DS Forums

 
 

Inroducing 'clean Brexit' and its billions in savings


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 27-12-2016, 12:19
MARTYM8
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 40,288
A federation of 50 states which is one great country. Sonething the EU will never be.
With a common language and shared values and a President elected by voters not seven Presidents voted for by no one.

The EU as a concept is so outdated - an uncompetitive, over regulated, declining protectionist trade block that makes its people pay more for goods and food by putting up tariffs and trade barriers to the rest of the world to protect special interests.

Who wants to be tied to a corpse - when the 84 per cent of the worlds GDP outside the EU has much more potential.
MARTYM8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 27-12-2016, 12:19
andykn
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London SW6
Posts: 37,482
Deary me. You'd think that the most of the 170 or so countries that are sensibly outside the EU don't have any workers rights. I mean how do those oppressive regimes of Australia and Canada cope with not having their employment laws set for them by the EU? What utter nonsense to say we're not capable of doing it.
Er, then there's NO SAVINGS!
andykn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-12-2016, 12:22
andykn
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London SW6
Posts: 37,482
The poster referred to the EUs share of world trade!
Read it again:
...There is a reason the EU isn't growing and has a shrinking share of world trade. Regulations play a huge part.
My bolding because you missed it first time.
As for your GDP point the EU accounted for 30 per cent of world GDP in 1980 - now it only accounts for 16 per cent. So its share has effectively halved while we have been members.
Developing countries are developing shocker!
Maybe instead of tying ourself to the 16 per cent that is declining we might have more of a future focusing on the 84 per cent that is growing relatively.
Or just do both.
andykn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-12-2016, 12:22
MTUK1
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 19,783
But we don't have any WTO tariffs, we'll have to hire lots of civil servants to make up WTO tariffs. That comes out of our membership fees. Then there's the extra money for the NHS, or have you just "forgotten" about that? Then there's all the customs officers to inspect those goods, excise men to collect the tariffs...
Excise men? How utterly sexist Andy. Are there no Excise women? And what extra NHS money are you refrerring to?
MTUK1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-12-2016, 12:23
MTUK1
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 19,783
Er, then there's NO SAVINGS!
Really. How'd you work that one out?
MTUK1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-12-2016, 12:25
MTUK1
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 19,783
Read it again:

My bolding because you missed it first time.

Developing countries are developing shocker!

Or just do both.
As I've said many times, it's not just developing countries that are increasing their share of world trade.
MTUK1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-12-2016, 12:25
andykn
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London SW6
Posts: 37,482
A trading black? I didn't realize there were any trading blocks called Europe?
Well, what trading blocks are you comparing the EU with?
andykn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-12-2016, 12:26
andykn
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London SW6
Posts: 37,482
Yes it does. You're effectively saying that the EU is the only place that can enact workers rights and employment laws. Which is nonsense.
You've not read the article properly, it's saying we can save money by having fewer regulations protecting workers and consumers.
andykn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-12-2016, 12:29
andykn
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London SW6
Posts: 37,482
Working in finance, I'd like to think I do. The EU's share of world trade is in rapid decline. The only block in the world which is.
I'd like to think you do, yet you seem remarkably blase about getting rid of it and you don't seem to understand that other blocks all contain developing countries that are, well, developing. So I'm not sure what your finance role is but it hasn't taught you much about finance.
andykn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-12-2016, 12:29
MTUK1
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 19,783
You've not read the article properly, it's saying we can save money by having fewer regulations protecting workers and consumers.
Yes I have. You've not comprehended what I was saying in purpose.
MTUK1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-12-2016, 12:30
andykn
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London SW6
Posts: 37,482
Did I say that?
Yes, points 3 and 5 of the post you implied was "needless" were to do with workers rights.
andykn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-12-2016, 12:30
MTUK1
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 19,783
I'd like to think you do, yet you seem remarkably blase about getting rid of it and you don't seem to understand that other blocks all contain developing countries that are, well, developing. So I'm not sure what your finance role is but it hasn't taught you much about finance.
Are there zero non developing countries in the world with an increasing share of world trade?
MTUK1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-12-2016, 12:31
MTUK1
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 19,783
Yes, points 3 and 5 of the post you implied was "needless" were to do with workers rights.
Which ones? I said needless. I never once said workers rights are needless. The original post refers to 100 regulations. Are they all regarding workers rights?
MTUK1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-12-2016, 12:37
andykn
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London SW6
Posts: 37,482
Yes I have. You've not comprehended what I was saying in purpose.
I have understood what you were saying, it was ignoring the subject of this thread which was saving to be made by, inter alia, removing workers rights.
andykn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-12-2016, 12:41
andykn
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London SW6
Posts: 37,482
Are there zero non developing countries in the world with an increasing share of world trade?
You were talking about "blocks". Do you have an example of a developed country with an increasing share of world trade that you think the UK should be emulating?
andykn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-12-2016, 12:42
andykn
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London SW6
Posts: 37,482
Which ones? I said needless. I never once said workers rights are needless. The original post refers to 100 regulations. Are they all regarding workers rights?
Er, what part of "points 3 and 5" is not precise enough for you?!!
andykn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-12-2016, 12:42
MTUK1
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 19,783
I have understood what you were saying, it was ignoring the subject of this thread which was saving to be made by, inter alia, removing workers rights.
What part of post number 1 mentions workers rights?
MTUK1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-12-2016, 12:48
andykn
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London SW6
Posts: 37,482
What part of post number 1 mentions workers rights?
That's not the post you replied to with your "needless" though, was it. That was the post that listed the top 5 regulations mentioned in the article the thread is all about, two of which were about removing workers' rights.
andykn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-12-2016, 12:52
sangreal
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 12,161
Sorry to interrupt the petty squabbling but....


