is the EU agenda for Brexit negotiations reasonable?

What's Hot
2456

Comments

  • mellowsun said:


    The EU has many faults, but we really did have the best deal out of all member states, and we were crazy to throw it away.
    how so?
    I cannot see what this conclusion could be based on

    We had the second largest net financial contribution into the EU, how did we have "the best deal"?

    I would have thought the Eastern European states who have received massive amounts of free money to quickly build western-style economies got "the best deal"
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • I didn't see this one


    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • mellowsun said:
    We could call their bluff and walk away without a deal.

    If we didn't have complete cretins in charge, but smart people who had a plan B in place, it would be a bold and courageous move. Still likely to require a 70s style IMF bailout of the UK, but we might get away with it.
    Walking away without a deal would have a serious negative impact on the Ireland, the UK's ability to trade efficiently with Europe (due to tariff and non-tariff barriers), and many other areas of international cooperation.



    Walking away without a deal would not be bold and courageous, it would be an incredibly foolish act of self harm.

    As you said, there is no plan B. Actually, I don't think there is a plan A.
    this is a very deceptive graphic
    what does "trade" mean? the EU has very few agreements with any large countries
    regulatory cooperation will just end. Really?
    Fisheries - is this a wind-up. The UK will lose access to EU fisheries. Ouch that will hurt
    Airlines? what is EU-specific about these?
    Nuclear? The EU will refuse to sell these things?
    Agriculture: we'll be able to import food from Africa, etc. without large tariffs, and subsidise what we lack, AND import food from the EU. What is the problem? We won't be able to subsidise EU farmers any more, that's true
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • mellowsunmellowsun Frets: 2324
    We had the second largest net financial contribution into the EU, how did we have "the best deal"?

    The net benefit to our economy as a result of being in the EU and single market was far greater than the financial contribution. Just a single example, private companies benefit from about £1 billion in EU research grants.

    But ultimately, it depends on whether you believe in a pooled risk/benefit model. It's a bit like paying into the NHS - currently I'm a net contributor because I rarely have need for healthcare, but if I had the option to stop paying and go fully private, would I do it? No, I'd be worse off, it would cost me more, and I'd get less out if I needed it.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 3reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • mellowsun said:
    We had the second largest net financial contribution into the EU, how did we have "the best deal"?

    The net benefit to our economy as a result of being in the EU and single market was far greater than the financial contribution. Just a single example, private companies benefit from about £1 billion in EU research grants.

    But ultimately, it depends on whether you believe in a pooled risk/benefit model. It's a bit like paying into the NHS - currently I'm a net contributor because I rarely have need for healthcare, but if I had the option to stop paying and go fully private, would I do it? No, I'd be worse off, it would cost me more, and I'd get less out if I needed it.
    That's really not what you said, you said "we really did have the best deal out of all member states"
    which is clearly not true

    now you are saying that we paid to join, but we gain more from it than we put in (please provide proof). How so? we import more from the EU than we export to them, we pay in more to the EU than ever comes back to the UK.

    A major motivation for leaving the EU is the idea that we are pooling our resources (like we do for the NHS - as you suggest), but unwisely. We are pooling our resources with completely different countries to ours, some of which are completely unproductive and/or economically undeveloped. To pool our resources with them is a massive charitable burden, which no one in the UK ever voted for. The EEC was supposed to be a "common market" for a small number of similar western European states and Italy 

    Just imagine someone asked you to agree that we would unify our welfare state with Romania, and asked you to pay extra tax, saying "one day you could be poor, and then it's their turn to help you". This would clearly be ridiculous: the concept of shared risk and benefit in a welfare state is predicated on the population feeling that all those within it have something in common, and spreading a single welfare state across massive national, cultural and economic boundaries would be unacceptable to almost everyone I think

    EU research grants are more than paid in full by UK payments into the EU, so it is incorrect to claim that as "getting more out than we put in". The money we pay in largely goes to pay for EU admin, provide gifts to farmers in the rest of the EU, and to build new factories and infrastructure in places like Poland. This is not "a bit like the NHS" really, is it?
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

  • A major motivation for leaving the EU is the idea that we are pooling our resources (like we do for the NHS - as you suggest), but unwisely. We are pooling our resources with completely different countries to ours, some of which are completely unproductive and/or economically undeveloped. To pool our resources with them is a massive charitable burden, which no one in the UK ever voted for. The EEC was supposed to be a "common market" for a small number of similar western European states and Italy 


    So the next time there's a huge natural disaster elsewhere in the world and taxpayer's money gets spent on relief efforts, would you say "Pah, it's a massive charitable burden, I never voted for that"?

    What completely unproductive countries are we currently pooling resources with? I'd like to see what a completely unproductive country is like. 
    Clarity over quantity.  
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 3reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • You are wasting your time Heartfelt.... The people have spoken, St George (of Greek origin of course) is returning to save us from the tyranny of those pesky european sorts. You know the unelected ones who decide how our cuntry is run, you know like the House Of Lords? Never mind our veto or the unique deal we had. Lets hoist the flag high and say tally ho you blighters, we now can sail our own ship into oblivion without your help thank you.

    We will be back cap in hand a decade or so later looking for a shit deal after we fail to become the 51st state, and the US pillages us in trade deals and destroys whats left of our welfare state. We are not what some people think we are on the world stage anymore, a lot of businesses will shift focus post Brexit. Do I think we are fucked? No, but will we suffer? Yes, absolutely and not this short term idea either, long term.

    The average person in the street, and the wider world will suffer because of this short termism everyone has at the moment. We need to be working together to combat the issues that all humans will face in centuries to come, instead everyone is looking to become more separated and inward focused. Not looking good. Sorry to drag this off topic but we are "behind closed doors" after all.

    .....and what to my wondering eyes should appear.....      nothing.......


    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 11reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

  • A major motivation for leaving the EU is the idea that we are pooling our resources (like we do for the NHS - as you suggest), but unwisely. We are pooling our resources with completely different countries to ours, some of which are completely unproductive and/or economically undeveloped. To pool our resources with them is a massive charitable burden, which no one in the UK ever voted for. The EEC was supposed to be a "common market" for a small number of similar western European states and Italy 


    So the next time there's a huge natural disaster elsewhere in the world and taxpayer's money gets spent on relief efforts, would you say "Pah, it's a massive charitable burden, I never voted for that"?

    What completely unproductive countries are we currently pooling resources with? I'd like to see what a completely unproductive country is like. 
    you are intentionally conflating 2 completely separate issues:
    • sending a few tens of millions, once,  to a disaster zone in a country somewhere
    • sending many billions every year to help countries improve their quality of living from soviet bloc levels up to our own
    all the countries at the bottom of this chart are those unproductive countries:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/europe/09/eu_budget_spending/img/graph_net_contrib_466x485.gif
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • Boromedic said:
    You are wasting your time Heartfelt.... The people have spoken, St George (of Greek origin of course) is returning to save us from the tyranny of those pesky european sorts. You know the unelected ones who decide how our cuntry is run, you know like the House Of Lords? Never mind our veto or the unique deal we had. Lets hoist the flag high and say tally ho you blighters, we now can sail our own ship into oblivion without your help thank you.

    We will be back cap in hand a decade or so later looking for a shit deal after we fail to become the 51st state, and the US pillages us in trade deals and destroys whats left of our welfare state. We are not what some people think we are on the world stage anymore, a lot of businesses will shift focus post Brexit. Do I think we are fucked? No, but will we suffer? Yes, absolutely and not this short term idea either, long term.

    The average person in the street, and the wider world will suffer because of this short termism everyone has at the moment. We need to be working together to combat the issues that all humans will face in centuries to come, instead everyone is looking to become more separated and inward focused. Not looking good. Sorry to drag this off topic but we are "behind closed doors" after all.
    I thought St George was Turkish or Syrian?

    Strangely, all the doom you envisage is what I fear would befall us if we remained in the EU. I would expect long-term damage from being in the EU, and I want to look "outward" to the rest of the world

    Anyway what "unique deal" do you mean?


    1reaction image LOL 1reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • BoromedicBoromedic Frets: 991
    edited November 2017
    Wikipedia says Roman soldier of Greek origin, who knows. Point is he is European like we all are. 

    We had our own negotiated EU deal that was different to the other states did we not? Maintained our currency, had a veto on things etc. I come from the North East and without EU/ECC money there would have been next to no regeneration in that area from the 80s onwards. Or at least they started the process. At that point I think Maggie would've preffered to have bomb us. Maybe I have a different perspective, but from what I've seen from the EU has been beneficial to me.

    .....and what to my wondering eyes should appear.....      nothing.......


    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 3reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • Boromedic said:
    Wikipedia says Roman soldier of Greek origin, who knows. Point is he is European like we all are. 

