Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567891011 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 156

Thread: UK pulling out of EU?

  1. #16
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    13,668
    Quote Originally Posted by dave lukins View Post
    Obviously someone in the know does not like this proposed deal hence: ''Commission plans to change the way in which the UK receives its rebate - from a yearly amount to a lump sum of ?22.8 billion for the period from 2014 to 2020 - were rejected by the UK Treasury in July 2011''.
    Like everything in the life it is a matter of negotiations. I won't be surprised that London and Brussels will reach a "compromise" to make them 11.4bn for the said period.

    After all, that's a European way, make a high claim targeting to reach 50% of that. The more the merrier.
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

  2. #17
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    19 Feb 06
    Location
    Brooklyn, New York
    Posts
    1,527
    Quote Originally Posted by Doktor View Post
    Like everything in the life it is a matter of negotiations. I won't be surprised that London and Brussels will reach a "compromise" to make them 11.4bn for the said period.

    After all, that's a European way, make a high claim targeting to reach 50% of that. The more the merrier.
    I don't think that is the issue. Notice the amount of regulation UK has rallied against. Uk law opt out Uk fical transaction monitoring opt out and lots of things they did adopt but it cost and continues to cost them a lot of money.

    My feeling is the push for a referendum is no longer just the 'plebs' but more widespread into the business community and even parts of the bureaucracy that feels cheated by power delegation and interpretation from afar.
    Originally from Sochi, Russia.

  3. #18
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    5,260
    Quote Originally Posted by Tarek Morgen View Post
    While having a trade deficit is seldom great, simply reducing/stopping imports in itself is not a good thing. Less trade with the EU does not mean that Brits will suddenly buy only home made cars, it also means that the economy is loosing access to resources, tools, machines and other goods that are not available in the home market at the required amounts, prices & quality.

    Nor would UK trade deficit mean that the EU would be hurt more than the UK. The EU would lose ONE trade partner. The UK would lose 26! Which would consist of over 55% of all it's ex and imports. While the TOTAL numbers of lost revenue might be higher on the EU side, this loss is carried and sharred across 450 million people, while an only slightly lower loss would affect only 60 million people in the UK, causing a much greater burden on the individual.
    Well your numbers are wrong: British exports to the EU as a whole are below 50% of the total... I am NOT saying it would be painless to lose that trade; I am saying that it is NOT in Europes interest to lose Britain as an export market... they are duty bound by the 'non constitution'/Lisbon to negotiate with any country that wishes to leave. Your argument that because there are more Europeans than Brits does NOT stop the greatest cumulative loss falling on Europe if the trade is stopped. The EU has free trade with Norway and Switzerland... do you think they will risk a far larger export market? Get real.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tarek Morgen View Post
    Also the tale that the European project started as a mere free trade zone, that was slowly and secretly turned into a political union against the countries (esp. the UK) knowing or wishes is just a myth. Right from the start the aim was “to establish the foundations of an ever closer union“. Growing together, not just economical, but also political, fiscal and military have always been the goals, stated in pretty much every treaty negotiated and signed in over 5 years. This is like entering a bus, hearing the announcements about the next stops, seeing the map where the line is heading to and then screaming at the driver for ending up in the “wrong place”.
    Well of course we ALL know that now... however that is NOT what we were told. The phrase "European Economic Community" does not imply that we shall be ruled by unelected 'Commissioners' and told that our laws have to change. Of course we were never supposed to realise until it was too late... that was 'the plan'. As Jean Monnet said in 1952; “Europe’s nations should be guided towards the superstate without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose but which will irreversibly lead to federation.”

    It is unelected, has defrauded it's own populace over the 'Constitution' - Lisbon affair (why DID Ireland have to vote twice? Was there some irregularity when they said no the first time?). To this day Italy does not have 1 elected Cabinet member. They went ahead with disastrous single currency and called anyone who warned it wouldn't work a 'lunatic' and worse. They are ruling 3 countries in Europe by unelected 'troika' and driving them into poverty unseen in peacetime. Their own dam accounts haven't been signed off by the Auditors for over 18 years... Forgive me if I think life might be better elsewhere. If you want to stay good luck! You will need it as soon Germany will bailing out France, which now has a 20% productivity difference from Germany. Not for me though...

  4. #19
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    13,668
    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    Well your numbers are wrong: British exports to the EU as a whole are below 50% of the total...
    That's true only since this July.

