RugbyRebels

Donny osmond wrote:

UGagain wrote:

Donny osmond wrote: Ok don't want to turn this into an iScot indyref discussion, sorry i even brought it up now! but suffice it to say I disagree.... I'm not sure anyone has ever before accused Salmon's of being even remotely meek, let alone too meek to take on the Westminster establishment!!

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

Salmond is one man FFS.

Perhaps you could give me an example that demonstrates any of the supposed good things that the EU does (from the propaganda of the innies).

Again, look at what they're doing.Not the flowery bullshit, the reality.

They are inflicting by design a depression on southern Europe. The entire EU economy is still smaller than it was in 2007. Manufacturing has collapsed. Investment has collapsed. There's about 24 million people unemployed and 10 of millions under-employed.

All by design.

You have governments stealing the valuables and money of refugees. You have governments openly collaborating with Nazis and fascists.

So sorry, but what is there there?

Am not defending the EU and don't think I've argued in defence of it anywhere? Apologies if I've mislead.

I'm as cynical as anyone about the EU (perhaps not as cynical as you mind) I just want an objective appraisal of what the UK could expect to be like if we vote out. I know what in looks like, I'm living it, so what will change if we vote out?

All these problems you've listed, can we realistically hope to avoid them happening here if we vote out? Seems to me the UK govt are as bad as anyone at kowtowing to big business, so what's to become of us?

This EU ref isn't, for me, a chance to show approval or otherwise of the EU, its a choice between what we have now versus what we can expect to have if things change.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

Well surely there's more hope of voting out these neoliberal governments and overthrowing the status quo in a non-EU beholden UK isn't there?

Dude, think for yourself. Stop listening to the lying liars on the viewscreen and waiting for someone else to give you your opinion.

What benefits are there in being in the ship of fools that is EU?

UGagain wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:

UGagain wrote:
Salmond is one man FFS.

Perhaps you could give me an example that demonstrates any of the supposed good things that the EU does (from the propaganda of the innies).

Again, look at what they're doing.Not the flowery bullshit, the reality.

They are inflicting by design a depression on southern Europe. The entire EU economy is still smaller than it was in 2007. Manufacturing has collapsed. Investment has collapsed. There's about 24 million people unemployed and 10 of millions under-employed.

All by design.

You have governments stealing the valuables and money of refugees. You have governments openly collaborating with Nazis and fascists.

So sorry, but what is there there?

Am not defending the EU and don't think I've argued in defence of it anywhere? Apologies if I've mislead.

I'm as cynical as anyone about the EU (perhaps not as cynical as you mind) I just want an objective appraisal of what the UK could expect to be like if we vote out. I know what in looks like, I'm living it, so what will change if we vote out?

All these problems you've listed, can we realistically hope to avoid them happening here if we vote out? Seems to me the UK govt are as bad as anyone at kowtowing to big business, so what's to become of us?

This EU ref isn't, for me, a chance to show approval or otherwise of the EU, its a choice between what we have now versus what we can expect to have if things change.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

Well surely there's more hope of voting out these neoliberal governments and overthrowing the status quo in a non-EU beholden UK isn't there?

Dude, think for yourself. Stop listening to the lying liars on the viewscreen and waiting for someone else to give you your opinion.

What benefits are there in being in the ship of fools that is EU?

Voting out the EU-biased establishment? I don't see how the UK being in or out of the EU is going to affect that. If its going to happen, it'll be from a grass roots movement that is unaffected by the UKs membership status.

I'm trying to form my own opinions, but if they're to be worthwhile they can't just be from a jaundiced view point. How does your overwhelmingly negative view of the EU anymore encouraging me to think for myself than someone else's overwhelmingly positive view? As discussed earlier with Billyfish, we're all guilty of putting our own perspective on things.

Who's facts do I trust and why?

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

Donny osmond wrote:

UGagain wrote:

Donny osmond wrote: Am not defending the EU and don't think I've argued in defence of it anywhere? Apologies if I've mislead.

I'm as cynical as anyone about the EU (perhaps not as cynical as you mind) I just want an objective appraisal of what the UK could expect to be like if we vote out. I know what in looks like, I'm living it, so what will change if we vote out?

All these problems you've listed, can we realistically hope to avoid them happening here if we vote out? Seems to me the UK govt are as bad as anyone at kowtowing to big business, so what's to become of us?

This EU ref isn't, for me, a chance to show approval or otherwise of the EU, its a choice between what we have now versus what we can expect to have if things change.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

Well surely there's more hope of voting out these neoliberal governments and overthrowing the status quo in a non-EU beholden UK isn't there?

Dude, think for yourself. Stop listening to the lying liars on the viewscreen and waiting for someone else to give you your opinion.

What benefits are there in being in the ship of fools that is EU?

Voting out the EU-biased establishment? I don't see how the UK being in or out of the EU is going to affect that. If its going to happen, it'll be from a grass roots movement that is unaffected by the UKs membership status.

I'm trying to form my own opinions, but if they're to be worthwhile they can't just be from a jaundiced view point. How does your overwhelmingly negative view of the EU anymore encouraging me to think for myself than someone else's overwhelmingly positive view? As discussed earlier with Billyfish, we're all guilty of putting our own perspective on things.

Who's facts do I trust and why?

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

The facts speak for themselves. Look at what they've done.

You don't need to balance the opinions of others to discern the facts of what they've done.

It's insane, it's venal and it's the opposite of all they claim to stand for.

Start thinking about facts. Not 'balancing' opinion pieces in the cesspool that is the British media.

Remember, all they claim to stand for is demonstrably false based on the reality of what they've done.

Donny osmond wrote:

Billyfish wrote:

Donny osmond wrote: Ok don't want to turn this into an iScot indyref discussion, sorry i even brought it up now! but suffice it to say I disagree.... I'm not sure anyone has ever before accused Salmon's of being even remotely meek, let alone too meek to take on the Westminster establishment!!

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

Yarp, we're going OT. Another thread praps. Suffice to say, when someone employs 'the fear' I now instinctively distrust them without recourse to logic.

True, but we need to look at who's bringing the fear and the response to it. E.g. just heard on the radio that some business leaders have said leaving the EU will be bad, but the response from the out camp is that DaveCam has bullied them into saying that. Seems to me that both sides are playing project fear there, do who to trust and why?

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

A letter supporting EU membership was sent to 100 or so big businesses, of which about a third signed to support it. This is making front pages in the media, although the BBC seemed to be confusing the number of signatures with the number of big businesses involved. Either there are multiple signatures from the same business or the term big business is being used to denote well beyond the FTSE top 100.

Either way, out of the top 100 companies, a third are supporting the remain in campaign.

The rest, well who knows. Some will support brexit. Others perhaps just don't want to commit publicly. I recall JCB issuing a statement that basically stated that it didn't matter to them either way. I suspect many others are in the same boat. Many who have signed the document have close links with Cameron, but is that necessarily a surprise?

Donny osmond wrote:

Billyfish wrote:

Donny osmond wrote: Ok don't want to turn this into an iScot indyref discussion, sorry i even brought it up now! but suffice it to say I disagree.... I'm not sure anyone has ever before accused Salmon's of being even remotely meek, let alone too meek to take on the Westminster establishment!!

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

Yarp, we're going OT. Another thread praps. Suffice to say, when someone employs 'the fear' I now instinctively distrust them without recourse to logic.

True, but we need to look at who's bringing the fear and the response to it. E.g. just heard on the radio that some business leaders have said leaving the EU will be bad, but the response from the out camp is that DaveCam has bullied them into saying that. Seems to me that both sides are playing project fear there, do who to trust and why?

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

Neither. It's an interesting list. I believe that ASDA is on it, but Tesco is emphatically not. Similarly (back to Scotland after saying all that) Tesco was on a similar list drawn up by Westminster of companies that thought independence was a danger and Morrissons (iirc might have been ASDA) said it wouldn't make any difference to their business. Supermarkets competing in the same areas with presumably very similar business models, is one of them wrong or lying or is their given opinion nothing do to with the question asked.

Banquo wrote:

Billyfish wrote:

Zhivago wrote:Boris has chosen OUT. Doesn't change my opinion - I still think he's a self-serving oaf.

A cunning self-serving oaf though. Assuming it is not the sudden attack of conscience that he is making it out to be and that he is gunning for Cameron's job as we all know he is, then he must genuinely believe there is a chance of an out vote?

He wins either way- Dave is going before the parliament is out, and it'll be earlier if we vote out- and he has positioned himself with the Eurosceptic tory grass roots in the event of a stay in. I think he thinks we'll stay, and that's what he really wants anyway- he's a Europhile.

Yarp. You are surely right.

Billyfish wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:

Billyfish wrote:
Yarp, we're going OT. Another thread praps. Suffice to say, when someone employs 'the fear' I now instinctively distrust them without recourse to logic.

True, but we need to look at who's bringing the fear and the response to it. E.g. just heard on the radio that some business leaders have said leaving the EU will be bad, but the response from the out camp is that DaveCam has bullied them into saying that. Seems to me that both sides are playing project fear there, do who to trust and why?

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

Neither. It's an interesting list. I believe that ASDA is on it, but Tesco is emphatically not. Similarly (back to Scotland after saying all that) Tesco was on a similar list drawn up by Westminster of companies that thought independence was a danger and Morrissons (iirc might have been ASDA) said it wouldn't make any difference to their business. Supermarkets competing in the same areas with presumably very similar business models, is one of them wrong or lying or is their given opinion nothing do to with the question asked.

not sure absence means anything though; many probably couldn't be ar5sed to go through the governance needed to make a public statement, in some cases perhaps mildly share price affecting and certainly one that would then require internal comms teams to prepare to field a lot of questions. It also may be that there will be a steady leak of names 'joining the list'. But who knows, its all smoke and mirrors from here on in.

Donny osmond wrote:

UGagain wrote:

Donny osmond wrote: Am not defending the EU and don't think I've argued in defence of it anywhere? Apologies if I've mislead.

I'm as cynical as anyone about the EU (perhaps not as cynical as you mind) I just want an objective appraisal of what the UK could expect to be like if we vote out. I know what in looks like, I'm living it, so what will change if we vote out?

All these problems you've listed, can we realistically hope to avoid them happening here if we vote out? Seems to me the UK govt are as bad as anyone at kowtowing to big business, so what's to become of us?

This EU ref isn't, for me, a chance to show approval or otherwise of the EU, its a choice between what we have now versus what we can expect to have if things change.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

Well surely there's more hope of voting out these neoliberal governments and overthrowing the status quo in a non-EU beholden UK isn't there?

Dude, think for yourself. Stop listening to the lying liars on the viewscreen and waiting for someone else to give you your opinion.

What benefits are there in being in the ship of fools that is EU?

Voting out the EU-biased establishment? I don't see how the UK being in or out of the EU is going to affect that. If its going to happen, it'll be from a grass roots movement that is unaffected by the UKs membership status.

I'm trying to form my own opinions, but if they're to be worthwhile they can't just be from a jaundiced view point. How does your overwhelmingly negative view of the EU anymore encouraging me to think for myself than someone else's overwhelmingly positive view? As discussed earlier with Billyfish, we're all guilty of putting our own perspective on things.

Who's facts do I trust and why?

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

Here's some facts for you.

http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/? ... more-33017


Protocol No 15 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union relates to the “certain provisions” that apply to Britain.

We read that while the UK does not have to join the euro it:

… shall endeavour to avoid an excessive government deficit.

It is also bound by Articles 143 and 144 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which relate to Balance of Payments issues.

The reference to excessive government deficits has a specific meaning within the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) rules governing fiscal deficits under Article 126 of the Treaty and Protocol 12, which accompanies the Treaty.

Protocol 12 details the “reference values” for the fiscal rules, specified in Article 126:

– 3 % for the ratio of the planned or actual government deficit to gross domestic product at market prices;

– 60 % for the ratio of government debt to gross domestic product at market prices.

Britain is thus subject to:

1. Monitoring from the EC.

2. Action from the EC under the so-called ‘Correction Arm’ of the SGP.

3. Detailed orders to reduce a deficit if considered ‘excessive’ under the rules.

4. The imposition of fines if in continued default of the rules.

5. Exclusion from certain benefits of membership while in default of the rules (for example, loans from the European Investment Bank).

6. The requirement to make a “non-interest-bearing deposit of an appropriate size with the Union until the excessive deficit has, in the view of the Council, been corrected …”
And more.

These rules have been demonstrated over the last 10 years to be highly destructive and dysfunctional.

At present, the UK is caught up in this ‘corrective arm’ and has until the financial year 2016/17 to correct the excessive deficit as judged by the European Council.

You can read all the stifling and ridiculous reports about the UK and the excessive deficit mechanism – HERE.

You could not make this stuff up.

The most recent report was released on November 16, 2015 – Commission communication to the Council on action taken.

These rules alone are enough to justify the departure from the EU. However, there are countless other rules and requirements that compromise the British people as a result of their membership of the EU, which the people have no discretion over nor ability to override by throwing their elected Government out.

I thought this article was in the New Statesman (june 11, 2015) made some arguments that I would make – The left wing case for leaving the EU.

There is a lot wrong with this article – especially about ‘having more money to spend on other things’ type errors. But, in general, his intent is supportable.

The author, John King writes that:

The EU will influence the future of the NHS just as it helped smooth Tory privatisation of the Post Office and the organisational break-up of the railways; it is in tune with austerity and drives a larger and more deadly version in the eurozone; it escalates problems linked to housing, work, wages and education; creates worry and stirs up anger and threatens people’s sense of self. A lazy acceptance of establishment propaganda and a fear of being branded “xenophobic” have silenced many liberals and left-wingers. And yet the EU is driven by big business. This is a very corporate coup.

I think his reference to the “establishment propaganda” is relevant to the recent announcement that the British Labour Party will campaign against exit.

Here we have the Left once again eulogising about some dream world they call ‘Europe’, which in reality, has turned into a disintegrating and dysfunctional amalgamation of Member States, devoid of their own national sovereignty and quite clearly not serving the interests of their citizens.

When the citizens do express dismay through the political process, one or more of the EU institutions (Council, Commission, ECB) exacts its toll on the nation in particular, in recent times with the IMF in tow or leading the charge. Think back to June last year and the way the ECB treated Greece and turned Syriza into a front-line, neo-liberal austerity attack dog.

John King notes that at the core of the EU is a “undemocratic and distant” central authority, which is “a threat to all those living in its shadow. However sweet the propaganda, it is a tool for multinationals …”

The other point he makes is that the EU is not “synonymous with ‘Europe'”. It was claimed that if Greece left the Eurozone it would forfeit its status in Europe.

Europe is a geographic and cultural mass that goes far beyond the shrouded and protected bureaucracy in Brussels. King notes that the “European Enlightenment was about the collectivisation of political power in the hands of the masses, then the EU model is the antithesis of this: centralising decision-taking in the hands of an unaccountable technocratic elite”.

King reminds us that:

According to House of Commons Library research, if one counts regulations as well as directives, half of all UK laws are derived from Brussels, measures that cannot be reversed once passed; but if even one law is made outside parliament, then that is a huge abuse of power.

UGagain wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:

UGagain wrote:
Well surely there's more hope of voting out these neoliberal governments and overthrowing the status quo in a non-EU beholden UK isn't there?

