If Britain do leave the EU, would you move to the UK?

Eric Cartman

djpbarry wrote: »

Taxes in the UK are low?!? News to me.

Compared to norway and other scandinavian countries, but leaving the eu would enable them to lower taxes to attract foreign investment , and not having to pay the eu would cut spending

Lemming

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Compared to norway and other scandinavian countries, but leaving the eu would enable them to lower taxes to attract foreign investment , and not having to pay the eu would cut spending

Ah, and who covers the UK's running costs? The magical money-printing sky fairy?

Are you talking about the same country that is currently cutting spending, laying off significant numbers of its armed forces, mandating compulsory pension funds, removing itself from public/private partnership funding, and in a spot of bother with its own electorate over how said-same foreign investment is shirking on taxes whilst pleading the poor mouth?

The term "lower taxes" doesn't exist in parliamentary vocabulary right now ...

whatstherush

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Compared to norway and other scandinavian countries, but leaving the eu would enable them to lower taxes to attract foreign investment , and not having to pay the eu would cut spending

Maybe you'll get a penny off a litre of petrol, cause a the net 5bn contribution out of yearly UK budget of 650bn, is not going to make much of a difference.

The Corinthian

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Compared to norway and other scandinavian countries, but leaving the eu would enable them to lower taxes to attract foreign investment , and not having to pay the eu would cut spending

Oh, FFS...

First of all, unless you are running a serious surplus, you will not be able to afford to cut taxes by any significant amount that may attract foreign investment.

But perhaps the UK could make savings if it didn't have to contribute to the EU financially? Thing is, once you've taken into account what the UK pays, receives and her rebate, it actually works out at under £5 billion - less than she pays out to Northern Ireland to keep the locals from butchering each other.

Or perhaps she could save in that all that EU legislation wouldn't have to be implemented - apparently this is around £28 billion, according to the Eurosceptic Bruges Group. Big saving? Not really; at least not if you want to trade with the EU - even Switzerland and Norway have to comply.

So overall, Britain would make a number of net savings, but at under £5 billion, I don't really see it funding particularly effective corporate tax cuts. It's less than 1% of their annual budget.

Perhaps Britain could pull it off and redefine their economy so that they're better off, but if so, it's going to take quite a long time to do so before they pull that one off, and I wouldn't want to move there until they do.

djpbarry

Eric Cartman wrote: »

...but leaving the eu would enable them to lower taxes to attract foreign investment...

Eh, the UK can do that without leaving the EU?

Rascasse

Lemming wrote: »

The term "lower taxes" doesn't exist in parliamentary vocabulary right now ...

The Corinthian wrote: »

Oh, FFS...

First of all, unless you are running a serious surplus, you will not be able to afford to cut taxes by any significant amount that may attract foreign investment.

UK has already reduced corporation tax from 26% to 24% and it will be further reduced to 21% in April 2014. I'd call 5% significant.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/dec/05/corporation-tax-rate-cut-autumn-statement

evercloserunion

Rascasse wrote: »

UK has already reduced corporation tax from 26% to 24% and it will be further reduced to 21% in April 2014. I'd call 5% significant.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/dec/05/corporation-tax-rate-cut-autumn-statement

Doesn't this just destroy the argument that the UK needs to leave the EU to lower its corporate tax?

The Corinthian

Rascasse wrote: »

UK has already reduced corporation tax from 26% to 24% and it will be further reduced to 21% in April 2014. I'd call 5% significant.

Wasn't funded by savings in Europe though, was it?

Rascasse

The Corinthian wrote: »

Wasn't funded by savings in Europe though, was it?

I didn't say it was. I was merely counting your and Lemmings point that corporation taxes can't be cut now when they are.

The Corinthian

Rascasse wrote: »

I didn't say it was. I was merely counting your and Lemmings point that corporation taxes can't be cut now when they are.

Neither of us said that though. We both said that to cut taxes the money has to come from somewhere, be it a surplus, saving or something else.

Additionally, and in relation to this point, we both rejected the claim that savings made upon leaving the EU, would fund this, as it is clear that those savings would not fund much.

The UK may have found, or printed, the money to cut these rates, but it is clear that this money did not come from money saved by not contributing to the EU and that even were that money to be utilized, it would hardly make much difference.

SoulandForm

If Scotland or Wales was to leave the UK and the EU I would move over to them. The UK is not a particularly free place standing on its own and I think it could actually become a worse place outside of it.

The Republic of Ireland should never have joined the EU and I think its a case of a corrupt elite who was always half hearted to say the least about national freedom wanting to be part of an Empire again where they get told what to do as they did under the British that keeps her there.

djpbarry

SoulandForm wrote: »

If Scotland or Wales was to leave the UK and the EU I would move over to them.

Because you want to experience a much lower standard of living?

Unpossible

murphaph wrote: »

That was before a major net contributor to the EU announced its intention to possibly leave and leave a funding gap for the remaining net contributors to make up.

The Finns already pay more per capita than the UK, but the UK are the only ones I've ever heard complaining about paying money to the EU. Of course you're right, with a large net contributor like the UK leaving it will mean either less for the recipiants or more money from the contributors. I would see them having a bigger problem with having to give continual bailouts to other countries and never getting any of it back.
If by 2017 there is no significant economic recovery, if there are more bailouts with no real repayments and if the UK leave and don't go down in flames, remember the UK economy is heading for another recession, then sure I could possibly see them leave the eurozone or the EU.

murphaph wrote: »

Your friends may have been embarrassed about the True Finns but somebody was happy to vote for them and that was before the prospect of a major EU net contributor leaving the club surfaced.

True, at the moment they have about 19% of the seats, I would hope that their odd views on certain topics will mean that won't increase. We will have to see how they do in the next election to see if this means there is a rise in anti-EU sentiment.

murphaph wrote: »

As above, if it was France or Germany threatening to leave, would you be so sure of your Finnish mates wanting to remain in the EU without them?

There is quite a difference between a major eurozone country (and founding member of the EU project) leaving and a country that has done nothing but complain about membership and tries to exclude itself from integration by not joining the eurozone (or schengen). The UK, or Tories more specifically, especially doesn't do itself favours by saying they want to repeal the european laws that protect workers rights and human rights.
To answer your question though, I don't think the EU would survive Germany or France leaving, but then they are more pro-integration and EU so things would have gone really downhill for that to happen anyway.

murphaph wrote: »

My experience of Danes in Berlin at least is different. I know quite a few here now who have basically fled Denmark's high tax high welfare state as they are disillusioned with what they see as rewarding people who don't want to contribute to the system. So this "happiness" to see their taxes redistributed may not be so deep seated as you believe.

My experience of Ex-Pats is that most, if not all, have built up a list of complaints on what their home nations are doing wrong and usually have a list of all the things their new country does right. What matters is what the people back home are voting for.

murphaph wrote: »

In any case, redistributing wealth "among your own kith and kin" is likely a lot easier to stomach for a nation than sending it to be squandered in some club med country with a different outlook completely.

I agree, but would say its not the regular EU contributions that will cause anger, its the constant bailouts and a failure to get the money back that will cause the problems.

murphaph wrote: »

I am hoping that this business results in a decent open debate, Europe wide, about what sort of EU we want to become and which countries are going to be willing/able to become it. IMO the likes of Greece and Bulgaria will never make it and should never have been admitted as full members. I'd like a strong EU to emerge, made up of countries at the core with similar economic and social outlooks being able to continue with a single currency and (that will require much tighter fiscal integration if it is to work long term) and an outer circle who can trade freely etc. but who have no voting rights when it comes to inner core matters of fiscal integration.

I agree. I don't know why more hasn't been made of Greece cooking the books to get in, prehaps there will be focus on it after the crisis.



TL, DR: there isn't really any sign of Finns leaving now if the UK were to leave in the morning, but 4 more years of recession and more bailouts could do it if the UK leave and end up doing well.

Duggys Housemate

Most of the pro-"leave the EU" posters are not willing to countenance the effects on the British economy of leaving. The associated members who are not full members contribute to the pot - that's the deal, so if UK nationalists want to leave to avoid paying they won't be in that position, they will be like China. All EU tariffs will apply. The vast majority of jobs in the city of London will probably move, and immigrants flee. Scotland may secede. I can't see it being a winner.

It's all moot anyway. If Cameron really wanted a referendum he have called one in this term, not in a fictional next term where he may not even be in government and most certainly will not be in single party government. It's designed to placate some back benchers and cut the legs of the UKIP.

pavb2

It's all moot anyway. If Cameron really wanted a referendum he have called one in this term, not in a fictional next term where he may not even be in government and most certainly will not be in single party government. It's designed to placate some back benchers and cut the legs of the UKIP.

A good summary but what interested me in all the rhetoric and maybe I missed it but did Cameron actually state what his position was on this?

Unpossible

pavb2 wrote: »

A good summary but what interested me in all the rhetoric and maybe I missed it but did Cameron actually state what his position was on this?

He stated he is for the UK to stay in the EU, but with treaty changes.

Netizen101

Gallobhai wrote: »

To address that "EU Tyranny is silly" I would say that; in a technological age of corporate cronyism where one body owns many diverse industries and a few bodies can dominate absolutely, tyranny will not appear in a Hitler or a Mao figure. It will creep in subtly by policy and from within bureaucracy and controlled media coverage, and you will hear it praised by the people around you, repeating what they heard from their bought off leaders and media figures. You may never see the tyrants but they will indeed clandestinely pull the strings for their own personal gain at your expense. That is how I would interpret the tyranny of our time, and why we are asked to vote on referenda numerous times until we 'get it right'.

Agreed, frankly I think you have your thumb on the Zeitgeist, this is the nature of the world at present, anyone to whom this is not apparent, particularly in Ireland, is deluded. We had our democracy stolen out from under us, all the while the "Irish" media pundits lauded the machinations of the corporativist dictatorship. It happened right before our eyes, and on our watch. We twigged that something was wrong the first time, yet still we were able to deftly apply the appropriate 'double think' until we could "get it right".

[MOD]Please don't use unrelated threads to promote off-topic petitions.[/MOD]

Duggys Housemate

Netizen101 wrote: »

Agreed, frankly I think you have your thumb on the Zeitgeist, this is the nature of the world at present, anyone to whom this is not apparent, particularly in Ireland, is deluded. We had our democracy stolen out from under us, all the while the "Irish" media pundits lauded the machinations of the corporativist dictatorship. It happened right before our eyes, and on our watch. We twigged that something was wrong the first time, yet still we were able to deftly apply the appropriate 'double think' until we could "get it right".

Who's the "they"? Is it the EU, or the American corporations. If the latter, isn't it the EU which needs to regulate - quite the opposite from the general theme of this thread.

djpbarry

Netizen101 wrote: »

Agreed, frankly I think you have your thumb on the Zeitgeist, this is the nature of the world at present, anyone to whom this is not apparent, particularly in Ireland, is deluded. We had our democracy stolen out from under us...

Asking a question twice constitutes "stealing democracy"?

The Corinthian

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Who's the "they"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptilians

djpbarry

The Corinthian wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptilians

I've just spent the last hour reading about David Icke - what a fascinatingly insane individual.

Netizen101

djpbarry wrote: »

Asking a question twice constitutes "stealing democracy"?

If it were only asking the question that would be one thing; we were railroaded into the "right" answer the second time. We even had foreign based multinational corporations, like Intel and others, putting money into advertising campaigns to influence the publics decision on a constitutional question. In as far as a democracy could be stolen, I'd consider that theft. The public were held over a barrell and told "Yes for Jobs"...or else...

Maybe not theft, how about extortion?


P.S. No-one mentioned aliens, try to stay on topic...

oscarBravo

Netizen101 wrote: »

If it were only asking the question that would be one thing; we were railroaded into the "right" answer the second time.

I wondered what that guy was doing in the polling station with me, holding a gun to my head. It all becomes clear now.

Netizen101

oscarBravo wrote: »

I wondered what that guy was doing in the polling station with me, holding a gun to my head. It all becomes clear now.

yeah, because thats the only way it could be done...

oscarBravo

Netizen101 wrote: »

yeah, because thats the only way it could be done...

If it's your considered view that the Irish electorate are so easily swayed, that's as compelling an argument against direct democracy as I've ever heard.

Netizen101

oscarBravo wrote: »

If it's your considered view that the Irish electorate are so easily swayed, that's as compelling an argument against direct democracy as I've ever heard.

Its my considered view that large masses of people can very easily be swayed one way or another by a very carefully managed marketing campaign, its sometimes called propaganda, and if you've figured out that it doesn't work, you should talk to Joe Goebbles and gang, because he seems to think that it does. While you're at it, why don't you put in a call to the marketing department of .ummmm... everywhere and tell them all they're wasting their time.

djpbarry

Netizen101 wrote: »

Its my considered view that large masses of people can very easily be swayed...

And that's the fault of government?

oscarBravo

Netizen101 wrote: »

Its my considered view that large masses of people can very easily be swayed one way or another by a very carefully managed marketing campaign, its sometimes called propaganda, and if you've figured out that it doesn't work, you should talk to Joe Goebbles and gang, because he seems to think that it does. While you're at it, why don't you put in a call to the marketing department of .ummmm... everywhere and tell them all they're wasting their time.

So we shouldn't hold referendums?

K-9

Netizen101 wrote: »

P.S. No-one mentioned aliens, try to stay on topic...

Its a thread about the UK leaving the EU.

Everybody should stay on topic.

Markcheese

If Scotland secedes from great Britain will they still be part of the UK , if the welsh followed suit , would England still call itself great Britain .