The EU referendum - 23rd June

[piglinbland]

Spot on, the man's a turn-coat and a calamity and the whole in/out campaign is a joke.

 

But whilst we have people of such low caliber at the helm, we should stay in the shelter of the harbour.

[mcfluff1985]

Spot on, the man's a turn-coat and a calamity and the whole in/out campaign is a joke.

 

But whilst we have people of such low caliber at the helm, we should stay in the shelter of the harbour.

Pearl Harbour ?

[SuperSean21]

How do you know it's not working out?

Have a look at Greece, Germany (now), and anything east of Belgium. Then take a look at Norway and Switzerland, the two countries that had the sense not to bother with the EU that are both flourishing.

Then google (or whatever news source you want) Sweden who have taken the left-wing approach and now they're in such a mess that's nigh irreversible.

 

It doesn't work. The Soviet Union was the last iteration that tried it and it became the biggest, yet most introvert and corrupt place on the planet. The EU is the same apart from we're expected to pay for the privilege.

[piglinbland]

Look at the population of Norway and Switzerland - they're tiny. Impossible to establish any meaningful comparison.

 

Goodness knows why the obsession with left-wing-ism, several European countries are teetering on the brink of extreme right wing-ism and when I look around I don't see any reds under the bed or anywhere else. I think that particular bogey-man was from a different era.

 

The last thing I want to see is a Europe full of sovereign, nationalist states, each jostling to garner the largest sphere of influence - European history has more than once shown us where that leads.

[frizzell54]

New Report

 

"BRITAIN would be legally entitled to use existing trade deals worth billions of pounds even if the country voted to leave the European Union in June, according to a new report.

Written by some of the most eminent legal experts in the field, the Lawyers for Britain research discredits claims by Chancellor George Osborne that the UK would find it “very difficult” to renegotiate trade deals with 27 EU members and 50 global trading partners.

The report was yesterday hailed as a game changer by the independent Institute of Economic Affairs think tank.

Director-general Martin Littlewood said: “This nails the lie from the Remain camp that if we were to leave the EU Britain would find itself at ground zero, or year zero.

The report’s author Martin Howe QC, one of Britain’s leading EU experts, who yesterday confirmed that, far from having to abandon the deals, “Britain would have existing trade deals in place” from the first day after Brexit.

Full report here: http://www.lawyersforbritain.org/brexit-trade-treaties.shtml

 

Edited May 29, 2016 by frizzell54

[leeslover]

The EU hardly has any trade deals. Dozens of countries around the world have them with China and India for example. There are too many sectional interests across 28 countries all trying to get a bit of protection or some advantage for the EU to negotiate them.

 

The only trade issue would be if the EU chose to put tariffs up against us in a way that they don't wish any country from Iceland to Turkey

[frizzell54]

 

The only trade issue would be if the EU chose to put tariffs up against us in a way that they don't wish any country from Iceland to Turkey

I refer you to the full report, but I have extracted a number of points.

 

• The baseline of our trade relationship with the remaining EU states would be governed by WTO rules which provide for non-discrimination in tariffs, and outlaw discriminatory non-tariff measures. From this baseline, and as the remaining EU's largest single export market, we would be in a strong position to negotiate a mutually beneficial deal providing for the continued free flow of goods and services in both directions. We will explain what such a deal would look like in a later post.

 

• In practice, trade agreements almost always extend to cover broader subject matter than just tariffs and related matters falling within the scope of the EEC/EU common commercial policy. Where an external agreement contains provisions which extend beyond the scope of the common commercial policy or the EU’s other powers to conclude external agreements in its own name, it is necessary for the Member States as well as the EU to be parties to the agreement. This is called a “mixed” or “shared” competence agreement: where part of the competence to conclude the agreement belongs to the EU, but part of it remains with the Member States.

 

• The upshot of this “mixed competence” scenario is that vis-a-vis other parties, the EC/EU is responsible for compliance with, and entitled to the benefit of, certain aspects of the WTO Agreements; while the Member States individually remain responsible for, and entitled to the benefit of, the remaining aspects. The boundary between EC/EU and Member State competences is not stationary: under the ECJ’s Lugano doctrine, the EU acquires external competence in areas where internal EU harmonisation occurs, and a significant shift in competence took place under the Lisbon Treaty which made the trade-related aspects of intellectual property part of the EU’s commercial policy. While this fluctuating boundary line may be confusing for other WTO members, it is in general accepted by them.
  
  However, the consequence of this after Brexit is straightforward. The EU will cease to have any competence in respect of the UK’s trade or other external relations, and the UK will automatically assume rights and responsibilities in respect of 100% of its relationship with other members under the WTO Agreements. In addition, trade relations between the UK and the remaining EU (“the r-EU”) will cease to be governed by the EU treaties, and will automatically be governed by the framework of the WTO Agreements - unless of course a replacement trade agreement is negotiated between the UK and the r-EU which comes into force on exit.

 

• One of the key principles of the WTO Agreements is non-discrimination in trade relations. This means that WTO members are not allowed, for example, to charge different tariffs on goods imported from different countries except in clearly defined and limited circumstances. Thus, following Brexit and assuming for the sake of argument that no trade agreement were reached between the UK and the r-EU, the r-EU would apply its standard external tariff rates to imports from the UK but would not be allowed to discriminate by charging higher rates to the UK than to other non-EU countries. Similarly, the UK would apply its standard external tariffs to imports from the r-EU.

Edited May 29, 2016 by frizzell54

[frizzell54]

177 REASONS FOR EU BREXIT

 

https://hat4uk.wordpress.com/100-reasons-for-eu-brexit/

 

 

 

[piglinbland]

 

New Report

 

"BRITAIN would be legally entitled to use existing trade deals worth billions of pounds even if the country voted to leave the European Union in June, according to a new report.

Written by some of the most eminent legal experts in the field, the Lawyers for Britain research discredits claims by Chancellor George Osborne that the UK would find it “very difficult” to renegotiate trade deals with 27 EU members and 50 global trading partners.

The report was yesterday hailed as a game changer by the independent Institute of Economic Affairs think tank.

Director-general Martin Littlewood said: “This nails the lie from the Remain camp that if we were to leave the EU Britain would find itself at ground zero, or year zero.

The report’s author Martin Howe QC, one of Britain’s leading EU experts, who yesterday confirmed that, far from having to abandon the deals, “Britain would have existing trade deals in place” from the first day after Brexit.

Full report here: http://www.lawyersforbritain.org/brexit-trade-treaties.shtml

 

 

 

Regardless of the nature of trade-treaties, customs regulations apply to and supercede all of them.

 

EU customs regulations are the same for each and every EU member state. Customs law is the only EU directive NOT tailor-made for each recipient country. The text is unique and applies to everyone, although it's interpretation may differ;

 

- Goods entering the EU (which would include from the UK in the case of an exit) pay VAT of between 6 and 20% depending on their nature, customs fees and, last but certainly not least, holding/storage charges which are dependent to the number of days until paperwork is complete and custom's clearance is accorded.

 

- Goods exiting the EU (towards the UK in the case of an exit) must comply with customs conditions and in the case of failure to do so will be seized and liable to a daily storage charge until such time as deemed to comply. All goods must have a bill of receipt and each shipper must supply information including weight, age and provenance of shipments. All shippers must adhere to a central register and possess an EORI number (Economic Operators Registration and Identification).

All extra costs, including the paperwork costs (or shipping clerks fees) are passed on to the customer and the same applies to the cost of processing goods on arrival to the UK.

 

NONE OF THIS APPLIES AT PRESENT.

Edited May 30, 2016 by piglinbland

[leeslover]

So you are saying that the EU is an arsehole of bureaucracy? Agreed. Iceland doesn't have to do that stuff though. And BMW don't want to do that stuff to sell cars to us. It's really going to be OK.

[piglinbland]

Ha! I'm sure BMW will be OK, it's the small operators that are going to be stuffed. Aren't they always?

[piglinbland]

The frontier bureaucracy is in part instigated by the U.S.A.

 

After the twin towers, America, in a knee-jerk reaction, initially decreed that she would only trade with European countries who had a U.S. customs agent in the field, physically overseeing matters. Eventually, a diluted form was thrashed out, given the impracticalities of this original proposal. The result was EORI (Economic Operators Registration and Identification) which, since 2009, has been perhaps the most time consuming and frustrating hurdle when exporting from the EU.

 

It's important to stress the dilemma facing those who would wish for hermetically sealed borders AND simplified commerce for Britain (main arguments for a 'Brexit'). The two are contradictory and it would be difficult to have one without compromising the other.

Edited May 30, 2016 by piglinbland

[frizzell54]

 

(main arguments for a 'Brexit').

 

No, it is about self-determination.

[al_bro]

Sane people on both sides agree that the economy will settle down and there will be no difference whether we are in or out. It will be the same with trade. The only thing that will be different if we vote to leave, is that we make our own laws, and control who comes into the country.

Edited May 31, 2016 by al_bro

[piglinbland]

Sane people on both sides agree that the economy will settle down and there will be no difference whether we are in or out. It will be the same with trade. The only thing that will be different if we vote to leave, is that we make our own laws, and control who comes into the country.

 

The only certitude would be uncertainty in the case of an exit.

 

"Sane" people know that it would be an enormous leap into the unknown because the dynamics of economy adhere to the same mathematical principles as the dynamics of nature - tiny inputs have huge consequences, the so called 'butterfly effect'.

 

Small changes of the order of 1% in mean temperature and sea level wreak havoc with our climate and the same applies to commerce.

[leeslover]

 

The only certitude would be uncertainty in the case of an exit.

 

"Sane" people know that it would be an enormous leap into the unknown because the dynamics of economy adhere to the same mathematical principles as the dynamics of nature - tiny inputs have huge consequences, the so called 'butterfly effect'.

 

Small changes of the order of 1% in mean temperature and sea level wreak havoc with our climate and the same applies to commerce.

Actually, flexible systems cope with and even benefit from changes. Centralised top down systems can't adapt to them and suffer and decline. Stop clinging on to Nurse.

[frizzell54]

 

 

Small changes of the order of 1% in mean temperature and sea level wreak havoc with our climate and the same applies to commerce.

 

 

Don't tell me you believe in man-made global warming as well.

[piglinbland]

Not "believe". Understand.

 

I don't want to get into a spat about it, but to refute anthropic climate change is to refute science itself.

 

In any case, the real debate was over 20 years ago.

[frizzell54]

 

Not "believe". Understand.

 

I don't want to get into a spat about it, but to refute anthropic climate change is to refute science itself.

 

In any case, the real debate was over 20 years ago.

‘Understanding’ the concept of anthropic climate change is very easy. Indeed, this is its attraction to those who only require simplistic and convenient answers and the politicos who would choose it as a tool of control.

There has been no meaningful ‘debate’ owing to the sceptics (swivel eyed loonies) being pursued with almost religious fervour; the believers ‘refuting all science’ that contradicts or diminishes their theory.

As for the ‘real debate being over 20 years ago’ I think not.

The main part of the problem lies in the two groups using different definitions of how global warming appears in the climate. This is one of the reasons that those advocating that global warming is real now use the term “climate change,” since it is more reflective of the real issue. The other problem lies in proof, and in studies that try to prove whether or not global warming is real. Contrary to public belief, the results of all scientific studies aren’t conclusive.

To be considered proof of a hypothesis, the studies have to be able to be replicated by others and produce the same results. With the global warming studies, analysis of decades of weather data is often used. The first problem is that weather data from 100 years ago wasn’t kept to modern standards of evidence. The second problem is that analysis is interpretation; you can really put any spin on it. This is why some of the arguments for and against whether global warming is real can use the same data and come to different conclusions.

