EU referendum

[TonyM]

Maybe inners and outers should lobby governments to get to grips with the infrastructure rather than blame immigration. Year on year too few houses are built down in Kent to meet demand. Problem is infrastructure improvements requires spending but nobody want to pay tax to fund them - housing requires space and whilst everybody wants houses they would rather they weren't built near them and whilst new houses would be welcomed in one way on the other hand meeting demand would mean a marked slow down in house price growth or even a drop in house values and nobody in Kent would have the balls to accept that for the good of the country.

I agree whole heartedly with this. I was watching RTE Prime Time last night (I'm in Ireland) about the water crisis here. Shit is literally being bumped into sea to float back up on shore. It requires 13 billion euros to resolve. It was neglected for years. As far as I can tell the EU wanted the Irish government to privatize the water utility in order to then use that to loan money. They didn't get the loans because the thing is a disaster but they wasted millions in the process. The EU also pushed the government to introduce water charges and the government wasted 500 euros per house on meters to gain back about 100 euros per year. I think they said it comes out to 160m. It is impossible to fix the problem with that money. The clear as day answer is that you raise income tax to deal with this and that you identify now all the other things that are neglected (like housing). It is not rocket science. The EU were no help. And where the hell were their regulations and oversight when the service was falling about for the past 40 years?

The EU like the government here only see the latest fads. Green, freedom of movement, consumption models, centers of excellence, affirmative action, etc. Instead they should be going back to basics, creating and publishing problem statements, outlining sustainable solutions for the long term, putting people first, promoting fairness and equality, setting expectations around citizenship, etc.

I don't know if being outside the EU would help governments focus on the real problems and real solutions. It doesn't seem like being in it is helping anyway. Just seems to me that the EU gives local government the excuses they need to do nothing significant.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Not necessarily Japan, but maybe Norway, Iceland or Switzerland? All a similar distance to Holland and all will be just as easy to trade with if we're out. And what about the UK candle stockists who get 30% of their candles from Holland? Likewise, the Dutch candles become more expensive and the Wolverhampton company is in a good place to pick up that slack.

Good points, well made. But you have to agree, surely, that at very best this is a rocky road. As I have mentioned before, it could be a good thing in the long run, but at what cost? And how long is long?

 

[Chippy_boy]

I agree whole heartedly with this. I was watching RTE Prime Time last night (I'm in Ireland) about the water crisis here. Shit is literally being bumped into sea to float back up on shore. It requires 13 billion euros to resolve. It was neglected for years. As far as I can tell the EU wanted the Irish government to privatize the water utility in order to then use that to loan money. They didn't get the loans because the thing is a disaster but they wasted millions in the process. The EU also pushed the government to introduce water charges and the government wasted 500 euros per house on meters to gain back about 100 euros per year. I think they said it comes out to 160m. It is impossible to fix the problem with that money. The clear as day answer is that you raise income tax to deal with this and that you identify now all the other things that are neglected (like housing).

Who's taxes would you like to raise? Those of the people who are already struggling to make ends meet? Or would you just like to tax everyone who has "spare" money lying around?

Infrastructure investment is all well and good and it's one of the few things that it might make sense to borrow more to fund. But that's very difficult if you're already borrowing WAAAAAYYYYY too much and the agenda is to try to reduce borrowing. And raising taxes is never the answer. Taking money out of peoples' pockets means they don't spend that money on something else, so you might fix the sewage problem but in so doing, you reduce the demand for teapots and put the teapot manufacturer out of business. Taking money off people because "the government knows how to spend it better than you do" is never a good idea. Work on the assumption that the government is a inept bunch of fuckwits that you wouldn't trust with an open penknife and that's the safest starting point I think.

This idea that we must always try to take more tax money off people to give to fuckwitts to fritter away on god knows what, is really quite insane, isn't it.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

Not necessarily Japan, but maybe Norway, Iceland or Switzerland? All a similar distance to Holland and all will be just as easy to trade with if we're out. And what about the UK candle stockists who get 30% of their candles from Holland? Likewise, the Dutch candles become more expensive and the Wolverhampton company is in a good place to pick up that slack.

Not necessarily Japan, but maybe Norway, Iceland or Switzerland? All a similar distance to Holland and all will be just as easy to trade with if we're out. And what about the UK candle stockists who get 30% of their candles from Holland? Likewise, the Dutch candles become more expensive and the Wolverhampton company is in a good place to pick up that slack.

This will need resolving as a matter of urgency, in or out of the EU, Liverpool needs candles.

 

[Chippy_boy]

This will need resolving as a matter of urgency, in or out of the EU, Liverpool needs candles.

Hahahahahhahaa. Nice one, made me laugh.

 

[CityStu]

Good points, well made. But you have to agree, surely, that at very best this is a rocky road. As I have mentioned before, it could be a good thing in the long run, but at what cost? And how long is long?

Why is it a rocky road? I think that the problem of reduced trade to the EU wouldn't be as huge a problem as the In campaign and government are making out because we'd make up that deficit with trade to the rest of the world and increased internal activity. The UK's RoW trade is already growing as a percentage of UK exports, taking over much of what we previously did with the EU. However, I don't think it will be a huge problem because just as it is in our best interests to trade with the EU, it is also in their best interests to trade with us.

 

[blueonblue]

And blueoblue, of course there's huge burden dealing with the EU now, and we put up with it for the benefits we get.

And they are ?, the "Free trade" nonsense has already been shot down in flames, and how on earth do you work out that we will have to agree to those terms where we are saddled with open borders ?.
We had trade long before the EU, without the need to kowtow to a bunch of parasites and pay for the privilege, the utter twaddle that European countries would not want to trade because we are out is proved a nonsense by every other country doing business without being a member.

Trade deals are dead easy, either buy and sell to us or dont, go into any shop and they will give you a price, if that price was to leave your front door open every night and give them money you would f*ck off to another shop if you had any sense.
The EU is not the only shop in town.

 

[TonyM]

Who's taxes would you like to raise? Those of the people who are already struggling to make ends meet? Or would you just like to tax everyone who has "spare" money lying around?

Infrastructure investment is all well and good and it's one of the few things that it might make sense to borrow more to fund. But that's very difficult if you're already borrowing WAAAAAYYYYY too much and the agenda is to try to reduce borrowing. And raising taxes is never the answer. Taking money out of peoples' pockets means they don't spend that money on something else, so you might fix the sewage problem but in so doing, you reduce the demand for teapots and put the teapot manufacturer out of business. Taking money off people because "the government knows how to spend it better than you do" is never a good idea.

It needs money to fix. Anything going into a private company for profit is wasted. So keep it public. And there are plenty who can afford to pay income tax. For example...

Today
Me (employed on decent salary) = meter put in for 500 by the utility and charged about 120 per year = 5 years to gain anything
Old lady next door (on pension) = meter put in for 500 by the utility and charged 60 per year = 9 years to gain anything

Proposed
Me (employed on decent salary) = no meter and raised tax by X% to gain 200 per year.
Old lady next door (on pension) = no meter and no tax because no income.

While they fight battles over water charges I'm affording my SkySports and the situation in getting worse. The same with housing. Same with healthcare. Homelessness. Drug abuse. Crime. etc.

How are the EU helping? They couldn't give a crap about the real Irish issues. They are happy to think that we have a growing economy. they don't give a crap about the long term dangers of a rotten foundation underneath. This is why I've lost faith in them. And I see it in everything they do now. They have no long term plan.

But save the bog flowers and mind that you don't over fish. :-)

 

[Chippy_boy]

Why is it a rocky road? I think that the problem of reduced trade to the EU wouldn't be as huge a problem as the In campaign and government are making out because we'd make up that deficit with trade to the rest of the world and increased internal activity. The UK's RoW trade is already growing as a percentage of UK exports, taking over much of what we previously did with the EU. However, I don't think it will be a huge problem because just as it is in our best interests to trade with the EU, it is also in their best interests to trade with us.

We've been around and around and around this loop. All 28 countries need to agree and no single country needs us as much as we need the EU. It's not in the interests of perhaps 20 countries to agree to the terms we would seek. That's why it would be a very difficult negotiation. And if they were all to agree that effectively gives the green light to every other country that might think about leaving. There's already pressure in France, Germany, Holland and others for exit referendums. It could mean the break up of the EU if the UK left and ended up with a great deal that everyone else thought they would like too.

@blueonblue: OK, I'll file you in the "I want to leave and bugger the consequences" camp, which is fine.

 

[blueonblue]

@blueonblue: OK, I'll file you in the "I want to leave and bugger the consequences" camp, which is fine.

Still waiting for those benefits we get, but you can add in the consequences if you can get past pure speculation, seriously the whole stay in campaign has been doom & gloom without resorting to fact.

We do NOT have "Free" trade.
You would have to be barmy to leave your front door open every night just to do business, so why are borders different.
You say none of the 28 countries "Need" us, why then do we "Need" them ?, nor as you know full well is it 28 countries who make the call, they will do as they are told by Germany and France, where are they going to find a market for the goods and services they depend on ?.
If we are out, then who has the pressure on them to do a deal, besides losing the 12+billion we tip up you somehow think they want to lose one of their biggest markets at a time when they will need to make up that shortfall.
Germany will not sit still as the only big cash cow left in while seeing its UK market disappear.
As we get our fishing grounds back, just where are they going to get their fish ?.

Argue the logic out of that ;0)