    Edit: Nobody ever stopped UK to sell elsewhere, only the crisis in Europe forced them to see that opportunity.

    See something good out of the bad always comes out.
    Last edited by Doktor; 26 Oct 12, at 09:39.
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

  5. #20
    Administrator Tarek Morgen's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Feb 07
    Location
    Kassel
    Posts
    4,417
    The other aspect is "harmonization of fiscal services", if the UK has to remit transaction fees for European capital and it flees to a different jurisdiction it would be paying quiet a lot.

    You also do not take into account tariff remittances that go to EU for goods that without those remittances would have been cheaper for the UK consumer, like garlic for example... but I am sure other goods come under that umbrella as well.
    In addition all the extra regulation that comes out of Brussels has compliance costs while for the most part British law compliance is already in the system.

    You also have no idea what the EU spends those money on if its EU bureaucrats and regulation enforcement then it really is not spending for the benefit of the UK public is it now...

    My guess the overall cost is close to what UKIP claims ergo 60-70 billion pounds a year or so.
    The precedent is the interesting factor if UK leaves whom is next?
    You use numbers that don't have any basis. On what calculations do you base these 60-70 billion pounds on?

    Further even if the UK leaves the EU, as long as it still wants access to the common market (like Switzerland or Norway have), these rules and regulations still apply! The difference is that those countries have no say whatsoever about them. They can either accept them (and get access to the common market) or not and stay out of it.
    Well your numbers are wrong: British exports to the EU as a whole are below 50% of the total...
    You might have to recheck your numberes. The UK does export more than 50% to the EU. The amount it exports to the Eurozone is below 50%:

    Factcheck: Is more than half of the UK's foreign trade with the eurozone? | Full Fact

    This breakdown shows that while more than half of UK imports and exports (by value) are from/to the EU, this is not true of the*euro area. Less than half of UK imports, by value, come from the eurozone, and less than half of UK exports, by value, go to the eurozone. It therefore seems that it is not true that “over half of the value of our foreign trade comes from the euro area.”
    Conclusion
    This claim seems to be the result of a simple mix up between the eurozone and the EU. While more than half of the value of the UK's foreign trade could be said to come from the EU, the same cannot be said of the euro area.
    These numbers are for 2011 (as 2012 is not over yet and thus there are no complete numbers)

    I am NOT saying it would be painless to lose that trade; I am saying that it is NOT in Europes interest to lose Britain as an export market... they are duty bound by the 'non constitution'/Lisbon to negotiate with any country that wishes to leave. Your argument that because there are more Europeans than Brits does NOT stop the greatest cumulative loss falling on Europe if the trade is stopped. The EU has free trade with Norway and Switzerland... do you think they will risk a far larger export market? Get real.
    As already mentioned above, if you want an agreement like Norway & Switzerland you also have to accept all those rules and regulations you complain about! And you then have no longer a say when it comes to changes & new ones. You would have to accept whatever decisions are made by the EU or lose the common market. A far weaker position than the UK is now in.

    Well of course we ALL know that now... however that is NOT what we were told. The phrase "European Economic Community" does not imply that we shall be ruled by unelected 'Commissioners' and told that our laws have to change. Of course we were never supposed to realise until it was too late... that was 'the plan'. As Jean Monnet said in 1952; “Europe’s nations should be guided towards the superstate without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose but which will irreversibly lead to federation.”
    If you claim this, then it seems like nobody in the UK read (or understood) any of the European treaties they signed. The aim for a closer union (politcal and otherwise) was always in there and directly spilled out. Also that often repeated quote by Monnet? Made up:

    http://eurealist.co.uk/?p=676

    (If you wish to contest this, feel free to provide a primary source)

    It is unelected, has defrauded it's own populace over the 'Constitution' - Lisbon affair (why DID Ireland have to vote twice? Was there some irregularity when they said no the first time?). To this day Italy does not have 1 elected Cabinet member. They went ahead with disastrous single currency and called anyone who warned it wouldn't work a 'lunatic' and worse. They are ruling 3 countries in Europe by unelected 'troika' and driving them into poverty unseen in peacetime. Their own dam accounts haven't been signed off by the Auditors for over 18 years... Forgive me if I think life might be better elsewhere. If you want to stay good luck! You will need it as soon Germany will bailing out France, which now has a 20% productivity difference from Germany. Not for me though...
    The problem with this is..you don't want to really go completely. You want the boons (common market) without the banes (regulations). And that just won't happen.

  6. #21
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    19 Feb 06
    Location
    Brooklyn, New York
    Posts
    1,527
    Quote Originally Posted by Tarek Morgen View Post
    The problem with this is..you don't want to really go completely. You want the boons (common market) without the banes (regulations). And that just won't happen.
    I disagree. The common market will be recreated, and regulations already exist. The problem is that under their guise you get taxation (via carbon credits that are issued by banks via sovereign allowance) and you get carbon taxes and fines on airlines of countries which comply with all the reasonable safety regulations.

    This ceases to work very quickly once you get retaliated against. Ergo Russia or any other country can simply begin issuing compliance certificates for their airlines for a made up substance or simply go outright skytoll with reimbursement to local airlines. Lots of things exist that are "regulations" but in actual reality "taxes in disguise", some of them may even be bureaucratic in nature and the only inspection agencies would be located and allowed to perform in certain Euro states.

    When you utterly and completely dominate a market due to these types of things and you get the rug pulled from under you via countries simply saying 'to hell with you' and letting firms compete that can't in your area, you get two problems.
    Efficiency those firms are more efficient since they don't have to deal with 'fake tax-regs' and two you get reciprocity via exclusion due to those same regulations. This translates into the third problem that once you dominate a market on margin you are more vulnerable being excluded from it, since your infrastructure (tax'reg'compliance) and fleet are contingent on the wider area of use which becomes abridged. Instant higher hurdle costs.

    Common Market will be structured to accept most sovereign regulatory agencies as it was before the 4th Bureaucracy (European Union) began to manufacture supranational ones. Otherwise in most cases you improve black market growth in countries within the union which simply can't compete on breadth (infra, compliance, etc) or countries leave and retaliate for equal access.

    P.S. just used airlines as example I am sure there are others.
    Originally from Sochi, Russia.

  7. #22
    Administrator Tarek Morgen's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Feb 07
    Location
    Kassel
    Posts
    4,417
    Wait..so you assume that once the UK leave the remaining EU will change the common market so that the UK (and other countries) will keep their access without having to deal with with the same limitation the member states have? That maybe what the UK is hoping for, but no way in hell it's gonna happen. The UK has three choices, stay, leave completely and loose the common market or leave and make a Swiss/Norway like deal.

  8. #23
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 06
    Posts
    4,423
    Quote Originally Posted by cyppok View Post
    Common Market will be structured to accept most sovereign regulatory agencies as it was before the 4th Bureaucracy (European Union) began to manufacture supranational ones.
    Uh... that would have been in 1952?

    Because the Common Market went on just fine for 20 years before the UK joined it in 1973. Actually, it went way better than it did once we had the UK in there...

    Quote Originally Posted by Tarek Morgen View Post
    leave and make a Swiss/Norway like deal.
    And pay for it by having the EU impose its regulations on you without you having any say in them. Like Switzerland.

  9. #24
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    19 Feb 06
    Location
    Brooklyn, New York
    Posts
    1,527
    Switzerland and others pay what they can and bargain very hard for what they have to trade.

    UK right now is simply not able to bargain/negotiate better terms of trade while paying fairly steep costs.
    Think about food being taxed if it is imported outside the market and the tariffs going to the EU instead of savings going to UK citizenry in the form of more competitive prices. Lots of other examples, you can even think about machinery and other tool manufacturers simply loosing to inter-Eu market imports.

    Oh I am sure there are costs, the problem is at the current juncture their voice is like a party that has permanent representation in a Parliament that NEVER gets elected, EVER. So that voice becomes meaningless.

    You also have to consider logistically it would be simple to put a value-added factory in Ireland and put a microscope or whichever tool in the box that says made in Ireland on it for export to EU. Much simpler than the reverse due to proximity.

    Another point would be simply from a budget perspective if the EU did get 30-40-50 billion pounds from UK in actual tariffs, budget payments, and other commitments what would it do after? whom would make up the difference? Sure they would still comply with regulation to EU but would be free to enact their own, challenge them in bi-lateral trade agreements with EU, and save the difference on those costs.

    Like I mentioned earlier precedent matters. Spain, Portugal, and others will see another option. What if Spain leaves? it would make 100 million people less in the common market, that makes it bargaining with others outside of it like the U.S. much more dynamic.
    Originally from Sochi, Russia.