[piglinbland]

Agree about the interpretation of data,

 

I acknowledge too that scientific method simply cannot prove empirically the "real-ness" of anthropic climate change or otherwise - since it is a unique occurrence that has never happened before and therefore there is no experimental "control" to compare with. However, given that (barring meteorite impacts and volcanic eruption) climatic change is measured over tens of thousands of years, and given that our planet is approximately 4.5 billion years old, common sense tells us that data showing extremely rapid change that correlates perfectly (and 200 years is but a nano-second of our planets existence) with the industrial revolution and the sequestration of billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere is the clue to the real cause.

 

But - the complexity of the natural world and more specifically fluid dynamics means that it's impossible to accurately model or predict the eventual route our climate will take. Nor will we ever know what the climate would have done had mankind never crawled out of the slime. This fundament of non-linear calculus that means a Brexit would be a leap into the unknown.

 

There are a number of very eminent scientists who don't believe in anthropic climate change. But, by and large, the general scientific community unanimously do. If there is a rearguard action being fought it is telling that it is by and large relegated to obscure football forums and other corners of the internet. I think most of the discord is actually more to do with disagreement about the politics of climate.

[opinions4u]

Scientists believed in the flat earth, the four elements, immovable continents and the static universe.

 

Now, back to the EU ...

[al_bro]

 

The only certitude would be uncertainty in the case of an exit.

 

"Sane" people know that it would be an enormous leap into the unknown because the dynamics of economy adhere to the same mathematical principles as the dynamics of nature - tiny inputs have huge consequences, the so called 'butterfly effect'.

 

Small changes of the order of 1% in mean temperature and sea level wreak havoc with our climate and the same applies to commerce.

What about the uncertainties of staying in.

 

How much will our contribution be increased by? New countries joining will not be paying in. They will be taking out.

 

At present there are 9 countries outside the disastrous Euro. 7 of them have recently signed an agreement to join. Leaving us and I think Denmark the only countries outside it. We will not be able to veto any decisions the Eurozone make, which directly affect us because Cameron gave it away in his reforming (ha ha) negotiations.

 

How many more Europeans will come here to work?

 

What are all the directives being stored up by the Commission, so as not to tempt us to leave before the referendum. eg. Lowering the power of nearly all kitchen appliances. Just like they did with the pathetically dull, and expensive light bulbs we now have to endure.

[frizzell54]

More factual reasons to Brexit:

#1: Jean-Claude Juncker, unelected and inebriate President of the EC, wants more money to be stumped up for stimulation of the euro economy. Britain is not in the euro, yet somehow it has managed to become the biggest contributor, with €8.5 billion euros shovelled out of our budgets. Nobody seems to know what J-C Drunker did with the money, but now he wants more…to include use outside the EU.

He knows not what he is at, and Britain is powerless to say no.

#2: Italy has had its deficit control crime ‘waived’. I’m sure that’s going to help a great deal: clearly, we are saved.

#3: The French ministry of Tourism has confirmed that all visitor targets for the industry will be missed. An open-ended rail strike is under way in France, with many services cancelled – part of the ongoing series of strikes to protest Troika-hatched labour ‘reforms’. Did anyone notice Jeremy Corbyn expressing solidarity? Thought not. The country is also in the grip of Air and oil delivery strikes.

Juncker is not accountable, Italy is unsalvageable, and the austerity programme is suicidal. The EU is not going to protect labour rights, it is going to crush them.

Edited June 1, 2016 by frizzell54

[piglinbland]

21 pages in and still no exit plan.

 

Regardless of how messed up Europe is today, we're going to need more than sellotape, WD40 and good old British spunk to affront the upheavals of an exit.

 

Banking, the odd race-car and Buckingham Palace aside, Britain is hardly asset rich. The irony of course is that should we exit, all the daily niggles we so conveniently blame on Brussels will remain, but many of the fundamentals that we take for granted will begin to disappear.

[leeslover]

21 pages in and still no exit plan.

 

Regardless of how messed up Europe is today, we're going to need more than sellotape, WD40 and good old British spunk to affront the upheavals of an exit.

 

Banking, the odd race-car and Buckingham Palace aside, Britain is hardly asset rich. The irony of course is that should we exit, all the daily niggles we so conveniently blame on Brussels will remain, but many of the fundamentals that we take for granted will begin to disappear.

What upheavals?