So far we've had they'll be no subsidies, £ 5 billion and 9 billion..Either way, it's something that will need to be addressed at some point before the referendum as it will clearly be a vote decider for many
Absolute tosh. No one has said there will be £9 billion. And the only comment about there being none was made by someone pointing out how that had worked in another country. No one has suggested that woold be the case in the UK.
If you are going to make stuff up then at least try to be a bit more intelligent about it.
You said it !!! "Actually the 'difference' would be £9.8 billion a year"
That was the difference between the amount contributed by the UK and the amount received back (the latter including, but not limited to, farming subsidies).
He hasn't said how much should or would be given over to farming subsidies if no contribution at all was made or receipts taken.
What is arithmetically undeniable is that if subsidies were retained at exactly the same level, and all other spending from EU receipts maintained (that is, if we funded it domestically out of some of the money we would otherwise have used to pay the EU), we could maintain all that and still be better off by 9.8 billion per year (thus "the 'difference' would be £9.8 billion a year")
Don't misunderstand me, I wasn't trying to prove a point. I'm genuinely undecided - just concerned that we'd being taking a huge leap of faith to leave without being fully aware of the circumstances...the concern being is that those circumstances would really be known until after we'd done it.
I appreciate the desire for the leavers for the UK to be in charge of its own destiny but if that destiny is to face financial ruin as a result of leaving (in the short term anyway) it doesn't sound that appealing.
Meh. As a leftie who's on the fence about the EU, "warnings" from the CBI/credit-agency lobby are if anything more likely to push me towards Leave. I want to hear what the EU does (or could do) for me, and what it does for the things I care about - I don't want this generic doom-mongering from people who are only concerned that their own bank balances will be hit.
Yes, I feel the same. The Remain campaign has done an awful job so far. They started by giving themselves silly initials. They then had a conspiracy theorist no-one has heard of to appeal to the youth. They then started to insult half the electorate as 'quitters'. Now they're resorting to scare stories and easily disproven falsehoods.
I want a clear positive picture from Remain. I want to hear a vision of an EU future that maximises the benefits and neutralises the dangers, and how we're going to get there. Vague ideals about 'openness' and 'influence' simply won't cut it. Where's the beef?
The problem is that the fear card is the strongest they have. I suspect they are worried that 'going positive' won't work because there is so much distrust of the EU as an institution. The 'stick with nurse' argument seems to be the dominant narrative and I don't expect that to change.
I am genuinely undecided but I do admit that I am beginning to lean towards leave.
They appear to be falling into the same trap as "Better Together" did, when the latter didn't bother to try to make the positive case, but concentrated on "Better Off Together".
Focusing solely on money leads people to believe your sole interest in the subject is the money, which drives out any tendencies towards any other motives.
Don't misunderstand me, I wasn't trying to prove a point. I'm genuinely undecided - just concerned that we'd being taking a huge leap of faith to leave without being fully aware of the circumstances...the concern being is that those circumstances would really be known until after we'd done it.
I appreciate the desire for the leavers for the UK to be in charge of its own destiny but if that destiny is to face financial ruin as a result of leaving (in the short term anyway) it doesn't sound that appealing.
I really don't see how financial ruin is in the equation at all. We are a net contributor to the EU. We trade a lot with the EU. We have a lot of UK nationals working in EU countries. A lot of EU national work in the UK.
None of those things will change much if we leave - because it will not be in the UK's interest nor in the interest of our trading and business partners in the EU. If the UK chose to leave, something sensible would have to be negotiated not just for the the UK's sake, but for the EU's too. The Doomsayers are completely ignoring this fact and, indeed, are harming the UK's position (whether we stay or leave) by talking down our negotiating power - both at present and post a decision to leave.
If it is right to leave, based on the UK not wanting ever deeper union and the ever increasing untenability of staying in without joining that effort, then everything else will work itself out with minimum damage to all sides.
It's interesting if you read the books that James Bond's profession is destroying him. The drinking, womanising, and gambling are all ways of coping with the fact that he kills for a living.
I don't know if you ever Jack's Return Home (filmed as Get Carter) and its successor novels by Ted Lewis. He's very much a working class James Bond.
Read them all, and love them. You known that, I know that, but the plethora of morons with whom we also inhabit this island with seem sadly oblivious to it.
I shall try the latter. Thanks.
Not to mention the fact he's actually quite anti-establishment in several of the books, and detests the sense of entitlement and dismissive attitude toward incompetence inherent within the old-boy network.
