So who wants to remain in the EU?

[FredClogs]

Perhaps, I don't really care what Winston wanted.

[anonymous-user]

FredClogs said:

Perhaps, I don't really care what Winston wanted.

Then why quote him?

[Einion Yrth]

REALIST123 said:

FredClogs said:

Perhaps, I don't really care what Winston wanted.

Then why quote him?

Because disingenuous is about as close to intelligent as he ever gets.

[Scuffers]

REALIST123 said:

FredClogs said:

Perhaps, I don't really care what Winston wanted.

Then why quote him?

because at the time, he thought it was a good idea, but had failed to understand the context or the actual meaning of Churchill's words.

Bigger point is that was over 70 years ago, if he knew what a total f**kup the EU is now, you think he would be saying the same?

Nobody in their right mind can honestly think the EU is a good thing, unless you're one of the many on it's payroll.

[FredClogs]

REALIST123 said:

FredClogs said:

Perhaps, I don't really care what Winston wanted.

Then why quote him?

Because he was one of the main architects and supporters of the Council of Europe and the ECHR. Among other things.

The idea we should withdraw from the ECHR is, in my opinion, a fundamentalist ideal and completely absurd.

[plasticpig]

Esseesse said:

When we have left the EU, we can leave the ECHR.

And the United Nations as some of UK law is an implementation of us being signatories to various UN charters.

[Esseesse]

plasticpig said:

Esseesse said:

When we have left the EU, we can leave the ECHR.

And the United Nations as some of UK law is an implementation of us being signatories to various UN charters.

Depends on if what we're bound to is agreeable to the electorate.

[Esseesse]

FredClogs said:

The idea we should withdraw from the ECHR is, in my opinion, a fundamentalist ideal and completely absurd.

IIRC David Cameron was suggesting that we could move away from ECHR just last year.

[plasticpig]

Esseesse said:

Depends on if what we're bound to is agreeable to the electorate.

Simply sell it as "we wont need to let any of those bloody johnny foreigners who are escaping war zones in". Bound to get the electorate in favor of leaving the UN.








Just in case there is any doubt I am being sarcastic

[confused_buyer]

Churchill suggested a "United States of Europe" because he though it might stop them having a war every 20-30 years or so.

Rightly or wrongly, he didn't consider the UK part of the "problem" of Continental Europe so didn't need to be part of the solution.

It doesn't get said very often but the entire driving force of the EU (and even the Euro) is/was to make it impossible for France or Germany to have a pop at one another.

[FiF]

don4l said:

TBH, I did a little research before posting, and the lowest nett figure that I found was £8Bn. However I didn't think that the source was trustworthy, so I went with the gross figure.

That was a minor point in a long post.

Yes it was a relatively minor point, and other points in your post were completely valid. Problem is the way these pricks operate is that they pick one clearly rebuttable point, shoot it down, and then say therefore all the rest is bks and this person is untrustworthy and don't know what they're talking about.

We see that on here all the time, so don't fall into the trap, which is, admittedly, easier said than done. Was just wanting to get a more realistic and probably pessimistic figure out there. Either that or to say quite clearly, this is the gross figure, and in reality there will be some subsidies from EU funds that we should continue to support, and the nett figure will depend on that decision process, but there will be a nett saving. OK unwieldy, but probably more accurate than my estimate of 5.5million per week.

One thing we're going to have to do is manage expectations. In the case of a vote for Leave, there will be a lot of people sold the leave side on the basis of; bonfire of regulations, isn't going to happen; saving a ton of money, isn't going to happen; closing the borders from certain areas / stopping freedom of movement / massively reducing immigration/ asylum seekers, isn't going to happen: none of these for quite some years, unless the idiots go for the suicide option.

Of course that's assuming that we do invoke Article 50 and actually leave, as opposed to EU/CMD coming up with more 'reforms' to justify a asking the question again until they get the right answer, which is what I suspect will be the case.

[FiF]

woowahwoo said:

Mario149 said:

There are no "facts" on either side, that's the problem. It's all supposition, assumption, best guesses of what might happen if etc

Rubbish. This is a silly, untrue 'we don't/can't know' fear-the-change argument for a status quo (which won't happen whether in or out wins). Staying in whilst the euro takes on more water? Ignoring the opportunities in the global economy to fund a bit-part presence in a undemocratic power & privilege pyramid scheme that consistently just wants us to pay-up and shut-up. No, thanks!

Part of the problem, as I touched on another post, is that various of the leave sides, eg Redwood, Banks, advocate an exit strategy which is completely barking, and would create a whole load of uncertainty, yet there is an exit strategy out there calling for a staged exit, which will need many compromises in the short and medium term to ensure a stable and controlled exit. It's taken 40 years to get this level of entanglement and it isn't going to be done overnight, ref Redwood, repeal the act, don't bother with Article 50 and just sail off into the sunset, heavy paraphrasing obviously. Completely barking and illegal, and therefore, surprisingly for Redwood, quite illogical Captain.

[Mrr T]

don4l said:

Why do you think that we need a trade agreement with the US?

I bet that you cannot answer the question, because you know nothing at all about international trade.

I have placed an order on an American supplier today. The goods will be delivered to us on Monday. There will be no duty payable. What difference do you think a "trade deal" would make?

I fax over the order. The goods arrive in three days. I pay a month later.

This is exactly the same as dealing with France or Poland.

I also know a little about international trade.

So a few questions about your transaction with the USA supplier?

I assume the goods will be subject to VAT in the UK. If its a single parcel and customs do not stop it and ask you to pay the VAT before its delivered. You do know its your responsibility to contact customs and and pay the VAT.

Are the goods subject to any UK regulations, if its an electrical item it will be. If they are subject to any UK regulations have you arranged for the item to be inspected by a suitably qualified individual who can confirm in writing the item meets UK regulations? If not I hope you do not plan to sell the item, which would be a criminal offence, or to use the item in your business. Using an item in your business which had not been inspected to ensure it meetst UK standards would be an offence, and if it damaged anyone would invalidate any insurance policies which might have covered any claim for liability.

don4l said:

In fact, I can think of an instance where trading with Europe would become easier if we leave.

At the moment, if I sell something outside the EU, I don't charge VAT. There is no VAT on exports.

If I sell something a VAT registered business in the EU, I also do not have to charge VAT. However, I do have to get their VAT number. I also have to keep a record of such transactions, and report them separately. So, believe it or not, it is easier for me to sell something to the US than to France.

More questions. Are the goods you sell in the EU subject to any EU regulations? If they are I hope if we leave the EU you either get a suitably qualified institution in the country of the purchaser to inspect the goods and provide written documentation that the goods meet EU standards. If you want to avoid the costs of doing that in each individual EU country you can set up a entity registered in the EU and then regulatory approval in that country would cover the whole of the EU.

[wiggy001]

Mrr T said:

don4l said:

Why do you think that we need a trade agreement with the US?

I bet that you cannot answer the question, because you know nothing at all about international trade.

I have placed an order on an American supplier today. The goods will be delivered to us on Monday. There will be no duty payable. What difference do you think a "trade deal" would make?

I fax over the order. The goods arrive in three days. I pay a month later.

This is exactly the same as dealing with France or Poland.

I also know a little about international trade.

So a few questions about your transaction with the USA supplier?

I assume the goods will be subject to VAT in the UK. If its a single parcel and customs do not stop it and ask you to pay the VAT before its delivered. You do know its your responsibility to contact customs and and pay the VAT.

Are the goods subject to any UK regulations, if its an electrical item it will be. If they are subject to any UK regulations have you arranged for the item to be inspected by a suitably qualified individual who can confirm in writing the item meets UK regulations? If not I hope you do not plan to sell the item, which would be a criminal offence, or to use the item in your business. Using an item in your business which had not been inspected to ensure it meetst UK standards would be an offence, and if it damaged anyone would invalidate any insurance policies which might have covered any claim for liability.

don4l said:

In fact, I can think of an instance where trading with Europe would become easier if we leave.

At the moment, if I sell something outside the EU, I don't charge VAT. There is no VAT on exports.

If I sell something a VAT registered business in the EU, I also do not have to charge VAT. However, I do have to get their VAT number. I also have to keep a record of such transactions, and report them separately. So, believe it or not, it is easier for me to sell something to the US than to France.

More questions. Are the goods you sell in the EU subject to any EU regulations? If they are I hope if we leave the EU you either get a suitably qualified institution in the country of the purchaser to inspect the goods and provide written documentation that the goods meet EU standards. If you want to avoid the costs of doing that in each individual EU country you can set up a entity registered in the EU and then regulatory approval in that country would cover the whole of the EU.

Ignoring the patronising tone of your post for a second, are you saying that:

US -> UK = UK has to make arrangements to abide by UK reuglations
UK -> EU = UK has to make arrangements to abide by EU reuglations

?

[TEKNOPUG]

Mario149 said:

TEKNOPUG said:

So it's been 24 hours since I asked if anyone could provide factual evidence of why being part of the EU is beneficial to the UK and how those benefits would be lost if we left but still no takers. Have we drawn a blank? It's quite difficult to form a considered opinion without any.

There are no "facts" on either side, that's the problem. It's all supposition, assumption, best guesses of what might happen if etc

You quoted 1.6% of our Public Spending so I presume that is a "fact"? I'm not asking you to predict the future, I'm asking for facts about how being a member of the EU benefits the UK. 1.6% seems to be a fact as to how our membership is detrimental. There are plenty of facts as to why our membership is detrimental and why the EU as a whole is a bad thing.

Very few if any as to why it's a good thing for the UK. So accepting that no one knows what will happen if we leave (or indeed remain for that matter), I can only go on what we know as facts in the present. And that would suggest that's it's detrimental to the UK to be a member of the EU. If you have some factual evidence as to why our current membership of the EU is desirable, I'd love to hear them, so I can make an informed decision.

[Mrr T]

wiggy001 said:

Ignoring the patronising tone of your post for a second, are you saying that:

US -> UK = UK has to make arrangements to abide by UK reuglations
UK -> EU = UK has to make arrangements to abide by EU reuglations

?

I think the patronising tone was perfectly fair consider the tone of the post I was responding to.

As for your question the answer is yes.

Very little trade negotiation concern tariffs most are about mutual standards and cross border standard recognition.

So there is current no agreement between the US and the EU which covers this. The negotiations are on going but no treaty yet.

So it you buy something from the US its the buyers obligation to put in place the required regulatory approvals.

The EU/EEA /Swiss Agreement include mutual recognition of standards and standard setting processes. So currently if its approved in the UK you can sell any where in those countries with out further approvals.

I am not an expert in this but do read Richard Norths EUreferendum site.

[Scuffers]

Mrr T said:

I also know a little about international trade.

So a few questions about your transaction with the USA supplier?

I assume the goods will be subject to VAT in the UK. If its a single parcel and customs do not stop it and ask you to pay the VAT before its delivered. You do know its your responsibility to contact customs and and pay the VAT.

you never heard of a deferment account?

if you are importing stuff as a matter of your daily business, you will have a deferment account with your shipper(s), your imports then get delivered as normal, and at the end of the month, you settle your account, any VAT that's due then get's added to your VAT return.

it's not rocket science, companies have been doing this for decades.

even if you don't have a deferment account with the shipper, they will just phone you and take your payment details and clear the customs charges on your behalf.

Hell, even the Royal Mail do this if you get sent goods from abroad personally (although they have a bad habit of sending you the notification via 2nd class post!)

[loafer123]

It certainly is a pain when we have to pay UPS the duty and VAT when they deliver. Everyone else takes the payment automatically.

We import regularly and easily from the US. We get the same goods as from our German supplier, but cheaper and quicker even after paying all charges.

We also export regularly to the US with no stress.

[Cobnapint]

loafer123 said:

It certainly is a pain when we have to pay UPS the duty and VAT when they deliver. Everyone else takes the payment automatically.

We import regularly and easily from the US. We get the same goods as from our German supplier, but cheaper and quicker even after paying all charges.

We also export regularly to the US with no stress.

Is the reason you get them cheaper from the US due to currency differences, or as I think you are trying to say, due to the fact that we are being sold down the road when it comes to being told that being part of the EU is a benefit when we want to trade...?

[Scuffers]

loafer123 said:

It certainly is a pain when we have to pay UPS the duty and VAT when they deliver. Everyone else takes the payment automatically.

open a deferment account with them then?