Dude, think for yourself. Stop listening to the lying liars on the viewscreen and waiting for someone else to give you your opinion.

What benefits are there in being in the ship of fools that is EU?

Voting out the EU-biased establishment? I don't see how the UK being in or out of the EU is going to affect that. If its going to happen, it'll be from a grass roots movement that is unaffected by the UKs membership status.

I'm trying to form my own opinions, but if they're to be worthwhile they can't just be from a jaundiced view point. How does your overwhelmingly negative view of the EU anymore encouraging me to think for myself than someone else's overwhelmingly positive view? As discussed earlier with Billyfish, we're all guilty of putting our own perspective on things.

Who's facts do I trust and why?

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

Here's some facts for you.

http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/? ... more-33017


Protocol No 15 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union relates to the “certain provisions” that apply to Britain.

We read that while the UK does not have to join the euro it:

… shall endeavour to avoid an excessive government deficit.

It is also bound by Articles 143 and 144 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which relate to Balance of Payments issues.

The reference to excessive government deficits has a specific meaning within the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) rules governing fiscal deficits under Article 126 of the Treaty and Protocol 12, which accompanies the Treaty.

Protocol 12 details the “reference values” for the fiscal rules, specified in Article 126:

– 3 % for the ratio of the planned or actual government deficit to gross domestic product at market prices;

– 60 % for the ratio of government debt to gross domestic product at market prices.

Britain is thus subject to:

1. Monitoring from the EC.

2. Action from the EC under the so-called ‘Correction Arm’ of the SGP.

3. Detailed orders to reduce a deficit if considered ‘excessive’ under the rules.

4. The imposition of fines if in continued default of the rules.

5. Exclusion from certain benefits of membership while in default of the rules (for example, loans from the European Investment Bank).

6. The requirement to make a “non-interest-bearing deposit of an appropriate size with the Union until the excessive deficit has, in the view of the Council, been corrected …”
And more.

These rules have been demonstrated over the last 10 years to be highly destructive and dysfunctional.

At present, the UK is caught up in this ‘corrective arm’ and has until the financial year 2016/17 to correct the excessive deficit as judged by the European Council.

You can read all the stifling and ridiculous reports about the UK and the excessive deficit mechanism – HERE.

You could not make this stuff up.

The most recent report was released on November 16, 2015 – Commission communication to the Council on action taken.

These rules alone are enough to justify the departure from the EU. However, there are countless other rules and requirements that compromise the British people as a result of their membership of the EU, which the people have no discretion over nor ability to override by throwing their elected Government out.

I thought this article was in the New Statesman (june 11, 2015) made some arguments that I would make – The left wing case for leaving the EU.

There is a lot wrong with this article – especially about ‘having more money to spend on other things’ type errors. But, in general, his intent is supportable.

The author, John King writes that:

The EU will influence the future of the NHS just as it helped smooth Tory privatisation of the Post Office and the organisational break-up of the railways; it is in tune with austerity and drives a larger and more deadly version in the eurozone; it escalates problems linked to housing, work, wages and education; creates worry and stirs up anger and threatens people’s sense of self. A lazy acceptance of establishment propaganda and a fear of being branded “xenophobic” have silenced many liberals and left-wingers. And yet the EU is driven by big business. This is a very corporate coup.

I think his reference to the “establishment propaganda” is relevant to the recent announcement that the British Labour Party will campaign against exit.

Here we have the Left once again eulogising about some dream world they call ‘Europe’, which in reality, has turned into a disintegrating and dysfunctional amalgamation of Member States, devoid of their own national sovereignty and quite clearly not serving the interests of their citizens.

When the citizens do express dismay through the political process, one or more of the EU institutions (Council, Commission, ECB) exacts its toll on the nation in particular, in recent times with the IMF in tow or leading the charge. Think back to June last year and the way the ECB treated Greece and turned Syriza into a front-line, neo-liberal austerity attack dog.

John King notes that at the core of the EU is a “undemocratic and distant” central authority, which is “a threat to all those living in its shadow. However sweet the propaganda, it is a tool for multinationals …”

The other point he makes is that the EU is not “synonymous with ‘Europe'”. It was claimed that if Greece left the Eurozone it would forfeit its status in Europe.

Europe is a geographic and cultural mass that goes far beyond the shrouded and protected bureaucracy in Brussels. King notes that the “European Enlightenment was about the collectivisation of political power in the hands of the masses, then the EU model is the antithesis of this: centralising decision-taking in the hands of an unaccountable technocratic elite”.

King reminds us that:

According to House of Commons Library research, if one counts regulations as well as directives, half of all UK laws are derived from Brussels, measures that cannot be reversed once passed; but if even one law is made outside parliament, then that is a huge abuse of power.

Good stuff UG thanks, its an interesting read.

Just on the subject of how many of our laws are imposed on us from Brussels, here's another interesting read that also quotes the HoC library as saying perhaps as low as 9% of our laws are implementing European legislation. http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/is- ... ssels/1498

I guess its all open to various degrees of interpretation.

But the stuff you've posted about the restrictions that the UK is or should be facing from the EU is very interesting, thanks.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

Dude, look at what they've done to Greece.

It should tell you everything anyone needs to know about the EU.

What is wrong with people that they can't see what's staring them in the face?

I'm not optimistic thus far.

The move of Boris to the outers is a big boost, but we have yet to see a real vision of what Britain would be like outside of the EU. Project Fear are having a field day and I suspect that many closet outers would vote to stay in if the risks vs benefits balance of leaving was weighted too much towards the former.

With not too long to go, the out side needs to seize some initiative and provide a vision. We know what life in the EU is like; but if the out camp want to win then they need to show that life outside would be better, particularly with regards to the economy where I think this will be won or lost.

You can largely bypass mainstream media. You wont get much sense, balance or clear headed argument there.

There are plenty of good blogs offering some thoughtful perspectives.

This guy is always worth reading http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com ... rexit.html

Some good links in that piece.

Sure of what staying will mean? http://www.andrewlilico.com/2016/02/28/ ... he-future/

How Britain should leave the EU.

http://www.3spoken.co.uk/2016/02/how-br ... ve-eu.html

I don't think it would be quite as straight forward as he suggests, but equally those who assume it will take years to negotiation, just to leave, I think are equally wrong.

It would be in everyone's interests to leave amicably, so that would take a period of time to ensure that nothing too important was dropped as we stepped away from Brussels. But I some ways it's easier than the independence of Scotland would have been. We don't share a currency and we don't have that many shared institutions.

I think the big issue is how fairly any trade negotiations proceed. It's in everyone's interests to have the uk and eu trading together. But how much will spite influence common sense?

Out

An interesting post by Jason Hunter:

"But Germany, France and Italy won't stop buying things from the UK if we leave" say the brexiteers, they NEED us, and they won't put us into a tariff regime, so says the Leave EU camp.

It won't be a choice, it's not a case of the EU damaging their imports to be spiteful to a UK that just voted to leave the EU. The fact is that there exists a document called the Treaty of the European Union and it sets out the very foundation of how the 28 member states work and cooperate together. It was part written by the UK and part drafted by UK lawyers.

It was agreed by all Member States that the EU would create a 'thing' called the "EU Common External Tariff Regime" for countries outside the EU that wanted to to trade with EU businesses. Different tariffs are in place for different product types. Higher for products the EU doesn't desperately need and lower for the things it does need desperately like energy for example - which explains why Norway get such a good deal as around half of Norways exports to the EU is oil and gas.

When we tear up our membership card, Article 50 of the Treaty I mentioned comes into force. It says that a country that notifies the EU we are leaving the club all our agreements terminate 24 months after notification. When this happens (potentially summer 2018) we are automatically under the external tariff regime that the UK helped to draft and fully signed up to.

The ONLY way this could be changed is if the Treaty is changed. This requires the agreement of all remaining 27 countries. Many of whom have a referendum lock if there are any changes to the Treaty. It just isn't feasibly possible to have all the necessary referendums and treaty change agreed by heads of state of 27 nations across Europe in the 2 year time limit.

Meanwhile we could continue to renegotiate the 4,500 plus different product groups that we trade with the EU to try and get lower tariffs on the things we buy and sell. This could take as much as a decade (or longer if other trade negotiations are any guide).

The point is that the UK becoming a part of the EU Tariff Regime (which meets WTO guidelines) is automatic if we elect to Leave and there is nothing that Germany, France or Spain or even the UK can do about it.
Currently we enjoy unlimited trade with the largest trading bloc on the planet free from duties, tariffs or quota and that is my main reason for voting to stay IN the EU.

It's also worth noting that of all the top ten economies in the world every single one of them with a population of less than one billion people is a member of a continental trade bloc like the EU. Do we really think we are powerful enough to buck the trend of global trade and international economics? I think not. We are pretty good, but not *that* good.

p.s. You won't find this information in the Fact Free Zone that is the Leave EU campaign, but fact check any of the above if you so wish.

UKHamlet wrote:
It's also worth noting that of all the top ten economies in the world every single one of them with a population of less than one billion people is a member of a continental trade bloc like the EU. Do we really think we are powerful enough to buck the trend of global trade and international economics? I think not.

I genuinely laughed out loud at that.

The fact that he included it discounts everything else he made have said.

The economic reality is that EZ countries need to export because they've given up their sovereignty. The UK doesn't.

All the power is with the UK.

UGagain wrote:

UKHamlet wrote:
It's also worth noting that of all the top ten economies in the world every single one of them with a population of less than one billion people is a member of a continental trade bloc like the EU. Do we really think we are powerful enough to buck the trend of global trade and international economics? I think not.

I genuinely laughed out loud at that.

The fact that he included it discounts everything else he made have said.

The economic reality is that EZ countries need to export because they've given up their sovereignty. The UK doesn't.

All the power is with the UK.

The rest of it is factually accurate though?

UKHamlet wrote:

UGagain wrote:

UKHamlet wrote:
It's also worth noting that of all the top ten economies in the world every single one of them with a population of less than one billion people is a member of a continental trade bloc like the EU. Do we really think we are powerful enough to buck the trend of global trade and international economics? I think not.

I genuinely laughed out loud at that.

The fact that he included it discounts everything else he made have said.

The economic reality is that EZ countries need to export because they've given up their sovereignty. The UK doesn't.

All the power is with the UK.

The rest of it is factually accurate though?

I'd say it's long on speculation. The EZ exporters will pressure their governments to make concessions. They're the ones in a depression with declining markets.

UGagain wrote:

UKHamlet wrote:

UGagain wrote:
I genuinely laughed out loud at that.

The fact that he included it discounts everything else he made have said.

The economic reality is that EZ countries need to export because they've given up their sovereignty. The UK doesn't.

All the power is with the UK.

The rest of it is factually accurate though?

I'd say it's long on speculation. The EZ exporters will pressure their governments to make concessions. They're the ones in a depression with declining markets.

It's a mechanism. The only way to overturn it is to change the treaty.

The document linked to below was recommended to me. I'm still working my way through it, so haven't formed an opinion on it yet, but it seems quite balanced so far.
http://assets.woodford.in/the-economic- ... Brexit.pdf

UKHamlet wrote:

UGagain wrote:

UKHamlet wrote:
The rest of it is factually accurate though?

I'd say it's long on speculation. The EZ exporters will pressure their governments to make concessions. They're the ones in a depression with declining markets.

It's a mechanism. The only way to overturn it is to change the treaty.

Perhaps. Even if they remained so bloody minded, so what?

