[Archived] Eu Referendum, In Or Out - Looks Like Blackburn Wants Out !

[Paul]

Which are Jim? and how did you come to that conclusion, same again to Paul who seems to struggling to answer!

ps not sure if I have or ever had poilitical leanings

Re sovereignty, try changing the UK VAT rate without approval from Brussels

I've been busy. Struggling to answer what?

[only2garners]

how true is this? no idea if is or not.....theres so many questions .

Well the bit about fees is complete rubbish. In 2015 the UK paid £12.9bn gross, not £20bn. There are also the weasel words "before rebate" there, which makes them more meaningless. You don't go to the supermarket and say I spent £20 before rebate, when you actually spent £15 because you got a bogof offer. The rebate in 2015 was £5.8bn, which goes to farmers and deprived areas. The leave campaign has said that it will carry on with these payments if we leave the EU, so the actual future costs are £5.8bn and not zero.

The bit about Human Rights is correct in that the UK is bound by the European Convention on Human Rights, but this is absolutely nothing to do with the EU referendum. If the UK votes to leave the EU we will still be bound by the convention, which was set up by the Council of Europe, of which the UK was a founder member in 1949.

[ABBEY]

Cheers like I said didn't know if was true

[yoda]

Well the bit about fees is complete rubbish. In 2015 the UK paid £12.9bn gross, not £20bn. There are also the weasel words "before rebate" there, which makes them more meaningless. You don't go to the supermarket and say I spent £20 before rebate, when you actually spent £15 because you got a bogof offer. The rebate in 2015 was £5.8bn, which goes to farmers and deprived areas. The leave campaign has said that it will carry on with these payments if we leave the EU, so the actual future costs are £5.8bn and not zero.

The bit about Human Rights is correct in that the UK is bound by the European Convention on Human Rights, but this is absolutely nothing to do with the EU referendum. If the UK votes to leave the EU we will still be bound by the convention, which was set up by the Council of Europe, of which the UK was a founder member in 1949.

Maybe you should check out how the "rebate" works. The figure we pay the EU is a net figure. We do not get a cheque back for the rebate amount. So your "weazel" point actually is incorrect and the UK does not spend this amount on farming and deprived areas. This spending is budgeted for seperatly.

[only2garners]

I know exactly how the rebate works Yoda. I decided not to complicate things further by pointing out that the rebate is knocked off the gross amount before payment. In the end it makes no real difference - the net amount we paid in 2015 was £12.9bn - £5.8bn = £7.1bn. My reference to weasel words were to the document Abbey posted, which clearly is meant to imply that we pay £20bn.

I'm at a loss to understand your point about the UK not spending the rebated sums from the EU on the projects for which it is intended - are you saying we take the money but spend it on something else?

[Al]

how true is this? no idea if is or not.....theres so many questions .

Looks sound to me.

Well the bit about fees is complete rubbish. In 2015 the UK paid £12.9bn gross, not £20bn. There are also the weasel words "before rebate" there, which makes them more meaningless. You don't go to the supermarket and say I spent £20 before rebate, when you actually spent £15 because you got a bogof offer. The rebate in 2015 was £5.8bn, which goes to farmers and deprived areas. The leave campaign has said that it will carry on with these payments if we leave the EU, so the actual future costs are £5.8bn and not zero.

The bit about Human Rights is correct in that the UK is bound by the European Convention on Human Rights, but this is absolutely nothing to do with the EU referendum. If the UK votes to leave the EU we will still be bound by the convention, which was set up by the Council of Europe, of which the UK was a founder member in 1949.

It's still £12.9 billion that we do not need and cannot afford to give away.

Are you saying that we paid £12.9 less £5.8 billion? In any case it's money we do not need to give to Brussels (or wherever it goes)..

[only2garners]

How do you think we will trade with the EU then Al? There is not a cat in hell's chance of any EU country allowing us to trade with them on more favourable terms than they can trade themselves.

[Biddy]

No idea who this site is affliated with so take with a pinch of salt https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/

But the first chart seems to suggest in 2015 we "Should" have paid £18bn but we instantly got the £5bn rebate. So that brings us down to £13bn which we did pay. We then got back money from EU spend (farmers etc) of £4bn. That still leaves a £9bn shortfall.

There was however quite a good video going round facebook the other week (which I now can't find) which simplified the numbers and basically said that in the UK after all rebates and money back, we effectively pay something like £89 per person into the EU. They then say that Norway pays something like £159 per person to the EU to not actually be part of the EU, but to get the trade agreements. As it points out, that would make our deal seem pretty good. Again, no way to fact check that, but it made a good case.

[yoda]

I know exactly how the rebate works Yoda. I decided not to complicate things further by pointing out that the rebate is knocked off the gross amount before payment. In the end it makes no real difference - the net amount we paid in 2015 was £12.9bn - £5.8bn = £7.1bn. My reference to weasel words were to the document Abbey posted, which clearly is meant to imply that we pay £20bn.

I'm at a loss to understand your point about the UK not spending the rebated sums from the EU on the projects for which it is intended - are you saying we take the money but spend it on something else?

My point is the monies being spent on farming etc are part of the EU subsidy program and not rebates per se.

The rebate or reduction in subscriptions as it is in reality, is a negotiated sum obtained by Thatcher and could be ended if the EU collectively voted on it.

The UK government says we have a veto on the ending of the reduction.

I personally think that, that situation is going to be tested in the very near future if we stay in the EU.

How do you think we will trade with the EU then Al? There is not a cat in hell's chance of any EU country allowing us to trade with them on more favourable terms than they can trade themselves.

Has anyone suggested this

[jim mk2]

It's still £12.9 billion that we do not need and cannot afford to give away.

Analysis shows that any lasting economic damage caused by Brexit is far more important for the public finances than Britain's annual net contribution to the EU budget.

On very conservative assumptions, the Treasury estimates that each 1 per cent hit to GDP lowers revenues by roughly £6bn a year — less than Britain’s net contribution to the EU but still a significant sum.

The central estimate of a 6 per cent cost to GDP lowers revenues by £36bn a year, far more than the annual net contribution.

The points is, any fiscal savings from Brexit are likely to be a false economy.

[yoda]

I've been busy. Struggling to answer what?

You like Jim seem to have drawn a conclusion as to what my political view is, based on your own political leanings.

Both of you have no idea what my personal views are.

I gave Jim a little insight as to how I think but he came out with more rhetoric.

[only2garners]

My point is the monies being spent on farming etc are part of the EU subsidy program and not rebates per se.

The rebate or reduction in subscriptions as it is in reality, is a negotiated sum obtained by Thatcher and could be ended if the EU collectively voted on it.

The UK government says we have a veto on the ending of the reduction.

I personally think that, that situation is going to be tested in the very near future if we stay in the EU.

Has anyone suggested this

I take your point that there are our rebates as well as subsidies to farmers and poorer regions. The leave campaign have already stated that they will keep the latter two payments, as well as saying they will spend the money on the NHS.

On the suggestion of us having more favourable trading tersm than other EU countries, the panel that Abbey posted did. It stated that there would be zero EU fees and also that immigration would be controlled. Neither will happen if we want to continue free access to the EU market.

[yoda]

I take your point that there are our rebates as well as subsidies to farmers and poorer regions. The leave campaign have already stated that they will keep the latter two payments, as well as saying they will spend the money on the NHS.

On the suggestion of us having more favourable trading tersm than other EU countries, the panel that Abbey posted did. It stated that there would be zero EU fees and also that immigration would be controlled. Neither will happen if we want to continue free access to the EU market.

Its a big world out there

[only2garners]

It'll have to be an enormous one if you're planning to be able to replace our trade with the EU quickly.

[yoda]

It'll have to be an enormous one if you're planning to be able to replace our trade with the EU quickly.

58 countries and 2.2 billion people in the commonwealth alone, then start adding China, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Madagascar, African countries, south American countries, you could even add the good old USA if you wanted.

[Al]

How do you think we will trade with the EU then Al? There is not a cat in hell's chance of any EU country willing us to trade with them on more favourable terms than they can trade themselves.

They all, or the major ones at least, export a lot of their goods to the UK. They are hardly likely to impose punitive terms on us and risk their us imposing punitive tariffs upon them. It's in their best interests to continue to trade with us and in addition we can negotiate terms with the rest of the world. We would probably find that we had more markets for our exports. Your statement is flawed.

[Al]

It'll have to be an enormous one if you're planning to be able to replace our trade with the EU quickly.

Trade with the EU will NOT cease. You are making incorrect assumptions.

[only2garners]

Of course trade with the EU won't cease. But my statement isn't flawed, as other EU countries have already said that they will not trade with the UK on less favourable terms than they themselves have.

[yoda]

Of course trade with the EU won't cease. But my statement isn't flawed, as other EU countries have already said that they will not trade with the UK on less favourable terms than they themselves have.

So the status quo as far as tarrif's applies, carry on as is but outside the EU constraints

[Al]

Of course trade with the EU won't cease. But my statement isn't flawed, as other EU countries have already said that they will not trade with the UK on less favourable terms than they themselves have.

Of course it's flawed. You intimated that we would have to replace all the EU trade which is not true. We don't need more favourable terms. The same will be fine. That is not "less favourable".

[only2garners]

You're right Al - it would be on the same terms. i.e. contributions to the EU budget and free movement of labour just as Norway and Switzerland do. But that rather defeats the fundamental points of the Brexit case.

[jim mk2]

Everything will be fine. After all, Michael Gove sees Albania as an economic model for a post-Brexit Britain.

Says it all about the paucity of the Brexiteer's argument.

[yoda]

You're right Al - it would be on the same terms. i.e. contributions to the EU budget and free movement of labour just as Norway and Switzerland do. But that rather defeats the fundamental points of the Brexit case.

No it would not,

lets take the case of Germany.

Now Mrs Merkel do you want to loose €29 billion of trade deficit in your favour or are you going to continue trading with the same tariffs ?

Merkel.

let me think about that for a moment.

OK lets trade

Everything will be fine. After all, Michael Gove sees Albania as an economic model for a post-Brexit Britain.

Says it all about the paucity of the Brexiteer's argument.

Not sure how you can have that signature and talk the country down at every opportunity

[yoda]

This could be very damaging

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-camerons-eu-remain-camp-using-whatsapp-to-avoid-transparency-laws-a7002791.html

[Baz]

The thing that still worries me the most is that both sides seem to just be making statements about facts, yet those facts are essentially hypothesis at best.

To the Brexit side, anyone who makes a pro-EU point is either wrong or isn't allowed to comment, whereas on the remain campaign, anyone who is pro-Brexit is rascist etc...

On the economic side of things, the money potentially being saved from leaving seems to be being spent on an awful lot of things from the Brexit campaign, the NHS, the budget deficit, and farming subsidies so far....so the government needs to clarify if we leave, then which, and to what level of funding are we using those funds.