EU: In or out?

[Lord Football]

I'll give you a pro argument....


The basis of the EEC (as it was when we joined) was the free market. We now have that free market. It allows us to import goods from the EU without paying tax. Goods imported from outside the EU, are subject to Import VAT (usually 20%) and Import Duty (variable). There are also other taxes, but I wont complicate the issue.

So, if I was to import televisions made in Germany at say £100 a set, I wouldn't pay any import tax.
If I were to bring them in from Japan at £100 a set, I'd pay 14% Import Duty (that's the correct figure, btw) and then 20% Import VAT on top. So that would be £136.80 per set. Of which £36.80 would be tax.

If we leave the EU, then £136.80 would be the cost for an importation from anywhere in the EU. That cost would either be passed onto the purchaser here in the UK or the importer would take the hit on profit margins (with the subsequent effect on jobs, security etc)

Similarly, it works the other way round.

If you are exporting televisions to Germany, the Germans currently pay no tax there. However, if we are outside of the EU then the Germans would pay £36.80 in tax. What they'd probably do is source the televisions from somewhere else in the EU. That is going to have a massive effect on our export industry. 54% of our export trade is with Germany.

Some will say "but we can get a free trade agreement with the EU". Not sure that would be as easy as that. After all, we've just left their club. Oh, and it takes years to negotiate any type of new agreement with the EU. (sadly, I know this first hand)

Some will say "lets trade with our former Commonwealth Friends". Yes, you can do that. We might even get some free trade arrangements. But it costs next to nothing to put a lorry through the Chunnel. Costs considerably more to fly something in from the US. (oh, and the freight charges are taxable too).

So, whilst I recognise that's a bit detailed, the net result of leaving the EU is that prices will soar, the economy will stutter as our international trade crashes and jobs will be lost.

That's the economic argument people should be having.

The debate should be about economics and not immigration. The immigration debate isn't coherent because no one seems to recognise that if we leave the EU many of our ex pats (notice we call them ex pats and not immigrants) in Spain will be coming back. The effect on the NHS will be significant and possibly terminal. Most of them are on pensions, so are not contributing to the tax coffers by working.

But whatever way you look it, the vast majority of people aren't armed with sufficient information.......

 

[callan]

I'll give you a pro argument....


The basis of the EEC (as it was when we joined) was the free market. We now have that free market. It allows us to import goods from the EU without paying tax. Goods imported from outside the EU, are subject to Import VAT (usually 20%) and Import Duty (variable). There are also other taxes, but I wont complicate the issue.

So, if I was to import televisions made in Germany at say £100 a set, I wouldn't pay any import tax.
If I were to bring them in from Japan at £100 a set, I'd pay 14% Import Duty (that's the correct figure, btw) and then 20% Import VAT on top. So that would be £136.80 per set. Of which £36.80 would be tax.

If we leave the EU, then £136.80 would be the cost for an importation from anywhere in the EU. That cost would either be passed onto the purchaser here in the UK or the importer would take the hit on profit margins (with the subsequent effect on jobs, security etc)

Similarly, it works the other way round.

If you are exporting televisions to Germany, the Germans currently pay no tax there. However, if we are outside of the EU then the Germans would pay £36.80 in tax. What they'd probably do is source the televisions from somewhere else in the EU. That is going to have a massive effect on our export industry. 54% of our export trade is with Germany.

Some will say "but we can get a free trade agreement with the EU". Not sure that would be as easy as that. After all, we've just left their club. Oh, and it takes years to negotiate any type of new agreement with the EU. (sadly, I know this first hand)

Some will say "lets trade with our former Commonwealth Friends". Yes, you can do that. We might even get some free trade arrangements. But it costs next to nothing to put a lorry through the Chunnel. Costs considerably more to fly something in from the US. (oh, and the freight charges are taxable too).

So, whilst I recognise that's a bit detailed, the net result of leaving the EU is that prices will soar, the economy will stutter as our international trade crashes and jobs will be lost.

That's the economic argument people should be having.

The debate should be about economics and not immigration. The immigration debate isn't coherent because no one seems to recognise that if we leave the EU many of our ex pats (notice we call them ex pats and not immigrants) in Spain will be coming back. The effect on the NHS will be significant and possibly terminal. Most of them are on pensions, so are not contributing to the tax coffers by working.