UGagain wrote:

UKHamlet wrote:

UGagain wrote:
I'd say it's long on speculation. The EZ exporters will pressure their governments to make concessions. They're the ones in a depression with declining markets.

It's a mechanism. The only way to overturn it is to change the treaty.

Perhaps. Even if they remained so bloody minded, so what?

Well, it's not a matter of remaining bloody minded, is it? To change the treaty would require an enormous effort on behalf of the EU, in the meanwhile British goods would be subject to a tariff barrier.

The ONLY way this could be changed is if the Treaty is changed. This requires the agreement of all remaining 27 countries. Many of whom have a referendum lock if there are any changes to the Treaty. It just isn't feasibly possible to have all the necessary referendums and treaty change agreed by heads of state of 27 nations across Europe in the 2 year time limit.

This looks like a recipe for economic disaster. British trade would take a kick in the nuts the like of which we have never seen. Obviously, some people would want that to happen, because humbling Britain and the "Evil Empire" is an uppermost part of their agenda.

Stones of granite wrote:The document linked to below was recommended to me. I'm still working my way through it, so haven't formed an opinion on it yet, but it seems quite balanced so far.
http://assets.woodford.in/the-economic- ... Brexit.pdf

An interesting paper. It took some reading and there are some significant flaws in it, not least the optimism that we would achieve "most favoured nation" status given the requirements of Article 50 and the probability of us being subject to the "EU Common External Tariff Regime", before anything could be done about it, if there was indeed a mood to do anything about it at all.

The probable reduction in GDP, ranging from the awful figures from EFTA of between 6.3% and 9.5% and the more optimistic Open Europe figure of 2.2% is disastrous in either case - give our current growth is 1.9% and falling. You're looking at immediate recession at best.

The quoted "path of economic openness" advocated which would somehow add 1.6% to national income isn't quantified in any way and neither is it explained what is meant by that (although I think we all have an idea) and what its impact would be on living standards for those reliant on wages. Neither are the figures for the cost of membership claimed by the Institute of Directors, Civitas and UKIP, the latter being completely risible.

There is a very interesting paragraph:

The terms of departure and whether or not the United Kingdom negotiates an agreement with the European Union governing the future relationship will determine the magnitude and direction of the impacts of Brexit. Currently the United Kingdom is part of the single market, with free movement of goods, services, people and capital within the European Union’s border. It is likely that Brexit would change this.

My conclusion from that is Britain would suffer enormously as a consequence of being denied access to markets on a level playing field, markets that account for more than half our exports.

UKHamlet wrote:

UGagain wrote:

UKHamlet wrote:
It's a mechanism. The only way to overturn it is to change the treaty.

Perhaps. Even if they remained so bloody minded, so what?

Well, it's not a matter of remaining bloody minded, is it? To change the treaty would require an enormous effort on behalf of the EU, in the meanwhile British goods would be subject to a tariff barrier.

The ONLY way this could be changed is if the Treaty is changed. This requires the agreement of all remaining 27 countries. Many of whom have a referendum lock if there are any changes to the Treaty. It just isn't feasibly possible to have all the necessary referendums and treaty change agreed by heads of state of 27 nations across Europe in the 2 year time limit.

This looks like a recipe for economic disaster. British trade would take a kick in the nuts the like of which we have never seen. Obviously, some people would want that to happen, because humbling Britain and the "Evil Empire" is an uppermost part of their agenda.

They ignore the Treaty anytime it's convenient. When was the last time Germany or France was pinged for breaking the Maastricht Treaty, which they do constantly?

If big business in Europe wants it done, it will be done.

As a net importer, the UK holds the whip. What's so great about exporting anyway? You're sending real goods out of the country for foreign electronic ones and zeroes. And you're talking about exports to a trade zone whose industrial output is in decline, it's demand is in decline and its population being impoverished.

Europe is a disaster zone run by imbeciles.

I don't know who you're talking about would want it to be.

Are you referring to me? Beelzebub Putin? The Tooting Popular Front?