When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
"The group CEO of Kingfisher, Ms Laury, is French. She can fvck off for starters. As can the Dutch CEO of Vodaphone, Mr Hoencamp. ASDA is American owned.
Dave's patriotic British business supporters aren't even British.
"I don't think that a free trade agreement with the EU will be possible with the UK having to pay for any extra expense incurred for border controls in the EU. As Britain already has to ship or fly its exports into all of the rest of the EU any added expense is going to reduce its competitiveness further.
The increased employment needed for UK exporters in handling customs documentation added to the cost of any increased government bureaucracy will be a further competitive hit and when 44% of its exports are to the EU destabilising such an important activity seems very unwise considering expected new export markets are more costly to transport to.
Little thought has been given to how what it costs Britain to be a member now is in its own best interests since a fair proportion of its contribution goes to countries that as a result can afford to also import from Britain. The €6 billion difference between what it contributes and what it gets back is reduced somewhat by that and when the €6 billion reduction in the UK's contribution into what the EU budget pays out in Structural Funds including the CAP is considered, those countries losing may well avoid buying British as a response. A fall in tourism from Britain may be expected if the value of the Pound falls so prices may well increase for Sterling spenders to make up for it.
If the Pound does lose value as a consequence of leaving the EU it won't be of benefit to exporters unless the ECB stops its €trillion QE monetary policy too. If it's the immigrant problem that really worries Britain that could have been solved with a change through the Structural Funds that allowed paying the extra welfare costs to countries that incurred them and reducing them for countries that the immigrants came from, without any loss of entitlements or discrimination against any Member State's citizens or a change in the Treaties.
Britain's problems are not of the immigrants' making. Too much wealth and capital has gone from the real economy to the financial but the taxes for the latter haven't been forthcoming to make up for what used to come from the former.
The ECB's sovereign bond buying has added to the loss since it enables governments to borrow more than they can afford to repay - a fair proportion from Britain and the City I think - reducing the capital available for investment there.
The BoE's QE and inflation boosting attempts also have increased the capital transfer from real to financial thus increasing the future taxes the former has to pay although reducing the present ones that get written off against taxes - an immediate loss to government - but reducing the wherewithal it has to pay them with.
QE also enables government to continue to pay high enough salaries and benefits to its employees that increases the bank credit the latter get but as that has to be paid with taxes from the banks and their private sector customers the loss again is to the real economy and bank capital."
just judging on the quality of the rhetoric, the out campaign looks out of its depth
oh it will come - we have already had the "the floods" somehow conflated with EU membership
global warming can't be far off
People always ask the question "what do we get for our EU membership fees?"
but they never ever bother answering their own question
you may not think it whatever we get is worth it etc, you may not think it was value for money - but at least try and answer your own question
sure if you think we got absolutely zero from our membership then fine, but as you say that is just fantasy land
I mean what DID the Romans ever do for us!!!!
The idea that liberal democracies should work together to protect the rights of their citizens, create the opportunity for freedom of movement, work for free trade and generally aim high, cannot be a bad thing.
Now I know that this execution of these ideals hasn't always been a resounding success, but it should be remembered that the EU is (relatively speaking) in it's infancy, and still evolving. Ultimately the member states have no choice but to move in line with the will of their particular electorates, and clearly across the continent there is a move towards nationalism, so I suspect this in itself will act a brake on 'ever closer union'.
I do believe that if we just take the short term arguments into accounts, then it's probably a narrow win for 'out'. The mid to longer term though is a hands down win for 'in'.
Interesting how the gov are harping on about 36 of the top 100 firms in the uk are for staying, um, doesnt that mean 64 are for leaving?
no, no it doesn't
it means 64 have not stated a position - full stop
you can't simply "fill in the gaps" to compensate for a lack of knowledge/information, "filling in the gaps" is what conspiracy theorists and associated lunatics do
so 36 have stated a position and 64 have not
whether the 64, who have not stated the same position as the 36, take another position we simply do not know (yet, if al all)
Last edited by hodgy0_2; 23 February 2016 at 12:30 PM.
Interesting how the gov are harping on about 36 of the top 100 firms in the uk are for staying, um, doesnt that mean 64 are for leaving?
Why would it mean they want to leave? In all likelihood it means they don't have a preference either way.
However I expect they'll be a letter in the 'papers' tomorrow from company directors who wish to leave the Union. I doubt it'll be from the other 64 FTSE companies though.
amongst other things it has provision that would allow private companies to sue sovereign countries
so lets say a US company wants to drill for Oil or Frack in your neighbourhood - our Government says NO, the US company can sue our Government for the right to. or compensation
Last edited by hodgy0_2; 23 February 2016 at 12:43 PM.
The idea that liberal democracies should work together to protect the rights of their citizens, create the opportunity for freedom of movement, work for free trade and generally aim high, cannot be a bad thing.
Now I know that this execution of these ideals hasn't always been a resounding success, but it should be remembered that the EU is (relatively speaking) in it's infancy, and still evolving. Ultimately the member states have no choice but to move in line with the will of their particular electorates, and clearly across the continent there is a move towards nationalism, so I suspect this in itself will act a brake on 'ever closer union'.
I do believe that if we just take the short term arguments into accounts, then it's probably a narrow win for 'out'. The mid to longer term though is a hands down win for 'in'.
yes off course this is ultimately the nub of it
understandably people want a solution that is perfect, but none are
staying in has its problems as well as getting out
what's fascinating is that the reasons/sarguments for the "out" campaign in the 1975 referendum where essentially about "protectionism"
the reasons for staying "in" where free trade - which is why Thatcher was a strong IN campaigner (yes amazing isn't it!!)
roll on 30 years and the arguments have flipped - to the "out" it is all about free trade
the problem is the world is a very different place than it was 35 years ago
it is now such a global economy/world
arguably some of the larger multinationals wield more power than sovereign states
Last edited by hodgy0_2; 23 February 2016 at 01:03 PM.
[QUOTE=alcazar;11800696]Here we go...Scoobynet's resident "FAST SHOW Politician" says "No, it isnt....."
Go on then, mastermind, explain WHY it's pure fantasy?
And again:
Screech, "No it won't, no it doesn't....."
Explanation was there none.[/QUOTE
So I need to explain why 'That £56 million a day will not sort the NHS, education,roads ,rail links, pensions' is pure fantasy? Really, you can't work that out for yourself?
But if you insist...
Firstly the simple answer, especially designed for Team Thicko - although even this explanation does involves some fact and figures, things I know that you have an uncomfortable relationship with...
So assume it costs the UK £56m (more on this misleading number later) per day to be members of the EU...
So this £56m is going to solve our problems in Health, Education, Transport and Pensions, right?...
Currently the UK spends...
£380M per day on Health
£243M per day on Education
£74M per day on Transport
£430M per day on Pensions
The 'Black Hole' in UK pension funds is estimated to be around £1.3 TRILLION pounds.
So tell me how it is anything other than a pure fantasy to suggest that saving our relatively trivial EU subscription would 'fix' that lot?
Now the more complex answer (assuming you're still with me)
The £56m million number that Team Thicko love to throw around, represents the UK's GROSS contribution. The net cost (after the money that flows back in from the EU is about 60% of that. So I'm sure you'd agree, even less likely to solve all our ills?
So to get back to a £56M saving we'd have to decide to pull the spending the EU currently does on our behalf, which we could do of course, but I'd suggest that much of this the government would probably decide to continue with.
Now of course to truly work through the real savings we'd make by leaving the EU, you need to do a bit of risk assessment, on some of the potential downsides...
How much trade was is at risk?
How much inward investment is at risk?
Now team Thicko will have you believe that there's no risk, and no possible downside to a Brexit. Unfortunately that's not really a credible position as business leaders are already voicing.
Now the next thing we'd need to consider would be how we were going to trade with the EU, and what sort of trade agreement would we need in order to access the free market. A relevant example of this situation would be Norway, who have such an agreement. Guess what? They have to pay a subscription to the EU!
So the complex answer is, we could never actually save the £56m a day, and even if we actually did, it couldn't even remotely get close to solving the problems of Health, Education, Pensions and Transport.
Good enough for you?
Last edited by Martin2005; 23 February 2016 at 03:03 PM.
BUT, assuming that your figure of us getting 40% back is right, (and I dispute that, it's nearer 10%), then that's still £33.6 million a day going out.
That sort of sum may not be a quick fix for everything, but it sure as hell would solve a few problems on a day to day basis. Wouldn't it?
It would build six new primary schools every day, for a start. And that would employ loads of folk and fill the gap that's growing between children and places.
It would allow the government to raise teachers' salaries so as to attract more people in to the profession....another much needed thing.
BUT, assuming that your figure of us getting 40% back is right, (and I dispute that, it's nearer 10%), then that's still £33.6 million a day going out.
That sort of sum may not be a quick fix for everything, but it sure as hell would solve a few problems on a day to day basis. Wouldn't it?
It would build six new primary schools every day, for a start. And that would employ loads of folk and fill the gap that's growing between children and places.
