The 'No to the EU' campaign
Discussion
Seeing as a few of my posts have been completely misunderstood, forgive me for a long post, with some bold for additional clarity...
I've stated many, many times my preference for the approach to leaving the EU is Flexcit, with the first stage being EFTA membership. This is for many reasons, the primary one being I think it's daft to suggest an unnecessarily rapid disengaging from a level of integration built over decades.
That of course means that we don't lose passporting (and I really struggle to believe over a quarter of a million jobs would be lost if we didn't achieve this), are able to sign new trade deals with the rest of the World, etc.
However, if the only option was immediate (relatively) withdrawal, armageddon wouldn't be the result.
Passporting aside (not because it's inconvenient, but because it's not my area of expertise), trade will continue and it's an opportunity we should relish.
I've stated before, I'm a business improvement consultant (with my own business and employees) and have an excellent track record across a number of industries - including the two most commonly held as a concern, farming and automotive. The demand for my services varies, but pretty much tracks inversely to the general performance of the economy. Not a concern for my business, as we recognise this and have taken measures over the last few years to be more attractive even whilst times are good. Competitors are struggling to a degree at the moment though.
Can we all agree, adversity drives progress - whether the push of early man from the trees to the savannah, or the Nuclear industry born of WW2, etc.
Minford is not suggesting driving down those industries. He articulates very clearly, with plenty of factual reference, that trade tariffs are born due to a local inefficiency as a way to protect that inefficient industry. We have some of the most efficient car plants in the world. Some of our agriculture is well up the rankings, some not. The point, is that whilst tariffs exist to isolate and protect those industries there is no drive nor need to improve, innovate and develop. Remove those protections, and that drive is established. There is reasonably easy scope in both agriculture and automotive manufacture for a 10% reduction in costs - without leading to layoffs or pissed off customers. That's the basis of my career, and I've never failed yet. Yet why would a company bother, if it's meeting it's targets?
This is the reason why Soviet industry was so inefficient - why did it need to be? Hence the Ukrainian tractor factory experience. Also British Leyland, UK coal mining, French agriculture, Spanish car production, etc.
In the scenario we don't achieve EFTA membership and move to WTO status, the only people harmed by the EU slapping tariffs on us, is the EU itself. If we acted in a tit-for-tat manner, then we'd be choosing the self harm option too.
So, in summary, I'd prefer EFTA/free trade deals/competitive drive for improvement. If that's not on the table, then we'll have an even bigger drive for improvement, and we've shown the world for the last 500 years that we're up to that challenge.
I've stated many, many times my preference for the approach to leaving the EU is Flexcit, with the first stage being EFTA membership. This is for many reasons, the primary one being I think it's daft to suggest an unnecessarily rapid disengaging from a level of integration built over decades.
That of course means that we don't lose passporting (and I really struggle to believe over a quarter of a million jobs would be lost if we didn't achieve this), are able to sign new trade deals with the rest of the World, etc.
However, if the only option was immediate (relatively) withdrawal, armageddon wouldn't be the result.
Passporting aside (not because it's inconvenient, but because it's not my area of expertise), trade will continue and it's an opportunity we should relish.
I've stated before, I'm a business improvement consultant (with my own business and employees) and have an excellent track record across a number of industries - including the two most commonly held as a concern, farming and automotive. The demand for my services varies, but pretty much tracks inversely to the general performance of the economy. Not a concern for my business, as we recognise this and have taken measures over the last few years to be more attractive even whilst times are good. Competitors are struggling to a degree at the moment though.
Can we all agree, adversity drives progress - whether the push of early man from the trees to the savannah, or the Nuclear industry born of WW2, etc.
Minford is not suggesting driving down those industries. He articulates very clearly, with plenty of factual reference, that trade tariffs are born due to a local inefficiency as a way to protect that inefficient industry. We have some of the most efficient car plants in the world. Some of our agriculture is well up the rankings, some not. The point, is that whilst tariffs exist to isolate and protect those industries there is no drive nor need to improve, innovate and develop. Remove those protections, and that drive is established. There is reasonably easy scope in both agriculture and automotive manufacture for a 10% reduction in costs - without leading to layoffs or pissed off customers. That's the basis of my career, and I've never failed yet. Yet why would a company bother, if it's meeting it's targets?