Trump 33 Carson 23 Rubio 14 Cruz 8 Fiorina 6 Paul 4 Bush 4 Christie 3 Kasich 2 Huckabee 1
Others less than 1.
Cruz has to be a lay as the right-wing vote is being tied up by Carson and Trump so there is little opportunity for his polling to improve.
Quite the contrary, there is a great prospect of his vote improving once Carson and/or Trump quit the race. I still don't think he will win, but he will outlast one or more of Carson, Trump and Fiorina.
As martyrdoms go, it falls some way short of being stoned or thrown to the lions.
But it's pretty unpleasant to discipline people because they wouldn't go along with your plan for the taxpayer to fund your side of an election. Cameron has really dropped in my opinion over this.
Prime Minister punishes rebels against his position. It's absolutely standard.
When your position is thoroughly undemocratic and against the fundamentals your party should believe in, you should admit your mistake and let it go. Cameron is proving here that he never realised why he was wrong in the first place. The more I think about it the more annoyed at him I get. He attempted to trample over long-established democratic precedents and now he's basically insisting he was right to do so. Profoundly unconservative.
It's very unwise when your party is split down the middle. But unless you're in Cameron's inner circle unless you keep your nose clean and play by the rules, you're history.
It's my biggest criticism of him.
If that is the case, his base of support will get ever thinner and more brittle within the CPP. Perhaps Cameron being forced out in 2017 or 2018 is a good bet - regardless of EU ref outcome.
Absolute tosh. No one has said there will be £9 billion. And the only comment about there being none was made by someone pointing out how that had worked in another country. No one has suggested that woold be the case in the UK.
If you are going to make stuff up then at least try to be a bit more intelligent about it.
You said it !!! "Actually the 'difference' would be £9.8 billion a year"
That was the difference between the amount contributed by the UK and the amount received back (the latter including, but not limited to, farming subsidies).
He hasn't said how much should or would be given over to farming subsidies if no contribution at all was made or receipts taken.
What is arithmetically undeniable is that if subsidies were retained at exactly the same level, and all other spending from EU receipts maintained (that is, if we funded it domestically out of some of the money we would otherwise have used to pay the EU), we could maintain all that and still be better off by 9.8 billion per year (thus "the 'difference' would be £9.8 billion a year")
Don't misunderstand me, I wasn't trying to prove a point. I'm genuinely undecided - just concerned that we'd being taking a huge leap of faith to leave without being fully aware of the circumstances...the concern being is that those circumstances would really be known until after we'd done it.
I appreciate the desire for the leavers for the UK to be in charge of its own destiny but if that destiny is to face financial ruin as a result of leaving (in the short term anyway) it doesn't sound that appealing.
Okay. But in raw money terms, there isn't any actual leap of faith involved. If you were considering leaving a club where you paid £2000 per month and, in return, the club paid £900 per month of your grocery bill, the result of leaving the club would be that you had an extra £2000 per month to spend. You'd have to pick up the tab for that grocery bill yourself, and while you wouldn't be compelled to spend exactly £900 per month on the same groceries, you could be confident that you would be better off. You could choose to spend exactly the same (and be £1100 per month better off), or more, or less.
Richard's point is that regardless of the amount we did choose to spend, we'd be better off (in our analogy, that £1100 per month being the difference), and we'd therefore not have to fear falling short on the groceries (our analogy for the farming subsidies) - if we spent less, it would be our choice rather than caused by the exit from the club.
So far we've had they'll be no subsidies, £ 5 billion and 9 billion..Either way, it's something that will need to be addressed at some point before the referendum as it will clearly be a vote decider for many
...
If you are going to make stuff up then at least try to be a bit more intelligent about it.
You said it !!! "Actually the 'difference' would be £9.8 billion a year"
That was the difference between the amount contributed by the UK and the amount received back (the latter including, but not limited to, farming subsidies).
He hasn't said how much should or would be given over to farming subsidies if no contribution at all was made or receipts taken.
What is arithmetically undeniable is that if subsidies were retained at exactly the same level, and all other spending from EU receipts maintained (that is, if we funded it domestically out of some of the money we would otherwise have used to pay the EU), we could maintain all that and still be better off by 9.8 billion per year (thus "the 'difference' would be £9.8 billion a year")
Don't misunderstand me, I wasn't trying to prove a point. I'm genuinely undecided - just concerned that we'd being taking a huge leap of faith to leave without being fully aware of the circumstances...the concern being is that those circumstances would really be known until after we'd done it.
I appreciate the desire for the leavers for the UK to be in charge of its own destiny but if that destiny is to face financial ruin as a result of leaving (in the short term anyway) it doesn't sound that appealing.