    We had our own negotiated EU deal that was different to the other states did we not? Maintained our currency, had a veto on things etc. I come from the North East and without EU/ECC money there would have been next to no regeneration in that area from the 80s onwards. Or at least they started the process. At that point I think Maggie would've preffered to have bomb us. Maybe I have a different perspective, but from what I've seen from the EU has been beneficial to me.
    No, St George was Asian, or middle-eastern

    Remembering that we pay in far more than this, this is where the EU money sent back to the Uk from the EU was spent in 2016:
    https://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/2455/production/_90010390_rc_eumoney_inuk_pounds.png


    this is how much was spent in 2013 across the EU per country:
    http://ec.europa.eu/budget/mycountry/PL/index_en.cfm#cinfo
    Poland has 57% of the UK population
    €16b for Poland
    €6.3b to UK
    France, Spain and Denmark get huge amounts too

    most startlingly, as & of Gross national income:
    6.36% to Poland
    0.34% to the UK (THE LOWEST ONE ON THE WHOLE CHART)
    so that's 19 times as much cash for the govt in Poland to spend, relative to GNI


    so - tell me again how we have a special deal with the EU, better than any other state
    the amount of money spent on UK regeneration is more than an order of magnitude less than that spent in countries like Poland. Have you seen the UK factories closing and moving production there since this started?
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • Here are some of the projects for Poland that we contribute towards (in effect, paying 19% of these costs):

    2016:
    http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-842_en.htm
    "Today the European Commission has approved ten major projects worth €3.3 billion for the construction of approximately 330km of new express roads in Poland."

    2016:
    http://www.railjournal.com/index.php/europe/eu-provides-E475m-for-polish-infrastructure-projects.html
    "THE European Commission announced on July 12 that it has approved €475m in European Structural and Investment (ESI) funding for the continuation of eight major projects to improve railway infrastructure in Poland."


    http://www.roedl.com/pl/en/services/state_aid_advice/eu_funds_in_poland_20142020.html
    EU Funds in Poland 2014–2020
    The new EU budget proposal has earmarked EUR 82.5 billion for implementing the cohesion policy in Poland. This means that in the years to come Poland will be the largest beneficiary of the EU cohesion policy funds among all Member States. 

    I believe that these sort of projects are the ones the UK is requested to continue paying for for several years after leaving the EU

    Can you tell me that you are happy that the UK contributes massively to the cost of upgrading Poland:
    €82b over 4 years ????
    It's about €3.9b a year from the UK to pay for this as far as I can tell
    1reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • IIRC St George, if he ever existed, was a Turk.
    "Working" software has only unobserved bugs. (Parroty Error: Pieces of Nine! Pieces of Nine!)
    Seriously: If you value it, take/fetch it yourself
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • mellowsunmellowsun Frets: 2324
    The money we pay in largely goes to pay for EU admin, provide gifts to farmers in the rest of the EU, and to build new factories and infrastructure in places like Poland.
    And yet the money we potentially save by not paying into the EU, the so-called £350 million a week, has suddenly vanished and the proponents of which have now distanced themselves from any claims they made about it.

    We do import more from the EU than we export to the EU, but we benefit from zero import tariffs. The benefits of which we will lose in 2019.

    We will also lose the jobs created by global companies that base themselves here because of our membership of the single market.

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 2reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • mellowsun said:
    The money we pay in largely goes to pay for EU admin, provide gifts to farmers in the rest of the EU, and to build new factories and infrastructure in places like Poland.
    And yet the money we potentially save by not paying into the EU, the so-called £350 million a week, has suddenly vanished and the proponents of which have now distanced themselves from any claims they made about it.

    We do import more from the EU than we export to the EU, but we benefit from zero import tariffs. The benefits of which we will lose in 2019.

    We will also lose the jobs created by global companies that base themselves here because of our membership of the single market.


    we will save money, the idiots who said £350m understandably are embarrassed about the inaccurate figure. Nothing like as inaccurate as Osborne's figures of course

    who is "we"? the govt will receive those tariffs as extra tax, I thought you were in favour of increasing taxes on consumption?

    how many jobs will we lose because of global companies wanting an EU base in the UK? I thought Ireland had the Lion's share of that market
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • BoromedicBoromedic Frets: 991
    edited November 2017
    We will have to agree to disagree with the St George thing, I think he was born in modern day Turkey which then was part of ancient Greece based on some limited research, not English though is he....?!

    WIth regards the EU, before going over your facts and figures I'll say this. No I don't mind that money from the EU is being used to make Poland more prosperous, the whole point of the union is that it is a cooperative, a socialist ideal that allows money to be used to assist countries within the bloc that aren't as well off as others. That is the whole point, to bring each country up to similar standards not drop each one down to the worst. It's an ongoing project as it can't happen overnight, if we had stayed in the EU then in a decade it could be another country receiving the help. As for Poland directly, well given it was remembrance day 3 days ago, we owe them a small debt of gratitude for helping defend our liberty in WWII do we not?

    Being socialist at heart, this process I find normal, shouldn't these funds be used to help the worst off? It's not like we've done bad out the EU is it? Even removing the effects of utility sell offs etc. we still have improved our economy by being a member state, more so than if we had never joined:

    https://www.ft.com/content/202a60c0-cfd8-11e5-831d-09f7778e7377

    After reading your facts and figures I'm still not bothered either, small fry in the long term really those numbers, if we help improve peoples home countries then they'll less likely want to come here will they, which will please Mr Farage no doubt. The government will spend just as much on Victorian transport ideals with their massive trainset that no one needs, and will be obselete by the time the autonomous car takes over probably. 19th Century tech to solve 21st century problems..... hmmmm

    In 2015 we were 6th on the EU recipient charts we were not:

    http://ec.europa.eu/budget/financialreport/2015/expenditure/allocation/index_en.html

    So we aren't always back of the queue, plus when you look at EU expenditure by country since 2007 vs actual costs (struggling to find previous figures) we've been:

    Expenditure (received) / Payments (costs)

    2007: 7th out of 27/ 4th
    2008: 7th / 5th
    2009: 6th / 5th
    2010: 6th / 4th
    2011: 7th / 4th
    2012: 7th / 4th
    2013: 8th / 4th
    2014: 8th / 4th
    2015: 6th / 3rd
    2016: 8th / 4th

    Seeing as we are one of the most successful economies this isn't a bad outcome I don't think, bit like taxation isn't it really? Those who earn more, pay more and then it's used to benefit those most in need. None of this bother me in the slightest and I think it's fair recompense for the protection and opportunities that the EU provides.

    Are there faults in the EU, absolutely and the same can be said for any form of union or government, at least Merkel said no to TATP..... we won't when Brexit occurs, we'll be lapping it up.

    P.s. I never said we had a better deal than anyone else in the EU, but a rather unique one that we will now lose.

    .....and what to my wondering eyes should appear.....      nothing.......


    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • Boromedic said:
    We will have to agree to disagree with the St George thing, I think he was born in modern day Turkey which then was part of ancient Greece based on some limited research, not English though is he....?!

    WIth regards the EU, before going over your facts and figures I'll say this. No I don't mind that money from the EU is being used to make Poland more prosperous, the whole point of the union is that it is a cooperative, a socialist ideal that allows money to be used to assist countries within the bloc that aren't as well off as others. That is the whole point, to bring each country up to similar standards not drop each one down to the worst. It's an ongoing project as it can't happen overnight, if we had stayed in the EU then in a decade it could be another country receiving the help. As for Poland directly, well given it was remembrance day 3 days ago, we owe them a small debt of gratitude for helping defend our liberty in WWII do we not?

    Being socialist at heart, this process I find normal, shouldn't these funds be used to help the worst off? It's not like we've done bad out the EU is it? Even removing the effects of utility sell offs etc. we still have improved our economy by being a member state, more so than if we had never joined:

    https://www.ft.com/content/202a60c0-cfd8-11e5-831d-09f7778e7377

    After reading your facts and figures I'm still not bothered either, small fry in the long term really those numbers, if we help improve peoples home countries then they'll less likely want to come here will they, which will please Mr Farage no doubt. The government will spend just as much on Victorian transport ideals with their massive trainset that no one needs, and will be obselete by the time the autonomous car takes over probably. 19th Century tech to solve 21st century problems..... hmmmm

    In 2015 we were 6th on the EU recipient charts we were not:

    http://ec.europa.eu/budget/financialreport/2015/expenditure/allocation/index_en.html

    So we aren't always back of the queue, plus when you look at EU expenditure by country since 2007 vs actual costs (struggling to find previous figures) we've been:

    Expenditure (received) / Payments (costs)

    2007: 7th out of 27/ 4th
    2008: 7th / 5th
    2009: 6th / 5th
    2010: 6th / 4th
    2011: 7th / 4th
    2012: 7th / 4th
    2013: 8th / 4th
    2014: 8th / 4th
    2015: 6th / 3rd
    2016: 8th / 4th

    Seeing as we are one of the most successful economies this isn't a bad outcome I don't think, bit like taxation isn't it really? Those who earn more, pay more and then it's used to benefit those most in need. None of this bother me in the slightest and I think it's fair recompense for the protection and opportunities that the EU provides.

    Are there faults in the EU, absolutely and the same can be said for any form of union or government, at least Merkel said no to TATP..... we won't when Brexit occurs, we'll be lapping it up.

    P.s. I never said we had a better deal than anyone else in the EU, but a rather unique one that we will now lose.
    wow, that's a long one 

    I don't think socialism works across national boundaries, it's never been used to mean that people in one country pay tax to massively improve a very different country 1000 miles away. I disagree with this, I think it's not a good idea at the scale the EU has done it.

    With Poland, we have been subsidising new, greenfield manufacturing capability that has already caused job losses here, I posted a load of examples last year. This is not a great idea for the UK 

    Your expenditure figure is how much is paid back to the UK after the much much larger payment from the UK to the EU
    The fact remains we are the 2nd largest donor.
    France is a very large beneficiary, even though its economy is roughly the same size as ours. The Dutch are being robbed far worse than anyone else I think.

    I hope you don't believe that the EU is socialist. It's center right, and is run (possibly even more than the UK) in the interests of big multinationals. The EU government lobbying surpasses anything we see here
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • BoromedicBoromedic Frets: 991
    edited November 2017
    How can we be the second largest donor if as the figures I quoted show us as usually providing the 4th largest payment per annum on average?

    I don't think it's left or right particularly, it's not meant to be. It's a conglomerate of both right and left parties europe wide so should ideally represent both in different proportions. I actually feel, as has been pointed out before on TFB by HeartfeltDawn among others that the EU was actually not liked by big multinationals despite what you say. From what I've read it's harder to get some things past the EU imo, look at the wattage reduction on appliances and the furore that caused in the UK from people who still believe a bagless cleaner is the best, as they've been conned by clever marketing. Why do you think that idiot Dyson wanted out? This is 15 years since he moved manufacture to the far east to maximise his profits. The wattage reduction idea is fab, the implementation not so great, but valid none the less.

    All the cheap manufacturers mostly make a cheap bagless cleaner, not to mention bigger manufacturers, don't see how their lobbying helped when the decision was passed? The EU still passed it, and they all suffered and had to take a hit.

    .....and what to my wondering eyes should appear.....      nothing.......


    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • mellowsun said:
    The money we pay in largely goes to pay for EU admin, provide gifts to farmers in the rest of the EU, and to build new factories and infrastructure in places like Poland.
    And yet the money we potentially save by not paying into the EU, the so-called £350 million a week, has suddenly vanished and the proponents of which have now distanced themselves from any claims they made about it.

    We do import more from the EU than we export to the EU, but we benefit from zero import tariffs. The benefits of which we will lose in 2019.

    We will also lose the jobs created by global companies that base themselves here because of our membership of the single market.

    Why didn't these global companies base themselves in one of the other member countries of the single market in the first place, such as France?
    "...I can hear you breathing down the hall"
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • Boromedic said:
    How can we be the second largest donor if as the figures I quoted show us as usually providing the 4th largest payment per annum on average?

    I don't think it's left or right particularly, it's not meant to be. It's a conglomerate of both right and left parties europe wide so should ideally represent both in different proportions. I actually feel, as has been pointed out before on TFB by HeartfeltDawn among others that the EU was actually not liked by big multinationals despite what you say. From what I've read it's harder to get some things past the EU imo, look at the wattage reduction on appliances and the furore that caused in the UK from people who still believe a bagless cleaner is the best, as they've been conned by clever marketing. Why do you think that idiot Dyson wanted out? This is 15 years since he moved manufacture to the far east to maximise his profits. The wattage reduction idea is fab, the implementation not so great, but valid none the less.

    All the cheap manufacturers mostly make a cheap bagless cleaner, not to mention bigger manufacturers, don't see how their lobbying helped when the decision was passed? The EU still passed it, and they all suffered and had to take a hit.
    you're looking at gross payments, I'm looking at the net payment

    the current EU political party balance is centre-right, and has been for a long time I think
    it's a commonly stated myth that the EU is socialist
    https://www.indy100.com/article/the-map-of-europe-by-how-right-or-left-wing-the-government-is-7332691
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/datablog/2015/jun/22/third-eu-governed-by-centre-left-data
    This is another reason I dislike the EU: why would you want the balance of political representation in 27 other countries to overrule that in your own country?

    The hoover wars were idiotic. It should have been done on noise levels. No one runs their hoover for 24 hours a day. The fact that Dyson (is he an idiot? Really?) failed to lobby them effectively does not disprove that politics is dominated by professional lobbying
    The Guardian estimates that 75% of EU law is influenced by lobbying:
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/08/lobbyists-european-parliament-brussels-corporate
    remember: the MEPs can't influence the laws proposed

    Please watch this (from 2012):


    see the reference to these guys:
    https://www.ert.eu/


    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • I found this: https://fullfact.org/europe/did-auditors-sign-eu-budget/

    It still doesn't persuade me that EU membership is a good idea though

    "Working" software has only unobserved bugs. (Parroty Error: Pieces of Nine! Pieces of Nine!)
    Seriously: If you value it, take/fetch it yourself
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • mellowsunmellowsun Frets: 2324
    edited November 2017
    Why didn't these global companies base themselves in one of the other member countries of the single market in the first place, such as France?
    Because their labour markets are too restrictive (which is why they have such high structural unemployment).

    It's much easier to start and run a company in the UK, to hire staff, and to fire them if needed.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

  • A major motivation for leaving the EU is the idea that we are pooling our resources (like we do for the NHS - as you suggest), but unwisely. We are pooling our resources with completely different countries to ours, some of which are completely unproductive and/or economically undeveloped. To pool our resources with them is a massive charitable burden, which no one in the UK ever voted for. The EEC was supposed to be a "common market" for a small number of similar western European states and Italy 


    So the next time there's a huge natural disaster elsewhere in the world and taxpayer's money gets spent on relief efforts, would you say "Pah, it's a massive charitable burden, I never voted for that"?

    What completely unproductive countries are we currently pooling resources with? I'd like to see what a completely unproductive country is like. 
    you are intentionally conflating 2 completely separate issues:
    • sending a few tens of millions, once,  to a disaster zone in a country somewhere
    • sending many billions every year to help countries improve their quality of living from soviet bloc levels up to our own
    all the countries at the bottom of this chart are those unproductive countries:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/europe/09/eu_budget_spending/img/graph_net_contrib_466x485.gif

    And what does this untitled graph show? No title and no explanations for what you classify as unproductive wins no debate. 

    And here's the thing you said "Completely unproductive". If country A produces less than it gets given, it's still not completey unproductive. There is a productivity deficit but it is not completely unproductive. 


    Clarity over quantity.  
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

  • A major motivation for leaving the EU is the idea that we are pooling our resources (like we do for the NHS - as you suggest), but unwisely. We are pooling our resources with completely different countries to ours, some of which are completely unproductive and/or economically undeveloped. To pool our resources with them is a massive charitable burden, which no one in the UK ever voted for. The EEC was supposed to be a "common market" for a small number of similar western European states and Italy 


    So the next time there's a huge natural disaster elsewhere in the world and taxpayer's money gets spent on relief efforts, would you say "Pah, it's a massive charitable burden, I never voted for that"?

    What completely unproductive countries are we currently pooling resources with? I'd like to see what a completely unproductive country is like. 
    you are intentionally conflating 2 completely separate issues:
    • sending a few tens of millions, once,  to a disaster zone in a country somewhere
    • sending many billions every year to help countries improve their quality of living from soviet bloc levels up to our own
    all the countries at the bottom of this chart are those unproductive countries:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/europe/09/eu_budget_spending/img/graph_net_contrib_466x485.gif

    And what does this untitled graph show? No title and no explanations for what you classify as unproductive wins no debate. 

    And here's the thing you said "Completely unproductive". If country A produces less than it gets given, it's still not completey unproductive. There is a productivity deficit but it is not completely unproductive. 



    unproductive
    adjective
    1. not producing or able to produce large amounts of goods, crops, or other commodities.

    The graph shows the actual balance of cash in and out per country
    you can see that mostly the cash goes to the economically underdeveloped countries (i.e. unproductive)

    the graph is from the BBC, it's 2007 data, hard to find in this format, most graphs show money in and out separately, this one combines them. Recent figures look similar if you check by hand
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8036097.stm#start

    So: the most productive EU countries are paying huge extra taxes to attempt to improve the productivity of the rest of the EU.
    Personally, I don't agree with this. I can see why west Germans would consent to pay a huge extra tax to help reunify Germany (15 or 20 years of massive taxes), but I can't see why I should be paying to raise the quality of living of a town in Poland, or Greece, Portugal wherever. I would choose to send my money to far poorer countries, where it would have more effect, rather than trying to raise East and southern European countries up to German, French and UK levels
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

  • unproductive
    adjective
    1. not producing or able to produce large amounts of goods, crops, or other commodities.

    The graph shows the actual balance of cash in and out per country
    you can see that mostly the cash goes to the economically underdeveloped countries (i.e. unproductive)

    the graph is from the BBC, it's 2007 data, hard to find in this format, most graphs show money in and out separately, this one combines them. Recent figures look similar if you check by hand
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8036097.stm#start

    So: the most productive EU countries are paying huge extra taxes to attempt to improve the productivity of the rest of the EU.
    Personally, I don't agree with this. I can see why west Germans would consent to pay a huge extra tax to help reunify Germany (15 or 20 years of massive taxes), but I can't see why I should be paying to raise the quality of living of a town in Poland, or Greece, Portugal wherever. I would choose to send my money to far poorer countries, where it would have more effect, rather than trying to raise East and southern European countries up to German, French and UK levels

    Re. your definition. Not producing or able to produce large amounts of goods.... ergo, so not COMPLETELY unproductive as you stated (insert dictionary definition of "completely" here). 

    Throwing money into countries doesn't solve them. We've seen that in Africa with various schemes, how a lack of solid infrastructure politically meant corruption reigned. As to why money is invested in some of the middling countries... well, wouldn't that be good business sense? Imagine an investor in the private sector is faced with two businesses. One is moderately OK, not hugely productive but has the potential to grow. The other has sod all infrastructure, no planning, and no history of success. Which one would you sink your cash into? 

    Now what I'd like to see for Britain's entry on that graph is how our figures regarding productivity would look without the financial sector. Probably rather poor. Retail is bracing for a shit Christmas, service keeps expanding, manufacturing shrinking, worries about the levels of food we have to export. One wonders how productive we really are. 

    Clarity over quantity.  
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

  • unproductive
    adjective
    1. not producing or able to produce large amounts of goods, crops, or other commodities.

    The graph shows the actual balance of cash in and out per country
    you can see that mostly the cash goes to the economically underdeveloped countries (i.e. unproductive)

    the graph is from the BBC, it's 2007 data, hard to find in this format, most graphs show money in and out separately, this one combines them. Recent figures look similar if you check by hand
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8036097.stm#start

    So: the most productive EU countries are paying huge extra taxes to attempt to improve the productivity of the rest of the EU.
    Personally, I don't agree with this. I can see why west Germans would consent to pay a huge extra tax to help reunify Germany (15 or 20 years of massive taxes), but I can't see why I should be paying to raise the quality of living of a town in Poland, or Greece, Portugal wherever. I would choose to send my money to far poorer countries, where it would have more effect, rather than trying to raise East and southern European countries up to German, French and UK levels

    Re. your definition. Not producing or able to produce large amounts of goods.... ergo, so not COMPLETELY unproductive as you stated (insert dictionary definition of "completely" here). 

    Throwing money into countries doesn't solve them. We've seen that in Africa with various schemes, how a lack of solid infrastructure politically meant corruption reigned. As to why money is invested in some of the middling countries... well, wouldn't that be good business sense? Imagine an investor in the private sector is faced with two businesses. One is moderately OK, not hugely productive but has the potential to grow. The other has sod all infrastructure, no planning, and no history of success. Which one would you sink your cash into? 

    Now what I'd like to see for Britain's entry on that graph is how our figures regarding productivity would look without the financial sector. Probably rather poor. Retail is bracing for a shit Christmas, service keeps expanding, manufacturing shrinking, worries about the levels of food we have to export. One wonders how productive we really are. 

    OK, so "completely" wasn't intended to mean zero, I exaggerated  - do you genuinely think that's an important thing to point out?

    Was your  "we really did have the best deal out of all member states" an exaggeration?

    Giving lots of our cash to another EU country is charity paid for by taxpayers in the wealthiest few EU countries, it is not an "investment". There is no logical way to consider this as an "investment". It's a gift, a grant.
    However, it certainly is "business sense" for the large multinationals operating in the EU to then use that new, cheap manufacturing capability. The profits and corporation tax won't go back to the countries that paid for it though. "Investments" return the cash spent, plus a profit. These schemes return neither.

    When did I advocate "throwing money" into corrupt countries?
    Italian politics has been corrupt, yet the EU shovelled money into it. I personally saw this happen on one project.
    I'm simply pointing out the brutal fact that if I am to pay thousands in tax every year to pay for compulsory, state-selected foreign charity payments, I would be much happier to see it going to developing countries, not to ones who are simply in the second tier of the EU.

    On your last point, the UK produces shitloads of stuff,  where do you think all our cash comes from - just the city??
    Retail is not an industry that produces exports. Where's your figures on all this? Sounds like Daily Mail stuff tbh.

    wikipedia:  "In 2016, the UK was the tenth-largest goods exporter in the world"
    But you believe that the UK is a low-productivity country??
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • Ro_SRo_S Frets: 915
    We should not pay the EU a penny, net, as any 'divorce' settlement..   

    The only money we should pay is to get access to the single market.

    And if we do pay the amount from the current spending round, then we should get all the benefits of being in the EU in the related period (two more years after end of Article 50 period?).

    Let's call the EU's bluff.

    I prefer that we have no Brexit deal, and then we will be in stronger negotiation position to get a trade deal with the EU.


    over 20 effects pedals FOR SALE, click here to see my classifieds thread.   My trading feedback

    Effects for Me & my Monkey    
    YouTube channel     Facebook         Fretboard's "resident pedal supremo" - mgaw

    7reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • exocetexocet Frets: 554
    edited November 2017

    unproductive
    adjective
    1. not producing or able to produce large amounts of goods, crops, or other commodities.

