU is currently in trouble because it has had a policy of 'dumping' food very cheaply selling it to countries outside the EU. If we were outside then it would be us they were dumping it on. The British public would have got just as stroppy about massive subsidies to farmers and the British government would have been compelled to cut its own subsidies. The result for the farmers would have been much the same. It is not fair to blame this on farmers.

Kind of you to apologise, but I was not upset. Made me laugh.

The americans idea of a friend is someone who will further their national interest. We suit them very well as a country which has a strong voice inside the EU but which is quite eurosceptic. If we no longer had a place inside the EU then I think it very likely they would be rushing off to develop their 'special relationship' with anyone else who would lend them a friendly ear. Italy perhaps? Britain is important to them because it is of a generally similar mindset but VERY IMPORTANTLY also part of the EU.

I think Britain is most probably better off financially because it is a member of the EU. But this is not really what the EU is about. A lot of people are running scared of Britain disappearing as a state buried by the EU. I think this wholly ridiculous. None of the states is remotely willing to give up its national identity. The real question is whether we have more political or financial or military might to organise the world to suit us if we are inside the EU or outside. I very seriously believe that we are inevitably subject to EU decision whether we are inside it or outside.

If you are a trading nation you can only trade on terms which are agreeable to the people you trade with. Outside the EU we would have virually no influence at all on anything decided within our most important trading partner. Just as important we would have precious little influence on other world trading blocks. The EU as a whole is just about big enough that the rest of the world has to take it seriously, even do what the EU asks (occasionally). There is no way we could do this alone.

Our choice is to drift essentially completely powerless in the world or to join a major power block. All the new entrants know this perfectly well, which is why they are clamouring to join. I know they get some subsidy too, but quite a lot of this is swallowed up in the turmoil of joining a free market. Peasant farmers may be cheap labour, but they still have to compete with hi-tech farming. Clapped out car factories have to compete with state of the art BMW. They are joining because they are looking for a safe place to be and a sure future.

I am just as interested in the fate of the UK as anyone else. As I said, I do not see our national identity threatened in any material way by anything likely to come out of Brussels. What I do see is that the best hope of Britain remaining as influential as it presently is, or even improving on this, is as part of a coalition. There is no other coalition we could join.

What I do has damn all to do with this discussion. I have absolutely no professional connection with any governments concerned, nor with anyone who works for any of them. What I do is think. I am certainly biased, I was born here in rural England. Cemetry full of ancestors and relatives.

 

[david and julie]

You forgot the VAT, which incidently makes absolutely no difference to business and trade as you said.

I have no idea which country's charge VAT at exactly what rate on what classes of goods. Tax harmonisation means there is an organised attempt to keep taxes at similar levels in different EU countries. This makes life easier for anyone wanting to do business in different countries. Including those day-tripping across the channel to buy cheap goods. With a bit of luck you will not need to.

VAT is purely a consumer tax which is ultimately paid by the final(usually retail) buyer. The vast majority of companies are registered for this EU instigated tax so it makes now difference to them what the rate is, because they claim it back. The only thing a registered company needs to do this is the VAT registration number of the person who charged it. This makes a mockery of what you said about any trade benefits of tax harmonisation.

Much as you don't mind (as you have clearly benefitted) the EU taking over our country, some of us can see through it all and don't like what we see.

What about VAT on houses? Why do you hate the US?

I also laugh at your biased garbage most of the time, so at least we have something in common.

 

[Freddie]

Damacles it is big business now farming horses for meat in the UK, they are of course shipped to France for slaughter.

Britain succeeded out of the EU at a time when her economy was going down after a post war boom, without the revenue from oil and with a much smaller overseas market-------this is fact.

Your statement of Britain is better off in the EU is just hocus pocus guess work.

As i said earlier there is much more trade out there now and big and up and coming markets where as 30 years ago Europe was the main market.

The EU has been left behind as the world has moved on and can only succeed by getting everybody to pull together and that aint going to happen.

 

[Damocles]

If I make goods in my country and people pay 10% VAT on top and you make goods in your country and people pay 50% vat on top, which lot of customers pay more for the same goods? Will people be popping over to your country to buy or to my country?

Didn't anyone tell you that economics is mostly hocus pocus guesswork? Except for the famous HM treasury water-powered computer.

No, as usual the EU has moved on and the question is whether Britain will AGAIN pass on a chance to join the big boys in the modern world. Last round of EU expansion is settling down nicely.

I said before it is not a question of whether the world can boss the UK around. It can. It does. It is a question of whether the UK can get into a position where it can make friends and influence people. Where else can it do this?

 

[Freddie]

If I make goods in my country and people pay 10% VAT on top and you make goods in your country and people pay 50% vat on top, which lot of customers pay more for the same goods? Will people be popping over to your country to buy or to my country?

Didn't anyone tell you that economics is mostly hocus pocus guesswork? Except for the famous HM treasury water-powered computer.

No, as usual the EU has moved on and the question is whether Britain will AGAIN pass on a chance to join the big boys in the modern world. Last round of EU expansion is settling down nicely.

I said before it is not a question of whether the world can boss the UK around. It can. It does. It is a question of whether the UK can get into a position where it can make friends and influence people. Where else can it do this?

No proof ----show some

Other countries bossing Britain about----------what are you on about

I thought vat was to be set at 20% for all countries

 

[Damocles]

Show me some proof that I am wrong.

 

[Freddie]

Well this has got really pointless now----proof well there must be many countries who arent in the EU who are doing very nicely thankyou very much trading with the rest of the world, of course there are some which arent but that doesnt mean that being in the EU is going to solve there troubles.