It would allow the government to raise teachers' salaries so as to attract more people in to the profession....another much needed thing.
And that's just in education.
So you agree then, it wouldn't solve the problems of the NHS, Schools, Roads, Rail, Pensions?
So why support the dumb *** statement in the first place?
BUT, assuming that your figure of us getting 40% back is right, (and I dispute that, it's nearer 10%), then that's still £33.6 million a day going out.
That sort of sum may not be a quick fix for everything, but it sure as hell would solve a few problems on a day to day basis. Wouldn't it?
It would build six new primary schools every day, for a start. And that would employ loads of folk and fill the gap that's growing between children and places.
It would allow the government to raise teachers' salaries so as to attract more people in to the profession....another much needed thing.
£380M per day on Health
£243M per day on Education
£74M per day on Transport
£430M per day on Pensions
The 'Black Hole' in UK pension funds is estimated to be around £1.3 TRILLION pounds.
Martin,
I have snipped your quote considerably, but 2 points:
1 - Where do you get your figures from (honest question)
2 - It appears you are comparing apples with oranges:
Whilst we may spend £380m per day on health, the actual question for comparison surely would be what is the gap? (Which could therefore be 'plugged' by the EU contributions that would not be made)
Calling people with an opposing view to yours 'team thicko' does nothing to help your argument (and makes me think I may as well call you Dave)
Martin,
I have snipped your quote considerably, but 2 points:
1 - Where do you get your figures from (honest question)
2 - It appears you are comparing apples with oranges:
Whilst we may spend £380m per day on health, the actual question for comparison surely would be what is the gap? (Which could therefore be 'plugged' by the EU contributions that would not be made)
Calling people with an opposing view to yours 'team thicko' does nothing to help your argument (and makes me think I may as well call you Dave)
Paul
The figures come from published government spending, please I'm happy to be challenged on that, if I've quoted incorrectly. I like to get things right
You are of course correct that if we could genuinely save £56m a day, that money could be spent elsewhere. I wasn't really challenging that, I was challenging the fantasy that the money would 'fix' Health, Education, Pensions and Transport, which is obviously nonsense, and the kind of nonsense we are going to read and hear over the next 4 months. A much better 'fix' for those public services would be to make them more efficient.
Now I sure you appreciate that we wouldn't actually save that money anyway, as I stated in the earlier post.
As for the Team Thicko comments, that's a just light hearted dig. I heard on the radio the other day that the 'inners' in general tend to be more intelligent than the 'outers' so it seemed like a simple way of framing the arguments. Just a bit of fun (although some of the arguments on here kind of make my point for me)
From the same site Martin is quoting above, supporting claims which he was ridiculing (in his ever-charming way) another member here for making just a few days ago:
57% were males over the age of eighteen, 26% children and 18% females over the age of eighteen (and in a handful of cases, the age or gender was unknown). The gender split overall was 72% male, 28% female.
From the same site Martin is quoting above, supporting claims which he was ridiculing (in his ever-charming way) another member here for making just a few days ago:
If you mean that I ridiculed someone for claiming that '90% of immigrants ate yong men' then yes, and these figures show why.
Not sure why you posted this up, but thanks for helping me make my point.
the stay in brigade can manipulate figures and fact as much as they like to suit their argument as can the out brigade, but neither can escape the fact's.
in 3 years time over 1million extra people with have a eu passport
entitling them to come here and claim benefit's while looking for a job
we will be legally bound to take them in like it or not
camerprats new deal is not repeat not legally binding until approved by the eu supreme court. so is not worth **** all just words and smoke screens
If you mean that I ridiculed someone for claiming that '90% of immigrants ate yong men' then yes, and these figures show why.
Not sure why you posted this up, but thanks for helping me make my point.
So the outists are accusing migrants of cannibalism now, are they? That really must rank as an all-time low, even in your sorry history of misrepresenting other people's views to make a point.
So you agree then, it wouldn't solve the problems of the NHS, Schools, Roads, Rail, Pensions?
So why support the dumb *** statement in the first place?
You've not read what I said.
The amount we'd have back per day would go a LONG WAY to sorting out local finances. Or are you trying to tell me that, simply because the £33.6M per day is a drop in the ocean of debt your lot created, it doesn't matter? Any debt recovery agency will laugh you out of the office for that.
Your problem is that you are a bit of an IAJFEE, where the middle letter stands for jack.
If it's not affecting martin, it's either not happening, or doesn't matter.
Try being LESS selfish, mate...your liberal ideals don't match up.
23 February 2016, 08:12 AM