This is the reason why Soviet industry was so inefficient - why did it need to be? Hence the Ukrainian tractor factory experience. Also British Leyland, UK coal mining, French agriculture, Spanish car production, etc.
In the scenario we don't achieve EFTA membership and move to WTO status, the only people harmed by the EU slapping tariffs on us, is the EU itself. If we acted in a tit-for-tat manner, then we'd be choosing the self harm option too.
So, in summary, I'd prefer EFTA/free trade deals/competitive drive for improvement. If that's not on the table, then we'll have an even bigger drive for improvement, and we've shown the world for the last 500 years that we're up to that challenge.
Mrr T said:
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.
Which is fair enough as a risk but by no means a certainty. 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.
And the aspect troubling me is people thinking remaining in the EU frees us from this risk. It does not. It's no secret that The City's pre-eminence is a major issue for the power mongers in the EU and as has been noted, they've tried a number of times to break it. If we remain in, we have absolutely no reason to believe they will not continue to attempt to erode it until they succeed. That is the MO of the EU. It doesn't stop until it gets its own way.
The shrewdest move (in or out) would therefore be for The City to try and mitigate such behaviour to protect itself - which it is doing, and has done for a long time. And for the country to try and be a little less dependent on The City for its economic prosperity.
I also work in the financial services area and think this latter point would be a "good thing" in more ways than just this. Banks are shedding jobs across the board right now (BoA, CS, HSBC...thousands upon thousands of jobs going, and a large chunk of them in the UK). This has nothing whatsoever to do with our membership of the EU or otherwise. They are simply not making sufficient money and so are axing into costs. This is more a factor of the global economic situation and, IMO, increased regulatory burdens that are nailing them in terms of the costs of doing business. Something has to give, so we need to prepare ourselves for a time when/if the financial services sector cannot shoulder 10%-12% of our GDP.
Out of interest, where do you think the 300-400k jobs will go from purely as a result of an EU exit? Are you talking all related industries or purely banking etc in The City?
All this diversionary waffle about the accuracy of a quote or misquote doesn't alter the basic situation.
Remain does not equal retention of status quo.
The EU, in particular the Eurozone will continue tighter and tighter integration, at least attempt to do so. The last x years is all the evidence needed, but weigh in the statements from various EU politicians and groups thus cannot be denied.
All nations in the EU but outside the Eurozone will find that the actions of the EU will increasingly be directed towards the benefit of the Eurozone and trying to keep the experiment surviving.
The failure of the Remain campaign to address this renders their whole campaign bankrupt imo.
Remain does not equal retention of status quo.
The EU, in particular the Eurozone will continue tighter and tighter integration, at least attempt to do so. The last x years is all the evidence needed, but weigh in the statements from various EU politicians and groups thus cannot be denied.
All nations in the EU but outside the Eurozone will find that the actions of the EU will increasingly be directed towards the benefit of the Eurozone and trying to keep the experiment surviving.
The failure of the Remain campaign to address this renders their whole campaign bankrupt imo.
PRTVR said:
And what if the EU imposed a tax on transactions in the EU, how would London cope globally ?
The EU group considering the FTT have already dropped the idea of a general tax on all EU financial services transaction. without the UK this would have been impossible to implement. The FTT will now be limited to transactions in each counties domestic securities. So exactly like the existing UK FTT.Ive posted before this simple thought.
Do people believe that the EURO currency will fail ? and if so when? 1 year 5 years 10 years or never?
If you believe that the Euro will fail what are your reasons you want to vote to stay in Europe with the countries that will go bust WHEN the euro does fail?. ie the PIIGS
Does anyone really believe that the EURO won't fail in near/mid future?
Do people believe that the EURO currency will fail ? and if so when? 1 year 5 years 10 years or never?
If you believe that the Euro will fail what are your reasons you want to vote to stay in Europe with the countries that will go bust WHEN the euro does fail?. ie the PIIGS
Does anyone really believe that the EURO won't fail in near/mid future?
Sway said:
The Civil Service will have a plan already mapped out, either way.
That's what they do. Whether the political bosses release that plan is another matter, but to think that the Government has triggered a referendum without having a decent idea of what happens next for either result is ridiculous.
Yeah, it'd be like starting a war without having any plan for what happens afterwards. Unpossible!That's what they do. Whether the political bosses release that plan is another matter, but to think that the Government has triggered a referendum without having a decent idea of what happens next for either result is ridiculous.
cookie118 said:
If we vote for stay I'd imagine that not much would change really. Cameron will get his changes done, which depending on where your thoughts are is a big deal or not a big deal.
Point of order, those changes, such as they are, are only to be adopted at the time there is another treaty change. That might be 10 or 20 years hence, or longer. I doubt that they will never see the light of day.If the UK does vote to remain in the EU. the first thing it should do, is take back (or rather stop paying it in, in the first place) the billions of pounds of the UK`s EU rebate that Bliar gave away for nothing. If they whinge we should tell them we will continue to keep those billions in the UK until the EU reforms the CAP.
We should also stop paying the fines the EU imposes on the UK for not using our own money they way they want us to.
That at least would be a small start at rolling back the corruption that is at the heart of the EU.
We should also stop paying the fines the EU imposes on the UK for not using our own money they way they want us to.
That at least would be a small start at rolling back the corruption that is at the heart of the EU.
///ajd said:
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.
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.
You really are stark, staring mad if you think that anyone believes that that could happen
Utterly, utterly bonkers.
Project Fear has produced some nonsense, but this really takes the biscuit.
don4l said:
"Unilaterally scrapping import tariffs".
You really are stark, staring mad if you think that anyone believes that that could happen
Utterly, utterly bonkers.
Project Fear has produced some nonsense, but this really takes the biscuit.
Isn't that precisely what the "exit" group of econonmists headed by Patrick Minford are proposing?You really are stark, staring mad if you think that anyone believes that that could happen
Utterly, utterly bonkers.
Project Fear has produced some nonsense, but this really takes the biscuit.
I have to say I thought he sounded a bit barking during his various media appearances yesterday.
Pan Pan Pan said:
If the UK does vote to remain in the EU. the first thing it should do, is take back (or rather stop paying it in, in the first place) the billions of pounds of the UK`s EU rebate that Bliar gave away for nothing. If they whinge we should tell them we will continue to keep those billions in the UK until the EU reforms the CAP.
We should also stop paying the fines the EU imposes on the UK for not using our own money they way they want us to.
That at least would be a small start at rolling back the corruption that is at the heart of the EU.
That would require the UK having a Government not in cahoots with the EU...We should also stop paying the fines the EU imposes on the UK for not using our own money they way they want us to.
That at least would be a small start at rolling back the corruption that is at the heart of the EU.
///ajd said:
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?“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.”
http://www.jcm.org.uk/blog/2009/03/why-eu-supersta...
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’
https://eufundedproeutroll.wordpress.com/2014/05/2...
I didn't.
Yet another fail on your part.
I copied it from the link that you posted. Therefore, it cannot be a misquote.
Bill said:
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.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’
If I claimed that Jean Monnet said it, then it would indeed be a misquote. However, all I did was copy and paste it, therefore it is an accurate quotation.
A quotation is simply to give the the actual words of someone. I quoted those actual words.
desolate said:
don4l said:
"Unilaterally scrapping import tariffs".
You really are stark, staring mad if you think that anyone believes that that could happen
Utterly, utterly bonkers.
Project Fear has produced some nonsense, but this really takes the biscuit.
Isn't that precisely what the "exit" group of econonmists headed by Patrick Minford are proposing?You really are stark, staring mad if you think that anyone believes that that could happen
Utterly, utterly bonkers.
Project Fear has produced some nonsense, but this really takes the biscuit.
I have to say I thought he sounded a bit barking during his various media appearances yesterday.
In the article that ajd linked to, Minford is quoted as saying that we should trade under WTO rules. That would involve balanced tariffs. Ie, Germany would add 10% to car imports from the UK and we would charge 10% on car imports from Germany. There would be no tariffs at all on datacomms equipment.
Minford may, or may not have said that we should unilaterally drop import tariffs, but he did not say it in the Reuters article that ajd linked. He is quoted as saying that we should trade under WTO rules.
The first sentence of ajd's evidence is:-
" Britain would be richer if it left the European Union, a group of British economists said on Thursday, in contrast to warnings from leading global institutions of a big hit to output and living standards."
Edited by don4l on Friday 29th April 10:58
PRTVR said:
<snip>
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, <snip>
you are sounding like a teabilly there ... 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, <snip>
next you'll be telling us that there are marks on the back of road signs guding the EU army to branches of Asda that are going to be used as concentration camps for dissenters ...
Is there anything to suggest that any proposed 'EU army' would be any different to the UN formations or NATO managed deployments ( as seen in the former Yugoslavia) consisting of formed units from various nations under a joint HQ ? - after all this the model of 'EuroCorps' ...
is the NATO AEW force or the NATO strategic airlift group a threat to anyone's sovereignty - depsite the aircraft in use with those grosp are NATO owned and registered ?
CrutyRammers said:
Sway said:
The Civil Service will have a plan already mapped out, either way.
That's what they do. Whether the political bosses release that plan is another matter, but to think that the Government has triggered a referendum without having a decent idea of what happens next for either result is ridiculous.
Yeah, it'd be like starting a war without having any plan for what happens afterwards. Unpossible!That's what they do. Whether the political bosses release that plan is another matter, but to think that the Government has triggered a referendum without having a decent idea of what happens next for either result is ridiculous.
Alex said:
CrutyRammers said:
Sway said:
The Civil Service will have a plan already mapped out, either way.
That's what they do. Whether the political bosses release that plan is another matter, but to think that the Government has triggered a referendum without having a decent idea of what happens next for either result is ridiculous.
Yeah, it'd be like starting a war without having any plan for what happens afterwards. Unpossible!That's what they do. Whether the political bosses release that plan is another matter, but to think that the Government has triggered a referendum without having a decent idea of what happens next for either result is ridiculous.
superlightr said:
Ive posted before this simple thought.
Do people believe that the EURO currency will fail ? and if so when? 1 year 5 years 10 years or never?
If you believe that the Euro will fail what are your reasons you want to vote to stay in Europe with the countries that will go bust WHEN the euro does fail?. ie the PIIGS
Does anyone really believe that the EURO won't fail in near/mid future?
Define fail. I don't think it will fail. Even at the height of the Greek crisis no one actually dumped it as a currency. In the last 5 months its gained 10% against the pound and about 7% versus the dollar. Whilst having a single economic policy for the mixed bag of eurozone economies has clearly been a challenge in recent years to say the least, I think the fate of the euro is a separate matter. Do people believe that the EURO currency will fail ? and if so when? 1 year 5 years 10 years or never?
If you believe that the Euro will fail what are your reasons you want to vote to stay in Europe with the countries that will go bust WHEN the euro does fail?. ie the PIIGS
Does anyone really believe that the EURO won't fail in near/mid future?
don4l said:
I copied and pasted it.
If I claimed that Jean Monnet said it, then it would indeed be a misquote. However, all I did was copy and paste it, therefore it is an accurate quotation.
A quotation is simply to give the the actual words of someone. I quoted those actual words.
Huh? Quoting something that someone made up and attributed to someone else doesn't turn it into a quote. If I claimed that Jean Monnet said it, then it would indeed be a misquote. However, all I did was copy and paste it, therefore it is an accurate quotation.
A quotation is simply to give the the actual words of someone. I quoted those actual words.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff