EU referendum

[Gareth Barry Conlon]

We do not HAVE TO except anything, least of all free movement to trade with anyone.

The scare stories of tariffs is a nonsense for all the reasons put over the last 676 pages, but lets play their silly game and accept there will be tariffs and look at what "Might" happen.
We run a deficit of roughly 2-1 with the EU, they load their goods with tariffs an we do the same to the point where our sales to Europe drop 50% and theirs do the same, that helps our economy by reducing our deficit and increasing the government income via the tariff income.
Lets also remember that the EU ( Or more to the point Germany) sells to us in the mainly high end goods market and not the necessities, so using the remainians logic they will pay a far higher rate of tariff than we will on what we sell.

Yes it will be offset by the lose of tax income on profits of those companies who trade in the EU, but then a government with a free hand can give tax breaks and incentives to mitigate that and encourage world trade, which as we know from the last 676 pages is growing while trade with the EU is in decline anyway.

That is not how Tarrifs work. Tariffs kill of trade as they add a dead cost to a transaction. It only helps us if we can trade internally to take up the slack but the reality is that the vast majority of our economy is service based where as we import tangible things like natural resources and plant / machinery. The EU would be free to promote their own service industry and could apply tariffs to the things that we are reliant on - like imported gas. Whilst that sort of direct action is unlikely we would be in a hugely vulnerable position on trade - something the little englanders are in total denial about.

 

[grunge]

Not sure if it's posted as have week signal. Out campaign proven to be lieing.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...mpaign-over-350m-a-week-eu-cost-a7051756.html

 

[Chippy_boy]

It doesn't matter if they are selling one expensive item (a BMW) or a million components. The tax paid will be on the overall value. If we import more than we export, we lose out, full stop.
If I play brinksmanship and double the cost of my UK goods, and they double their cost in return, we lose out. In fact, we lose out even more through tariff brinksmanship because:

Original exports = £1.00 (for simplicity sake)
Original imports = £2.00

Tariff War exports = £2.00 (we've doubled our price to teach them a lesson!)
Tariff War imports = £4.00 (oh shit, they've doubled theirs!)

So instead of being £1.00 worse off, we're £2.00 worse off.

I think blueonblue's post was tripe but I am loathed to say I think that's not right. In your example, the Tarif War Imports £4.00 includes £2.00 that goes to the UK's exchequer. If we halved our export and our halved our imports, it would narrow our trade deficit.

Of course that wouldn't help the fact that half the UK's manufacturers would be out of business.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Yep there are labour voters voting for a rabid right wing Tory administration in conjunction with Rupert and Nige, the loss of their jobs, homes, communities, the privatisation of the NHS et al . All because they don't like immigrants.

Hey, thats democracy in action (brought to you in conjunction with our foreign owned far right press)

In a nutshell.

If ever the expression "be careful what you wish for" was appropriate, it sure as hell is now.

 

[Pino]

The annual three-day Bilderberg conference kicks off on Thursday, and you can be sure the mood in Dresden will be a grim one. The heads of Google, Shell, BP and Deutsche Bank will be there, and Brexit will be top of the agenda. The Bilderberg Group has been nurturing the EU to life since the 1950s, and now they see their creation under dire threat.

“A disaster for everyone” is how Henri de Castries, the boss of AXA and a director of HSBC, describes Brexit. But in particular, it is a disaster for his banking and big business colleagues at Bilderberg. Thomas Enders, the CEO of Airbus, who sits on Bilderberg’s steering committee – the group’s governing body – said, in a recent interview with CNBC, that his industry would be “lobbying” against Brexit.

Enders said: “Long-term it would not be positive certainly for the industry. This why the aerospace industry – I think amongst others – will lobby… for a [Remain] vote of the British electorate on the EU.”

Goldman Sachs has two senior representatives on Bilderberg’s steering committee: James A. Johnson, a board member of the bank, and Robert Zoellick, the chairman of Goldman Sachs’ board of international advisors. We know from Charity Commission accounts that Goldman Sachs, along with BP, is one of the key funders of the group, and we also know that they’ve been pumping “a substantial six-figure sum” into the Remain campaign. And Goldman Sachs doesn’t spend money lightly. The Remain campaign is clearly close to whatever they have instead of a heart.

For Bilderberg, as for Goldman Sachs, the idea that there might be any kind of push-back against globalisation is a horrific one. I suspect we’ll glimpse some frowning faces behind the tinted glass as the limousines start rolling up on Thursday.

An integrated EU, with the City at its centre, is a key building block in a globalised world, and its potential loss is a huge concern for “the high priests of globalisation”, as Will Hutton called the members of Bilderberg. The prospect of Brexit “frightens me”, admit Ken Jacobs, the head of Lazard, and another member of Bilderberg’s inner circle. Not much frightens these people. Only two things: sunlight and Brexit.

From http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/bilderberg-2016-we-can-expect-desperate-lobbying-against-brexit-big-business-1563898

 

[Monkfish]

plans to extend the time to register to vote...

not suprised as its the kids who didnt register, and they are the ones most likely to vote remain
(which makes the angry white middle aged mens rallying cry to vote leave 'for your children and grandchildren' amusing)

still think young peoples vote should count more, the core vote for leave will be dead before the disaster of a leave vote truly hits home, not like a GE where its 5 years of disaster

 

[FanchesterCity]

I think blueonblue's post was tripe but I am loathed to say I think that's not right. In your example, the Tarif War Imports £4.00 includes £2.00 that goes to the UK's exchequer. If we halved our export and our halved our imports, it would narrow our trade deficit.

Of course that wouldn't help the fact that half the UK's manufacturers would be out of business.

No the £4.00 of imports is what we pay the EU for their goods! They get the tariff / tax, not us.

So we initially we buy an orange from them for 2.00, and they buy an apple from us for 1.00

We get into a price war with them, and we double the cost of our apple (so we now charge them 2.00 to teach them a lesson)
They then double the cost of their orange to £4.00.

The net result is we have INCREASED the deficit because we import twice as much as we export. Same as if I spend more than I earn, then my salary doubles, but everything I buy doubles too - then I'm increasing my debts twice as quickly!

 

[Chippy_boy]

Makes you wonder if the door could be open to a legal challenge of the result afterwards though.

 

[Chippy_boy]

No the £4.00 of imports is what we pay the EU for their goods! They get the tariff / tax, not us.

No, they don't. The receiving country charges the tariff and banks that money.

 

[FanchesterCity]

Makes you wonder if the door could be open to a legal challenge of the result afterwards though.

The government isn't obliged to go with the results. Suicide not to of course (unless it's very marginal). Even with a marginal decision though, I expect they'll have to go with the result, but technically, it can just ignore it.

 

[FanchesterCity]

No, they don't. The receiving country charges the tarif and banks that money.

Yes! which means if we pay 4.00 to buy EU goods. The EU gets the benefit of their tariff. We get the benefit of our tariff on goods we sell to them.
Since we import twice as much from them as we export to them, they get twice the tariff income (assuming we share the same tit for tat tariff)

You're looking at it the other way - where we say 'if you want to sell your orange to us for 2.00 we will place a tariff on that' (and they do the same in return) - they will adjust their tariff to compensate accordingly. Which will result in a scaling of the exchanges between the two entities - which leaves us worse off (assuming they scale it proportionally).

We would only halve our deficit if they allowed us to adjust our tariff, and they didn't compensate on their end, and why would they do that?

I do understand your point - it's complicated because the tariff is applied as an import tariff rather than a sales tax / tariff, but the effect is negated by either side adjusting accordingly.

 

[DiscoSteve]

The annual three-day Bilderberg conference kicks off on Thursday, and you can be sure the mood in Dresden will be a grim one. The heads of Google, Shell, BP and Deutsche Bank will be there, and Brexit will be top of the agenda. The Bilderberg Group has been nurturing the EU to life since the 1950s, and now they see their creation under dire threat.

“A disaster for everyone” is how Henri de Castries, the boss of AXA and a director of HSBC, describes Brexit. But in particular, it is a disaster for his banking and big business colleagues at Bilderberg. Thomas Enders, the CEO of Airbus, who sits on Bilderberg’s steering committee – the group’s governing body – said, in a recent interview with CNBC, that his industry would be “lobbying” against Brexit.

Enders said: “Long-term it would not be positive certainly for the industry. This why the aerospace industry – I think amongst others – will lobby… for a [Remain] vote of the British electorate on the EU.”

Goldman Sachs has two senior representatives on Bilderberg’s steering committee: James A. Johnson, a board member of the bank, and Robert Zoellick, the chairman of Goldman Sachs’ board of international advisors. We know from Charity Commission accounts that Goldman Sachs, along with BP, is one of the key funders of the group, and we also know that they’ve been pumping “a substantial six-figure sum” into the Remain campaign. And Goldman Sachs doesn’t spend money lightly. The Remain campaign is clearly close to whatever they have instead of a heart.

For Bilderberg, as for Goldman Sachs, the idea that there might be any kind of push-back against globalisation is a horrific one. I suspect we’ll glimpse some frowning faces behind the tinted glass as the limousines start rolling up on Thursday.

An integrated EU, with the City at its centre, is a key building block in a globalised world, and its potential loss is a huge concern for “the high priests of globalisation”, as Will Hutton called the members of Bilderberg. The prospect of Brexit “frightens me”, admit Ken Jacobs, the head of Lazard, and another member of Bilderberg’s inner circle. Not much frightens these people. Only two things: sunlight and Brexit.

From http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/bilderberg-2016-we-can-expect-desperate-lobbying-against-brexit-big-business-1563898

They all know the EU is in disarray and Brexit will likely trigger disintegration and the pot they've all been pissing in for the last 50 years will be smashed!

The £250million a week that is going to have to be found by Germany/France/Belgium/Holland (everyone else takes I think) to cover the loss of revenue caused by our exit is not a pill their populations are going to be particularly keen to swallow either....

 

[DiscoSteve]

The government isn't obliged to go with the results. Suicide not to of course (unless it's very marginal). Even with a marginal decision though, I expect they'll have to go with the result, but technically, it can just ignore it.

I think there will be some significant civil disobedience if they choose to ignore an Exit result

 

[blueonblue]

If we import more than we export, we lose out, full stop.

We sell £1000 worth of goods to them
They sell £2000 worth of goods to us

Our deficit is £1000.

Trade goes down 50% because of a tariff war, our deficit falls to £500.
Profits are made by companies, countries have balance of payment.

On top of that, the luxury items they sell are harder to find alternatives, but commodities are easily sourced elsewhere.

.

Again your looking at this the wrong way around, where are THEY going to find alternative markets ?,

 

[Chippy_boy]

Yes! which means if we pay 4.00 to buy EU goods. The EU gets the benefit of their tariff. We get the benefit of our tariff on goods we sell to them.
Since we import twice as much as we export them, they get twice the tariff income (assuming we share the same tit for tat tariff)

No, WE get twice the tariff income. The RECEIVING country charges the tariff and KEEPS the money.

Blueonblue is completely mistaken if he thinks a trade war ilke this could be good for our economy overall, but in this particular respect - that it would boost our tax receipts (in respect of our imported goods) and narrow our deficit, he is correct.

 

[TRUE BLUE NO1]

We do not HAVE TO except anything, least of all free movement to trade with anyone.

The scare stories of tariffs is a nonsense for all the reasons put over the last 676 pages, but lets play their silly game and accept there will be tariffs and look at what "Might" happen.
We run a deficit of roughly 2-1 with the EU, they load their goods with tariffs an we do the same to the point where our sales to Europe drop 50% and theirs do the same, that helps our economy by reducing our deficit and increasing the government income via the tariff income.
Lets also remember that the EU ( Or more to the point Germany) sells to us in the mainly high end goods market and not the necessities, so using the remainians logic they will pay a far higher rate of tariff than we will on what we sell.

Yes it will be offset by the lose of tax income on profits of those companies who trade in the EU, but then a government with a free hand can give tax breaks and incentives to mitigate that and encourage world trade, which as we know from the last 676 pages is growing while trade with the EU is in decline anyway.

They not scare stories mate......most working class people cannot afford to be interested in what the long term benefit "might" be ( I use the word "might" because no matter how hard you try to hide away from the risks, they are there and very real) Most rational people believe that any agreement we'll have wont be as good as the one we have now(for many reasons stated over the hundreds of pages in this thread)......Most rational people voting in and out, also will agree there will be a negative impact on the economy "short term"....and common sense tells us that most average, working class people....who pay a mortgage and have other debts, only just get by "month to month".....asking them to vote for an idea that could take years and then they still might not see a benefit, is crazy....I respect your views mate...but no matter what side of the fence you are on, you only going to see what you want to see.....which I guess is just human nature

 

[blueonblue]

Of course that wouldn't help the fact that half the UK's manufacturers would be out of business.

Care to share how this works when the vast majority of UK companies do no trade with the EU ?

Nor have I ever said a trade war would be good, I said we would win it because we benefit more, but are people so f*cking gullible that they think its even on the cards, the EU dont make, sell, or buy anything but businesses do, if its bad for business the politicians get changed.

 

[Monkfish]

Care to share how this works when the vast majority of UK companies do no trade with the EU ?

Nor have I ever said a trade war would be good, I said we would win it because we benefit more, but are people so f*cking gullible that they think its even on the cards, the EU dont make, sell, or buy anything but businesses do, if its bad for business the politicians get changed.

wooah there, I keep being told the EU is an unelected bureaucracy? But if there is a trade war with the UK the politicians will get changed? Care to share?

ps he said manufacturers, that eliminates your local kebab house from the stats

 

[Chippy_boy]

Care to share how this works when the vast majority of UK companies do no trade with the EU ?

Nor have I ever said a trade war would be good, I said we would win it because we benefit more, but are people so f*cking gullible that they think its even on the cards, the EU dont make, sell, or buy anything but businesses do, if its bad for business the politicians get changed.

You're completely mistaken mate.

44% of our exports go to the EU. Damage our EU export business and 44% of our export business is damaged. And the UK (one country) shoulders all of that burden.

Of the EU's exports, 16% go to the UK. Damage their exports to the UK and 16% of their export business is damaged. And that pain is shared amongst 27 states.

84% of the EU's exports carry on regardless whereas only 56% of ours carry on regardless. We are in a terrible negotiating position.

I don't expect you to change your mind on how you vote, but do be aware of the facts.

 

[IanBishopsHaircut]

As a trade unionist I'm voting out

http://www.tuaeu.co.uk/