The EU: In, out, shake it all about.... (223 Viewers)
- Thread starter jimmyhillsfanclub
- Start date
Kingokings204
Well-Known Member
Of course it it. Whilst everyone focuses on the UK. This is a two way street and the longer this drags on is bad for both sides. Just like everything else. People on here keep mentioning the bad stuff for the UK whilst quite often the same stuff is bad news for the EU also.
The UK is leaving we are all agree-on this forum on so why can’t both sides all get on with it, sort it all out and we both can then move on. The longer is drags on benefits neither side and their countries.
Yes. We all lose.
Even if we get a free trade agreement we won’t be as well off as before.
From your link a German opinion:
“A free trade agreement would help to reduce the impact of trade barriers in general, but this only a mild instrument compared to full fledged membership of the European Single Market.”
Because it is bad for all sides and even if we get a free trade agreement we are worse off than before. We are negotiating the least bad way round this mess. It ain’t easy.
Whose great idea was Brexit? And what sort of person would vote for it?
mrtrench
Well-Known Member
I think an educated man, who thinks things through for himself, who is numerate and literate and likes the Comsat Angels.
... and I can prove it.
? You just found your crate of Mythos which you bought back from hols?
You aren’t referring to Farage then?
mrtrench
Well-Known Member
Nah, he likes hip hop.
Sick Boy
Super Moderator
Haven't joined yet? When do you reckon Turkey are going to be joining?
Kingokings204
Well-Known Member
People are allowed to vote for whatever they choose and everyone will have their own reasons. Same in party politics so you don’t have a leg to stand on with that argument as I got cheesed off before when you said leave voters be ashamed. That really was nasty and hateful and I thought you were against that?
Anyway let’s move on back to the debate, I don’t agree as I think we will be better off long term. Short term was always regardless going to be uncertain but it looks like the EU have bigger problems than brexit. You may well have a point on the SM and free trade difference but maybe your forgetting or not the UK after we leave will have lots of benefits If we take advantage of them that is.
1. We won’t have to pay 10b net a year to them thus saving 10b in theory.
2. We also get to the leave the customs union which is just a protectionist racket and affects the poorest in society.
3. We also get to cut loads of EU red tape which I happen to think is a good thing as I believe in free markets. Just look at the ruinous EU fishing policy.
4. We also can have real debates and party politics on this country and have a real left and right to chose from. That’s healthy and better than before.
5. We regardless of what you think have factually 85% outside the EU to trade with including America who we surprisingly have a trade surplus with.
I genuinely can’t see what good for the EU Britain leaving is for them. They have the embarrassment of a country leaving because of the way it acts and they lose the second net contributor to the tune of 10b a year.
In fact I actually see one benefit and that’s now britain has gone they can get on with their master plan easier and crush all the littler countries like Greece who are effectively trapped. If they want that that’s fine.
Britain was always a square peg in a round hole. We never had the euro or schegen. Never fully top of the class. It was always a matter of time before we left. The EU didn't work for us by the end (last 10-15 years) and I genuinely thought leave would win last year.
Sick Boy
Super Moderator
I got laughed at by my Italian and British colleagues back in late 2013 when I said that the UK would vote out in a referendum. That's not because I think that the EU was bad like you say, but more to do with the bile against the EU from sections of the British media, as well as a certain insularity that exists across the country.
As it got nearer I thought remain would sneak it despite the poor campaign. The result was hardly a shock.
Long-term, I think it will make the country poorer, but to take a positive from it is that it will banish the superiority complex that some have in comparison to other countries and make us much more aware of ourselves and our limitations over the next 30 years.
You can't really claim we were a square peg in a round hole, plenty of people in the UK are pro EU and will long feel angry about what has happened.
Just my opinion, of course.
Kingokings204
Well-Known Member
I got laughed at by my Italian and British colleagues back in late 2013 when I said that the UK would vote out in a referendum. That's not because I think that the EU was bad like you say, but more to do with the bile against the EU from sections of the British media, as well as a certain insularity that exists across the country.
As it got nearer I thought remain would sneak it despite the poor campaign. The result was hardly a shock.
Long-term, I think it will make the country poorer, but to take a positive from it is that it will banish the superiority complex that some have in comparison to other countries and make us much more aware of ourselves and our limitations over the next 30 years.
You can't really claim we were a square peg in a round hole, plenty of people in the UK are pro EU and will long feel angry about what has happened.
Just my opinion, of course.
Yes they will feel angry and that’s fair enough but we are leaving and should back a good deal. Many people are pro EU and that’s fine I just meant in terms of adopting EU hallmarks like the euro and schegen.
I think we will be better off within 30 years and you don’t. Well one of us will be right I guess. I personally don’t think the EU will be around in 30 years time but if it is and make me wrong my prediction is the UK won’t be the only country that has left.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
1. We don't pay £10bn now, the net is around £8bn. How much is replacing all the agencies and authorities we access as part of the EU going to cost?
2. Its not certain we'll leave the customs union but if we do then we have to negotiate good deals for it to be a benefit. There's also a doubt if we can fall back to WTO rules as our member of the WTO is though our membership of the EU. Also the Irish border issue comes up again. If we have a better / worse deal than ROI and no hard border how do we stop smuggling?
3. If we want to continue to do business with the EU we will still have to abide by the vast majority of that red tape.
4. Why do we need to leave the EU for that?
5. For this to be an advantage we have to negotiate better deals than the EU has and we have to do that very quickly. Given their work on Brexit so far are you confident our government can do that?
Astute
Well-Known Member
There won't be a Juncker and Barnier trying to make things as difficult as they can.
It is 8.6 billion IIRC that we pay net. But we do pay much more than that. The difference doesn't go back to the government. It goes all over the place. And a lot of it goes to the rich landed gentry. I suppose I had better find a link before it starts the normal shitfest
Why our landed gentry are so desperate to stay in the EU | Giles Fraser: Loose canon
The Landed Gentry ‘Jackals’ Claiming Billions in Farm Subsidies
Yes. Taking a snippet and using it out of context is.
The 30 years wait to be, maybe, better off doesn’t help me. I am 62 and can’t be arsed to wait 30 years for you to tell me at the end of it that you were wrong.
Half the country are angry, not just some people. They will only be convinced that you are right if they see things improving in the short to medium term.
1. we won’t be saving the 8,6bn net as we will have to replace the offices of the EU with British bureaucracy and bureaucrats. We lose the benefits of the SM and CU if we don’t pay.
2. how does the CU affect the poorest in society?
3. Deepends on what red tape you are referring to. If it is to do with worker‘s, people‘s or animal rights, I would be very careful about making sweeping statements.
4. what do you mean „real debates“? If anything we are stuck with debates about Brexit and solving the damage it is causing for the short to medium term - at least - which distracts from such things as creating a fairer society. As proven by the resignations of Milburn and co..
5. we are one the most successful countries in the G20 in the EU. Doesn’t seemed to have harmed us too much being in the EU. We even have a surplus with the USA. See how that goes when Trump negotiates a trade deal based on protecting US markets.
Tell me more about the master plan to trash countries like Greece. I missed that in Juncker’s speech.
You claim that it was the EU that didn’t work for us in the last 10-15 years. You miss out that we were recovering from a severe world recession since 2008, and that we have been ruled by an „austerity party“ most of the last 10 years.
But, blame everything on the EU as the people in charge and the Brexit press tell you to.
dutchman
Well-Known Member
It'll be when a politically opportune moment arises, just as it did with Spain, Portugal, Greece and most east european countries.
It doesn't take much for any current objections to be cast aside. An example is Spain being allowed to join despite refusing to acknowledge British sovereignty over Gibraltar.
Sick Boy
Super Moderator
Turkey had always been a long, long way from joining the EU, the election of Erdoğan has made it even more unlikely for the foreseeable future. Personally, I don't think that Turkey will ever join.
dutchman
Well-Known Member
And yet the EU parliament continually discuss the subject. Seems an odd thing to do, discuss something which can never happen?
Sick Boy
Super Moderator
I actually forgot about the issue with Cyprus, things would have to change A LOT of it to ever happen, not to mention all the stuff with Erdoğan
Factbox: Turkey's collapsing EU membership bid
dutchman
Well-Known Member
And yet they were still discussing Turkey membership a whole month after that article was published!
mrtrench
Well-Known Member
And we'll be able to reduce net immigration - especially for low-skilled workers, thus:
1) Reducing the pressure on housing and services - but especially housing. We'll be able to catch up with house building requirements and increase supply so that prices actually reduce to affordable levels. No other tinkering will do the job: the only way to reduce house prices is to increase supply (which we are trying to do, but it appears to be a challenge to build enough to keep up with net immigration of 1 million + every 4 years) and/or to reduce demand. If we can get net immigration down to, say 100k and still build 200k houses a year, we'll really see some progress.
2) Reducing supply of low-skilled labour and thus seeing an increase in wages.
These are the main two reasons I voted leave. I don't understand people on the left who disagree with this argument.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
For those arguments to work, (and I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you), we will need to do more than reduce unskilled immigration we need a fundamental rethink of the way our whole country works which is basically a pyramid with more and more people required to keep propping it up with their tax contributions as the elderly population at the top keeps increasing.
dutchman
Well-Known Member
You mean as opposed to the national insurance contributions those same elderly have paid their entire working lives?
mrtrench
Well-Known Member
I agree that presently we have a pensions crisis due to: 1) Longevity 2) The baby boom. This is also of course a root cause of NHS budget increase requirements. It's a temporary issue (regarding baby boomers) but not temporary re longevity. Adding millions of low paid workers from Europe isn't a solution: they are not contributing significantly to either tax (they are low paid) or the economy (many send money home).
I doubt we agree on the solution. I'd do it by continuing to reduce corporation tax (but simultaneously cracking down on supranational avoidance); encouraging high paid workers and encouraging people to save for themselves.
Kingokings204
Well-Known Member
You don’t get it I don’t think.
1. We pay more than the net figure each year and we don’t get to chose where to spend it so we now get to chose where to spend our gross money which is a big plus. Spend where it’s needed to suit our country. Good thing.
2. It’s a protectionist racket, it’s makes good more expsenive that poor people need the most such as food and clothing. It’s the very nature of a protectionist Union. The customs union achieves this to the benefit of EU companies of course.
3. Not a seeeping statement it’s the truth. The regulation burden on business is so much that competitors can’t compete thus making more expensive products. Basic economics I’m sure you agree being a smart man. Look at the fisheries policy. They physically have to chuck away good fish because they are only allowed to catch a certain amount. Not very ethical is it. We could eat that fish.
4. With EU taking control you couldn’t spilt labour and tories on most things because there wasn’t much point as EU would decide anyway.
5. The point is we can negotiate our own deals. You know to suit us. Terrible isn’t it. I’m sure you hate that.
Kingokings204
Well-Known Member
Sorry I would of mentioned these also but I ran out of time last night. Massive pluses I agree.
dutchman
Well-Known Member
Except for company executives of course, who can still retire at 55 with huge tax concessions.
mrtrench
Well-Known Member
Here's another impact of free-movement; one that's been mentioned by politicians but anecdotal from my line of work.
I work with a lot of Indian programmers. It's much more efficient having some of them on-shore: I can pop round to their desks when I need to, to train them up and help when they get stuck. The company I work for just now had a policy of rotation (so one of the Indian guys came onshore for 1 year to be replaced by another).
In recent years I've lost two really bright guys that I'd trained up to be massively efficient. The first wanted to stay. He was employed via Tata and was happy to leave Tata and work directly for the company or indeed elsewhere. He couldn't stay. He returned to India and now works elsewhere. That's bad for him and the company.
The second had to leave after 1 year and still works for the company off-shore. He cannot get a visa and now the others cannot get visas either. As I've spent time with him, communication is now easy and it is efficient. However it's a loss to the UK economy. He's in his mid twenties and given the opportunity he's going to be a high-earner.
If we didn't have free movement we could choose to keep these guys here, settling, paying tax rather than two people earning, say, minimum wage washing cars in Sainsbury's car park. This is not a racist observation. I love the Poles; I have worked and lived in Poland; I speak Polish (a bit - very rusty now as I was there just after the iron curtain came down). I choose to use the car washers over the automated machines. It's an observation on the economics of the situation.
In the interests of balance, several years ago I did the same with a Bulgarian. He was a business analyst when I met him but I could see immediately he had much more potential. I spent a long time with him, training and working alongside. He's now a Project Manager and he will go on to more senior positions. He's also now a UK national. More of these please.
I work with a lot of Indian programmers. It's much more efficient having some of them on-shore: I can pop round to their desks when I need to, to train them up and help when they get stuck. The company I work for just now had a policy of rotation (so one of the Indian guys came onshore for 1 year to be replaced by another).
In recent years I've lost two really bright guys that I'd trained up to be massively efficient. The first wanted to stay. He was employed via Tata and was happy to leave Tata and work directly for the company or indeed elsewhere. He couldn't stay. He returned to India and now works elsewhere. That's bad for him and the company.
The second had to leave after 1 year and still works for the company off-shore. He cannot get a visa and now the others cannot get visas either. As I've spent time with him, communication is now easy and it is efficient. However it's a loss to the UK economy. He's in his mid twenties and given the opportunity he's going to be a high-earner.
If we didn't have free movement we could choose to keep these guys here, settling, paying tax rather than two people earning, say, minimum wage washing cars in Sainsbury's car park. This is not a racist observation. I love the Poles; I have worked and lived in Poland; I speak Polish (a bit - very rusty now as I was there just after the iron curtain came down). I choose to use the car washers over the automated machines. It's an observation on the economics of the situation.
In the interests of balance, several years ago I did the same with a Bulgarian. He was a business analyst when I met him but I could see immediately he had much more potential. I spent a long time with him, training and working alongside. He's now a Project Manager and he will go on to more senior positions. He's also now a UK national. More of these please.
mrtrench
Well-Known Member
I don't understand the point here. They are not receiving a state pension at 55. If they saved up enough to retire at 55 why shouldn't they?
1. You don't know whether it would be better spent.
2. Do you think food will become cheaper now that we are leaving? I don't. For one thing, we may have difficulty harvesting it.
3. How can competitors not compete if they are all under the same red tape as you claim? The red tape includes workers', people's and animal rights. Certain red tape will always be there. For example the classification of products such as bananas into Class I and Class II.
4. The EU has not got control. We are a sovereign state. We proved that by going to war with the USA ( one example ).
5. Do you think that Trump ( as an example ) is waiting for us to come to him so that he can make a deal to suit us? I don't. Try listening to him.
Your views are at best naiive.