Current Affairs EU In or Out
- Thread starter micknick
- Start date
- Status
Whistlin' Dixie
Player Valuation: £50m
Companies not paying tax, combined with disposable income being diverted abroad, as well as the driving down of wages by importing cheap labour aren't what I'd call good economics.
When net immigraton's the equivalent to a city the size of Coventry year on year is only raking in a gain of £2bn...
Immigration is a double-edged sword. And imo the negative edge is far sharper at the moment.
If may dangles the carrot of lower Corporation tax as a bargaining chip the EU will back down!
Pienaar's gloves
Player Valuation: £35m
That dated article from the Express is quite the falsity.
You reckon we can beat our competitors within the EU by being outside it?
Yes the WTO and also trade will carry on in certain quarters in the EU without tariffs, and the polictical union!
Whistlin' Dixie
Player Valuation: £50m
This is what I don't get with people cribbing now.
Nobody complained that there wasn't an 'In, but' or an 'Out, if' when Camoron was over in Brussels telling them we were having a vote, trying to 'reform from within' (As ALL remainist politicians have said we've been able to do since maastricht - Stop laughing).
They wouldn't budge, which proved they weren't gonna/ wont ever change.
It left us with a straight choice. People voted on that straight choice.
orchard
Player Valuation: £60m
I voted remain, but the game's the game yo. I don't agree that the Eu doesn't listen though mate, that's just a convenient 'out' imo. I think the truth is that our government(s) use all their bargaining chips for things they don't declare to the public. City/finace exceptions; re-defining our heathland/grouse shooting to qualify for subsidy for those connected; Ttip/ceta; gmo's ; Chinese steel; and other neo-lib policies off the top of my head.
https://www.ft.com/content/bfe51444-9f70-11e6-86d5-4e36b35c3550
"Britain’s service sector will see its exports drop up to 60 per cent after leaving the European single market, even with a free-trade agreement with the EU in place, according to research from a leading think-tank.
A new study from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, to be published on Wednesday, says that signing a free-trade agreement with the EU will not recoup any loss in services exports, but would reduce the long-term fall in goods exports from between 58-65 per cent to between 35-44 per cent.
Advocates of the UK leaving the single market say that signing FTAs would enable British exporters to access markets in the EU and the rest of the world.
The study was based on the average FTA in existence in rich economies and big emerging markets, while Theresa May, the prime minister, has said Britain is aiming for a unique deal with the EU.
In theory, the falls in exports could be reduced if Britain managed to sign a deep bilateral agreement with the EU, including good coverage of the services sector. But Monique Ebell, the author of the report, said: “The average FTA for services at the moment is not very comprehensive and tends not to do very much.”
In 2014, 40 per cent of Britain’s services trade, and 56 per cent of its goods trade, was with other European Economic Area members, meaning that the overall fall in British exports would be 24 per cent for services and 20-25 per cent for goods.
Britain’s post-Brexit trade arrangements have come sharply into focus over the past few days after the government scrambled to reassure Nissan, which manufactures cars in Sunderland, that its ability to export to Europe would not be affected by leaving the EU.
The battle for London’s business
Most EU cities are a long way from joining the club of top-ranking financial centres
One solution would be to sign an FTA with the EU that pegged import tariffs at zero and aimed to expedite customs and regulatory procedures that add to the costs of cross-border trade.
Ms Ebell said more research was needed to assess which of the many aspects of the single market — including freedom of movement for capital and labour, harmonised regulation and rules against state aid — were instrumental in creating so much trade between EEA economies.
“We need to understand very quickly in a deep way what will matter in an FTA,” she said. “An off-the-shelf agreement based on current practice is not going to be much use.”
Economists have focused on “passporting” — the right for financial services companies to operate throughout the EU under UK supervision — as one issue likely to affect Britain in particular. But services FTAs tend to have weak coverage for financial services, falling well short of the automatic market access afforded by passporting.
The British government has yet definitively to announce whether it wants to remain a member of the single market and the customs union, which sets a common external goods tariff and would sharply constrain Britain’s ability to sign FTAs with non-EU countries.
As well as financial services and car manufacturing, business representatives from a number of industries including the technology sector and pharmaceuticals have argued for deals to protect their ability to trade with the EU."
"Britain’s service sector will see its exports drop up to 60 per cent after leaving the European single market, even with a free-trade agreement with the EU in place, according to research from a leading think-tank.
A new study from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, to be published on Wednesday, says that signing a free-trade agreement with the EU will not recoup any loss in services exports, but would reduce the long-term fall in goods exports from between 58-65 per cent to between 35-44 per cent.
Advocates of the UK leaving the single market say that signing FTAs would enable British exporters to access markets in the EU and the rest of the world.
The study was based on the average FTA in existence in rich economies and big emerging markets, while Theresa May, the prime minister, has said Britain is aiming for a unique deal with the EU.
In theory, the falls in exports could be reduced if Britain managed to sign a deep bilateral agreement with the EU, including good coverage of the services sector. But Monique Ebell, the author of the report, said: “The average FTA for services at the moment is not very comprehensive and tends not to do very much.”
In 2014, 40 per cent of Britain’s services trade, and 56 per cent of its goods trade, was with other European Economic Area members, meaning that the overall fall in British exports would be 24 per cent for services and 20-25 per cent for goods.
Britain’s post-Brexit trade arrangements have come sharply into focus over the past few days after the government scrambled to reassure Nissan, which manufactures cars in Sunderland, that its ability to export to Europe would not be affected by leaving the EU.
The battle for London’s business
Most EU cities are a long way from joining the club of top-ranking financial centres
One solution would be to sign an FTA with the EU that pegged import tariffs at zero and aimed to expedite customs and regulatory procedures that add to the costs of cross-border trade.
Ms Ebell said more research was needed to assess which of the many aspects of the single market — including freedom of movement for capital and labour, harmonised regulation and rules against state aid — were instrumental in creating so much trade between EEA economies.
“We need to understand very quickly in a deep way what will matter in an FTA,” she said. “An off-the-shelf agreement based on current practice is not going to be much use.”
Economists have focused on “passporting” — the right for financial services companies to operate throughout the EU under UK supervision — as one issue likely to affect Britain in particular. But services FTAs tend to have weak coverage for financial services, falling well short of the automatic market access afforded by passporting.
The British government has yet definitively to announce whether it wants to remain a member of the single market and the customs union, which sets a common external goods tariff and would sharply constrain Britain’s ability to sign FTAs with non-EU countries.
As well as financial services and car manufacturing, business representatives from a number of industries including the technology sector and pharmaceuticals have argued for deals to protect their ability to trade with the EU."
Gwladysstreetlad
Player Valuation: £50m
Fararge is irrelevant, UKIP have zero power and less then zero chance of ever obtaining power. What would you have Fararge do? It's not like the government would pay any attention to him is it? Nobody cares about UKIP, they're the Dads Army of politics who's one single objective was to get us out of the EU and restore national sovereignty. They were more a political movement then a political party and once article 50 has been invoked they will have no purpose anymore. Why should be not walk away?
My point was, there was zero connectivity between what the leave campaign promised to do, what it could actually do, and who would then go about doing it. I find it hard to understand how anyone could vote for something with such little grounding in reality.
You voted for it, so please tell me which part of their prospectus for change was actually grounded in reality?
Gwladysstreetlad
Player Valuation: £50m
They're was no one single leave campaign, that's what you and the other remainers refuse to except. TUSC also wanted out and they stood on a very different pulpit then UKIP. The promises were made by individual parts of separate leave campaigns just as the remain campaign could not be held accountable for the blatant lie told by Osborne regarding the budget. As others have said on here, Cameron called the referendum in order to win the election so it is him who you should be raging at for not having plans in place. How could Gove and other leavers know that Cameron would be such a rat and walk away once he lost the referendum. The government called the referendum and it's they who have the duty to see the results followed through. The only way to have the accountability your asking for from the leavers would to form a coalition Brexit government and that obviously was never going to happen.
Just so I'm understanding this correctly, it sounds like you're saying that you voted for something that you knew those proposing it had no input into actually implementing it, and that those who would be tasked with implementing it were openly saying that those things are not possible.
I can see why you were convinced.
Gwladysstreetlad
Player Valuation: £50m
They will obviously have input but the government will clearly have the overriding and final say. I voted to leave because the EU is a massive corrupt gravy train which only exists to fill the egos and the pockets of the fat cats who run it and will eventually run it into the ground. I voted out because they're is no chance of us ever being allowed to form a truly socialist government in this country while the EU have sway. I voted out to restore national sovereignty which is being irradiated. I voted out for numerous reasons. Let's talk about promises made by the remain side that were obviously lies. Was the remain campaign responsible for Osborne's budget lie? I believe that this country will not only survive leaving the EU but be the better for our leaving in years to come.
None of which you have any idea over whether what was promised will be delivered. Indeed, the very notion of a socialist government must seem something of a sick joke with the way the Tories have veered hard right since the vote?
Pienaar's gloves
Player Valuation: £35m
Based on what evidence?
- Status