The 'No to the EU' campaign

[///ajd]

powerstroke said:

Sway said:

Powerstock - the current tariff the EU applies to non-EU vehicles.

Which is of course less than currency fluctuations, which businesses have been managing for years. Before someone jumps in with 'yes, but they go in swings and roundabouts so even out' - not always in timeframes that a poorly managed business would be able to accommodate without significant impact to it's ability to maintain the business...

so you think we should accept their cars on their terms and we should just suck up what ever tarrif they feel like imposing on ours !!! I take it you don't run a business???

Yes, that would be madness wouldn't it!

Trouble is that is exactly what the key official economist (Minford) on the leave side is suggesting we do. This is one of the reasons the flexcit north chaps are so apoplectic.

Minford is on record as saying we should effectively run down our car industry as part of brexit. You won't believe me so google it.

[don4l]

///ajd said:

The discussion that started this was about Minford - and he was not advocating any tariff on EU/German car imports to UK, just accepting a tariff on UK exports to the EU.

I cannot believe that anyone would suggest that Europe would impose tariffs on UK exports while, at the same time the UK would allow tariff free imports.

That is an utterly ridiculous suggestion.

Really!

I cannot believe that you actually typed that.

[don4l]

Bill said:

don4l said:

Here is a quotation that I think we should all consider before we vote on June 23rd.

“Europe’s nations should be guided towards the superstate without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose but which will irreversibly lead to federation.”

Where's that from Don?

It's usually attributed to Jean Monnet, who is considered to be one of the founding fathers of the EU. It is worth doing a bit of Googling on him.

He may, or may not have said those words, but he did express similar sentiments to Churchill in private.

[don4l]

///ajd said:

Bill said:

don4l said:

Here is a quotation that I think we should all consider before we vote on June 23rd.

“Europe’s nations should be guided towards the superstate without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose but which will irreversibly lead to federation.”

Where's that from Don?

This suggests it is a misquote and misleading

http://www.jcm.org.uk/blog/2009/03/why-eu-supersta...

Misquote?

Let's pretend that I quoted it from the page that you linked to.

Tell us why you think that it is a misquote.

Here it is again - from your link :-
'Europe’s nations should be guided towards the superstate without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose but which will irreversibly lead to federation’

[turbobloke]

Mothersruin said:

///ajd said:

Mothersruin said:

Given the large percentage of GDP the financial services/City contributes, what's the risk of it being regulated out of business by the EU and a hefty chunk of it going to Frankfurt/Bonn etc?

In my view that's one of the biggest risks of brexit, and the strongest card the EU have to play in any trade nego. It makes car tariffs look trivial.

Mine too - hence my question as I'm yet to hear an answer that reassures me - I was hoping there'd be someone here with something.

Because, if that scenario happened, the UK would really be up st street.

The EU has been working to undermine the City for years, do you think that'll change if we Remain?

It could be tricky to get the clear unequivocal view you seek.

As posted earlier, there are both viewpoints in Split City. That business chap who was forced to resign for supporting Brexit has led to some of the same opinion keeping shtum as per a link I gave recently.

One of the several voices that have avoided contagion is Axel Weber, chairman of Swiss bank UBS who is quoted in the FT as saying that a Leave vote won't undermine the City as a financial centre.

Banker panic is also present in the FT. In the same article there's another banker, who didn't want to be identified, claining that there are european centres who would love to have the jobs currently in London.

NSS. No further information was offered alongside the (obvious) jobs comment.

It looks as though the need to 'do some things differently' is a bit too scary for people stuck in a lucrative routime. Whatever happened to the BSDs. Shrivelled.

[///ajd]

don4l said:

///ajd said:

The discussion that started this was about Minford - and he was not advocating any tariff on EU/German car imports to UK, just accepting a tariff on UK exports to the EU.

I cannot believe that anyone would suggest that Europe would impose tariffs on UK exports while, at the same time the UK would allow tariff free imports.

