L00b Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 We can see the influence the UK has in every knock back Camerloon gets.Can we have some examples, please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retep Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Can we have some examples, please? Here's 4 for starters, "DAVID Cameron suffered his worst day so far in his attempt to win a new EU deal Britain today when four European leaders rejected his plans." http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/583867/Migrants-David-Cameron-EU Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigthumb Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 (edited) Here's 4 for starters, "DAVID Cameron suffered his worst day so far in his attempt to win a new EU deal Britain today when four European leaders rejected his plans." http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/583867/Migrants-David-Cameron-EU That's good. I intend to vote for us to get out of the EU. The worse the deal on the table the more will vote the same. ---------- Post added 12-06-2015 at 17:11 ---------- The EU will be picking up the tab for this. Do you want the UK to chip in? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33106990 Shares on European stock markets have fallen sharply amid reports that senior EU officials have discussed a possible Greek default for the first time. The Athens stock exchange closed nearly 6% lower, while Germany's Dax and France's Cac 40 closed more than 1% lower. Stocks in the National Bank of Greece fell by more than 10%, while Piraeus Bank fell more than 11.5%. Cash-strapped Greece is trying to reach a deal that will unlock bailout funds. According to official sources quoted by news agencies, senior eurozone officials meeting in Bratislava on Thursday held their first formal talks on the possibility that Greece might default on its debt payments. Also on Thursday, officials from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) pulled out of talks with Greek politicians in Brussels, citing "major differences". Edited June 12, 2015 by Bigthumb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loraward Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 The whole premise of your argument is that it might well be cheaper to grow food here by getting people working on the fields. It won't be, it is a retarded view of economics that is at the basis of that argument. Seemingly you see that now as you are clambering back. Perhaps we won't have to have this exchange again now, would certainly be enlightening to think that you can indeed change your stubborn incorrect worldview Your attack of my post and opinion is based on a false premise, but then you very likley already know that. In which post did I say it would be cheaper to grow food here than in Kenya or Peru. And it is cheaper to grow some food here than in some countries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigthumb Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Your attack of my post and opinion is based on a false premise, but then you very likley already know that. In which post did I say it would be cheaper to grow food here than in Kenya or Peru. And it is cheaper to grow some food here than in some countries. I would imagine it is cheaper to grow food here than it is to grow it in Peru and then air freight it here. The is more cost to this than just the financial cost. There are environmental considerations too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 (Cut the rest of the post for brevity, as this conclusion serves and this post is going to be VERY long (apologies, TL:DR summary can be found by reading the bolded parts) This is the crux of the debate that precedes the referendum: the renegotiation of the UK position regarding the EU - the UK is completely separate from the Eurozone and together with Denmark, the only state to be so. A two-tier EU is essentially a shared single market with satellites. The UK would become such a satellite, negating a certain degree of influence in exchange for independence. This is what Cameron is seeking in the renegotiation but he is very bad at communicating that message (or the UK media are very bad at bringing it across, probably a combination of the two.) You can not expect the EU to surrender core-values of freedom of movement for goods and people, it is one of the founding agreements that precedes the Eurozone by a good four decades and it is one of the key-drivers of economic development and the shared single market. Here is another of Cameron's problems, he thinks it is an option or at least is dumb enough to make it sound like it is. It is not an option therefore for the UK to seek alteration of this condition. What could be agreed however is a further clarification on the UK's opt-out regarding anything Euro (coin)-related, although this is pretty much a done deal and already in effect, there are means to improve this. Another further clarification is needed on the legal impact of the EU on the UK, this for me is a very interesting topic, there is so much confusion about this that it is staggering. It is true that the EU passes a huge amount of directives that are implemented without going through Westminster - but they do have to go through the European Parliament and this is where the confusion comes from, the UK is represented in that parliament and it is a democratically accountable body. But due to the massive lack of interest in anything EU (and to be fair, reporting on the hundreds of directives each year is rather tedious) people do not understand how this works. These directives however are part of the shared single market - they declare an objective that should be achieved by the member-states, BUT crucially, it is the member-states that decide