Norway faces having its contributions doubled and we too would face payments for access to the single market along the same lines. That access would include complying with single market rules and Norway applies various other EU rules as well. The facts remain there is but a small difference to being out than in. The further we move away from being in the more complex and uncertain it gets. The EEA may be a better option, there is an argument for that. It's worth looking at. We would be out of the political side, the EU parliament etc, but also out of council of ministerscommissionwrs and votes and vetos as well. This may not matter, but then again it might. The EU will continue to exist without us and we will have to deal with it as well as every other major power block in the entire world on our own. Some people may think that the downside of all that is worth something. And its an argument, but its one that has little detail from all the disparate groups of outers at the moment.
As martyrdoms go, it falls some way short of being stoned or thrown to the lions.
But it's pretty unpleasant to discipline people because they wouldn't go along with your plan for the taxpayer to fund your side of an election. Cameron has really dropped in my opinion over this.
Prime Minister punishes rebels against his position. It's absolutely standard.
When your position is thoroughly undemocratic and against the fundamentals your party should believe in, you should admit your mistake and let it go. Cameron is proving here that he never realised why he was wrong in the first place. The more I think about it the more annoyed at him I get. He attempted to trample over long-established democratic precedents and now he's basically insisting he was right to do so. Profoundly unconservative.
It's very unwise when your party is split down the middle. But unless you're in Cameron's inner circle unless you keep your nose clean and play by the rules, you're history.
It's my biggest criticism of him.
If that is the case, his base of support will get ever thinner and more brittle within the CPP. Perhaps Cameron being forced out in 2017 or 2018 is a good bet - regardless of EU ref outcome.
UKIP + 50% of the Conservatives would be a formidable coalition.
So far we've had they'll be no subsidies, £ 5 billion and 9 billion..Either way, it's something that will need to be addressed at some point before the referendum as it will clearly be a vote decider for many
Absolute tosh. No one has said there will be £9 billion. And the only comment about there being none was made by someone pointing out how that had worked in another country. No one has suggested that woold be the case in the UK.
If you are going to make stuff up then at least try to be a bit more intelligent about it.
You said it !!! "Actually the 'difference' would be £9.8 billion a year"
That was the difference between the amount contributed by the UK and the amount received back (the latter including, but not limited to, farming subsidies).
He hasn't said how much should or would be given over to farming subsidies if no contribution at all was made or receipts taken.
What is arithmetically undeniable is that if subsidies were retained at exactly the same level, and all other spending from EU receipts maintained (that is, if we funded it domestically out of some of the money we would otherwise have used to pay the EU), we could maintain all that and still be better off by 9.8 billion per year (thus "the 'difference' would be £9.8 billion a year")
Thanks Andy. I was out and about or an hour but your reply is exactly correct.
It will be interesting to see how the farming community view prospects of an OUT vote. The industry is a hefty recipient of EU subsidies (around £3.6 billion) so the implications of that would have to be taken in to account. If those subsidies slide away expect to see mile upon mile of IN posters erected on every field in the country.
They would be replaced by UK subsidies as would the other EU spending in the UK. Leaving not much difference. As part of any EU 'trade deal' eg access to single market, we would make other contributions to EU budget.
Actually the 'difference' would be £9.8 billion a year - which is the difference now between what we put in and what we get back.
There's another point. We'd have £10bn quid that the EU currently spends in the UK, that we'd get to choose how to spend instead!
Yes, but what you really mean is we would have to choose who would be denied the EU spending it currently gets. There would be some balance left over from these net contributions, but we would also be paying in to the EU's regional and other funds as part of access to single market. It would be in our interst to see that market thriving. There would be very little difference to being in than being out in respect of spending and regulations. Despite that it may be somehow all 'better', but its hardly going to be much different. All sides do not want to admit that.
And no one seems to be talking about the eurozone and how we as non-euro users relate to that as the eurozone grows inevitably closer. It's this which is the big deal for us. What no one seems to be thinking about is that we will in the coming years have a de facto continental wide 400+ population country on our doorstep, with the rest of the world ignoring us.
It will be interesting to see how the farming community view prospects of an OUT vote. The industry is a hefty recipient of EU subsidies (around £3.6 billion) so the implications of that would have to be taken in to account. If those subsidies slide away expect to see mile upon mile of IN posters erected on every field in the country.
They would be replaced by UK subsidies as would the other EU spending in the UK. Leaving not much difference. As part of any EU 'trade deal' eg access to single market, we would make other contributions to EU budget.
Actually the 'difference' would be £9.8 billion a year - which is the difference now between what we put in and what we get back.
There's another point. We'd have £10bn quid that the EU currently spends in the UK, that we'd get to choose how to spend instead!
Yes, but what you really mean is we would have to choose who would be denied the EU spending it currently gets. There would be some balance left over from these net contributions, but we would also be paying in to the EU's regional and other funds as part of access to single market. It would be in our interst to see that market thriving. There would be very little difference to being in than being out in respect of spending and regulations. Despite that it may be somehow all 'better', but its hardly going to be much different. All sides do not want to admit that.
And no one seems to be talking about the eurozone and how we as non-euro users relate to that as the eurozone grows inevitably closer. It's this which is the big deal for us. What no one seems to be thinking about is that we will in the coming years have a de facto continental wide 400+ population country on our doorstep, with the rest of the world ignoring us.
LOL. If you really think that the EU and the Germans can get to that stage before war breaks out across Europe, then I suppose you have a point. Simply not going to happen. Not in my lifetime, anyway.
So far we've had they'll be no subsidies, £ 5 billion and 9 billion..Either way, it's something that will need to be addressed at some point before the referendum as it will clearly be a vote decider for many
...
If you are going to make stuff up then at least try to be a bit more intelligent about it.
You said it !!! "Actually the 'difference' would be £9.8 billion a year"
That was the difference between the amount contributed by the UK and the amount received back (the latter including, but not limited to, farming subsidies).
He hasn't said how much should or would be given over to farming subsidies if no contribution at all was made or receipts taken.
What is arithmetically undeniable is that if subsidies were retained at exactly the same level, and all other spending from EU receipts maintained (that is, if we funded it domestically out of some of the money we would otherwise have used to pay the EU), we could maintain all that and still be better off by 9.8 billion per year (thus "the 'difference' would be £9.8 billion a year")
Don't misunderstand me, I wasn't trying to prove a point. I'm genuinely undecided - just concerned that we'd being taking a huge leap of faith to leave without being fully aware of the circumstances...the concern being is that those circumstances would really be known until after we'd done it.
I appreciate the desire for the leavers for the UK to be in charge of its own destiny but if that destiny is to face financial ruin as a result of leaving (in the short term anyway) it doesn't sound that appealing.
Norway faces having its contributions doubled and we too would face payments for access to the single market along the same lines. That access would include complying with single market rules and Norway applies various other EU rules as well. The facts remain there is but a small difference to being out than in. The further we move away from being in the more complex and uncertain it gets. The EEA may be a better option, there is an argument for that. It's worth looking at. We would be out of the political side, the EU parliament etc, but also out of council of ministerscommissionwrs and votes and vetos as well. This may not matter, but then again it might. The EU will continue to exist without us and we will have to deal with it as well as every other major power block in the entire world on our own. Some people may think that the downside of all that is worth something. And its an argument, but its one that has little detail from all the disparate groups of outers at the moment.
Indeed. Perhaps upon leaving the EU we should lobby to join NAFTA.
This idea that Britain will be hopeless all alone in the world is such arrant nonsense. It does not seem to prevent Canada or Australia or even New Zealand from living pretty happy lives. What is this obsession with Britain being seen as important? I thought we had got over that.
By the way, re transhipments: around 250,000 TEUs go from the UK via Rotterdam each year.
Interestingly, more than 1,000,000 come the other way. Which means that the figures for the EU's trade surplus with the UK are overstated, as they include a lot of imports that are from China (or wherever) via Rotterdam.
Is a TEU a shipping container? It is a new term to me.
Wouldn't the Rotterdam re-exports show as trade with the Netherlands for both imports and exports and so be seperable from trade with the remainder of the EU?
By the way, re transhipments: around 250,000 TEUs go from the UK via Rotterdam each year.
Interestingly, more than 1,000,000 come the other way. Which means that the figures for the EU's trade surplus with the UK are overstated, as they include a lot of imports that are from China (or wherever) via Rotterdam.
Is a TEU a shipping container? It is a new term to me.
Wouldn't the Rotterdam re-exports show as trade with the Netherlands for both imports and exports and so be seperable from trade with the remainder of the EU?
Twenty-foot equivalent unit. I think the sizes were standardized shortly after the war.
By the way, re transhipments: around 250,000 TEUs go from the UK via Rotterdam each year.
Interestingly, more than 1,000,000 come the other way. Which means that the figures for the EU's trade surplus with the UK are overstated, as they include a lot of imports that are from China (or wherever) via Rotterdam.
Is a TEU a shipping container? It is a new term to me.
Wouldn't the Rotterdam re-exports show as trade with the Netherlands for both imports and exports and so be seperable from trade with the remainder of the EU?
Twenty-foot equivalent unit. I think the sizes were standardized shortly after the war.
Thanks.
The interconnectedness of various imports/exports can be quite bewildering. I remember an interesting article from New Internationalist about a pair of jeans imported from Bangladesh. By the time you had accounted for the retail markup, branding, advertising, cotton from Egypt, thread from somewhere else, dye from somewhere else again and rivets from anothet place made from copper from country Z it was very hard to figure out who had sold what to whom!
Leaving the EU is not likely to increase this transhipment trade though. I suppose the question is whether it reduces marginally or in a big way.
I shall be sticking with In. I rather like the ease that I can fill vacancies with excellent staff from Greece, Spain and Portugal with a minimum of red tape, and quite fancy retiring to Europe myself.
Comments
Focusing solely on money leads people to believe your sole interest in the subject is the money, which drives out any tendencies towards any other motives.
None of those things will change much if we leave - because it will not be in the UK's interest nor in the interest of our trading and business partners in the EU. If the UK chose to leave, something sensible would have to be negotiated not just for the the UK's sake, but for the EU's too. The Doomsayers are completely ignoring this fact and, indeed, are harming the UK's position (whether we stay or leave) by talking down our negotiating power - both at present and post a decision to leave.
If it is right to leave, based on the UK not wanting ever deeper union and the ever increasing untenability of staying in without joining that effort, then everything else will work itself out with minimum damage to all sides.
I.e. sensible heads will prevail.
And
But in raw money terms, there isn't any actual leap of faith involved.
If you were considering leaving a club where you paid £2000 per month and, in return, the club paid £900 per month of your grocery bill, the result of leaving the club would be that you had an extra £2000 per month to spend. You'd have to pick up the tab for that grocery bill yourself, and while you wouldn't be compelled to spend exactly £900 per month on the same groceries, you could be confident that you would be better off. You could choose to spend exactly the same (and be £1100 per month better off), or more, or less.
Richard's point is that regardless of the amount we did choose to spend, we'd be better off (in our analogy, that £1100 per month being the difference), and we'd therefore not have to fear falling short on the groceries (our analogy for the farming subsidies) - if we spent less, it would be our choice rather than caused by the exit from the club.
EDIT: nvm, at first I thought this was the shortlist for the candidate!
The facts remain there is but a small difference to being out than in. The further we move away from being in the more complex and uncertain it gets.
The EEA may be a better option, there is an argument for that. It's worth looking at. We would be out of the political side, the EU parliament etc, but also out of council of ministerscommissionwrs and votes and vetos as well. This may not matter, but then again it might. The EU will continue to exist without us and we will have to deal with it as well as every other major power block in the entire world on our own. Some people may think that the downside of all that is worth something. And its an argument, but its one that has little detail from all the disparate groups of outers at the moment.
There would be some balance left over from these net contributions, but we would also be paying in to the EU's regional and other funds as part of access to single market. It would be in our interst to see that market thriving. There would be very little difference to being in than being out in respect of spending and regulations. Despite that it may be somehow all 'better', but its hardly going to be much different.
All sides do not want to admit that.
And no one seems to be talking about the eurozone and how we as non-euro users relate to that as the eurozone grows inevitably closer. It's this which is the big deal for us. What no one seems to be thinking about is that we will in the coming years have a de facto continental wide 400+ population country on our doorstep, with the rest of the world ignoring us.
This idea that Britain will be hopeless all alone in the world is such arrant nonsense. It does not seem to prevent Canada or Australia or even New Zealand from living pretty happy lives. What is this obsession with Britain being seen as important? I thought we had got over that.
Wouldn't the Rotterdam re-exports show as trade with the Netherlands for both imports and exports and so be seperable from trade with the remainder of the EU?
The interconnectedness of various imports/exports can be quite bewildering. I remember an interesting article from New Internationalist about a pair of jeans imported from Bangladesh. By the time you had accounted for the retail markup, branding, advertising, cotton from Egypt, thread from somewhere else, dye from somewhere else again and rivets from anothet place made from copper from country Z it was very hard to figure out who had sold what to whom!
Leaving the EU is not likely to increase this transhipment trade though. I suppose the question is whether it reduces marginally or in a big way.
I shall be sticking with In. I rather like the ease that I can fill vacancies with excellent staff from Greece, Spain and Portugal with a minimum of red tape, and quite fancy retiring to Europe myself.