    The graph shows the actual balance of cash in and out per country
    you can see that mostly the cash goes to the economically underdeveloped countries (i.e. unproductive)

    the graph is from the BBC, it's 2007 data, hard to find in this format, most graphs show money in and out separately, this one combines them. Recent figures look similar if you check by hand
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8036097.stm#start

    So: the most productive EU countries are paying huge extra taxes to attempt to improve the productivity of the rest of the EU.
    Personally, I don't agree with this. I can see why west Germans would consent to pay a huge extra tax to help reunify Germany (15 or 20 years of massive taxes), but I can't see why I should be paying to raise the quality of living of a town in Poland, or Greece, Portugal wherever. I would choose to send my money to far poorer countries, where it would have more effect, rather than trying to raise East and southern European countries up to German, French and UK levels

    Re. your definition. Not producing or able to produce large amounts of goods.... ergo, so not COMPLETELY unproductive as you stated (insert dictionary definition of "completely" here). 

    Throwing money into countries doesn't solve them. We've seen that in Africa with various schemes, how a lack of solid infrastructure politically meant corruption reigned. As to why money is invested in some of the middling countries... well, wouldn't that be good business sense? Imagine an investor in the private sector is faced with two businesses. One is moderately OK, not hugely productive but has the potential to grow. The other has sod all infrastructure, no planning, and no history of success. Which one would you sink your cash into? 

    Now what I'd like to see for Britain's entry on that graph is how our figures regarding productivity would look without the financial sector. Probably rather poor. Retail is bracing for a shit Christmas, service keeps expanding, manufacturing shrinking, worries about the levels of food we have to export. One wonders how productive we really are. 

    OK, so "completely" wasn't intended to mean zero, I exaggerated  - do you genuinely think that's an important thing to point out?

    Was your  "we really did have the best deal out of all member states" an exaggeration?

    Giving lots of our cash to another EU country is charity paid for by taxpayers in the wealthiest few EU countries, it is not an "investment". There is no logical way to consider this as an "investment". It's a gift, a grant.
    However, it certainly is "business sense" for the large multinationals operating in the EU to then use that new, cheap manufacturing capability. The profits and corporation tax won't go back to the countries that paid for it though. "Investments" return the cash spent, plus a profit. These schemes return neither.

    When did I advocate "throwing money" into corrupt countries?
    Italian politics has been corrupt, yet the EU shovelled money into it. I personally saw this happen on one project.
    I'm simply pointing out the brutal fact that if I am to pay thousands in tax every year to pay for compulsory, state-selected foreign charity payments, I would be much happier to see it going to developing countries, not to ones who are simply in the second tier of the EU.

    On your last point, the UK produces shitloads of stuff,  where do you think all our cash comes from - just the city??
    Retail is not an industry that produces exports. Where's your figures on all this? Sounds like Daily Mail stuff tbh.

    wikipedia:  "In 2016, the UK was the tenth-largest goods exporter in the world"
    But you believe that the UK is a low-productivity country??



    Are we arguing about the wrong definition of productivity? Clearly the UK produces and exports lots of “stuff” , it just takes us more man hours to deliver the same economic output compared to our peers in developed countries. The UK does have a productivity problem, it’s why we have had stagnant wage growth for the past few years. Brexit or not, the UK has a huge problem in this regard and I’m not seeing many solutions to this problem. Sure, Brexit presents an opportunity to do things differently but I’m intrigued as to what that will be.

    The potential removal of tariffs between us and other counties with whom we don’t currently have trade agreements with is unlikely to have a significant impact unless the UK shapes up and starts producing more of what people want at a price that is competitive. Productivity fits into that.

    For the UK to be less productive than France with all of their restrictive practices is a disgrace. However, without our acceptance of  low productivity, we wouldn’t have had the high employment figures that we’ve “enjoyed” for the past few years. 


    https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/economicoutputandproductivity/productivitymeasures/bulletins/internationalcomparisonsofproductivityfirstestimates/2016
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 2reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • Ro_S said:
    We should not pay the EU a penny, net, as any 'divorce' settlement..   

    The only money we should pay is to get access to the single market.

    And if we do pay the amount from the current spending round, then we should get all the benefits of being in the EU in the related period (two more years after end of Article 50 period?).

    Let's call the EU's bluff.

    I prefer that we have no Brexit deal, and then we will be in stronger negotiation position to get a trade deal with the EU.


    I agree that the current situation is foolish. Legal teams on both sides should work together to find a fair outcome on the so-called divorce settlement.

    As a member of the EU the UK made financial commitments, both for the current budget period and (in the case of pensions, for example) beyond that period. If the UK reneges on these commitments it may find it difficult to be taken seriously in future talks on trade and international cooperation.

    What's the justification for the UK paying for access to the single market?

    Be careful what you wish for. No deal is not just no deal on the divorce settlement and no deal on a trade agreement. It's no deal on how the UK co-exists with the rest of the EU.





    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • It's no deal on how the UK co-exists with the rest of the EU.
    So that would be no different to pre-1975, then?
    "Working" software has only unobserved bugs. (Parroty Error: Pieces of Nine! Pieces of Nine!)
    Seriously: If you value it, take/fetch it yourself
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.