EU Referendum - In Or Out? Page 30

Quote: billwill @ 6th July 2016, 1:21 PM BST

Sigh.

By EUs own rules no member country can have special trading arrangements with non-EU countries; that's one of the reasons for voting Leave.

So the UK could not have a special arrangement with Italy.

Whate you are describing are essentially the World Trade Organization Rules, whereby if there is no special Trade Agreement beteeen two countries then each country has a list (possibly two lists) of tariffs which must be applied equally to all other countries. It is possible that there are two lists: Most Favoured Nations (MFN) and all the rest.

The whole EU is one country as far as the WTO is concerned and of course has such list(s) so the whole EU applies these MFN tariffs equally to places such as USA, India ans Australia. When the UK leaves the EU, in the absence of an FTA, the EU will have to apply that list to UK trade. Someone has calculated that the average EU tariff across the trade that the UK does with the 27 countries would amount to only about 1% which is MUCH cheaper than the subscription to be a member of the EU.

Naturally the UK's own WTO Tariff lists are way out of date so new ones will be needed. Since at present as a member of the EU) trade with places like USA, India, & Aus are subject to the tariffs on the EU list, it will avoid tariff changes for those countries if the initial UK tariff list is an identical copy of the EU list; the values can then be changed later as needed or new FTA may be agreed with other countries.

View original

Thank you for the clarification.

It was late when I posted and I had drifted off and back a bit.

I accept "the UK could not have a special arrangement with Italy" etc which in turn means that we could not have had separate formal agreements with Australia etc in the past as an EU member but I stick with the earlier point that business could have had comprehensive informal discussions in readiness for a Brexit and it didn't do it.

But what I am getting from the Lawson/Owen and Lilley articles is that we would just have zero tariffs at least initially (not ancient WTO) while in the case of EU we would be subject to their tariffs. The contribution to the EU budget is equal to a 7% tariff so even if their tariff is 2.4% (rather than 1%) it would be less than that 7%. Yes?

Incidentally, it is the French who are the main stumbling block because of similar levels of exports and imports.

The way of ensuring that we have access to the Single Market for goods and financial services while also having border controls is to provide the French with advice before triggering Article 50. That is, while still an EU member we will offer a substantial sum of money to all UK citizens over 18 to move to the rest of the EU as long as they move in one specified month and travel by Euro train or boat to Calais. Then they can re-think their position. Yes?

Quote: Aaron @ 6th July 2016, 11:58 AM BST

Such as?

View original

Did you miss us going from the 5th largest economy to the 6th in the space of a week ?

* Pound at a 30 year historical low.

* Credit rating downgrade from AAA to AA which will add billions in costs to the loans business need to grow our economy, especially in risky new markets. Many will now shelve these plans. Also Osborn now states it will take much longer to pay down our debt.

* A move of desperation from the Bank of England; lowering the reserves British banks should keep for security.

* Crisis in the stock markets , with dealing on our main banks and construction companies frozen at one point (an act of crisis). FTS100 dollar values falling (regardless of tickers levels).

* A slew of business announcing they won't be investing in the UK. Banks considering shifting some operations to France, along with a big chunk of our financial sector (big contributors to our tax system) looking abroad.

* The housing market expected to fall to 2008 levels in just several years time. Building projects are being shelved.

* EU pushing for the Bexit financial plan, as it's two main leaders bail out on the back of apologies for giving the wrong figures and stating all the above was just scaremongering.

Divided we fall, as social media is demonstrating. Question is not is our economy falling, but by how much and for how long. No doubt Boris is laughing it off.

Quote: Nick Nockerty @ 6th July 2016, 5:09 PM BST

Did you miss us going from the 5th largest economy to the 6th in the space of a week?

View original

Technical due to devaluation of currency, not literal decline in trade or GDP.

Quote: Nick Nockerty @ 6th July 2016, 5:09 PM BST

* Credit rating downgrade from AAA to AA which will add billions in costs to the loans business need to grow our economy, especially in risky new markets. Many will now shelve these plans. Also Osborne now states it will take much longer to pay down our debt.

View original

And how do you feel about the austerity plans that maintained such high credit ratings in the first place? Most of those complaining now, said that those agencies didn't matter a few years ago.

Quote: Nick Nockerty @ 6th July 2016, 5:09 PM BST

* A move of desperation from the Bank of England; lowering the reserves British banks should keep for security.

View original

Agreed. Desperation.

Quote: Nick Nockerty @ 6th July 2016, 5:09 PM BST

* A slew of business announcing they won't be investing in the UK. Banks considering shifting some operations to France, along with a big chunk of our financial sector (big contributors to our tax system) looking abroad.

View original

Almost all hastily denied rumours, and understandable contingency planning.

Quote: Nick Nockerty @ 6th July 2016, 5:09 PM BST

* The housing market expected to fall to 2008 levels in just several years time. Building projects are being shelved.

View original

Expectations are not reality. And WOE BETIDE house prices should fall and younger generations might be able to get on the ladder.

Quote: Nick Nockerty @ 6th July 2016, 5:09 PM BST

* EU pushing for the Brexit financial plan, as its two main leaders bail out on the back of apologies for giving the wrong figures and stating all the above was just scaremongering.

View original

Utter nonsense. The EU can whistle.

Simple fact is, markets are in flux. That was always going to happen. But the end of days is not nigh, and the continued whinging of the remainiacs is doing much of the harm. Markets run on sentiment, with Britain being done down by the losers in self-fulfilling prophecy.

Quote: Nick Nockerty @ 6th July 2016, 5:09 PM BST

Did you miss us going from the 5th largest economy to the 6th in the space of a week ?

* Pound at a 30 year historical low.

* Credit rating downgrade from AAA to AA which will add billions in costs to the loans business need to grow our economy, especially in risky new markets. Many will now shelve these plans. Also Osborn now states it will take much longer to pay down our debt.

* A move of desperation from the Bank of England; lowering the reserves British banks should keep for security.

* Crisis in the stock markets , with dealing on our main banks and construction companies frozen at one point (an act of crisis). FTS100 dollar values falling (regardless of tickers levels).

* A slew of business announcing they won't be investing in the UK. Banks considering shifting some operations to France, along with a big chunk of our financial sector (big contributors to our tax system) looking abroad.

* The housing market expected to fall to 2008 levels in just several years time. Building projects are being shelved.

* EU pushing for the Bexit financial plan, as it's two main leaders bail out on the back of apologies for giving the wrong figures and stating all the above was just scaremongering.

Divided we fall, as social media is demonstrating. Question is not is our economy falling, but by how much and for how long. No doubt Boris is laughing it off.

View original

Remember that nearly all of those effects are caused by Speculators trying to grab a quick buck. In due course such things settle back to the true levels which roughly speaking are determined by how well trading of goods are happening.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> A slew of business announcing they won't be investing in the UK.

Oh right and most of those were the big buggers who were using every trick of the trade to avoid paying a fair share of tax.

Just going to leave this here.

@BrexitMyths: Economic collapse continues as Amazon announces 1,000 new UK jobs and says it's "business as usual" after #Brexit. https://t.co/SR8GaAWYU5

Quote: Aaron @ 6th July 2016, 5:40 PM BST

Expectations are not reality. And WOE BETIDE house prices should fall and younger generations might be able to get on the ladder.

View original

Most markets drop on the back of supply and demand. Our weeker banking sector will now offer fewer mortgages, i.e. lower demand. First time buyers will be the hardest hit. So fewer not more on the ladder.

Forget expectations, real money, big money has left the housing market already. Standard life froze it's housing funds, because of a rush to exit British housing stock. Extraordinary measure, https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jul/04/standard-life-shuts-property-fund-post-brexit-withdrawals

On matters of Economics, I truly believe the finance industry is our best predictor, not self serving charismatic Narcissistic Politicians out to make a their mark in history.

As for Amazone, I could list dozens that are shedding or shelving collectively way more jobs: Virgin, Swinton, Morrisons, Ryan Air, Easy Jet, most of our leading banks. We're shedding high tax paying finance jobs, for fewer low paying warehouse jobs with an American company (Amazone). Not good for our tax revenues.

RIGHT WING TURNCOATISM

Views of what were to become Thatcherites (ie not the moderate Mr Heath and Mr Wilson) on Britain joining the EEC. This is not the version of history that ever gets told by people who share Mrs Thatcher's views on socialism:

THATCHERITES WANTED TO END BRITAIN FOR AN EU SUPERSTATE

Nigel Lawson, 1965: The choice is between backward looking protectionism and 'the cold douche of competition'. The former - Britain alone - will merely entrench inefficiency. The latter - joining the EEC - will exercise a powerfully Darwinian effect since: 'free movement of labour and capital would open up the closed nature...of British industrial life; the increased competition from Europe would force businesses to wake up or go under.'

