4/11 to stay 15/8 to go initial odds UK EU Referendum

gallag

greendom wrote: »

Maybe the article is showing freedom of movement is not the one way street many of the anti eu supporters claim it to be? Thousands of UK citizens have benefited from the rule, both in being able to find work in Europe and to claim benefits when needed.

It's not a one way street, i never said it was! It's a two way street with one way having much more traffic! On those guardian figures, There are near 1000 Irish in prisons in England alone, do you really think only 2600 Irish claim job seekers in the entire UK? Probably more than 2600 Irish travelers calming JSA in the UK alone.

No Voter And Proud

Pugzilla wrote: »

Hopefully the UK will leave, another step towards the death of this stupid union.

So what about all the money they have given to Irish farmers in grants (myself included), and the infranstuncture support!

If the UK leaves and we do to, wheres all the foreign big companies going to go that are here at the mo

greendom

gallag wrote: »

It's not a one way street, i never said it was! It's a two way street with one way having much more traffic! On those guardian figures, There are near 1000 Irish in prisons in England alone, do you really think only 2600 Irish claim job seekers in the entire UK? Probably more than 2600 Irish travelers calming JSA in the UK alone.

Probably ? Can you go and find some evidence to back that up ?

No Voter And Proud

What has prison got to do with it?

gallag

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

So what about all the money they have given to Irish farmers in grants (myself included), and the infranstuncture support!

If the UK leaves and we do to, wheres all the foreign big companies going to go that are here at the mo

Mabey farmers could become self sufficient like other industries? Time to ween farmers of benefits but also untie their hands from all the EU red tape and let them compete in the global market! Especially for countries like the UK that are net contributers to the EU and farmers subs only represent a small fraction back. You are basically being paid not to compete with French farmers and can you explain why farm products are so expensive in Ireland? For a country capible of producing many times more than it could use surley it should be cheeper? Out of the EU the price of meat and dairy would be a lot cheeper for Irish shoppers!

No Voter And Proud

gallag wrote: »

Mabey farmers could become self sufficient like other industries? Time to ween farmers of benefits but also untie their hands from all the EU red tape and let them compete in the global market! Especially for countries like the UK that are net contributers to the EU and farmers subs only represent a small fraction back. You are basically being paid not to compete with French farmers and can you explain why farm products are so expensive in Ireland? For a country capible of producing many times more than it could use surley it should be cheeper? Out of the EU the price of meat and dairy would be a lot cheeper for Irish shoppers!

The quotas idea has a lot to answer with regards the above in my opinon.
Farming hasn''t been a free market in ireland for a long as I can remember. If you limit the amount I can sell, you must compensate for that.

gallag

greendom wrote: »

Probably ? Can you go and find some evidence to back that up ?

How could I ever prove that? Mabey if i write of freedom of information questions etc but sometimes common sense should be employed, do you believe there are only 2600 unemployed Irish in the UK? I only gave the prison example to show that if those figures were true the unemployed and incarcerated Irish in the UK would have a 2.6/1 ratio

gallag

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

The quotas idea has a lot to answer with regards the above in my opinon.
Farming hasn''t been a free market in ireland for a long as I can remember. If you limit the amount I can sell, you must compensate for that.

Exactly my point, Do you honestly believe the EU has been good for farming in Ireland? It's held you back, Ireland should be producing as much as it can and Irish products should be in every corner of the globe, how ridiculous is it that you are paid compensation for being limited in what you can produce? And how much more could you sell to the world if the EU did not have crazy protectionist tariffs on farming trade to basically stop the French striking every 5 minute's.

If you add in what the EU has done for the fish trade in ireland there is no way people can be happy about it!

djpbarry

gallag wrote: »

What a ridiculous article! Just goes to show how biased the Guardian is, only 2600 Irish on job seekers allowance in the UK?!?!?!?

Yeah, we’re obviously not over here to work. We’re all here to get that massive £73.10 per week in Jobseekers Allowance, which is only just over half what we could get at home.

gallag wrote: »

…even still there is more polish calming job seekers allowance in the UK than British calming in the entire EU!

Didn’t you just say it was a ridiculous article? What, it’s not anymore because you found something that supports your world view?

gallag wrote: »

And as regards us selling cars to Europe, i assume you know what a trade deficit is? And just how large that deficit is? And why the UK have the strongest hand in that negotiation?

You do understand that the EU economy as a whole is considerably large than the UK economy? The UK exports about £150 billion worth of goods to the EU every year – that represents about 9% of UK GDP. The EU exports about £240 billion worth of goods to the UK every year, or about 2% of EU GDP, excluding the UK.

In other words, the UK needs to export to the EU a hell of a lot more than the EU needs the UK.

gallag

djpbarry wrote: »

In other words, the UK needs to export to the EU a hell of a lot more than the EU needs the UK.

No, we need to be exporting to the world, not held back by only exporting to a EU market that's share of world trade is shrinking rapidly, and as far as your other figures, it's what Germany wants that matters and they need uk trade more than we need german trade, same as France. We will get a free trade deal on exit or else the EU will enter recession and the german people will get pissed watching their economy collapse because some decide to cut of their nose to spite their face!

I think by the time the referendum comes about there will be a lot more anti EU sentiment within the EU, just look at the growth at present, if that sustains. I honestly think the EU will be no more or completely rebuilt within 10 years.

gallag

djpbarry wrote: »

The UK exports about £150 billion worth of goods to the EU every year

This is interesting, the UK contribution to the EU is £12 billion, that's a massive tax for £150 billion of trade, with our contribution to rise this year it won't be far of a 10% export tax basically. would it even hurt exports if there was a trade tarif on exit if the government put the 12+ billion into tax breaks for exporters?

You sir have convinced me more that we are better of out!

gallag

djpbarry you have made a really good point here, I have only had time for a quick glance and the figures are difficult to find but it seems the top UK exports all seem to come in well below 10% for EU import duty! It seems the UK could leave the EU and subsidise exporters for EU import tariffs and still be quids in! Also we would have a new revenue stream from EU imports!

greendom

The EU contributes roughly half what the UK spends back to the UK economy...

In 2010 for example the UK paid 11.2 billion and received 6.5 billion from the EU

djpbarry

gallag wrote: »

No, we need to be exporting to the world…

Oh, so the UK can just send all its EU exports elsewhere, but for some reason, the rest of the EU will be crippled without the UK? Why is it that the UK will be able to find other trade partners, but the EU will not?

gallag wrote: »

…not held back by only exporting to a EU market that's share of world trade is shrinking rapidly, and as far as your other figures, it's what Germany wants that matters and they need uk trade more than we need german trade, same as France.

You seem to be wilfully ignorant of the fact that, whether you like it or not, the EU is the biggest economy in the world, far bigger than France, Germany, the UK or any other constituent economy on its own. The UK needs access to the EU market far more than the EU needs access to the UK. You can continue to pretend otherwise, which I’m sure you will, but the facts speak for themselves.

gallag wrote: »

This is interesting, the UK contribution to the EU is £12 billion, that's a massive tax for £150 billion of trade…

You’re forgetting about the subsidies the UK receives?

gallag

greendom wrote: »

The EU contributes roughly half what the UK spends back to the UK economy...

In 2010 for example the UK paid 11.2 billion and received 6.5 billion from the EU

No, after all rebates etc the UK contributes 11.2 billion.

greendom

gallag wrote: »

No, after all rebates etc the UK contributes 11.2 billion.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/nov/22/eu-budget-spending-contributions-european-union

gallag

djpbarry wrote: »

You’re forgetting about the subsidies the UK receives?

No, that's the net contribution.

gallag

greendom wrote: »

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/nov/22/eu-budget-spending-contributions-european-union

Exactly! I think you might think that means something else.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/31/britain-eu-contribution-rise-quadruple-cameron


"The net figures – which take into account the UK’s rebate – show the UK’s contribution to the EU was £2.7bn in 2008, rising to £3.8bn in 2009, £7.2bn in 2010, £7.5bn in 2011, £8.5bn in 2012 and £11.3bn in 2013."