That is an utterly ridiculous suggestion.

Really!

I cannot believe that you actually typed that.

Yes, I can't believe I had to type it.

Take it up with the key official leave economist!

http://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/idUKKCN0XP15O...

"By leaving the EU and unilaterally scrapping tariffs on imports of food and manufactured goods, Britain would be able to reduce average prices by 8 percent, he said.

Farmers, as well as car manufacturers, would suffer from lower exports to the EU, Minford said." .....as he accepts we would default to WTO EU tariffs.

Barking mad.

At least its good to see some brexiters finally recognise the importance of free trade and the potentially damaging effects of tariffs.

[///ajd]

don4l said:

///ajd said:

Bill said:

don4l said:

Here is a quotation that I think we should all consider before we vote on June 23rd.

“Europe’s nations should be guided towards the superstate without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose but which will irreversibly lead to federation.”

Where's that from Don?

This suggests it is a misquote and misleading

http://www.jcm.org.uk/blog/2009/03/why-eu-supersta...

Misquote?

Let's pretend that I quoted it from the page that you linked to.

Tell us why you think that it is a misquote.

Here it is again - from your link :-
'Europe’s nations should be guided towards the superstate without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose but which will irreversibly lead to federation’

Its actually worse than a misquote. Looks like its a 2009 fabrication to influence another EU referendum, based on something he didn't really say in 1952. The actual record of what he said is quite different.

https://eufundedproeutroll.wordpress.com/2014/05/2...

[M-6fhs1]

Here he is again up bright and early to defend the EU project.

How much are they paying you AJD?

Our farmers would lose out on exports to the EU? Well what if OUR farmers stopped supplying other countries , and only supplied the UK instead ? And we would stop importing other countries meat/dairy/veg?

So British farms supply Britains consumers, we wouldn't have to keep buying cheap st from other countries and we would be self sufficient to a degree.

No doubt the remainers will come back with a quote from google on how that's not possible

[turbobloke]

///ajd said:

...free trade...

That'll be the free trade that isn't free.

According to research covered in a Guardian article, Brexit will lead to £11bn in EU trade costs.

For the free trade that isn't free, and according to an article two months away from The Guardian piece, the UK's rebate reduced our contribution to £12.9 billion.

As previously posted, the increased trade costs are going to be mitigated except by businesses whose owners or executives would be better placed stacking shelves.

£11bn down £13bn up.

Given you believe this trade dreck, what was your point again?

[PRTVR]

I think people should consider that closer union is inevitable, no matter what the politicians tell us, a little bit at a time our ability to function as an independent country is being eroded, in the not to distant future
there will be no way back,I believe that this will be the last chance to remain independent,

why does the EU want an army,a police force? I read that they have embassy's and are trying to get us to shut ours down, dependency appears to be the name of the game, along with redistribution of wealth, people probably think this is all rubbish,

But look where we started from with the common market, then look where we are now, it will continue, the talk of jobs and the end of the world is a smoke screen, the same smoke screen we witnessed with joining the Euro, the modern EU has been bad for British job's, since the expansion of the EU many jobs have moved out of the UK,there is no reason to think it will not continue when Turkey joins the EU,
again people will be saying it will never happen, but you have to ask yourself why the EU loaned money to Ford to expand its Turkey transit factory ? The move appears to be to help Turkey get to a point where it could enter the EU,

the EU helped a non EU country to the detriment of the UK, the EU looks at a bigger
plan, if that's to the detriment of the UK the EU does not care.

If we want to move towards closer union and all that problems that will entail vote remain, for me it's leave before it's to late.

[///ajd]

M-6fhs1 said:

Here he is again up bright and early to defend the EU project.

How much are they paying you AJD?

Our farmers would lose out on exports to the EU? Well what if OUR farmers stopped supplying other countries , and only supplied the UK instead ? And we would stop importing other countries meat/dairy/veg?

So British farms supply Britains consumers, we wouldn't have to keep buying cheap st from other countries and we would be self sufficient to a degree.

No doubt the remainers will come back with a quote from google on how that's not possible

13.2p an insult.

Presumably if we do go all isolationist, and we make / keep all our own food, it will be 8% cheaper (according to minford) as we give all food producers an 8% pay cut. Sounds more soviet than the EUSSR.

Yes I remember all our diary farmers saying, the problem is the supermarkets pay us 8% too much.

Edited by ///ajd on Friday 29th April 08:48

[turbobloke]

Ref my earlier post, I;ve now located the file with relevant URLs:

The Guardian said:

Britain would be landed with £11bn in new tariffs if it left the EU and did not get a free trade agreement, according to the leader of the group campaigning to stay in. Lord Rose, who heads Britain Stronger in Europe, published research suggesting that the UK would have to begin trading with the EU using World Trade Organisation rules, which would cost businesses and consumers more.

IF...AND...

The Telegraph article:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eurefer...

[Mrr T]

digimeistter said:

Mrr T said:

and most importantly maintaining EU financial services passporting. The loss of the later in any britex would be a major negative for the UK and myself since I work in the field. The leave group need to realise this will be a major leverage tool for the EU in any exit negotiations

And there we have the crux of Mrr? T's argument. He doesn't want the twigs disturbed in his comfortable nest. Another self serving attitude, as most of the IN campaigners seem to convey.

UK business & financial services will adapt and carry on, why is everyone terrified no one will trade with us if we leave? Never going to happen. If you're good enough, you will succeed, and we are pretty good on the whole!

Regardless of the post Brexit political fallout, surely the blindingly obvious and a modicum of patriotism should come into play?

Edited by digimeistter on Thursday 28th April 19:10

Is it so bad if I consider my own job. After all it provides for my family and also generates a bit of tax revenue.

It not just my job but I estimate 300/400k jobs would move to the EU if we lose EU financial services passporting on britex. That's a lot of tax revenue. May mean you have to have your benefits cut.

As for the idea we would adapt, how do you adapt to losing access to a major market.

Edited by Mrr T on Friday 29th April 09:42

[PRTVR]

Mrr T said:

digimeistter said:

Mrr T said:

and most importantly maintaining EU financial services passporting. The loss of the later in any britex would be a major negative for the UK and myself since I work in the field. The leave group need to realise this will be a major leverage tool for the EU in any exit negotiations

And there we have the crux of Mrr? T's argument. He doesn't want the twigs disturbed in his comfortable nest. Another self serving attitude, as most of the IN campaigners seem to convey.

UK business & financial services will adapt and carry on, why is everyone terrified no one will trade with us if we leave? Never going to happen. If you're good enough, you will succeed, and we are pretty good on the whole!

Regardless of the post Brexit political fallout, surely the blindingly obvious and a modicum of patriotism should come into play?

Edited by digimeistter on Thursday 28th April 19:10

Is it so bad if I consider my own job. After all it provides for my family and also generates a bit of tax revenue.

It not just my job but I estimate 300/400k jobs would move to the EU if we lose EU financial services passporting on britex. That's a lot of tax revenue. May mean you have to have your benefits cut.

As for the idea we would adapt, how do you adopt to losing access to a major market.

And what if the EU imposed a tax on transactions in the EU, how would London cope globally ?

[Bill]

don4l said:

Misquote?

Let's pretend that I quoted it from the page that you linked to.

Tell us why you think that it is a misquote.

Here it is again - from your link :-
'Europe’s nations should be guided towards the superstate without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose but which will irreversibly lead to federation’

Er, that's the misquote as stated from the blog that they then debunk.

[Hosenbugler]

don4l said:

Bill said:

don4l said:

Here is a quotation that I think we should all consider before we vote on June 23rd.

“Europe’s nations should be guided towards the superstate without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose but which will irreversibly lead to federation.”

Where's that from Don?

It's usually attributed to Jean Monnet, who is considered to be one of the founding fathers of the EU. It is worth doing a bit of Googling on him.

He may, or may not have said those words, but he did express similar sentiments to Churchill in private.

This basic tactic was effectively fessed up to in a report carried out by the F&CO prior to us joining the EU . Namely FCO 30/1048 – 1971

It's quoted in iits entirety here. : http://kenadams.name/content/far-distant-prospect-...

Discussed here in the DT in 2012 : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/9...

Edited by Hosenbugler on Friday 29th April 09:23

[KrissKross]

///ajd said:

Presumably if we do go all isolationist

How does reaching the entire world under our own control make us isolationists.

Its the same stupid comments about "Little Britain", who just so happens to have a population several times greater than Canada!

PROJECT FEAR in full swing all the time.

[Ridgemont]

///ajd said:

Its actually worse than a misquote. Looks like its a 2009 fabrication to influence another EU referendum, based on something he didn't really say in 1952. The actual record of what he said is quite different.

https://eufundedproeutroll.wordpress.com/2014/05/2...

From link;

link said:

'a federated Europe is essential to the security and peace of the free world.’

This is just statement of common sense in the aftermath of WWII, which is still true to this day

Uh huh..

[Mrr T]

Mothersruin said:

Given the large percentage of GDP the financial services/City contributes, what's the risk of it being regulated out of business by the EU and a hefty chunk of it going to Frankfurt/Bonn etc?

That's not really a problem. Most financial services regulations come from international bodies above the EU. For example most banking regulations start from the Bank for International Settlement. ESMA is EU centric but independent of the EU structure. What ever happens with in the EU the EU cannot favour one financial centre.

The issue is that most of the major non EU financial services companies, from say Blackrock, assets management, JPM, banking, State Street, custody, have set up their EU bases in the UK. All these companies have a significant EU customer base. EU financial services passporting allows any regulated entity in the UK to provide services to any other EU country. If we lose EU passporting these organisations will need to move any function servicing EU customers to another EU country.

When I refer to the EU I include the the EEA/EFTA countries and Switzerland.

[Mrr T]

Ridgemont said:

The city is complex, and I am by no means an expert. However.

Regarding banking regs etc, the U.K. has been busy onboarding the G20 requirements. There are a slew of non banking institutions (hedge etc) which currently are winding their way through new EU regs. Then there a whole load of ancillary industries (law, accountancy etc) which operate off the back of the above.

If the UK were to keep inline with supranational regs there is a strong likelihood from my understanding that the impact on the city could be mitigated. However there is a real threat to London on bank clearing & passporting (and the ability to trade across the EU). But the thing to bear in mind is that there has been attempt after attempt to freeze London out; whether it be requiring Euro denominated trading to be done within the Eurozone, or even the FTT. At this stage my admittedly limited understanding is that the UK will have to run a delicate balancing act; and it may end up with some relocation, but the thing to bear in mind here is that the City has such a preponderance of service provision that Franfurt isn't going to replace that over night, and the city has been spending the last few years diversifying its exposure there (cf China, Islamic finance etc)

Since you admit a limited knowledge of financial services let me help you.

This is not about UK financial services regulations which will be similar to those in the EU because most come from international groups above the EU.

The issue is financial services passport this is an EU, EEA/EFTA and Swiss agreement that any financial services company regulated in one country can with minimal approvals offer services in any of the other countries.

For various reason the UK has been lucky and many non EU financial services companies have set up in the UK to services all it EU/EEA/EFTA and Swiss clients.

Lets take an example of Blackrock. Blackrock is one of the largest fund managers in the world, its EU base is in the UK. It will provide fund management services across the EU. If a UK britex means the loss of EU financial services passporting Blackrock would have to set up a new EU base within the EU and many of its functions, and jobs would move with it.

A bit of Islam finance will not make up for the loss of 300/400k financial service jobs.