Nicholas Ridley - A 'United States of Europe' is 'essential for the economic survival of our people - we must adopt a more federalist route.' Only as late as 1990 would this dry monetarist resign in pique muttering about Hitler.

OPPONENTS WERE AGAINST EEC BECAUSE HEATH WAS A BACHELOR

During the referendum campaign, The Sun depicted Powell, wild-eyed, aboard a pirate raft with Benn and Foot. Powell's supporters argued that joining the EEC would be 'another disastrous accommodation with Europe' comparable to Munich. Heath, they emphasised, was 'a middle-aged bachelor and occasional choirmaster' under the influence of bankers who had 'recently come from the Continent'. Powell lost support not least because 'the idea of the UK going it alone or in alliance with the Commonwealth seemed to most a backward-looking fantasy'.

IAIN DUNCAN SMITH, SCOTTISH, HAD THE SAME VIEWS AS SNP

What about the 2000s? The well known right wing Conservative Iain Duncan Smith was always very much against the EU, wasn't he, not least in his savaging of it in various speeches. Erm, no, not quite. Here's his view in 2003:

'The European nations must respond to today's challenges with vision and resolution. With the same kind of clarity shown by the EU's founders. Living in the devastating aftermath of World War II, they were deeply scarred by the experiences of defeat and occupation on continental Europe. They strove to prevent such a tragedy from ever happening again. They succeeded. For under the umbrella of NATO, great prosperity was created from the rubble of the second world war. Nations once locked in conflict became friends. And - crowning everything that has gone before - great nations like the Czech Republic - once trapped on the wrong side of the iron curtain - are now about to join the European Union. This historic enlargement is the European Union's greatest achievement and the culmination of its post-war purpose. An enlarged Union of which Britain is a committed member'.

THE TRUTH ABOUT TONY BLAIR

IN GOOD FAITH ISH

Tony Blair was not all bad on the matter of Iraq. Sure, he had a dodgy dossier, made a unilateral decision to go to war, didn't provide the army with guns and boots that fitted, smashed up a country that hadn't threatened Britain, didn't have any strategic plan for putting it back together, oversaw a lot of deaths that didn't need to occur, made Islamic fundamentalism the 21st Century version of the Teddy Boys and indirectly created a refugee crisis that led more than in part to Britain voting to leave the EU on 23|June 2016.

But after 9/11 he and most others in Government had a paranoid fear about something similar happening on British soil. Bush was intent on revisiting Iraq after what had happened to his Dad. If the PM hadn't decided to join him, the worry was that the Americans would withdraw key intelligence and after any bombing of London or Manchester simply say "you're on your own guys, we didn't get any support from you". Blair was between the devil and the deep blue sea and there was no right answer. Just two wrong ones.

BAD NEWS BEARS

In the late 1990s, EU enlargement was only opposed by the far left, far right, a few Christians and a few Greens. But in the mainstream the German Social Democrats (SPD) as well as the German Greens were for a sensible slow speed of EU enlargement. In just a couple of years SPD had been persuaded of the need for rapidity by the Blair Government along with the Conservative opposition in the UK, the German Christian Democrats and some of the other European counties. Jack Straw was a very significant figure in that urgency.

It was privately recognised that with Freedom of Movement accompanying enlargement, people would migrate in large numbers to where benefits were more generous but that, the British in the EU decided, could be addressed by a reduction in all generosity. In other words, the trade off from Blair to Duncan Smith, unspoken, was that benefits for British people would be reduced because of enlargement. Not a surprise as far as IDS was concerned but as for Blair he lied about what was a clear plan to sacrifice the NHS and Welfare State.

Horse. Why do you write such long posts?

I just can't be arsed to read them when they're that long - and then you post 2 together.

Quote: A Horseradish @ 7th July 2016, 4:23 PM BST

If the PM hadn't decided to join him, the worry was that the Americans would withdraw key intelligence and after any bombing of London or Manchester simply say "you're on your own guys, we didn't get any support from you". Blair was between the devil and the deep blue sea and there was no right answer. Just two wrong ones.

View original

Tosh. Because it comes down to this:

Quote: Chappers @ 7th July 2016, 11:02 PM BST

Horse. Why do you write such long posts?

I just can't be arsed to read them when they're that long - and then you post 2 together.

View original

Not me. I relish the longer stuff, if I agree with it.

Quote: Chappers @ 7th July 2016, 11:02 PM BST

Horse. Why do you write such long posts?

I just can't be arsed to read them when they're that long - and then you post 2 together.

View original

Eh?