Please bear in mind, and a quick read of the article will confirm, that 11.3bn figure does not include the extra 1.7bn the EU asked for, if my memory is correct we paid half of that upfront with the other half to be paid on top of this year's figures, net for 2015 will likely be over £15bn.

greendom

gallag wrote: »

Exactly! I think you might think that means something else.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/31/britain-eu-contribution-rise-quadruple-cameron


"The net figures – which take into account the UK’s rebate – show the UK’s contribution to the EU was £2.7bn in 2008, rising to £3.8bn in 2009, £7.2bn in 2010, £7.5bn in 2011, £8.5bn in 2012 and £11.3bn in 2013."

Please bear in mind, and a quick read of the article will confirm, that 11.3bn figure does not include the extra 1.7bn the EU asked for, if my memory is correct we paid half of that upfront with the other half to be paid on top of this year's figures, net for 2015 will likely be over £15bn.

Yes I can see that the net contribution has gone up a lot over the last few years for sure and so the UK would benefit by getting the net contribution reduced, but would lose out badly if it left the EU altogether.

gallag

greendom wrote: »

but would lose out badly if it left the EU altogether.

Why? We will still trade with Europe, we will have new avenues to trade around the world, we will save about 15bn a year, we will be able to control our borders and start reducing working class unemployment instead of displacing them from jobs, I just can't see how the benefits of staying in out weigh the benefits of leaving?

It seem the entire pro EU argument is basically "if you leave we will try to cripple your economy by trade tariffs" which just seems ludicrous as it would involve cutting of their nose to spite their face, as I said earlier can you see Germany watching their economy collapse?

djpbarry

gallag wrote: »

No, that's the net contribution.

It's Britain's contribution to the EU budget, which Britain also receives grants and subsidies from.

So no, it's not the net contribution.

gallag

djpbarry wrote: »

It's Britain's contribution to the EU budget, which Britain also receives grants and subsidies from.

So no, it's not the net contribution.

Yes, yes it is.

djpbarry

gallag wrote: »

Yes, yes it is.

You don't understand what the UK rebate is, do you?

gallag

djpbarry wrote: »

You don't understand what the UK rebate is, do you?

Why, yes I do, it's the amount the UK gets back from the gross 20bn we pay to the EU every year.

greendom

excellent report...

The idea that the UK would be freer outside the EU is
based on a series of misconceptions: that a mediumsized,
open economy could hold sway in an increasingly
fractured trading system, dominated by the US, the EU
and China; that the EU makes it harder for Britain to
penetrate emerging markets; and that foreign capital
would be more attracted to Britain’s economy if it were
no longer a part of the single market. The UK should
base policy on evidence, which largely points to one
conclusion: that it should stay in the EU.

http://www.cer.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/attachments/pdf/2014/pb_britishtrade_16jan14-8285.pdf

djpbarry

gallag wrote: »

Why, yes I do, it's the amount the UK gets back from the gross 20bn we pay to the EU every year.

No, the UK rebate is approximately two-thirds of the amount by which UK payments into the EU exceed EU expenditure returning to the UK.

gallag

djpbarry wrote: »

No, the UK rebate is approximately two-thirds of the amount by which UK payments into the EU exceed EU expenditure returning to the UK.

God dam it man, you are wrong, take it on the chin and move on.

The net (NOTICE IT SAYS NET) figures – which take into account the UK’s rebate – show the UK’s contribution to the EU was £2.7bn in 2008, rising to £3.8bn in 2009, £7.2bn in 2010, £7.5bn in 2011, £8.5bn in 2012 and £11.3bn in 2013.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/31/britain-eu-contribution-rise-quadruple-cameron
That's from the Guardian ffs, it's not like I am posting from an anti EU blog.

"During the LBC leader’s debate UKIP leader Nigel Farage claimed the UK’s membership fee of the EU is “£55 million a day” – the equivalent of about £20 billion in total per year.

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg disputes the claims, saying “If you actually count the rebate, if you count what British farmers, for instance, receive from the Common Agricultural Policy, it is less than half that figure”.

It’s reasonable to describe £55 million as our “membership fee”, but it ignores the fact that we get money back as well. In other words, £55 million a day represents the UK’s ‘gross contributions’ to EU institutions. Our net contributions are the equivalent of £33 million per day on these terms.

Gross not net

UKIP have used the figure in the past as part of their reports analysing how much the EU costs Britain. From these, it’s clear that the £55 million a day – the equivalent of about £20 billion a year – is only one part of what they see as the overall cost of the EU, factoring in the likes of regulation costs, lost jobs and the Common Agricultural Policy.

£20 billion is roughly what the UK government and households paid to EU institutions in 2012: these include payments to the centralEU budget as well as customs duties and agricultural levies.

But the UK gets some of that money back, some through the rebate which reduces the UK’s contributions to the EU Budget, and some through the Agricultural Guarantee Fund to farmers. That was worth as much as £8 billion in 2012.

So on balance, the UK’s contributions to the EU amount to some £12 billion a year or about £33 million a day."


https://fullfact.org/economy/cost_eu_membership_gross_net_contribution-30887

djpbarry

gallag wrote: »

God dam it man, you are wrong, take it on the chin and move on.

What part of what I just posted is wrong?

gallag

greendom wrote: »

excellent report...



http://www.cer.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/attachments/pdf/2014/pb_britishtrade_16jan14-8285.pdf

From the pro-European centre for European reform which is headed up by people who all also represent large business. Look at the guys that head this up on Wikipedia, it's scary how big business shapes the debate to ultimately benefit big business. I suppose they have to keep scaring the people into low pay, zero hour contracts, moving people like cattle displacing native workers and creating downward pressure on wages and conditions never mind the brain drain on countries that are already struggling. The most annoying thing is how the left have been fooled by it all and fight for big business now while calling the working class racist for not being happy about it.

gallag

djpbarry wrote: »

What part of what I just posted is wrong?

The part were you did not understand about "net" and "gross" you have been arguing that the UKs net payment of 11-12bn is actually lower because of the rebate. You called it wrong but I now predict a few more posts shifting goal posts or reality denial instead of just admitting you confused net and gross.

oscarBravo

gallag wrote: »

...zero hour contracts...

Can you point to the EU directive that requires zero hour contracts?

No Voter And Proud

oscarBravo wrote: »

Can you point to the EU directive that requires zero hour contracts?

Can you, to the one that does not?

gallag

oscarBravo wrote: »

Can you point to the EU directive that requires zero hour contracts?

The free movement of people directive, giving people from ex soviet countries the ability to flood the labour markets of more wealthy countries causing a oversupply of workers causing competition for working class jobs and wage deflation along with eroding rights and conditions.

It's simple really, more jobs than worker = better pay and conditions, more workers than jobs = poor pay and conditions.

Guess which one suits big business!

oscarBravo

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

Can you, to the one that does not?

Just so we're clear, you're arguing that the EU isn't interfering enough with employment law?

gallag wrote: »

The free movement of people directive, giving people from ex soviet countries the ability to flood the labour markets of more wealthy countries causing a oversupply of workers causing competition for working class jobs and wage deflation along with eroding rights and conditions.

It's simple really, more jobs than worker = better pay and conditions, more workers than jobs = poor pay and conditions.

Guess which one suits big business!

That was a very long-winded "no".

No Voter And Proud

oscarBravo wrote: »

Just so we're clear, you're arguing that the EU isn't interfering enough with employment law?
.

Ok, I'll engage.
No. I was clearly requesting the opposite of what you did.
Is there an eu directive outlawing zero hour contracts?

oscarBravo

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

Is there an eu directive outlawing zero hour contracts?

No. Do you think there should be?

greendom

gallag wrote: »

From the pro-European centre for European reform which is headed up by people who all also represent large business. Look at the guys that head this up on Wikipedia, it's scary how big business shapes the debate to ultimately benefit big business. I suppose they have to keep scaring the people into low pay, zero hour contracts, moving people like cattle displacing native workers and creating downward pressure on wages and conditions never mind the brain drain on countries that are already struggling. The most annoying thing is how the left have been fooled by it all and fight for big business now while calling the working class racist for not being happy about it.

so instead of finding fault with the report, you find fault with the people who wrote it?

If the UK were to leave the EU big business would continue to influence UK politics. Maybe to a lesser degree though as some of them may choose to move or expand to/in an economy that has chosen to stay in the EU.

Perhaps that's a good thing for the UK ?

No Voter And Proud

oscarBravo wrote: »

No. Do you think there should be?

Well it would be a good start.

greendom

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

Ok, I'll engage.
No. I was clearly requesting the opposite of what you did.
Is there an eu directive outlawing zero hour contracts?

No but the UK has used opt outs to ensure that EU employment law isn't adopted in full, making exploitation of workers easier in the UK than elsewhere

http://www.euractiv.com/sections/social-europe-jobs/uk-reprimanded-over-zero-hour-contracts-301994

Crasta stressed that even new-comers in Eastern European countries have a higher level of social protection for workers “because they had to implement [EU law] while the UK kept on negotiating opt-outs and derogations.”

“For the temporary agency workers directive, the UK has negotiated two opt-outs that it is using and even abusing,” she adds, slamming arguments that that kind of flexibility is what has helped UK show signs of economic recovery in the wake of the crisis.

In the TUC’s opinion, such recovery is not only unsustainable. It is doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past.

“If those on precarious contracts were offered the possibility to have decent contracts, they’d be better paid and the internal demand would grow. In the UK, consumption relies on personal indebtedness, like it was before the crisis, and the housing prices grow faster than wages, therefore creating the premises for another bubble.”

For unionists, announced austerity measures until 2018 will further undermine any opportunity for sustainable recovery.

Jim2007

gallag wrote: »

It seem the entire pro EU argument is basically "if you leave we will try to cripple your economy by trade tariffs" which just seems ludicrous as it would involve cutting of their nose to spite their face, as I said earlier can you see Germany watching their economy collapse?

Well first of all the EU is not going to do anything, you will do that all by yourself! When you leave the EU you end up at the back of the queue behind all the nations that already have trade agreements until such time as you reach a new agreement. Now I'm sure you would eventually get a deal of some kind, but give all the other issues going on in the EU, I doubt it will be high on anyone's priority list. For instance Switzerland is the hub of all north-south trade in the EU and yet it has been unable to get trade talks moving for many many months now...

I doubt that trade tariffs will me much of a worry, because it is not the EU style! But having your goods certified for use in the internal market will be come a big issue in terms of time and money. You would no longer enjoy automatic certification for other countries who have trade agreements with the EU either, so add another round of costs to cover that until you reach agreement with them and so on.

And as for the German economy you really have not got a clue! First of all the UK represents about 7% of German exports, in fact it exports about the same amount to the Netherlands! And secondly German like Ireland enjoy one major advantage of being in the Euro - their are operating in an undervalued currency as opposed to a new D-Mark or Punt which would rise! And a third point would be that unlike the UK, German has been a net exporting country for a very long time and such countries tend to be well able to weather the storms. It is no coincidence that Ireland is the only one of the PIGS that is starting to turn the corner - it is also the only net exporter among them.

Jim2007

gallag wrote: »

The free movement of people directive, giving people from ex soviet countries the ability to flood the labour markets of more wealthy countries causing a oversupply of workers causing competition for working class jobs and wage deflation along with eroding rights and conditions.

And the free movement of goods in to Eastern countries results in Eastern companies being unable to compete leading to job losses. That is exactly why there is a requirement for the free movement trade off in the first place.

micosoft

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

Well it would be a good start.

Ah. So the EU is to blame for things it doesn't do as much as things it does do?

The UK would refuse to allow such a rule as would a number of other states. You can't just demand that 27 other countries roll over and comply with your world view.

micosoft

gallag wrote: »

From the pro-European centre for European reform which is headed up by people who all also represent large business. Look at the guys that head this up on Wikipedia, it's scary how big business shapes the debate to ultimately benefit big business. I suppose they have to keep scaring the people into low pay, zero hour contracts, moving people like cattle displacing native workers and creating downward pressure on wages and conditions never mind the brain drain on countries that are already struggling. The most annoying thing is how the left have been fooled by it all and fight for big business now while calling the working class racist for not being happy about it.

So basically your argument is that any fact and any organisation that does not conform to your (extraordinary) worldview are wrong and/or shills in the pay of the EU?
That bad things decided upon solely by the UK electorate and the UK Government can be laid at the door of the EU?

micosoft

gallag wrote: »

Ok, take away the word "largely" the CBI receives funding from Brussels and is staffed by pro EU zealots, they also told the British people that if we did not join the Euro we would crash. Wrong then so why should the people listen now?

It was an outrageous lie. And part of your systematic debating style of making things up then rapidly moving on hoping it would stick.

You lay it further on claiming the UK would "crash" if they did not join the EU - any evidence for that?

People will listen to them because they represent the majority of the UK's business. And the majority of British business understand the real consequences of Brexit not the deliberate distortions of UKIP style zealots.

View

gallag wrote: »

djpbarry you have made a really good point here, I have only had time for a quick glance and the figures are difficult to find but it seems the top UK exports all seem to come in well below 10% for EU import duty! It seems the UK could leave the EU and subsidise exporters for EU import tariffs and still be quids in! Also we would have a new revenue stream from EU imports!

You are aware that anti-dumping measures (= higher tariffs and/or quotas) could be introduced on those exports, aren't you?

View

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

Can you, to the one that does not?

The onus lies with the person making a claim to show that it is true not on others to show that it is false. You don't have to prove you did not commit recent murders rather anyone accusing you must prove that you did.

View

It should be pointed out that zero hour contracts exist in the UK as a result of the decisions of Parliament - this is the UK exercising its sovereignty in action.

Furthermore, if I recall correctly, Labour did raise this issue during the recent GE but the UK electorate decided to pass on the opportunity to elect a government dedicated to strengthening UK labour law. If that's their democratic decision then that should be respected.

cml387

David Cameron wants to deal with the EU question once and for all. Not on the basis of whether it's good or bad for Britain, but for Conservative unity.

When the referendum is held and the answer is yes, then he can say to sceptic wing that the people have spoken so now put up with it or get out.

And the result will be yes.Why? For the same reason that it passed in 1975.
People will see who is for and who's against, and having seen the no gang up close they will vote for the centre.

Scofflaw

cml387 wrote: »

David Cameron wants to deal with the EU question once and for all. Not on the basis of whether it's good or bad for Britain, but for Conservative unity.

When the referendum is held and the answer is yes, then he can say to sceptic wing that the people have spoken so now put up with it or get out.

Last I heard, the eurosceptic Tories were saying that the holding of a referendum would generate momentum for another, better, more Outie referendum within 5 years if the result is a Yes to stay:

Cabinet ministers are warning there will be a second referendum on whether the UK should quit the European Union if David Cameron fails to win a radical new deal in Brussels.

High-ranking Tories believe the EU referendum campaign will create powerful momentum for leaving Europe over the next 18 months, in the same way that nationalism in Scotland has grown since the Scottish independence vote last September.

One member of his Cabinet has warned that the promised “in/out” referendum in 2017 will not be “the end game” if voters choose to remain in a seriously flawed EU. A second referendum could be held as early as 2020, the minister said.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/11641133/Second-referendum-in-five-years-if-voters-choose-to-stay-in-EU.html

cordially,
Scofflaw

cml387

cml387 wrote: »

People will see who is for and who's against, and having seen the no gang up close they will vote for the centre.

Yesterday's FT counted seven members of the British Cabinet as being eurosceptics, most significantly Theresa Villiers, and Iain Duncan Smith, whom it suggests is likely to advocate a No vote.

Given that Eurosceptics are so entrenched in their views, it is difficult to believe that Cameron's demands for reform will be sufficient to change their views.

Nobody foresees a dramatic split in the UK Government, perhaps just some minor scuffles, but any visible division of opinion in the cabinet will undermine the official position and energize the No side.