The result of the EU referendum:

[ProfessorDavey]

Forged citizenship proof then, or a member state passport. In fact with Schengen they can move freely anyway, once they are in; and yes I know we aren't in Schengen, but many are just waved through.

No they aren't - have you ever been through passport control coming back into the UK from another EU country. The checks are much, much more stringent than you might get when entering another country.

And if UK border control is simply waving people through without checking their passports, I don't see why that would be any different if the UK was outside rather than in the EU. That, my friend, is a matter for the UK border agency, now and in the future. Nothing to do with the EU whatsoever.

[Jack Knave]

This essay deals with Article 50 which is the section on a member leaving the EU. It's not too long. It also deals with tariffs which shows that it is not a given that they could be applied.

http://www.ukipdaily.com/article-50-articles/

[Jack Knave]

This is Farage's speech at their spring conference recently. All you Remainers will learn something of the truth of what the EU is about and is well worth a listen as he lays out the facts of the matter and why Cameron and co. are a joke and liars in their claims.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pehGu7dp1tw&feature=youtu.be

[Jack Knave]

No they aren't - have you ever been through passport control coming back into the UK from another EU country. The checks are much, much more stringent than you might get when entering another country.

And if UK border control is simply waving people through without checking their passports, I don't see why that would be any different if the UK was outside rather than in the EU. That, my friend, is a matter for the UK border agency, now and in the future. Nothing to do with the EU whatsoever.

"Another country". Which one did you have in mind?

But they are not. It is luck to how much they bother and where the people have come from. They are not manned enough to do a thorough search of everyone, and they rely on those machines too much which I've heard are not as great as the makers claim.

Actually the true matter is for the British people to vote in a government that will do proper border checks and get our computer system up to scratch.

[L.A.]

This is Farage's speech at their spring conference recently. All you Remainers will learn something of the truth of what the EU is about and is well worth a listen as he lays out the facts of the matter and why Cameron and co. are a joke and liars in their claims.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pehGu7dp1tw&feature=youtu.be

Farage is a great performer, he can 'work the crowd', but there is no substance to his 'material'. He is just an entertainer with a handful of one liners.

He remains the CLOWN.

[jakswan]

That isn't a comparable situation is it.

If you voted NO in the Scottish referendum you knew you were going to stay in the UK, with at least the same powers as before the referendum. Vote Leave and you aren't even sure that will result in leaving the EU, let alone what type of arrangement there will be were the UK to leave.

The levels of uncertainty aligned with a Leave vote are massively greater than that for a No vote in the Scottish referendum. Actually it is more appropriate to compare the uncertainty of a Leave vote with a Yes vote in the Scottish referendum, where there was likewise a huge uncertainty. But even then it was pretty certain that a Yes vote would have meant Scottish independence, and there weren't Yes supporters claiming that Yes meant No, in the way there are for some extremely high profile Leave supporters who are saying that Leave means Stay!!

We are voting if we want to the political union with the EU, we don't know what the future holds in either case. 

[Hope]

Actually the true matter is for the British people to vote in a government that will ... get our computer system up to scratch.

I think that you are possibly asking for the moon here, JK.  Do you know of any Government-related computer system that has ever been 'up to scratch'?

[Hope]

This is Farage's speech at their spring conference recently. All you Remainers will learn something of the truth of what the EU is about and is well worth a listen as he lays out the facts of the matter and why Cameron and co. are a joke and liars in their claims.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pehGu7dp1tw&feature=youtu.be

I heard it at the time, JK.  I'm still trying to discover which syllables had even a hint of the truth within them   

[ProfessorDavey]

Actually the true matter is for the British people to vote in a government that will do proper border checks and get our computer system up to scratch.

And finally you get it - the competence and ability to enforce the UK border regulations are a matter entirely for the UK government now - it is nothing to do with the EU. If they are cr*p, under-resouced, incompetent that is entirely the responsibility of the UK government.

Do you think the EU somehow phone up Theresa May and ask her to under-staff the passport control at Luton Airport - of course they don't. If Luton airport border control is understaffed blame the UK government - do not blame the EU, because it is nothing to do with them.

[Hope]

Have been enjoying Boris' idiotic accusations against 10 Downing Street and the BCC issue.

Fox has got into the mix - when it is pretty obvious that an organisation whose membership is split, both materially and philosophically, on the whole issue has enough power to 1) decide not to come down on one or other side of the issue, and 2) to discipline its own leadership if that should choose to break that decision.

[jeremyp]

If they can set tariffs so can we, and get our money back.

Actually, we can't. Tariffs are a barrier to trade. If we all set tariffs, less trade happens which means everybody suffers.

[jeremyp]

Are you saying that the trade deals the EU gets for us are dream deals? Your statements of absolutism for the Leavers is unfounded and are a straw man.

Argue the point, not some silly straw man.

[jeremyp]

No I don't think that another straw man.

You want to stop immigrants that don't earn enough money from getting benefits. So, no, not a straw man.

So you know the terms of a future deal, got a crystal ball have we?

Nope> I go on what countries that are in the EFTA have to sign up to now.

Any company can invoice from any country in the EU, as far I'm aware the UK government would not be able to introduce a law preventing this.

Of course they can. It's a free trade area. Do you want us to leave the free trade area?
[/quote]

[jakswan]

You want to stop immigrants that don't earn enough money from getting benefits. So, no, not a straw man.

Nope> I go on what countries that are in the EFTA have to sign up to now.
Of course they can. It's a free trade area. Do you want us to leave the free trade area?

This is getting boring, did I argue for EFTA? Another strawman.

Free trade doesn't restrict you from introducing laws preventing profit divergence.

Lets next start talking about rising wages, thanks Lord Rose, and cost of being in the EU, you debate if its 120 or 250 million a week.

[ProfessorDavey]

This is getting boring, did I argue for EFTA? Another strawman.

Free trade doesn't restrict you from introducing laws preventing profit divergence.

Lets next start talking about rising wages, thanks Lord Rose, and cost of being in the EU, you debate if its 120 or 250 million a week.

What's the real net cost Jakswan - in other words the direct money we provide minus the direct money we receive, adjusted for the economic benefit in terms of additional GDP linked to being a member.

[jakswan]

What's the real net cost Jakswan - in other words the direct money we provide minus the direct money we receive, adjusted for the economic benefit in terms of additional GDP linked to being a member.

120 to 250 million a week.

[ProfessorDavey]

120 to 250 million a week.

Nope - try again.

[jakswan]

Nope - try again.

Sunday Politics Andrew Neil went through these figures with Douglas Carswell, who claimed £350 million. Including everything its £120 million.

You can argue to include notional "economic benefit" but I could equally claim the reverse.

The EU costs, its a simple fact.

[ProfessorDavey]

Sunday Politics Andrew Neil went through these figures with Douglas Carswell, who claimed £350 million. Including everything its £120 million.

You can argue to include notional "economic benefit" but I could equally claim the reverse.

The EU costs, its a simple fact.

No it doesn't - being a member of the EU delivers about £6 for every £1 'invested'.

So some real data:

Gross contributions to the EU (i.e. the public funds transferred to Brussels) are about £13billion per annum. That is about 1.7% of the public sector spending per year.

Net contribution - i.e. money we directly contribute minus money we directly receive back, e.g. for investment in infrastructure, research, etc etc is about £7-8 billion per annum, about 1% of the public sector spending per year.

Benefit in terms of enhanced GDP is estimated by the CBI (and they are highly authoritative) at £62-78 billion.

So I make that £13 billion invested and £66-82 billion gained. So the EU doesn't cost us at all - it generates a net additional GDP of between £53 billion and £69 billion each year.

https://fullfact.org/economy/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/

http://news.cbi.org.uk/campaigns/our-global-future/factsheets/factsheet-2-benefits-of-eu-membership-outweigh-costs/

And by the way our net direct contribution to the EU on a per person basis is little different to Norway's and they aren't even members of the EU.

[jakswan]

No it doesn't - being a member of the EU delivers about £6 for every £1 'invested'.

So some real data:

Gross contributions to the EU (i.e. the public funds transferred to Brussels) are about £13billion per annum. That is about 1.7% of the public sector spending per year.

Net contribution - i.e. money we directly contribute minus money we directly receive back, e.g. for investment in infrastructure, research, etc etc is about £7-8 billion per annum, about 1% of the public sector spending per year.

So that is £120 million per week, thanks for confirming. We send £250 million a week the EU dictates where we spend the money they give back.

Benefit in terms of enhanced GDP is estimated by the CBI (and they are highly authoritative) at £62-78 billion.

So I make that £13 billion invested and £66-82 billion gained. So the EU doesn't cost us at all - it generates a net additional GDP of between £53 billion and £69 billion each year.

https://fullfact.org/economy/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/

http://news.cbi.org.uk/campaigns/our-global-future/factsheets/factsheet-2-benefits-of-eu-membership-outweigh-costs/

Which would remain as is if we do a free trade deal, its highly speculative anyway.

And by the way our net direct contribution to the EU on a per person basis is little different to Norway's and they aren't even members of the EU.

What about Mexico?

[ProfessorDavey]

So that is £120 million per week, thanks for confirming. We send £250 million a week the EU dictates where we spend the money they give back.

Nope I asked you:

'What's the real net cost Jakswan - in other words the direct money we provide minus the direct money we receive, adjusted for the economic benefit in terms of additional GDP linked to being a member.'

The answer to that is that we benefit to the tune of approximately £1billion every week from being a member of the EU

Which would remain as is if we do a free trade deal, its highly speculative anyway.

Which would require us to sign up to the vast majority of EU regulations plus contribute significantly to the EU budget, just like Norway, Switzerland and Iceland. But we would have a say in shaping those regulations that would still apply to us.

We could, of course, decide not to abide by those requirements, and then on would go the tariffs, making our businesses less competitive, thereby reducing our GDP.

[jakswan]

Nope I asked you:

'What's the real net cost Jakswan - in other words the direct money we provide minus the direct money we receive, adjusted for the economic benefit in terms of additional GDP linked to being a member.'

I disagree with your answer since we would still trade with the EU.

But you agree we send the EU £250 million a week.

We could, of course, decide not to abide by those requirements, and then on would go the tariffs, making our businesses less competitive, thereby reducing our GDP.

Assuming we can't negotiate a free trade agreement like Mexico, also the tariffs go both ways can't see BMW etc being too happy with that.

Even Labours position is to stay in a "reformed" EU, a reform that is the stuff of dreams like the majority of Corbyn's idealist policies.

[ProfessorDavey]

I disagree with your answer since we would still trade with the EU.

It wasn't my answer, but the CBI's who you will no doubt be aware are the leading organisation representing British business. So somehow you, Jakswan, apparently know better about the benefits of EU membership on British trade, businesses and industry than the CBI, whose members are of course involved in ... err ... British trade, business and industry.

And the £60-70 billion benefit isn't the values of trade with the rest of the EU, but specifically the additional benefit we get from being an EU member and therefore being able to trade as part of a free trade area. Leave the EU and that benefit is lost, unless of course you agree (like Norway) to be part of the EEA but outside the EU and then of course the contributions to the EU will kick in again and you will have to abide by pretty well all of the EU regulation.

But you agree we send the EU £250 million a week.

And get £1 billion benefit a week in return - sounds like a no-brainer.

Assuming we can't negotiate a free trade agreement like Mexico

Mexico's deal with the EU is on the basis of supporting developing economies, in other words to slowly lift up developing countries and therefore increase the market ultimately for trade from the EU. There is no way that the UK would have the same kind of deal because it isn't a developing economy ... unless, of course the economy tanks so much from no longer being part of the EU that we become classed as a developing economy

also the tariffs go both ways can't see BMW etc being too happy with that.

Indeed, which is why BMW, and other major investors, will pull out of the UK and relocated to another part of the EU to ensure they benefit from the 90% of the EU market that isn't in the UK, tariff-free, rather than just the 10% that is the UK and pay tariff on the remaining 90%.

[jeremyp]

This is getting boring, did I argue for EFTA? Another straw man.

It's only getting boring because the BREXITers don't want to answer the questions.

Free trade doesn't restrict you from introducing laws preventing profit divergence.

What is this? Why are you talking about?

Lets next start talking about rising wages, thanks Lord Rose, and cost of being in the EU, you debate if its 120 or 250 million a week.

Let's talk about the falling wages as a result of leaving the EU.

[jeremyp]

But you agree we send the EU £250 million a week.

Oh FFS, understand what investment and return from investment means. I pay in£x to my ISA every month, where x is quite significant. However, I get something called a "return on investment" back, which is usually more than x. Can you understand that principle? i.e. paying something in and thereby getting more back? Because the way you are arguing here, it suggests you can't.