Or indeed buy, once free of the EU's savagely protective agricultural lobby that routinely holds up agreements (and currently is with NZ).
When considering in or out:
- Thread starter Nozzle
- Start date
- Status
Sponsored Links
Ah, so you don't know how trade deals work, OK then, here's a quick summary from an certain Oxford Professor:
"Some countries can go it alone. The USA has such a big market (and firepower) that it can practically dictate the terms of its trade agreements with other countries. North Korea doesn't need them since it's closed to most of the world. But Britain is (and has been for centuries) an open trading economy. It attracts jobs and investors drawn to this English-speaking doorway to the EU and all its trading partners.
If Britain leaves the EU, it will suffer three consequences. First, it will lose foreign investment and jobs because new trade deals take an average of 28 months to negotiate - and that's too much uncertainty, for too long, for most investors. Second, the U.K. will become a rule-taker in trade negotiations. Like Switzerland in its recent deal with China, Britain will have to accept what larger partners have to offer. Third, the U.K. will lose its special access to the 60+ countries with whom the EU has agreements. In a slowing and intensely competitive global economy, these are serious handicaps to creating the jobs Britain needs."
We have both, last time I checked, but we couldn't compete with developing countries such as China, for low value/commodity products. Our manufacturing is actually bigger now than in the 1960s in terms of value, but we employ less people to do it. We can't go back to the 1960s, because the world has moved on. Technology and the world's systems have moved on. If you want more manufacturing, you need to be able to access those markets that will buy from you, and in our case, that is largely wealthy nations, as we make high value products, because that is what we can compete on. And we just happen to have 100s of millions of people living nearby that will buy those products, so being in the EU makes sense. Not being in the EU does not.
How would they have prevented such decimation?
I don't live in London either. I work in manufacturing, but I know we need access to the world's markets. As a member of the EU, we stand the best chance of being a rule maker rather than a rule taker, as its so big.
Did you miss the bit where I pointed out the tax we get from FS? That goes into the Government's coffers, and goes towards things like the NHS, social care etc. With a projected lowering of GDP, comes a lowering of tax income for the Government. But also, such sectors are high paying, which means they spend on high value goods, which can benefit the rest of the UK.
When banks start to move out of the UK (eg. Deutsche Bank has announced it will go from 15 sites in the UK to one, with many jobs moving to the EU, and Goldman Sachs are moving jobs to the EU).
-High paying jobs moving out the UK.
You don't need Nosty, but the IFS is quite clear:
"However, there is an overwhelming consensus among those who have made estimates of the consequences of Brexit for national income that it would reduce national income in both the short and long runs. The economic reasons for this – increased uncertainty, higher costs of trade and reduced FDI – are clear. "
https://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/comms/r116.pdf
Then there's the additional costs that the UK will incur. Here is an informal list I have compiled from other forums:
The £122bn budget shortfall
Additional funding for the NHS
Maintaining farming subsidies
Maintaining fishing subsidies
Indemnifying manufacturers against negative impacts of Brexit
£2bn a year for science and innovation
Replace EU investment for our poorest regions
Pay our EEA subscriptions
Pay for the department of Brexiting
Pay for the department of International Trade
Pay for bodies to set and enforce rules currently handled by the EU
Further examples:
Invest in waste projects to reduce landfill (eg. waste to energy)
The direct and consequential costs, arising from any changes to the free travel area between the UK and ROI
£800m per annum extra to meet our 0.7% international development commitment, since a portion of our present EU contribution counts towards that goal.
€40-€60bn exit bill to cover pension liabilities, unpaid commitments and loan guarantees.
Many shared resources, such as the European Medicines Agency which is responsible for scientific evaluation, supervision and safety monitoring of medicines for use in the EU; and the European Environment Agency, which provides independent information for policy makers and the public, to name but two... All such agencies, with the cost currently shared across the EU and EEA, will need to be set up from scratch in the UK, if we are to uphold our global regulatory and policy obligations.
European social funding planned would be honoured
Extra help in sports programs
A whole infrastructure of inventory units at uk ports and airport's to handle and check all goods coming to and from the EU because we are not in the customs union. And increased cost to business, with the delays and expense of goods having to go through those checks.
Employing lots more civil servants to manage the above?
Reduced taxation incomes from big business to encourage them to come here, but I suspect that will be offset by cutting benefits and increasing personal taxation or National Insurance.
The economic loss from signing a rushed 'distress' trade deal with the USA.
The reduction in economic productivity, due to being unable to attract talented people from overseas, either through outright controls, unworkable bureaucracy, or simply that they don't see the UK as a desirable place to live.
The recruitment of hundreds of border staff
And...
Helping to fund (presumably) some new court for handling trade disputes with the EU,
...in the year 2030...
"We can't go back to the 2000s, because the world has moved on. Technology and the world's systems have moved on."
See how it is? You whole argument begs the question; you can't know that the way things are now is they way they ought always to be. Markets aren't like drugs trials; there is no control group to compare to. We don't know that joining the EU was a better choice than not joining; you just assume it was because you're here, now, living it, and it's 'basically ok'. You don't know that without the EU you wouldn't have become a shoeless crack whore, and neither do you know that you wouldnt have become the next Richard Branson. So it is with Brexit. The IFS cannot make long range economic forecasts anymore than the Met Office can make long range weather forecasts.
And what do you mean by 'access'? Even Papau New Guinea has access to the single market!