on how to do that. So when the EU puts out a directive to introduce the right to be forgotten it is up to the UK on how it seeks to enforce this directive. Now here is the crux: Leaving the EU will not stop the UK having to comply with these directives UNLESS it chooses to leave the shared single market altogether. And even then, the EU is the UK's biggest trading partner - meaning that the organisations dealing with the EU (companies, charities, etc.) will still have to comply regardless. So what the choice to leave the EU really does is this: It stops the UK having any influence on what is coming this way. It kills off the influence and effectively puts the UK in a position where it has to comply with directives that it had no chance to influence. It stops the UK being able to do things like protect its financial industry (The UK Commissioner is responsible for banking and finance), it stops the UK being able to influence the aviation industry, to lobby for the HE sector, to represent the Commonwealth states in the biggest single market in the world and so on. The UK only stands to lose if it leaves the EU. It is irrelevant whether the UK is a fully signed up member or a satellite member. I think you have rather failed to address most of the points I made. Still I shall address yours. Remaining full members of the EU means being drawn into "ever closer union". I notice that you have not denied this. This is unacceptable to most of the UK and they will only vote to stay in if they are conned into believing this is not the case. We do have the option of withdrawing from the EEC as well. This is my favoured option. We would still have the option to negotiate reasonable trade agreements with the EU, but if they impose trade barriers of one kind or another there are plenty of other states out there we can trade with without having to deal with the highly disfunction EU government. We actually already do more trade with the rest of the world than with the EU. With reduced regulatory compliance costs from exiting the EU, we would likely do even more. Cheaper energy would make an enormous difference for a start. Above all, we would restore genuine accountability in government. If an EU directive comes down, based on a competence that has been transferred from the UK to the EU by some treaty; and is then interpreted by the UK government and incorporated into UK law; who do we blame if we don't like it? The MEPs for the directive? The previous government for signing the treaty? The current government for the implementation? Who knows? Whichever way you spin it the EU makes a mess of government accountability. You cannot share or pool sovereignty. It doesn't work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loraward Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 I would imagine it is cheaper to grow food here than it is to grow it in Peru and then air freight it here. The is more cost to this than just the financial cost. There are environmental considerations too. Good point, we should be eating locally grown produce to cut down on food miles which adds to the global carbon footprint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzijlstra Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 We can see the influence the UK has in every knock back Camerloon gets. Exactly, very good point. About time the UK took its role serious so it could regain some of the influence. There is no reason why Merkel should run the show, but the UK refuses to accept it could play a serious role and is happy to accept scraps and knock-backs "because it is only the EU". Your attack of my post and opinion is based on a false premise, but then you very likley already know that. In which post did I say it would be cheaper to grow food here than in Kenya or Peru. And it is cheaper to grow some food here than in some countries. You inferred, as you are well aware, that it would make no difference to the cost of food as it would be cheaper if it were grown here. That is an idiotic statement, feel free to agree. I would imagine it is cheaper to grow food here than it is to grow it in Peru and then air freight it here. The is more cost to this than just the financial cost. There are environmental considerations too. No it isn't, the biggest cost in food prices is in labour. Don't believe me? Ask yourself how Netto can sell asparagus from Peru for 69P whereas those same asparagus in season from the UK will cost you over 2 pounds. I think you have rather failed to address most of the points I made. Still I shall address yours. Fair enough, might have to revisit. I have had a busy day. Remaining full members of the EU means being drawn into "ever closer union". I notice that you have not denied this. This is unacceptable to most of the UK and they will only vote to stay in if they are conned into believing this is not the case. Did you read what I said about a two-tier EU? I believe that is the best option for the UK, at which point the UK is no longer a full member of the first tier but instead forms the second tier. We do have the option of withdrawing from the EEC as well. This is my favoured option. We would still have the option to negotiate reasonable trade agreements with the EU, but if they impose trade barriers of one kind or another there are plenty of other states out there we can trade with without having to deal with the highly disfunction EU government. Again, that does not negate the point that the EU is the biggest influence on UK trade and as such, leaving the EU and the EEC (which I don't think is possible as that is now the EU) is a bad idea. It will present the UK with the necessity to swallow all directives to continue trading (whether direct or indirect) without the UK having the option to influence matters. I refer back to the Financial sector. Also, there is no dysfunction in the EU government, no more than there is in Westminster. If you think there is, back it up with claims. It might appear dysfunctional to the uninitiated, but there is a solution for that that will only apply to those uninitiated. Get initiated, simples. We actually already do more trade with the rest of the world than with the EU. Barely and only since the crisis, one reason being that the pound and euro were swinging wildly against each other and the other that the Eurozone was actually outperforming the UK in terms of GDP over that time. The trend is simple, since the EU was formed the UK has become more and more focussed on Europe as a trading partner and less and less on the Commonwealth. That is not going to change. With reduced regulatory compliance costs from exiting the EU, we would likely do even more. Cheaper energy would make an enormous difference for a start. Wrong. There is no reduced regulatory compliance in international trade, like it or not, the EU is setting the standard worldwide and the world is following. Don't believe me? Look at how many EU directives are also being implemented in China. Above all, we would restore genuine accountability in government. If an EU directive comes down, based on a competence that has been transferred from the UK to the EU by some treaty; and is then interpreted by the UK government and incorporated into UK law; who do we blame if we don't like it? The MEPs for the directive? The previous government for signing the treaty? The current government for the implementation? Who knows? Whichever way you spin it the EU makes a mess of government accountability. You cannot share or pool sovereignty. It doesn't work. Other than a 'feeling of accountability' there is no significant difference between representation at European level or at national level, unless you are telling me that when you ring George Osbourne he is not going to revert increases in child benefits? ---------- Post added 12-06-2015 at 23:02 ---------- Just spotted this news. I am no fan of ratings agencies, but this is as clear an indicator as any that the UK should thread carefully. This is exactly why a referendum is a bad idea altogether - the uncertainty over the outcomes is going to stifle trade. But what is more significant is that S&P raises doubts over the ability of the UK to pay its national debt off if it isn't in the EU AND the pound remaining a relevant global currency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 (edited) I am no fan of ratings agencies, but this is as clear an indicator as any that the UK should thread carefully. This is exactly why a referendum is a bad idea altogether - the uncertainty over the outcomes is going to stifle trade. But what is more significant is that S&P raises doubts over the ability of the UK to pay its national debt off if it isn't in the EU AND the pound remaining a relevant global currency. I'll come back to the rest later, but I just had to respond to this. You can't really be saying that the uncertainty in the markets is a reason to kill the referendum. The same uncertainty occurs at general elections. Should we cancel them too? ---------- Post added 13-06-2015 at 07:47 ---------- Wrong. There is no reduced regulatory compliance in international trade, like it or not, the EU is setting the standard worldwide and the world is following. Don't believe me? Look at how many EU directives are also being implemented in China. Are you saying that outside the EU, we would still be bound by the EU's expensive energy policies. I know China and India aren't. No. We'd only have to produce goods and services to their standards when we were trading with them. The EU is on the verge of implementing direct tax powers. If we left they couldn't do that. They regulate non-trade domestic activities in the UK. If we left they couldn't do that. A few specific, but telling examples. We could go back to using proper, cheap light bulbs that work and don't poison you when they break. We could start using powerful vacuum cleaners again. We would also get to hang on to our good hair dryers. We could go back to generating our electricity in the cheapest way available and re-vitalise our manufacturing. The list is endless. The EU is no longer about trade. They increasing regulate every day life that we expect to be the remit of national government. They want to be a super-state. We don't. Okay so their trading standards rules would continue to affect us directly and indirectly. So do those of the US, but we don't mind not having a vote on those. They may still be able to a large extent to influence how we trade, but they would no longer be able to tell us how to live. Edited June 13, 2015 by unbeliever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loraward Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 You inferred, as you are well aware, that it would make no difference to the cost of food as it would be cheaper if it were grown here. That is an idiotic statement, feel free to agree. No I don't think I did, food would be cheaper if there was fewer people globally, it would also be cheaper if UK had the capability to produce all the food we need, but sadly we don't because our small country is over populated. But there is no reason at all to think that food prices will rise as a consequence of leaving the EU, food prices rise as demand rises or supply falls. ---------- Post added 13-06-2015 at 07:59 ---------- No it isn't, the biggest cost in food prices is in labour. Don't believe me? Ask yourself how Netto can sell asparagus from Peru for 69P whereas those same asparagus in season from the UK will cost you over 2 pounds. You are ignoring the cost to the environment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts