Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    I have noticed a similar trend whereby every development in the EU is denied as scaremongering when first proposed, then admitted but defended as unimportant when it is going through, and finally presented as necessary, inevitable, and irreversible once it has been established.

    The same people who originally regarded the proposal as scaremongering - implicitly agreeing that it is bad - seem to slide very comfortably into full support of the proposal once no one can do anything about it.
    Can you give some examples, because newpersonage cannot.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    Brexit is not a problem, total WTO tariffs payable to EU would be <£5bn per annum. UK's EEA payment would be 40% of Norway's per capita until we get as rich as other Non-EU N.European nations.
    I'm not sure where you get your figures, but a 5% tariff on UK exports is £11.45bn (£229bn exports in 2014 https://fullfact.org/europe/do-half-...rts-go-europe/). I believe that it is the case that EU exports to the UK are higher than this, so there is at least a £12bn cost to UK consumers from leaving the single market.

    Compare this to the nett UK contribution which is around £9bn.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    So, it your honest belief that within nine years there will be no national governments in the entire Eurozone? Each state in the Eurozone will be fully controlled from Brussels?
    The Eurogroup has already completed Stage 1 of Union. I see no reason why the 19 Euro states will not complete their political union on schedule in 2025. In many ways submitting the National Budgets to approval by the Eurogroup is the biggest step and this has already been taken.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    Can you give some examples, because newpersonage cannot.
    Nonsense, the OP has plenty of examples.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    France has a larger population than both the UK and Italy. What you will notice is that France actually has the lowest representation per capita in the EU - it would need to have 75 MEPs (two more than the UK) in order for the UK to head that table, and even then the difference would be marginal.
    Yeah and you'll notice that the UK also has a larger population than Italy, and that the difference between the population of the UK and Italy is more than twice as great as the difference between the population of France and the UK, yet the UK and Italy have the same number of MEPs. As a matter of general practice, MEP numbers simply aren't tailored to memberstate populations to that degree of precision.

    Most parsimonious explanation: the French wanted one more so that they could say that they had one more; that they were second rather than joint fourth.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    Can you give some examples, because newpersonage cannot.
    The most visible is the flag.

    We were told that the removal of the flag as an official EU symbol was the great concession involved in the abandonment of the constitution. Then it was simply brought in unofficially and all the people who trumpeted this "concession" as an example of the EU responding to democracy said it was a silly thing to complain about and anyway the EU needs a flag.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    I'm not sure where you get your figures, but a 5% tariff on UK exports is £11.45bn (£229bn exports in 2014 https://fullfact.org/europe/do-half-...rts-go-europe/). I believe that it is the case that EU exports to the UK are higher than this, so there is at least a £12bn cost to UK consumers from leaving the single market.
    Are you counting tariffs levied by the UK as a cost here? Surely if the UK imports more than it exports then the UK government will see a gain of several billion if there are mutually imposed tariffs, in addition to the contribution disappering?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    I'm not sure where you get your figures, but a 5% tariff on UK exports is £11.45bn (£229bn exports in 2014 https://fullfact.org/europe/do-half-...rts-go-europe/). I believe that it is the case that EU exports to the UK are higher than this, so there is at least a £12bn cost to UK consumers from leaving the single market.

    Compare this to the nett UK contribution which is around £9bn.
    The 5% figure is incorrect it is actually about 4%, some have even estimated 2.5% but I have been through the tables and 4% is damn near right. Of course, the UK would join EFTA to take advantage of tariff free non-EU trade and excuse itself from the EEA. The EU exports about £60bn more to the UK than vice versa which means that the government will receive more tariffs than the UK pays to the EU. Especially given that the EU exports tariff prone items such as cars and food to the UK.

    The WTO has a de minimis subsidy limit of 3% of value so the UK can use import tariffs to pay export tariffs (ie: 3% of value is not considered a subsidy). The WTO also allows emergency measures so the UK can claim that, during the negotiation period for an FTA with the EU it will subsidise all exports tariffs to the EU so that no tariffs are payable by exporters. Its not rocket science.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Luke Kostanjsek)
    I don't really buy that argument to be honest. I mean, I agree that I'm sure some people who oppose immigration are racist or xenophobic, but it's a tiny tiny proportion. If the people who oppose immigration are racist or xenophobic, then why don't they have a problem with the large number of people who have come from Southeast Asia, for instance? If it's a fundamental opposition to foreigners on account of them being foreigners, surely they'd be more inclined to dislike people from Southeast Asia than those from elsewhere in Europe?
    It is mostly the same people. The reason they aren't out there shouting about it is that there would be a huge outcry. You can see Farage playing the game on this issue, telling the "Commonwealth" immigrants that the EU is unfair on them and their families because they find it hard to get visas, while EU citizens just come here as they like.

    I've seen "Commonwealth" immigrants on the TV complaining about EU immigrants. When the host says, "but surely they are in the same position as you and your family?" the former says "No, we came here to work!".

    What do the EU immigrants supposedly coming here stealing our jobs come here to do!? They can't be not working and stealing our jobs can they?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Luke Kostanjsek)
    The desire for increasing economic and political union is enshrined in EU legislation, and the fact that we had to negotiate an 'opt-out' rather suggests that the EU's plan is for such union to go ahead.
    Can you show us where this aim is laid-out, in EU legislation?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    Labelling any facts you don't like as "conspiracy" and "theory" is absurd. The fact of the matter is that the Nazi harmonisation of the Ruhr, incorporating Belgian and N.French steel and coal production was the inspiration for Monnet's European Coal and Steel Community.
    This just such nonsense. Germany believed that it had territorial claims on these areas, stemming from the settlement in the Treaty of Versailles (which the Germans obviously did not like).

    The origins of the ECSC is that, at that time (immediately after the second world war), coal and steel were national security issues, and it was important to see those industries recover and secure investment. Anything else you make of it is just an after the fact conspiracy theory.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    No, I am saying that the Nazis were internationalist…
    You really need a history lesson, or two. The Nazis were a German nationalist movement, born out of dissatisfaction of the territorial losses and reparations imposed on Germany from its defeat in the First World War (encoded in the Treaty of Versailles). Although there were other fascist movements in Europe there were no Nazi offshoots taking control across the continent (I'm sure there were individuals across Europe who had shared ideas about the "Aryan" people).

    The reason the Second World War started was due to Germany making those territorial claims real in invading Northern Czechoslovakia and then Poland. By the time the UK declared war Hitler was well on his way to invading Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg and dodging the Maginot Line into France.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    The AXIS Nazis were Internationalist. They established a 3rd Reich - 3rd Holy Roman Empire - and an EEC involving the Axis powers.
    This is absolute nonsense, this refers to German "empires":

    His empire is not so much state in the sense that term is usually understood: it is the ideal condition, the only way in which the scattered German people can achieve a common purpose and destiny. But he does not look for the limited state, and the Second Reich fashioned by Otto von Bismarck was an imperfect empire. It did not include Austria, which survived on from "our First Empire", side by side with "our Second Empire" Our Second Empire was a Little-German Empire which we must consider only as a stepping stone on our path to a Greater German Empire."
    This concept comes from the 1923 book "Das Dritte Reich", see the article here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Das_Dritte_Reich
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    I'm afraid there is still no burden of prove. It really is your personal expectation. You can't draw a line and make up your own rule, people don't need to proof anything to you. They are fully entitled to keep their opinions to themselves if they want, and vote as they want.
    Then that is not the basis for a debate, which is what you are trying to engage in. You are also claiming that there can be rationality in these decisions, but you're now saying that rationality doesn't matter - no one has to prove anything.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    The Eurogroup has already completed Stage 1 of Union. I see no reason why the 19 Euro states will not complete their political union on schedule in 2025. In many ways submitting the National Budgets to approval by the Eurogroup is the biggest step and this has already been taken.
    It is a simple question: are you honestly saying that you believe that, by 2025, there will be no national governments in the Eurozone and all decisions for those states will be taken in Brussels?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    Nonsense, the OP has plenty of examples.
    You say that posters here contradict themselves. I asked you for examples, you said "go and find them yourself".

    You did not give any examples - you just had an argument with yourself that wasn't very coherent.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    Yeah and you'll notice that the UK also has a larger population than Italy, and that the difference between the population of the UK and Italy is more than twice as great as the difference between the population of France and the UK, yet the UK and Italy have the same number of MEPs. As a matter of general practice, MEP numbers simply aren't tailored to memberstate populations to that degree of precision.
    Your original point was that France had one more MEP than the UK and Italy - I think the point is made out that it is the most under-represented state as far as population and MEPs go. There may be an argument that Italy should have fewer MEPs, and this figure is regularly adjusted. It could be that the adjustment period and data we are using for populations is out of synch.

    Beyond the the minimum (6) and maximum (96) MEPs per state, the allocation is supposed to be "digressively proportional" (whatever that means) to the population of each member state - so there is supposed to be some kind of precision in the calculation.

    Clearly we can't get fractions of an MEP allocation, so there is always going to be some rounding error.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    The most visible is the flag.

    We were told that the removal of the flag as an official EU symbol was the great concession involved in the abandonment of the constitution. Then it was simply brought in unofficially and all the people who trumpeted this "concession" as an example of the EU responding to democracy said it was a silly thing to complain about and anyway the EU needs a flag.
    I'm not sure where you are getting this from. The 12-starred flag dates from the time when there were actually 12 member states (1986). The 12 stars also appear on the coins and bank notes of the eurozone states. I don't see how this can have been an aim of the 2004 Constitution when the symbols obviously pre-date that treaty.

    This article tells how it was first designed in 1955 and adopted by the EEC in 1985:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Europe
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    Are you counting tariffs levied by the UK as a cost here? Surely if the UK imports more than it exports then the UK government will see a gain of several billion if there are mutually imposed tariffs, in addition to the contribution disappering?
    There are few assumptions in your question. The main one is that import/export would remain the same. Another significant assumption is that tariffs would be balanced. Let's say that is the case, and that, magically more money flows into government coffers.

    This seems like a win, doesn't it?

    How about this: if we face tariffs exporting to the EU then UK manufacturers/service providers will find it more difficult to compete. If there are tariffs on imports then importers will have higher costs, and those costs will be passed on to consumers (it doesn't seem likely that UK production of goods will become suddenly cheaper).

    Oh, and of course there is more paperwork, and that costs money too.

    These two entities aren't arms of government, and I think it is unlikely that they are going to get any real benefit from government receiving more in tariffs.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    The 5% figure is incorrect it is actually about 4%, some have even estimated 2.5% but I have been through the tables and 4% is damn near right.
    Whatever way you calculate it it is a lost of money and paperwork. Your EFTA membership plan is just fantasy.

    The WTO has a de minimis subsidy limit of 3% of value so the UK can use import tariffs to pay export tariffs (ie: 3% of value is not considered a subsidy). The WTO also allows emergency measures so the UK can claim that, during the negotiation period for an FTA with the EU it will subsidise all exports tariffs to the EU so that no tariffs are payable by exporters. Its not rocket science.
    Jut like the UK does now with exports to non-EU states? It subsidises the export costs by giving the import tariffs to exporters. Not.
 
 
 
Poll
“Yanny” or “Laurel”
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.