Fantasy economics.... made by the deceitful.... for the gullible.

It doesn't take into account any offset of losses from no longer having free movement of goods, services & capital with our 31 closest neighbours (EU & EEA/EFTA), where just an 11% loss will cost us more than £24BN

Nor does it take into account how long it will take to ratify these new trade deals, many of which will just cover goods and some services, but not financial services, capital, banking passport, etc (because you can only get these by being a member of a trade bloc, not via an FTA deal).

Nor does it take into account how many current British companies could go bust as a result of being less competitive due to the removal of tariffs/taxes/quotas on foreign imports (from the countries/blocs we do new trade deals with), or how much tax revenue we'll lose in the short term before all these new trade deals are in place.


Yes, there's potential for eventual gains, but there's also potential for immediate losses.


and whether declining or not, the USA and EU are still the joint #1 economies in the world....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...nominal)#Lists

Even with WTO tariffs at 3% on all goods from the EU we'll still pay less then our membership fees for the EU disaster.

The average may be 3%, but EU WTO tariffs are 10% on cars, and between 20-40% on agriculture, and then there's customs, taxes and quotas on top.....

Also bear in mind that we've had free trade with the vast bulk of these countries since 1960 (when we founded/joined the EFTA).

And the extra tariffs & taxes will be paid by businesses, retailers and consumers, on top of their current taxes (income tax, NICs, Council tax, etc, won't be coming down for these people) - so it's an extra payment...

The net EU membership fee is ~8bn (not £14.7bn, as falsely claimed in the article).
If we lose less than 8bn, then fair enough.
However, I'll believe that when I see it


Don't get me wrong though, I'm not defending the EU or anything, I'm just criticising this ridiculous new report.

No response?
sangreal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-12-2016, 13:01
BinaryDad
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,981
I mean how do those oppressive regimes of Australia and Canada cope with not having their employment laws set for them by the EU? What utter nonsense to say we're not capable of doing it.
Australia had a major change in its employment laws about 12 years back - before that, it had very pro-employee laws that were pretty much forced on the Government by the unions. They went too far in the direction of the employee. Then they swung in the other direction, so much so that even my old boss cringed at the implications.

Canada is an odd one - there are basic Federal protections but most of the employee protection laws are decided at the province level. Its managed to look after employee rights because it's basically the right thing to do.

However...this is all shear whataboutery on your part. Based on past behaviour, all the indications from both major parties in the UK are that they would abolish much of the EU framework such as the WTD without any replacement. It doesn't really matter what other countries do - it's all about what the UK will do without the EU enforcing some basic fairness upon it.

Based on the past, it does look rather grim for the average British worker who is on an hourly wage or a zero-hours contract.

I'll note (with some amusement) that you've not included the U.S. in your list of countries when discussing employee rights. That shining beacon of democracy (as you have claimed it to be in other posts) has pitiful record for employee rights, and I can see why you wouldn't want to use it as an example.
BinaryDad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-12-2016, 13:27
Eurostar
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 51,606
They will, if it stops or reduces the current level of EU migration - which is all Brexit seems to be about these days. No cost is too high (as long as others pay it) to all them EU plumbers, nurses and bankers coming in here, making jobs - er taking.

Brexit has gone beyond rational debate now. It's going to happen and it won't be nice.
Treating the Brexit referendum as a referendum on EU freedom of movement is akin to using a 10kg sledgehammer to crack open a peanut - the issue was scarcely even given a mention by anyone in the 2010 General Election, now it's the greatest crisis affecting Britain apparently.
Eurostar is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 27-12-2016, 13:40
andykn
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London SW6
Posts: 37,482
Treating the Brexit referendum as a referendum on EU freedom of movement is akin to using a 10kg sledgehammer to crack open a peanut - the issue was scarcely even given a mention by anyone in the 2010 General Election, now it's the greatest crisis affecting Britain apparently.
Funny when the latest immigration figures show that net non EU migration, that was promised May would get into "tens of thousands", is greater than the EU figure.
andykn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-12-2016, 13:49
MTUK1
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 19,783
Funny when the latest immigration figures show that net non EU migration, that was promised May would get into "tens of thousands", is greater than the EU figure.
By how much? I can't wait for you to tell us the massive difference.
MTUK1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-12-2016, 13:53
andykn
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London SW6
Posts: 37,482
By how much? I can't wait for you to tell us the massive difference.
It's not much of a difference, but it was supposed to be a huge difference, remember? Why do people think voting out of the EU will make a difference to immigration when the "tens of thousands" promised for non EU immigration wasn't delivered by May?

Now, why don't you answer any of the questions I've asked you?
andykn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-12-2016, 13:57
MTUK1
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 19,783
It's not much of a difference, but it was supposed to be a huge difference, remember? Why do people think voting out of the EU will make a difference to immigration when the "tens of thousands" promised for non EU immigration wasn't delivered by May?

Now, why don't you answer any of the questions I've asked you?
No I wasn't supposed to be a huge difference. And the answer is, once we leave, all immigrants can be treated equally, so that a Barista from Vilnius cannot just waltz in at their leisure where a doctor from New Delhi that we actually need has to spend months filling in forms to get here.
MTUK1 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 20:07.