But whatever way you look it, the vast majority of people aren't armed with sufficient information.......

A wonderful argument but sadly so flawed I'm not sure where to begin...but I guess lets start with LF buying a German TV....as of course most of our households are full to the brim with these, as those Japanese / Korean ones are so much more expensive......oh hang on!

This argument really only applies to high value items such as cars, and even then who's to say you cant buy a Nissan or a Toyota cheaper.

No one knows how long a trade deal would take to sign with Europe, however there are just as many jobs in Europe dependant on trade with the uk as there are in the UK dependant on Europe, so it would be in no ones interest to drag an agreement out.

LF contests that prices will soar if we leave the EU, there is absolutely no evidence to back this up, and to use the cost of putting a lorry through the channel tunnel as some sort of rationale is a nonsense.....anyone involved in Transport will know that sea freight is far cheaper than road haulage so it is just as cheap to send goods to India and the Far east as it is to send goods to the German Hinterlannd.

If LF's argument were correct we would not buy as much as we do from China, Japan, Korea etc....a simple test for anyone would be to walk round your home and see where your contents were made, how many own a camera made in Europe or a mobile phone?

LF would have us believe that immigration should not feature in any debate as the NHS would collapse, and we would have to take back all our affluent pensioners from abroad, LF fails to mention the current strains on our local services due to immigration which is uncontrolled and cannot be planned for as we simply do not know how many will come....precisely why we need the debate!....lets bring in the people we need, in a controlled manner rather than the nonsense we have at the moment, where anyone can come from Europe.

Why should this debate be purely an economic one?.....when clearly EU is so much more than the original trade agreement which was originally agreed to by UK voters.

 

[Lord Football]

A wonderful argument but sadly so flawed I'm not sure where to begin...but I guess lets start with LF buying a German TV....as of course most of our households are full to the brim with these, as those Japanese / Korean ones are so much more expensive......oh hang on!

This argument really only applies to high value items such as cars, and even then who's to say you cant buy a Nissan or a Toyota cheaper.

No one knows how long a trade deal would take to sign with Europe, however there are just as many jobs in Europe dependant on trade with the uk as there are in the UK dependant on Europe, so it would be in no ones interest to drag an agreement out.

LF contests that prices will soar if we leave the EU, there is absolutely no evidence to back this up, and to use the cost of putting a lorry through the channel tunnel as some sort of rationale is a nonsense.....anyone involved in Transport will know that sea freight is far cheaper than road haulage so it is just as cheap to send goods to India and the Far east as it is to send goods to the German Hinterlannd.

If LF's argument were correct we would not buy as much as we do from China, Japan, Korea etc....a simple test for anyone would be to walk round your home and see where your contents were made, how many own a camera made in Europe or a mobile phone?

LF would have us believe that immigration should not feature in any debate as the NHS would collapse, and we would have to take back all our affluent pensioners from abroad, LF fails to mention the current strains on our local services due to immigration which is uncontrolled and cannot be planned for as we simply do not know how many will come....precisely why we need the debate!....lets bring in the people we need, in a controlled manner rather than the nonsense we have at the moment, where anyone can come from Europe.

Why should this debate be purely an economic one?.....when clearly EU is so much more than the original trade agreement which was originally agreed to by UK voters.

Professionally, I deal with Import VAT, Import Taxes and EU legislation and the consequences of these changing.

The scenario is intentionally kept simple, because it's a really complicated area of trade with all sorts of rules and regulations. Callan is correct about goods from China, Korea (and you can add Japan and Taiwan); but there are protective duties involved here too and in Korea's case a trade agreement. The additional taxes inflate the costs of goods to ensure EU manufactures are competitive and aren't forced out of business.

I used a television as an example because the duty is always 14% and can easily be demonstrated. LF could have used any commodity coming from the EU, be that French Cheese, Spanish wine, German electronics, Swedish furniture or Lativan buses. The mathematical principle remains the same.

I know trade agreements take ages to pull together. I've seen the EU "at work", first hand, in Brussels. It aint quick! The EU would need to see an economic or political need to enter in an agreement, and given our removal from the EU this would not be easy. We could join EFTA, but again, that's a process in itself and would probably require a referendum in the UK to do so.