  10. #25
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    13,668
    Cyppok there are requirements for something to be declared Made in XYZ.

    You can't just put 2 bolts on something preasembled in UK and declare it Irish.
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

  11. #26
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    19 Feb 06
    Location
    Brooklyn, New York
    Posts
    1,527
    Quote Originally Posted by Doktor View Post
    Cyppok there are requirements for something to be declared Made in XYZ.

    You can't just put 2 bolts on something preasembled in UK and declare it Irish.
    most Made in France things are assembled in France but the components are more or less imported by those same companies, yes the companies are French and the assembly is in France but parts were produced elsewhere.

    There is always a way out, Always...

    never underestimate the power of corruption.
    Originally from Sochi, Russia.

  12. #27
    Administrator Tarek Morgen's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Feb 07
    Location
    Kassel
    Posts
    4,417
    UK right now is simply not able to bargain/negotiate better terms of trade while paying fairly steep costs.
    Think about food being taxed if it is imported outside the market and the tariffs going to the EU instead of savings going to UK citizenry in the form of more competitive prices. Lots of other examples, you can even think about machinery and other tool manufacturers simply loosing to inter-Eu market imports.
    uh..those tariffs the EU gets from the UK (food and all other combined)..about 2.5 billion €
    You want to risk over 500 billion € in im- and exports with the EU to avoid 2.5 billion in tariffs? And it is not like if the UK would simply stop raising tariffs once they are out, for example in an attempt to strengthen their own fishing industry.


    Another point would be simply from a budget perspective if the EU did get 30-40-50 billion pounds from UK in actual tariffs, budget payments, and other commitments what would it do after? whom would make up the difference? Sure they would still comply with regulation to EU but would be free to enact their own, challenge them in bi-lateral trade agreements with EU, and save the difference on those costs.
    Again..where the hell are you getting those numbers? 40 to 50 billion pounds? Even if you add all together, the tariffs, vat and general contribution you get 12 (!) billion pounds. So what happens once the UK leaves to those 12 billion? Well first you subtract the money that flows back to the UK (about 5.5 billion pound), leaving 6.5 billions to be covered by the remaining EU countries.

    Like I mentioned earlier precedent matters. Spain, Portugal, and others will see another option. What if Spain leaves? it would make 100 million people less in the common market, that makes it bargaining with others outside of it like the U.S. much more dynamic.
    Spain & Portugal leaving the EU? Two of the biggest net-receivers of the EU? Two countries whose economies stand and fall with tourism which will take a skydive once they leave the Schengen and Eurozone??

  13. #28
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    5,260
    Quote Originally Posted by Tarek Morgen View Post
    uh..those tariffs the EU gets from the UK (food and all other combined)..about 2.5 billion €
    You want to risk over 500 billion € in im- and exports with the EU to avoid 2.5 billion in tariffs? And it is not like if the UK would simply stop raising tariffs once they are out, for example in an attempt to strengthen their own fishing industry.
    One wonders how on earth anyone was able to survive without an undemocratic superstate that you have pay into in order to trade before the EU came along to save the Greeks. Britain was trading with Phoenicia before the Roman Empire... You do NOT need a bunch of unelected bureaucrats to trade freely. Of course they succeeded so well at encouraging free trade that now Greece and Spain etc are not allowed to devalue. How free is that?

    As for the federalist agenda... say what you want but it was NEVER sold a federal project: The law that binds Britain to the EU is called 'The European Communities Act' not a 'European State Act'.

    As for British exports in fact alot of British exports are labeled as going to Europe only because they pass through Europe.

    Look, I fully understand that you don't want another war in Europe; you're unlikely to find many who do. However the way to go about stopping a war is not by setting up an unelected superstate that is accountable to none or by forcing the economies together in an artificial and harmful manner. The fact is that in their haste to stop another they are destroying the real peace which was based on a strong US alliance under NATO. Don't let the Nobel Committee fool you; there were almost certainly old Soviet Generals who deserved the peace prize more.

    The Germans should get real and get out before they start having to pay for the French to retire earlier than themselves.

  14. #29
    New Member
    Join Date
    03 Nov 12
    Location
    Guangdong
    Posts
    3
    Hi,I am a new member here,I do hope to learn sth. here ,thanks.