You have made statement after staement time after time and you have nothing to back up your argument, the only good thing is that in the last few postings you havent given a likeness with the war in Iraq. The truth Damacles, no body gives a toss about Iraq, they are sick to death of it.

I think if you are going to post something you should at least back it up with some fact other wise it is just garbage

I am sure you can see our point of view that you dont know what you are talking about, and are very cagey when questioned.

I honestly cant be bothered with you or this anymore i see no point.

 

[david and julie]

If I make goods in my country and people pay 10% VAT on top and you make goods in your country and people pay 50% vat on top, which lot of customers pay more for the same goods? Will people be popping over to your country to buy or to my country?

The EU instigated VAT is payable by the end user, it makes no difference at all whether the rate was 10% or 50%. We pay the same anyway, I will explain why. I am a shop and I buy a product from a country with a VAT rate of 10%, the product is a £100+vat so I pay £110, I am VAT registered so I get it back, so I am back to £100. I then do the same again at 50% vat, that is £100+VAT=£150. I claim back the VAT I am back to £100. At this stage both products have cost me £100 Nett of vat I am generous shop and don't add a mark up so I charge you 17.5% VAT making £117-50 for either Item. This is because VAT is charged at the point of sale at the rate in that country.

Didn't anyone tell you that economics is mostly hocus pocus guesswork?

Really? obviously in this instance you guessed and got it wrong.

Never mind I will give you another sum. How does the UK gain by subsidising this? Is this what we have to put up with the invasion of East Europeans for, 2% trade eitherway how does that pay us after we have paid for their houses and the crimewave?

EU Expansion: Trade
UK trade with EU candidate countries

The European Commission has announced its support for 10 more countries to join the EU from the beginning of 2004.

Taken together these countries accounted for 2% of UK exports and 2% of UK imports in 2001.

Just in case anyone is worried about starving if we came out read this.

The European Communities and the WTO

This page gathers key information on the European Communities' participation in the WTO. The European Union (known for legal reasons as the European Communities in WTO matters) (more info) has been a WTO member since 1 January 1995. The 25 member States of the EU are WTO members in their own right. The EU is a single customs union with a single trade policy and tariff. The European Commission speaks for all EU member States at almost all WTO meetings.

If we leave they are all commited to open trading, don't believe these scaremongers.

Still no answers on VAT on houses though.

 

[Damocles]

Now what was that about VAT on housing? Something about refurbishment attracting VAT but new builds not?

So a council is faced with a nice area of run down but repairable housing. Except that after you do the sums, the VAT on repairing makes this more expensive than knocking down and rebuilding. Total insanity. What is the reason that VAT should not be the same in either case? Why exactly should new houses be free of VAT?

I think I said that in one country goods cost £100 and in another £150. Because of the difference in VAT. Citizens have freedom of movement and can choose where they buy so surprise surprise they all start going to the country where it is cheaper. If the VAT rates were the same this would not happen. The shopkeeper collecting 50% VAT is at a disadvantage. The EU is protecting him. Tax on goods is not just VAT, I know. This is what tax harmonisation is about. Making trading conditions equal in all member countries. Abracadabra.

What invasion of Eastern Europeans You mean the guys who are busy rebuilding half of London? No one British wanted the job.

UK GDP about 1000 billion. You do not care about 2% of our trade to western Europe, but you do care about 2 billion overpaid to the EU? If you earn £20,000, that would be £40 going to the EU

The EU is surprisingly protectionist. That is why it has been accused of this and that at the WTO and has been losing. But there are lots of red tape things you can do to discourage outsiders, and the EU is still quite good at that.

As you said, if you want to know why you cannot import whatever you please from France, ask the UK government. They fought very hard to keep the right to stop you doing this. Obviously it was important to them.



freddie, plainly you do not know the subsidy rules as well as you might. Or perhaps they have changed again and I should have another look.

Actually I don't think the trade is anything like what you infer. What do you think about the new passports designating horses as unfit for consumption?

If the Iraq business had been decided by the EU then we would not have been sucked in to aid the Americans. But I think a centrally organised EU army is a very very long way off.

I have not seen one single piece of evidence posted here that Britain would be better off out of the EU.

 

[david and julie]

Damocles wrote

Now what was that about VAT on housing? Something about refurbishment attracting VAT but new builds not?

No, I agree with you the anomaly you point out is silly however since the topic is the EU I would rather discuss that.

I am talking about harmonisation of VAT on new build houses should we vote yes to the constitution. But then you know that and are just in denial about this. Just like FWL is too, he said this.

There is NO VAT on House prices in Europe..do you reallt think the pople of France, Germany, Denmark etc would accpet such a proposal..of course not, that is pure propaganda by the anti-European camp. Further, any UK Government that went along with that would be handing the next election to the opposition on a plate!! It is a none starter.

This is such common knowledge I can't understand why you are both in denial. Have a read yourselves.

Ms Fevrier believes banks are keener to lend on new property which, in France, comes with safeguards. For example, it is illegal to sell without a 10-year guarantee. And building regulations ensure most property has double glazing, is insulated and has central heating.

Conveyancing fees on properties less than five years old are 3% compared to 7% on older buildings. There is usually a 5%, rather than a 10%, deposit and often a two-year exemption from local taxes. The sting in the tale is there is 19.6% VAT on the price and if the property is sold within five years VAT is also payable on the profits as well as capital gains tax

http://money.guardian.co.uk/buyingpropertyabroad/story/0,14757,1263103,00.html

No wonder you two and the pro Euro politicians are avoiding this question when asked. Capital gains and VAT for you, in black and white. That is harmonisation, they pay it so we do too.

All for Abdul and his farm.