I'm not like you. I wouldn't like to live in a country where one billionair pays all the tax so the rest can live freely on benefits (the logical extreme of you point above); I'd prefer to live in a country with very low tax and great personal responsibility. That's just me. And it's a purely subjective, emotive attitude; neither of us can use logic or reason to argue how big government ought to be and how much tax is needed.
"We can't go back to the 2000s, because the world has moved on. Technology and the world's systems have moved on."
See how it is? You whole argument begs the question; you can't know that the way things are now is they way they ought always to be. Markets aren't like drugs trials; there is no control group to compare to. We don't know that joining the EU was a better choice than not joining; you just assume it was because you're here, now, living it, and it's 'basically ok'. You don't know that without the EU you wouldn't have become a shoeless crack whore, and neither do you know that you wouldnt have become the next Richard Branson. So it is with Brexit. The IFS cannot make long range economic forecasts anymore than the Met Office can make long range weather forecasts.
You mean people in the EU like to buy our high-value products, but the rest of the world kinda doesn't? Why is that?
I also work in manufacturing, and the EU is a burden to us as we mostly export outside it.
And what do you mean by 'access'? Even Papau New Guinea has access to the single market!
Why do you want to make more rules? Kinda sounds like you think rules are a pain, so we might as well be the ones making them, which is a weak argument for any club.
Maybe you're the sort of person who likes lots of taxes, lots of state provision, and rules/intervention. It sounds like it. That's fine.
I'm not like you. I wouldn't like to live in a country where one billionair pays all the tax so the rest can live freely on benefits (the logical extreme of you point above); I'd prefer to live in a country with very low tax and great personal responsibility. That's just me. And it's a purely subjective, emotive attitude; neither of us can use logic or reason to argue how big government ought to be and how much tax is needed.
Budget shortfall, or public overspending?
The NHS will absord as much money as you care to throw at it. On judgement day when the horsemen of the apocalypse come to smite the nations, you'll still be claiming the NHS is underfunded. Here's an idea; Maybe the NHS has enough money already, and it's the people who demand too much?
Here's an idea: Stop. Subsidising. Everything.
Last edited:
Sponsored Links
What do you mean by 'best'?
It would seem from what is being said that it is extremely irresponsible of the Government and Parliament to proceed with brexit - despite the referendum.
Why are they proceeding?
Do they know that this catastrophe will follow?
Are they just going to say when the country collapses, "It's your fault; you voted for it; nothing we could do"?
Why are they proceeding?
Do they know that this catastrophe will follow?
Are they just going to say when the country collapses, "It's your fault; you voted for it; nothing we could do"?
Wobs - you have totally missed the point.
People want all of those things.
They want to pay more, they want to earn less, and they want to suffer hardships so that we can control our own borders, not be ruled by Brussels, and to have "sovereignty" returned to our Parliament (just so long as said Parliament doesn't try to use its powers to fulfil its constitutional responsibilities).
37.5% of the electorate said they wanted all of that, so we have got to let them have their way.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch13s7.html
Because they don't have as much backbone between them all as one earthworm.
TBF nobody knows if there will be a "catastrophe", or how bad, but the indications are that the risks of a poor outcome are stupidly high, and there is no doubt that whatever the negative impacts, they will be felt most by the people already suffering from economic woes not caused by the EU.
Yup.
And they will stand by while patriots like Paul Dacre and Richard Desmond blame judges, remainers and foreigners for any poor outcomes.
Rather Ironic that when Theresa May`s letter to leave the EU arrives on the Desk in Brussels it will be ALL FOOLS DAY !!
To be fair, the electorate rarely gets anything it votes for, really. When was the last time a party actually stuck to its manifesto (has it ever happened?). Kinda nice to see something actually being carried out (despite the main MPs involved being remainers).
Actually, I think that is the most worrying part.
An alternative suggestion I have heard (though it relies on the Supremacy of Parliament, a very difficult concept for the Quitters to grasp) is that after negotiating the divorce deal, it should be presented to Parliament. Parliament should ask two questions:
"Is it better than what we've got, or worse?"
"If it's worse, why the hell would anyone go for it?"
B
blightymam
What murders? Tell me murders that have happened because of Brexit. With links because I've clearly missed them in the news.
Jo Cox's husband says her murder isn't about Brexit, if that's what he feels then that is good enough for me.
The Harlow murder isn't being trialed as a hate crime. It's being trialed as manslaughter of a man who happens to be Polish, not because he is Polish in the courts, meaning there isn't enough evidence to do otherwise. If you know better, which you seem to think so by keep calling it a hate crime then you'd best get in touch with the prosecutors. It's only right if the 15 year old kid gets done for that too.
I did hear about this fellow tho, a remain supporter attacked a brexiter.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...uropean-union-remain-manchester-a7362956.html
I guess you don't want me to mention him tho as it doesn't suit your modus operandi.
I have never brushed aside the fact that nurses are leaving. When you brought this topic up before a couple of weeks or so ago I did say it wasn't good. You've obviously forgotten that bit, as well as the graph that EFL put up downplaying your emotive headlines and putting it into perspective with the facts behind your headline.
As mentioned before, I am more interested in what is going to be done about it. There's a small problem with overseas workers leaving (not as big as the damage the government have/are causing) but Brexit is still going ahead. No point in keep moaning but more point in problem solving. We can't turn back the clock, but we can educate people in tolerance (and you too) and make plans to get more medical staff in.
I see no point in keep harping over Brexit and things we cannot change.
I actually feel a bit sorry for you.
I can. It's fun! Keep it up!
(Just remember that it is only a bit of fun)- Status
Sponsored Links