  15. #30
    Administrator Tarek Morgen's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Feb 07
    Location
    Kassel
    Posts
    4,417
    One wonders how on earth anyone was able to survive without an undemocratic superstate that you have pay into in order to trade before the EU came along to save the Greeks. Britain was trading with Phoenicia before the Roman Empire... You do NOT need a bunch of unelected bureaucrats to trade freely. Of course they succeeded so well at encouraging free trade that now Greece and Spain etc are not allowed to devalue. How free is that?

    As for the federalist agenda... say what you want but it was NEVER sold a federal project: The law that binds Britain to the EU is called 'The European Communities Act' not a 'European State Act'.
    Repeating your claims, won't make them more correct. The European project was always designed to also create a closer political union and never made a secret out of it.

    Here is what Sir Edward Heath told the British people

    The end of the negotiations is a blow to the cause of the wider European unity for which we have been striving
    After the UK's first failed bit to join.

    The British government and the British people have been through a searching debate during the last few years on the subject of their relations with Europe. The result of this debate has been our present application. It was a decision arrived at, not on any narrow or short-term grounds, but as a result of a thorough assessment over a considerable period of the needs of our own country, of Europe and of the free world as a whole. We recognise it as a great decision, a turning point in our history, and we take it in all seriousness. In saying that we wish to join the EEC, we mean that we desire to become full, whole-hearted and active members of the European Community in its widest sense and to go forward with you in the building of a new Europe.
    And this was what he said after the UK actually joined. And this are just a few quotes. I can continue to cite the treaties the UK signed, as well as it's politicals who created, signed and ratified them.

    Further you don't even seem to understand what the title of “The European Communities Act” means. The “Communities” do not refer to the member states. Let me quote the act itself, if I may:

    "the Communities" means the European Economic Community, the European Coal and Steel Community and the European Atomic Energy Community
    Also to refer to your likely next objection, why was it called EEC and not European Politcal Community (or something like that), let me once refer to the very first words of the Treaty of Rome

    DETERMINED to establish the foundations of an ever closer union among the European peoples
    And from 1973 the UK and its government, elected by it's people, did (co)create, sign and ratify all the European treaties which still affect it today and brought it here. Do you really claim that over all that time your electorate managed to elect mere buffoons who did not know what they were doing? Failed to understand the very treaties they themselves co-authored? Because if you insist that the UK was only in it for the trade and was tricked into everything else, this has to be the only way this was possible.

    As for British exports in fact alot of British exports are labeled as going to Europe only because they pass through Europe.
    Yeah...no. To be labelled as an export to the EU it has to be SOLD to the EU, and not just pass through it. Of course who ever buys it might resell again, outside the EU, but that is a new trade, between the new owner and the new buyer, and not between the UK and him. But let's say, just for humours sake, that the EU is not responsible for over 50% of UK's trade. Let's make it 45 or even 40%. It still won't change the end result, that the common market is the biggest & most important market for the UK and the losing it would be devastating. The only difference with “merely” 40% would be that the fallout would be a bit smaller. That's it.

    Look, I fully understand that you don't want another war in Europe; you're unlikely to find many who do. However the way to go about stopping a war is not by setting up an unelected superstate that is accountable to none or by forcing the economies together in an artificial and harmful manner. The fact is that in their haste to stop another they are destroying the real peace which was based on a strong US alliance under NATO. Don't let the Nobel Committee fool you; there were almost certainly old Soviet Generals who deserved the peace prize more.

    The Germans should get real and get out before they start having to pay for the French to retire earlier than themselves.
    “Get Real”. Not the first time you used that phrase. Rather amusing considering you are the one who relies on wrong numbers, faked quotes and seem to buy whichever anti-europe claim comes along. You don't like the EU? That is fine. You want the UK out of it? I don't even disagree with that (though for vastly other reasons). But if you, for the sake of reason itself, please use for once real numbers, real quotes and real arguments. All of the EU, it's treaties, it's budget & finances are a matter of public record, ready at your disposal. Or don't and continue to so easily disproven and dismissed.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. U.S. Pulling Back in Afghan Valley It Called Vital to War
    By T_igger_cs_30 in forum Operation Enduring Freedom and Af-Pak
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 27 Feb 11,, 22:25
  2. U.S. pulling 3,000 troops from Iraq
    By troung in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 16 Nov 07,, 23:40
  3. Wash Times: Zarqawi, al Qaeda pulling out
    By Bill in forum International Economy
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 18 Jun 06,, 19:32

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •