Re: What now for the UK? : Fri Dec 09, 2011 3:20 pm  

Anakin Skywalker wrote:

Somewhat yes.
But from what I can gather it would have been used to prop up the Euro.

From what I gather tax raised in the Euro zone would go to the Eurozone, tax raised in UK would go to UK Exchequer.
The UK is not joining the fiscal union.

Re: What now for the UK? : Fri Dec 09, 2011 3:21 pm  

Anakin Skywalker wrote: How has he? Any change to our version of the EU treaty requires a referendum that is on the statute books. We all know what the outcome of that will be. That is why successive governments have been so reluctant to call one. Oh and BTW last time I checked Switzerland wasn't in the EU and they have a higher percentage of their GDP being exports than we do. Over half of our trade goes with Europe, if they make laws we will have to fall in line with them otherwise we will not be allowed to sell our goods and services there as we will be breaking their laws but they wont be breaking our law. Lets take an hypothetical example of a European rule being enacted limiting a mortgage to 3 times the salary of the people taking out the mortgage and requiring a 10% deposit. Britain lets say has not signed up to this rule and says the free market should decide. The other Europeans could therefore make it an offence for any banks with branches within the signatory countries from offering lets say 100% mortgages, even if those mortgages are only being sold in the UK. The effect would then be that the big banks would then need to decide do they only trade in the UK market, and be able to continue to offer 100% mortgages, or do they trade across Europe and have restrictions placed upon them. At this moment in time there is an example of a European treaty that Britain hasnt signed upto having an influence on the UK, and that is the Shengen agreement. Check out the Lille Loophole which makes our border checks completely redundant. http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/lille_l ... _1_1999897

Anakin Skywalker wrote: How has he? Any change to our version of the EU treaty requires a referendum that is on the statute books. We all know what the outcome of that will be. That is why successive governments have been so reluctant to call one. Oh and BTW last time I checked Switzerland wasn't in the EU and they have a higher percentage of their GDP being exports than we do. Over half of our trade goes with Europe, if they make laws we will have to fall in line with them otherwise we will not be allowed to sell our goods and services there as we will be breaking their laws but they wont be breaking our law. Lets take an hypothetical example of a European rule being enacted limiting a mortgage to 3 times the salary of the people taking out the mortgage and requiring a 10% deposit. Britain lets say has not signed up to this rule and says the free market should decide. The other Europeans could therefore make it an offence for any banks with branches within the signatory countries from offering lets say 100% mortgages, even if those mortgages are only being sold in the UK. The effect would then be that the big banks would then need to decide do they only trade in the UK market, and be able to continue to offer 100% mortgages, or do they trade across Europe and have restrictions placed upon them. At this moment in time there is an example of a European treaty that Britain hasnt signed upto having an influence on the UK, and that is the Shengen agreement. Check out the Lille Loophole which makes our border checks completely redundant. http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/lille_l ... _1_1999897

Re: What now for the UK? : Fri Dec 09, 2011 3:35 pm  

If the banks and traders will all go "elsewhere", is this "elsewhere" the same "elsewhere" that all the top execs of footsie 100 companies will go to, if we don't continue letting them pay themselves what they want?

And if the banks do go "elsewhere", they'd better make sure they don't go to Hong Kong, Mombai, Johannesburg or any number of other financial centres where they already have a transaction tax.

Re: What now for the UK? : Fri Dec 09, 2011 3:39 pm  

Mintball wrote: That includes us. Then again, there's the little case of Goldman Sachs managing to pass the accounts of Greece so that it could enter the euro on a false basis. And the fact that the EU effectively enshrines neo-liberalism. And the other – and not remotely unrelated – fact that Merkel and Sarkozy were certainly looking at applying rules that would, in effect, ban Keynesian economic solutions. And the other point that without any (as far as I know) political interference from the UK on this score, countries are now putting unelected bankers in charge. The EU's increasing liberalism, i wouldnt call it neo, certainly not in the American sense of the term, has been designed to open up traditionally nationalistic markets to fair trade. It is however i agree having some unwelcome consequences. For example the NHS is seen by some in Europe as a state run monopoly that is hindering competition within the European medical services industry. Hence the pressure to privatise the NHS http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analy ... vatisation The imposition of unelected commissioners to run Italy and Greece is of great concern to me. Its another reason why we need Britain as part of Europe rather than sitting on the sidelines. An influential Britain should be pushing for the democratisation of Europe, the UK unlike most of Europe has a long standing tradition of free speech. When you consider that in the last 100 years Germany, Greece, Spain, Italy and all the former Eastern block states, have been under dictatorial rule, you do worry about how this affects national attitudes to understanding freedom, and democratically accountable public bodies.

Mintball wrote: That includes us. Then again, there's the little case of Goldman Sachs managing to pass the accounts of Greece so that it could enter the euro on a false basis. And the fact that the EU effectively enshrines neo-liberalism. And the other – and not remotely unrelated – fact that Merkel and Sarkozy were certainly looking at applying rules that would, in effect, ban Keynesian economic solutions. And the other point that without any (as far as I know) political interference from the UK on this score, countries are now putting unelected bankers in charge. The EU's increasing liberalism, i wouldnt call it neo, certainly not in the American sense of the term, has been designed to open up traditionally nationalistic markets to fair trade. It is however i agree having some unwelcome consequences. For example the NHS is seen by some in Europe as a state run monopoly that is hindering competition within the European medical services industry. Hence the pressure to privatise the NHS http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analy ... vatisation The imposition of unelected commissioners to run Italy and Greece is of great concern to me. Its another reason why we need Britain as part of Europe rather than sitting on the sidelines. An influential Britain should be pushing for the democratisation of Europe, the UK unlike most of Europe has a long standing tradition of free speech. When you consider that in the last 100 years Germany, Greece, Spain, Italy and all the former Eastern block states, have been under dictatorial rule, you do worry about how this affects national attitudes to understanding freedom, and democratically accountable public bodies.

Re: What now for the UK? : Fri Dec 09, 2011 3:44 pm  

The Chair Maker wrote: Lets take an hypothetical example of a European rule being enacted ... The other Europeans could therefore make it an offence ... 1. We are still a member of the EU last I heard 2. They don't make anything an offence (not that given half a chance they wouldn't like to e.g. and, given the insidious creep into all areas of control, undoubtedly if not checked, eventually will)

The Chair Maker wrote: Lets take an hypothetical example of a European rule being enacted ... The other Europeans could therefore make it an offence ... 1. We are still a member of the EU last I heard 2. They don't make anything an offence (not that given half a chance they wouldn't like to e.g. and, given the insidious creep into all areas of control, undoubtedly if not checked, eventually will)

Re: What now for the UK? : Fri Dec 09, 2011 3:48 pm  

The Chair Maker wrote: Over half of our trade goes with Europe, if they make laws we will have to fall in line with them otherwise we will not be allowed to sell our goods and services there as we will be breaking their laws but they wont be breaking our law. And if I have a vagina I would be a woman. The Chair Maker wrote: Lets take an hypothetical example of a European rule being enacted limiting a mortgage to 3 times the salary of the people taking out the mortgage and requiring a 10% deposit. Britain lets say has not signed up to this rule and says the free market should decide. The other Europeans could therefore make it an offence for any banks with branches within the signatory countries from offering lets say 100% mortgages, even if those mortgages are only being sold in the UK. The effect would then be that the big banks would then need to decide do they only trade in the UK market, and be able to continue to offer 100% mortgages, or do they trade across Europe and have restrictions placed upon them. If my wife had a penis she would be a man. The Chair Maker wrote: At this moment in time there is an example of a European treaty that Britain hasnt signed upto having an influence on the UK, and that is the Shengen agreement. Check out the Lille Loophole which makes our border checks completely redundant. http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/lille_l ... _1_1999897 Is that it? France have an agreement with Belguim. I wouldn't call it a loophole I would say it is someone not doing their job. Still rather pointless in this discussion but hey,ho. BTW Switzerland are not in the EU at all, they do have agreements with the EU that allow them trade agreements whilst keeping themselves soverign. You don't have to be in the EU to trade and have agreements with them. So this line that you have to be in the EU to trade with the EU is infact not true at all.

The Chair Maker wrote: Over half of our trade goes with Europe, if they make laws we will have to fall in line with them otherwise we will not be allowed to sell our goods and services there as we will be breaking their laws but they wont be breaking our law. And if I have a vagina I would be a woman. The Chair Maker wrote: Lets take an hypothetical example of a European rule being enacted limiting a mortgage to 3 times the salary of the people taking out the mortgage and requiring a 10% deposit. Britain lets say has not signed up to this rule and says the free market should decide. The other Europeans could therefore make it an offence for any banks with branches within the signatory countries from offering lets say 100% mortgages, even if those mortgages are only being sold in the UK. The effect would then be that the big banks would then need to decide do they only trade in the UK market, and be able to continue to offer 100% mortgages, or do they trade across Europe and have restrictions placed upon them. If my wife had a penis she would be a man. The Chair Maker wrote: At this moment in time there is an example of a European treaty that Britain hasnt signed upto having an influence on the UK, and that is the Shengen agreement. Check out the Lille Loophole which makes our border checks completely redundant. http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/lille_l ... _1_1999897 Is that it? France have an agreement with Belguim. I wouldn't call it a loophole I would say it is someone not doing their job. Still rather pointless in this discussion but hey,ho. BTW Switzerland are not in the EU at all, they do have agreements with the EU that allow them trade agreements whilst keeping themselves soverign. You don't have to be in the EU to trade and have agreements with them. So this line that you have to be in the EU to trade with the EU is infact not true at all.

