• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics

SpurMeUp said:
Apparently it’s time to make a decision: do we want the UK in or out of the EU Customs Union?

What would you choose?
Click to expand...

It would be the worst of all scenarios. The extreme vassal state situation


Staying inside the EU Customs Union after ceasing to be a Member State would necessarily entail a severe and continuing curtailment of the UK’s powers to govern itself as an independent state and would subject it to the continuing effective jurisdiction of the ECJ. In particular:

1. The UK would be obliged to operate a system of external tariffs according to the Common Customs Tariff decided by the EU, and would be obliged to follow future changes made to the Common Tariff, while not having a vote on those changes.

2. The UK would not be allowed to enter in to trade agreements involving reduced or zero tariffs with non-Member countries, which would make it in practice impossible to conclude meaningful trade agreements. It would in practice be obliged to follow the terms of trade agreements reached by the EU with non-Member countries or blocs, without having a vote on those agreements or on how they are negotiated. It is hard to see what useful purpose would be served by having a Department of International Trade.

3. The UK would be obliged, either directly or via an indirect mechanism similar to that of the EFTA Court under the EEA Agreement, to continue to be bound by past and future decisions of the ECJ on the interpretation of the common rules of the customs union.

4. If (as seems inevitable) the continuing customs union with the EU extends to non-tariff customs controls (such as certification of compliance with technical or safety standards, health requirements for food, etc) the UK would be obliged to follow the EU’s future rule changes on all these matters as well as interpretations of the rules by the ECJ.

5. The UK would have to apply these same rules and regulations across its own domestic economy as well. WTO rules do not permit us to operate different or more stringent standards on imported goods than the rules under which we allow goods to be put on our domestic market.

5. Having to follow the EU’s common rules on such non-tariff customs controls would (1) mean that the UK would be unable to negotiate changes to such controls with non-Member countries in order to facilitate trade with them and (2) make it in practice very difficult indeed for the UK to change its own rules for goods in its domestic market to differ from those applicable to imported goods under the Customs union common rules.

6. Overall, the UK would be significantly worse off than it is at present as an EU Member because it would be bound by the common rules of the EU customs union over wide areas of policy, be unable to operate an international trade policy independently of the EU, but have no vote on these matters.

http://www.lawyersforbritain.org/eu-deal-customs-union.shtml
 
Despite all that we’d maintain trade. Hard Brexit means we would be poorer. Less money for hospitals, less jobs, losing a lot of financial and other services.

Whereas things like a court in Brussels is not such a big deal, someone has to arbitrate on trade disputes. If not the ECJ then who, and how would they be better?

I agree soft Brexit is pointless, yet it’s less damaging than a hard exit.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
 
SpurMeUp said:
Despite all that we’d maintain trade. Hard Brexit means we would be poorer. Less money for hospitals, less jobs, losing a lot of financial and other services.

Whereas things like a court in Brussels is not such a big deal, someone has to arbitrate on trade disputes. If not the ECJ then who, and how would they be better?

I agree soft Brexit is pointless, yet it’s less damaging than a hard exit.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
Click to expand...

Trade would still go on. There'd just be slightly more tariffs with 15% of the world and less tariffs with 85% of the world.

Changes to public finances are miniscule compared to what fair taxes on corporations and the rich could effect

Canada and the EU set up ad hoc arbitration system called ISDS (https://euobserver.com/economic/132502). Continuing using the ECJ would be like playing football matches always using one side's own referee
 
Gutter Boy said:
Trade would still go on. There'd just be slightly more tariffs with 15% of the world and less tariffs with 85% of the world.

Changes to public finances are miniscule compared to what fair taxes on corporations and the rich could effect

Canada and the EU set up ad hoc arbitration system called ISDS (https://euobserver.com/economic/132502). Continuing using the ECJ would be like playing football matches always using one side's own referee
Click to expand...

1) The only real way to increase the tax take on corporations is as part of a larger trade bloc, which can act effectively on abuses of transfer pricing and jurisdictional arbitrage. The EU - slowly, admittedly - is looking at just this. There's no way that the UK can achieve anything of the sort, or have an effective voice in discussions with international peers, as a lone voice. And anyway, if the likes of Rees Mogg and Legatum had their way, the UK would become a tax haven for corporations, deliberately marketing itself on the basis of lax regulation.

2) As the discussion is about hard versus soft brexit, the trade off to consider is between the ECJ, and use of the EFTA court. The latter is gagging for the UK to join and has offered us two judges, meaning that effectively we could be EEA members under EFTA terms and own the court that makes the rules.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DTA
scaramanga said:
Out. Unless the EU wants to stop being ridiculous and allows us to trade with other countries and stop paying benefits to EU citizens.
Click to expand...

Do you worry that over 80% of the UK economy is service based, and none of these service companies could easily work for EU based clients? Or that the UKs financial services would likely relocate a significant amount of business into the EU? Or that all the car manufacturing, and the supply chain businesses across the UK, would likely close with many out of a job? Exporting cars to the EU with 10% tariffs would destroy most factories overnight. Or the likely reductions in government revenue from losing these enterprises and taxation, affecting everything the government spends money on from roads to schools? The chancellor is already being squeezed when the rest of the world was finally getting over the credit crunch. Talking about 'stopping being ridiculous'...Are you only into hard Brexit because soft Brexit is no Brexit at all?

After the pain, cuts to services, slow growth, we get back what? A tiny tiny uplift in non-EU trade? A warm sovereign feeling as I walk down the street with less money, the economy struggling to adapt, as it misses free access to the worlds largest trading block on our doorstep?
 
Last edited:
SpurMeUp said:
Do you worry that over 80% of the UK economy is service based, and none of these service companies could easily work for EU based clients? Or that the UKs financial services would likely relocate a significant amount of business into the EU? Or that all the car manufacturing, and the supply chain businesses across the UK, would likely close with many out of a job? Exporting cars to the EU with 10% tariffs would destroy most factories overnight. Or the likely reductions in government revenue from losing these enterprises and taxation, affecting everything the government spends money on from roads to schools? The chancellor is already being squeezed when the rest of the world was finally getting over the credit crunch. Talking about 'stopping being ridiculous'...Are you only into hard Brexit because soft Brexit is no Brexit at all?

After the pain, cuts to services, slow growth, we get back what? A tiny tiny uplift in non-EU trade? A warm sovereign feeling as I walk down the street with less money, the economy struggling to adapt, as it misses free access to the worlds largest trading block on our doorstep?
Click to expand...
I don't worry about any of those things and I've specified precisely why (with figures) over a number of posts on this thread already.

You didn't choose to address those points then, and until it unless you do, you're unlikely to understand this side of the argument.

To add to those numbers, yesterday I worked out that benefits paid to EU immigrants (in and out of work) amounted to £6Bn in 2014 and is on an upward trend. That's another £6Bn to add to the coffers once we leave the protection racket.
 
scaramanga said:
I don't worry about any of those things and I've specified precisely why (with figures) over a number of posts on this thread already.

You didn't choose to address those points then, and until it unless you do, you're unlikely to understand this side of the argument.

To add to those numbers, yesterday I worked out that benefits paid to EU immigrants (in and out of work) amounted to £6Bn in 2014 and is on an upward trend. That's another £6Bn to add to the coffers once we leave the protection racket.
Click to expand...
I thought most calculations showed a bigger tax contribution vs benefits paid, unless you think we will keep EU workers in the country and not give them any benefits (I believe this was the goal for a lot of richer leavers), then the take would go down not up.
 
r-u-s-x said:
I thought most calculations showed a bigger tax contribution vs benefits paid, unless you think we will keep EU workers in the country and not give them any benefits (I believe this was the goal for a lot of richer leavers), then the take would go down not up.
Click to expand...
I think we will keep the same number immigrant workers without paying benefits. Whether they're from the EU or not means nothing to me. So we will keep the receipts without having to pay.

The calculations are something like £10-20Bn of receipts for £6Bn of payments depending on who you believe - I can't find a completely neutral sauce anywhere.
 
scaramanga said:
I think we will keep the same number immigrant workers without paying benefits. Whether they're from the EU or not means nothing to me. So we will keep the receipts without having to pay.

The calculations are something like £10-20Bn of receipts for £6Bn of payments depending on who you believe - I can't find a completely neutral sauce anywhere.
Click to expand...
Fair enough I always thought that was the end game for the influential people pushing brexit...Will mean our working poor will be worse off though as it's bound to stagnate wages and probably more immigration as businesses will push for more cheap labour to compete.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DTA
r-u-s-x said:
Fair enough I always thought that was the end game for the influential people pushing brexit...Will mean our working poor will be worse off though as it's bound to stagnate wages and probably more immigration as businesses will push for more cheap labour to compete.
Click to expand...
Seeing as the government insists on keeping to their minimum wage plans, I'd say the working 'poor' will be fairly well off.

The unskilled will be a lot better off than I was when I left uni with a degree.
 
scaramanga said:
I think we will keep the same number immigrant workers without paying benefits. Whether they're from the EU or not means nothing to me. So we will keep the receipts without having to pay.

The calculations are something like £10-20Bn of receipts for £6Bn of payments depending on who you believe - I can't find a completely neutral sauce anywhere.
Click to expand...

Are you referring to your back of an envelope calculations on trade tariffs, and using the savings in contributions to subsidise the UK export industry with the savings?

Correct if I’m wrong but you haven’t factored in the costs of import tariffs on the UK and presume the UK will have zero tariffs on imports. This would never be the case. We would cease to make things ourselves and would import everything. We wouldn’t have farms anymore, and would be dependent on other countries for our food. Moreover wasn’t the saved EU contribution money earmarked for the NHS?

All other credible economic models show a significant drop in economic activity as a result of impaired trade with the EU. The loss of tax revenue from UK trade stagnating would likely more than cancel out the EU contributions savings - meaning there would not be a surplus to prop up failing car manufacturers who’d longer term move into the EU.

From a Thatcherite, you don’t see the irony of suggesting state subsidies to prop up failing businesses?

Your arguments and calculations on immigration are interesting. Will then stand up to scrutiny?


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
 
  • Like
Reactions: DTA
scaramanga said:
Seeing as the government insists on keeping to their minimum wage plans, I'd say the working 'poor' will be fairly well off.

The unskilled will be a lot better off than I was when I left uni with a degree.
Click to expand...
Do you want a proper conversation or just dogma? Minimum wage is brick, I am guessing you are a graduate of the 90s , unskilled could buy a house fairly easily back then or get a decent council house. No chance now.
 
r-u-s-x said:
Do you want a proper conversation or just dogma? Minimum wage is brick, I am guessing you are a graduate of the 90s , unskilled could buy a house fairly easily back then or get a decent council house. No chance now.
Click to expand...
I wasn't able to buy a flat until I'd been working a few years in a highly skilled job - and even then it needed my wife to get a key worker equity loan to make up the rest of our deposit.

I don't expect unskilled workers to be able to buy houses (except under a right to buy scheme). Neither do I expect them to be better off now than when I graduated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back