I didn't say (or mean) immigration shouldn't be discussed, what I said (or meant) was that it shouldn't be all that is discussed. Yes, there is a debate to be had about immigration, but it shouldn't be driving the agenda.

I re-iterate, most people (including me), don't have enough information to make an informed decision.

And there you have socialist arguing on the basis of capitalism principles.

 

[callan]

Professionally, I deal with Import VAT, Import Taxes and EU legislation and the consequences of these changing.

The scenario is intentionally kept simple, because it's a really complicated area of trade with all sorts of rules and regulations. Callan is correct about goods from China, Korea (and you can add Japan and Taiwan); but there are protective duties involved here too and in Korea's case a trade agreement. The additional taxes inflate the costs of goods to ensure EU manufactures are competitive and aren't forced out of business.

I used a television as an example because the duty is always 14% and can easily be demonstrated. LF could have used any commodity coming from the EU, be that French Cheese, Spanish wine, German electronics, Swedish furniture or Lativan buses. The mathematical principle remains the same.

I know trade agreements take ages to pull together. I've seen the EU "at work", first hand, in Brussels. It aint quick! The EU would need to see an economic or political need to enter in an agreement, and given our removal from the EU this would not be easy. We could join EFTA, but again, that's a process in itself and would probably require a referendum in the UK to do so.

I didn't say (or mean) immigration shouldn't be discussed, what I said (or meant) was that it shouldn't be all that is discussed. Yes, there is a debate to be had about immigration, but it shouldn't be driving the agenda.

I re-iterate, most people (including me), don't have enough information to make an informed decision.

And there you have socialist arguing on the basis of capitalism principles.

Thanks LF.

Sorry to be a pedant, however some of your examples simply don't stack up....Ikea perhaps Swedens best known example in terms of furniture, produces most of their stuff in china and then ships back to Europe.
Wine....I can buy south African / Australian / American wine just as cheaply as those from the EU.

German electronics - lets take Bosch for example....again have products made outside the EU.....shipping back from China and also Tunisia for some of their goods.

Cheese is an odd example and would love to know how much cheese is exported beyond Europe, or indeed manufactured outside of Europe that could be brought here to compete?

Nestle are a huge dairy product manufacturer that will be well known, how do they manage to compete and thrive applying LF's 14 per cent duty argument?...bearing in mind they are Swiss owned and therefore not in the EU?

As far as buses are concerned we manufacture our own, so why do we need Latvian?

However back on track consider this, LF describes the EU above as Slow and complicated despite meaning to be simple!
My own take is that there is enough EU car manufacturers who stand to lose out if a trade deal is not done quickly, additionally if we leave the EU, do we leave straight away or give notice to leave leaving time to sort much of this out?

LF is correct that we, as the public need to know more from both camps in order to make an informed decision, like LF I am familiar with the EU, customs, duties etc....but this is just a small part of what we need to consider.

 

[Lord Football]

Thanks LF.

Sorry to be a pedant, however some of your examples simply don't stack up....Ikea perhaps Swedens best known example in terms of furniture, produces most of their stuff in china and then ships back to Europe.
Wine....I can buy south African / Australian / American wine just as cheaply as those from the EU.

German electronics - lets take Bosch for example....again have products made outside the EU.....shipping back from China and also Tunisia for some of their goods.

Cheese is an odd example and would love to know how much cheese is exported beyond Europe, or indeed manufactured outside of Europe that could be brought here to compete?

Nestle are a huge dairy product manufacturer that will be well known, how do they manage to compete and thrive applying LF's 14 per cent duty argument?...bearing in mind they are Swiss owned and therefore not in the EU?

As far as buses are concerned we manufacture our own, so why do we need Latvian?

However back on track consider this, LF describes the EU above as Slow and complicated despite meaning to be simple!
My own take is that there is enough EU car manufacturers who stand to lose out if a trade deal is not done quickly, additionally if we leave the EU, do we leave straight away or give notice to leave leaving time to sort much of this out?

LF is correct that we, as the public need to know more from both camps in order to make an informed decision, like LF I am familiar with the EU, customs, duties etc....but this is just a small part of what we need to consider.

I love the way you use "LF" in your posting btw....

Yeah, I think you're looking too deeply into my examples, they're just iterative. It can be any product from any of the 28 EU member states. The Latvian bus thing is an old TFF gag that ended up with me actually going to Latvia to ride on a bus.....

I was actually thinking about the process of leaving the EU after I'd posted earlier. Im really not sure how that would work and who would call the shots. I am sure the UK would like a lead out time, thus allowing for at least the process of getting some kind of agreement started, but the EU might just cease membership (which legally is easier for them). There might be a transition arrangment, but that's mightily complicated.

 

[callan]

I love the way you use "LF" in your posting btw....

Yeah, I think you're looking too deeply into my examples, they're just iterative. It can be any product from any of the 28 EU member states. The Latvian bus thing is an old TFF gag that ended up with me actually going to Latvia to ride on a bus.....

I was actually thinking about the process of leaving the EU after I'd posted earlier. Im really not sure how that would work and who would call the shots. I am sure the UK would like a lead out time, thus allowing for at least the process of getting some kind of agreement started, but the EU might just cease membership (which legally is easier for them). There might be a transition arrangment, but that's mightily complicated.

Must admit I have always assumed that there is a notice period but I could well be wrong.

Interestingly I recently read an article that if the EU were a country, it would not be able to apply to join itself as it wouldn't meet the democratic or financial requirements required!

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

http://www.theguardian.com/business...d-damage-britain-and-europe-says-axa-chairman

"Exit from EU would damage Britain and Europe, says Axa chairman."

 

[callan]

http://www.theguardian.com/business...d-damage-britain-and-europe-says-axa-chairman

"Exit from EU would damage Britain and Europe, says Axa chairman."

Head of large corporation tells us we might become a big Switzerland.....is that such a bad thing?

 

[Benfleet A1]

Must admit I have always assumed that there is a notice period but I could well be wrong.

Interestingly I recently read an article that if the EU were a country, it would not be able to apply to join itself as it wouldn't meet the democratic or financial requirements required!

No huge surprise there when you think about it. Wasn't it something like six countries who failed the entry requirements but got the green light anyway? Portugal, Eire and Greece spring instantly to mind. I'll see if I can find the other ones.

 

[Benfleet A1]

It just goes to show how laughable it really is. Geographic Criteria alone rules out several members and at least one potential.

Geographic criteria[edit]
Article 49 (formerly Article O) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU)[4] or Maastricht Treaty states that any European country that respects the principles of the EU may apply to join. Countries' classification as European is "subject to political assessment"[5] by the Commission and more importantly—the European Council.
Although non-European states are not considered eligible to be members, they may enjoy varying degrees of integration with the EU, set out by international agreements. The general capacity of the community and the member states to conclude association agreements with third countries is being developed. Moreover, specific frameworks for integration with third countries are emerging—including most prominently the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP). This notably replaces the Barcelona process which previously provided the framework for the EU's relations with its Mediterranean neighbours in North Africa and West Asia.
The ENP should not be confused with the Stabilisation and Association Process in the Western Balkans or the European Economic Area. Russia does not fall within the scope of the ENP, but is subject to a separate framework. The European Neighbourhood Policy can be interpreted as the drawing up of the Union's borders for the foreseeable future. Another way the EU is integrating with neighbouring countries is through the Mediterranean Union, made up of EU countries and others bordering the Mediterranean sea.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Head of large corporation tells us we might become a big Switzerland.....is that such a bad thing?

There were plenty of arguments against Britexit,which the Chairman advanced that you have willfully chosen to ignore.

 

[Benfleet A1]

Anyone else just hear a duck farting out of water?

 

[callan]

There were plenty of arguments against Britexit,which the Chairman advanced that you have willfully chosen to ignore.

There were no arguments, at all....in fact the basis of the piece was that someone from the in camp, should put forward an argument....I suspect that rather like you he is perhaps keeping his powder dry?

He even went as far as to say that the EU was flawed and has short comings.

 

[Bielzibubz]

The EU as a financial institution is corrupt to the core and rife with greed and nepotism. The accounts haven't been signed off for years for a reason you know. The 'pigs noses in the trough' scandals we've seen from our own political elite in this country these past few years pale into absolute insignificance compared to the rampant dishonesty and illegal shenanigans that go on at the heart of Brussels on a daily basis. If it were a company it would have had the Serious Fraud Office all over it's sorry *** years ago and every CEO at the helm would have been locked up for years.

We as a generation have become far less compliant and agreeable compared to those that went before us and unwittingly signed us up to the beast that's become the EU and you know what's even more pleasing than knowing that little nugget. It's knowing that the next generation along are going to be even less tolerant and agreeable to being fed ********, soundbites and sorry *** excuses by our political masters both at home and from within the stinking corridors of European power.

 

[callan]

The EU as a financial institution is corrupt to the core and rife with greed and nepotism. The accounts haven't been signed off for years for a reason you know. The 'pigs noses in the trough' scandals we've seen from our own political elite in this country these past few years pale into absolute insignificance compared to the rampant dishonesty and illegal shenanigans that go on at the heart of Brussels on a daily basis. If it were a company it would have had the Serious Fraud Office all over it's sorry *** years ago and every CEO at the helm would have been locked up for years.

We as a generation have become far less compliant and agreeable compared to those that went before us and unwittingly signed us up to the beast that's become the EU and you know what's even more pleasing than knowing that little nugget. It's knowing that the next generation along are going to be even less tolerant and agreeable to being fed ********, soundbites and sorry *** excuses by our political masters both at home and from within the stinking corridors of European power.

Yes, we all know the EU is corrupt, undemocratic...not fit for purpose...has a disasterous currency....isn't what we originally voted for back in the 70's, has a shameful immigration stance, has bullied Greece, removed democratically elected leaders, ignored the wishes of electorates in sovereign states, has had a devastating effect on developing nations with its agricultural policy, has allowed countries to join despite not meeting the criteria required.........however there are plenty of reasons to stay in....its just that the only one that the in camp have come up with so far is....that it's good for our old mate and mucker Barna blue.

 

[callan]

A bit of a dilemma for those supporting Corbyn and wanting to stay in the EU.

According to kelvin Hopkins at least 5 of Corbyns key pledges would be unable to happen as the EU would deem them to be illegal.....

From the article;

The Vote Leave group, in a briefing supported by Kelvin Hopkins, one of the first MPs to back Jeremy Corbyn, claimed as many as five of Corbyn’s key pledges could not be implemented under EU law. It suggests it is likely an integrated publicly owned railway run by the people – Corbyn’s stated policy – will be entirely illegal under EU law. The briefing suggests similar blocks would be placed on his efforts to reduce the role of the private sector in the NHS, and defend the right to strike.

Hopkins said: “Thatcher, Blair and Cameron have given away so much control to the free market EU that achieving progressive reform in the UK will be impossible unless we vote to leave.”

 

[davew]

at the mo its to early to decide we all need to wait (of course we to have anyway),


and make your vote count, I still believe we won't get a vote, hope I am wrong

 

[Massimo Giovanni]

A bit of a dilemma for those supporting Corbyn and wanting to stay in the EU.

According to kelvin Hopkins at least 5 of Corbyns key pledges would be unable to happen as the EU would deem them to be illegal.....

From the article;

The Vote Leave group, in a briefing supported by Kelvin Hopkins, one of the first MPs to back Jeremy Corbyn, claimed as many as five of Corbyn’s key pledges could not be implemented under EU law. It suggests it is likely an integrated publicly owned railway run by the people – Corbyn’s stated policy – will be entirely illegal under EU law. The briefing suggests similar blocks would be placed on his efforts to reduce the role of the private sector in the NHS, and defend the right to strike.

Hopkins said: “Thatcher, Blair and Cameron have given away so much control to the free market EU that achieving progressive reform in the UK will be impossible unless we vote to leave.”

That is how I read it too, we won't be able to renegotiate to any real progressive change against more federalism so the Leave vote will continue to gain momentum.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Thought this was a worrying development.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...ear-4-million-young-people-barred-from-voting

Hey,ho.Still anything's valid to try and get a no vote I suppose.

 

[callan]

Thought this was a worrying development.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...ear-4-million-young-people-barred-from-voting

Hey,ho.Still anything's valid to try and get a no vote I suppose.

Desperate and misleading Barna my old chum....these voters simply need to register it really isn't rocket science!