Re: What now for the UK? : Fri Dec 09, 2011 3:48 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

If the banks and traders will all go "elsewhere", is this "elsewhere" the same "elsewhere" that all the top execs of footsie 100 companies will go to, if we don't continue letting them pay themselves what they want?

And if the banks do go "elsewhere", they'd better make sure they don't go to Hong Kong, Mombai, Johannesburg or any number of other financial centres where they already have a transaction tax.

So hang on a minute your saying that that bastion of the free market Hong Kong has a financial transaction tax and hasnt fallen into the sea.
Surely it should have collapsed now into poverty with millions left without jobs as banks fled their guilded Skyscrapers, and moved on masse to the unregulated UK

I see that Hong kongs economy is growing at over 7% despite this tax, and unemployment is only at 4%.
it also has public debt of just 0.001% of GDP

Re: What now for the UK? : Fri Dec 09, 2011 4:03 pm  

The funniest part are the proposals for all countries' budgets to have to be submitted, approved or rejected by an organisation which is so systematically corrupt and financially inept that auditors have refused to sign off its own accounts for SIXTEEN YEARS on the spin, reckoning that 5% of the budget (and therefore several billion pounds) was mis-spent.

And yet, despite having the books comprehensively rejected since well into the last century, the EU simply fookin ignores the fact, and carries on regardless. Nobody has ever explained how or why that can be.

Yes, just the sort of people to tell us how to write our budget.

Re: What now for the UK? : Fri Dec 09, 2011 4:09 pm  

Anakin Skywalker wrote: BTW Switzerland are not in the EU at all, they do have agreements with the EU that allow them trade agreements whilst keeping themselves soverign. You don't have to be in the EU to trade and have agreements with them. So this line that you have to be in the EU to trade with the EU is infact not true at all. The Swiss do have agreements with the EU. Here they are http://www.europa.admin.ch/themen/00500 ... ml?lang=en and here is a blog that explains how the Swiss are effectively forced to adopt EU laws http://citizen-europe.blogspot.com/2009 ... heads.html They are therefore a sovereign state in name only

Anakin Skywalker wrote: BTW Switzerland are not in the EU at all, they do have agreements with the EU that allow them trade agreements whilst keeping themselves soverign. You don't have to be in the EU to trade and have agreements with them. So this line that you have to be in the EU to trade with the EU is infact not true at all. The Swiss do have agreements with the EU. Here they are http://www.europa.admin.ch/themen/00500 ... ml?lang=en and here is a blog that explains how the Swiss are effectively forced to adopt EU laws http://citizen-europe.blogspot.com/2009 ... heads.html They are therefore a sovereign state in name only

Re: What now for the UK? : Fri Dec 09, 2011 4:17 pm  

The Chair Maker wrote: The Swiss do have agreements with the EU. Here they are http://www.europa.admin.ch/themen/00500 ... ml?lang=en and here is a blog that explains how the Swiss are effectively forced to adopt EU laws http://citizen-europe.blogspot.com/2009 ... heads.html They are therefore a sovereign state in name only They are tiny in comparrison to us (6th biggest world economy ATM), we are not surrounded by EU countries. Either way my point is that you CAN trade with the EU whilst outside the EU. You can trade with the EU whilst not giving them millions of £££'s a week only for them to blow it on god knows what as FA states above.

The Chair Maker wrote: The Swiss do have agreements with the EU. Here they are http://www.europa.admin.ch/themen/00500 ... ml?lang=en and here is a blog that explains how the Swiss are effectively forced to adopt EU laws http://citizen-europe.blogspot.com/2009 ... heads.html They are therefore a sovereign state in name only They are tiny in comparrison to us (6th biggest world economy ATM), we are not surrounded by EU countries. Either way my point is that you CAN trade with the EU whilst outside the EU. You can trade with the EU whilst not giving them millions of £££'s a week only for them to blow it on god knows what as FA states above.