Current Affairs EU In or Out

In or Out

  • In

    Votes: 688 67.9%

  • Out

    Votes: 325 32.1%
  • Total voters
    1,013
Status
Not open for further replies.
peteblue said:
And you still won’t answer it, because you know the truth. They will not do it, even though it’s to their benefit because if we succeed then others may follow and also succeed. This would undermine the EU project of a superstate, therefore it must be crushed, even if it hurts the EU, even though it would be to the benefit of the EU and the U.K. and all of its peoples. The EU is not about benefitting the people, it’s about creating a superstate. That is the truth and your lack of an answer knows it. An admission of the truth might help the conversation......
Click to expand...
Hahahaha and there it is, the superstate conspiracy theory.

No Pete, you don’t get to enjoy all of the benefits without being part of the club, it really is that simple, and always has been. Project fear lol
 
Foot Long Hot Dog said:
Hahahaha and there it is, the superstate conspiracy theory.

No Pete, you don’t get to enjoy all of the benefits without being part of the club, it really is that simple, and always has been. Project fear lol
Click to expand...

And you still haven’t answered the question because you would rather ‘win the internet’ than be honest. If it isn’t what I proposed then what is it ?.....
 
peteblue said:
Oh, and of course this scenario doesn’t actually create a single additional £ or € , it just redistributes it. Then of course is the obvious downside for other EU states, trying to sell into its largest trading partner (or not). The German car industry loves your idea.....
Click to expand...

It works really for some nations. It softens the blow, so a deal isn’t always in the best interest. Sometimes it does create additional €, mainly for the richer EU states though. Germany also has a plan B etc... There’s no winning, just realism.

I don’t see why you care tbh, Brexit is an ideological issue for you, I can respect that. You shouldn’t look at it from an economical POV.
 
Tbf to Farage he hit the nail on the head with regard to Airbus.....

This is the WTO agreement...

Agreement on Trade in Civil Aircraft
This plurilateral agreement entered into force on 1 January 1980. There are 32 signatories: Albania; Canada; Egypt; the European Union (the following 20 EU member states are also signatories in their own right: Austria; Belgium; Bulgaria; Denmark; Estonia; France; Germany; Greece; Ireland; Italy; Latvia; Lithuania; Luxembourg; Malta; the Netherlands; Portugal; Romania; Spain; Sweden and the United Kingdom); Georgia; Japan; Macao, China; Montenegro; Norway; Switzerland; Chinese Taipei and the United States. Most WTO agreements are multilateral since they are signed by all WTO members. The Agreement on Trade in Civil Aircraft is one of two plurilateral agreements (with the Agreement on Government Procurement being the second) signed by a smaller number of WTO members. It eliminates import duties on all aircraft, other than military aircraft, as well as on all other products covered by the agreement — civil aircraft engines and their parts and components, all components and sub-assemblies of civil aircraft, and flight simulators and their parts and components.

So, no tariffs on products or parts, so why are Airbus (major shareholders Germany and France), threatening to move production to Europe, or China or America (note the last two are not in the EU or single market )......
 
peteblue said:
Oh, and of course this scenario doesn’t actually create a single additional £ or € , it just redistributes it. Then of course is the obvious downside for other EU states, trying to sell into its largest trading partner (or not). The German car industry loves your idea.....
Click to expand...

German cars again.....here’s the thing Pete, the German car industry isn’t that arsed. Take VAG for example, WTO terms would mean a 10% tariff. Would this cost them UK market share? Yes. Would people stop buying their cars? No. So even if they lost 25% of their U.K. across their brands that would be a drop in sales of circa 125k vehicles out of a worldwide production of circa 11 million, or barely more than 1% of their worldwide production. Add in the fact that since the pound tanked their margin is now squeezed over here anyway, and the prospect of pushing that production into other growth markets, and there’s not the blind panic that Brexiteers would love to have people beleive is the case. It’s therefore not the huge lever that it’s been portrayed as over here.
 
Armel said:
It works really for some nations. It softens the blow, so a deal isn’t always in the best interest. Sometimes it does create additional €, mainly for the richer EU states though. Germany also has a plan B etc... There’s no winning, just realism.

I don’t see why you care tbh, Brexit is an ideological issue for you, I can respect that. You shouldn’t look at it from an economical POV.
Click to expand...

It is ideological, but from a point of view that ultimately we will also benefit economically, not at your expense but through additional free trade.....
 
Foot Long Hot Dog said:
German cars again.....here’s the thing Pete, the German car industry isn’t that arsed. Take VAG for example, WTO terms would mean a 10% tariff. Would this cost them UK market share? Yes. Would people stop buying their cars? No. So even if they lost 25% of their U.K. across their brands that would be a drop in sales of circa 125k vehicles out of a worldwide production of circa 11 million, or barely more than 1% of their worldwide production. Add in the fact that since the pound tanked their margin is now squeezed over here anyway, and the prospect of pushing that production into other growth markets, and there’s not the blind panic that Brexiteers would love to have people beleive is the case. It’s therefore not the huge lever that it’s been portrayed as over here.
Click to expand...

My point was about generating more business not decreasing what exists.....
 
peteblue said:
Tbf to Farage he hit the nail on the head with regard to Airbus.....

This is the WTO agreement...

Agreement on Trade in Civil Aircraft
This plurilateral agreement entered into force on 1 January 1980. There are 32 signatories: Albania; Canada; Egypt; the European Union (the following 20 EU member states are also signatories in their own right: Austria; Belgium; Bulgaria; Denmark; Estonia; France; Germany; Greece; Ireland; Italy; Latvia; Lithuania; Luxembourg; Malta; the Netherlands; Portugal; Romania; Spain; Sweden and the United Kingdom); Georgia; Japan; Macao, China; Montenegro; Norway; Switzerland; Chinese Taipei and the United States. Most WTO agreements are multilateral since they are signed by all WTO members. The Agreement on Trade in Civil Aircraft is one of two plurilateral agreements (with the Agreement on Government Procurement being the second) signed by a smaller number of WTO members. It eliminates import duties on all aircraft, other than military aircraft, as well as on all other products covered by the agreement — civil aircraft engines and their parts and components, all components and sub-assemblies of civil aircraft, and flight simulators and their parts and components.

So, no tariffs on products or parts, so why are Airbus (major shareholders Germany and France), threatening to move production to Europe, or China or America (note the last two are not in the EU or single market )......
Click to expand...
Why don’t you and he actually acquaint yourselves with the facts.....it’s really not difficult

http://www.airbus.com/content/dam/c...ce/uk/Brexit-Risk-Assessment-21-Jun-FINAL.pdf
 
Anyway I’ve spent all of yesterday evening, early morning, and the whole of today, until about 8.30pm in A&E and Hospital with my wife, who is fine btw, but I’m feeling a bit tired, so I’ll bid you goodnight.......
 
peteblue said:
It is ideological, but from a point of view that ultimately we will also benefit economically, not at your expense but through additional free trade.....
Click to expand...

Yes I can see that in theory, but I don't think practically it will all work out. I see a lot of question marks. For one that free trade is on the other side of the world; how would that work from a global shipping point of view. Ironically I think that Boris Johnson's position is actually rationally the most sensible, including what he said today "F business". I don't see how you can make up the loss/additional free trade, while being the target of extra competition, hopefully still protected by some form of competition law but who knows tbh. On top of that making new free trade agreements is a very difficult matter. The U.K market is relatively small on it's own; so a lot of concessions would have to be made when dealing with the larger players in the world. You can't just copy the E.U. ones because that wouldn't be fair from the other partner's point of view; not that they would agree. And then you have the nations that still have a bone to pick with the U.K.; like China, don't think they've forgotten about Hong Kong and the lot. Probably forgetting a couple of other issues.

Well tbf this is something for May, Fox, ... to solve. If you think they can the better.

peteblue said:
Anyway I’ve spent all of yesterday evening, early morning, and the whole of today, until about 8.30pm in A&E and Hospital with my wife, who is fine btw, but I’m feeling a bit tired, so I’ll bid you goodnight.......
Click to expand...


Glad to hear that your wife is fine, hope she feels better soon.
 
Armel said:
Yes I can see that in theory, but I don't think practically it will all work out. I see a lot of question marks. For one that free trade is on the other side of the world; how would that work from a global shipping point of view. Ironically I think that Boris Johnson's position is actually rationally the most sensible, including what he said today "F business". I don't see how you can make up the loss/additional free trade, while being the target of extra competition, hopefully still protected by some form of competition law but who knows tbh. On top of that making new free trade agreements is a very difficult matter. The U.K market is relatively small on it's own; so a lot of concessions would have to be made when dealing with the larger players in the world. You can't just copy the E.U. ones because that wouldn't be fair from the other partner's point of view; not that they would agree. And then you have the nations that still have a bone to pick with the U.K.; like China, don't think they've forgotten about Hong Kong and the lot. Probably forgetting a couple of other issues.

Well tbf this is something for May, Fox, ... to solve. If you think they can the better.




Glad to hear that your wife is fine, hope she feels better soon.
Click to expand...
Same hear Pete hope everything is fine@Joey66;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

→ Log in 🔑 Register
🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top