Should we leave the EEC?

[Hope]

My opinion on the thread title is that, for all its failings and problems (see my earlier post listing some) our membership of the EU is a vital part of our continued economic stability.  Farage's policies - overall - are policies for a steady decline into banana republicanism - similar in outcome, but not in detail, to those of Wilson and Callaghan in the late 70s.

[Harrowby Hall]

I am rather concerned by the obsession with the EU. It seems to me that there is a section of society which can be broadly categorised as the not highly educated lower middle classes in middle life who believe, for some reason, that the "rewards" of life, which they think are due to them, are passing them by. (I say categorisation - I realise that some may consider this close to a caricature.)

They look for a reason and are entranced by slick individual with a passing resemblence to Arthur Daley who tells them that the reasons for this are:
(a) immigrants who, simultaneously, are taking all available jobs and growing rich on welfare benefits as well as monopolising health and education services and
(b) the EU which is submerging our British identity with expensive uncontrolled beaurocracy.

Is this not reminiscent of 1930s Germany when the perceived ills of society were blamed on The Jews?

Should Britain leave the EU expect an early announcement that the Nissan car plant in the North East will close. Nissan is controlled by Renault who would not waste any time in relocating the most efficient car producer in Europe onto French soil.

As far as trade to Europe is concerned, leaving the EU would be an empty gesture. The UK will be faced with all of the existing regulation and "bureaucracy" that it faces now. It costs Switzerland and Norway just as much to trade with the EU (in terms of regulations and bureaucracy) as it does EU members. But being inside the union does mean that a country can influence decision making; being outside the union means having to put up with whatever is thrown at you.

One of Arthur Dal Nigel Farage's claims is that we will be able to trade freely with the rest of the world. Well, don't forget that the competition will then come from the BRICs. Be ready for wages and living standards to fall in order to become competitive. In ten years the UK will be the Argentina of Europe.

I am not totally against Nigel Farage. Like him I believe that the UK needs to reform its preVictorian constitution. I worry that second rate political leaders like Cameron and Milliband are incapable of seeing beyond party advantage and will not seize the opportunities currently presented.

What rubbish. You must be a LibDem twat, as you haven't mentioned Cleggie boy with the other two.

I am indeed blessed. I have been insulted by Jack Knave. I shall bear this as a badge of honour.

As is so often the case, Mr Knave simply insults, he does not provide any reasoned argument. He switches his three working neurones onto full power and blasts away.

Mr Knave : A challenge. Indicate and justify no fewer than three points within my previous post which justify the label "rubbish". It would help if you could present reasoned argument showing why my assertions are incorrect.

Elevenses81 has already attacked me with pomposity ("Get a grip, man") but he does point out that he finds similarities with the behaviour of discontented Germans in the 1930s difficult to accept. Fair enough. But you, Jack, you just blast away. Action without premeditation. The world waits ...

[Hope]

It's not a suggestion.  It has been agreed for years, that extra income would incur a surcharge.  Then in May this year, the UK is credited with extra income, and this seems to be publicized as good news, but of course, it carries more tax. 

I wasn't referring to the concept of the surcharge, wiggi.  As you say that has been around for donkey's years. It was the revised way of calulating GDP that I referred to (as I think you are fully aware).  After all, as you said in an earlier post, that this was only announced during the late spring of this year.

[wigginhall]

It's not a suggestion.  It has been agreed for years, that extra income would incur a surcharge.  Then in May this year, the UK is credited with extra income, and this seems to be publicized as good news, but of course, it carries more tax. 

I wasn't referring to the concept of the surcharge, wiggi.  As you say that has been around for donkey's years. It was the revised way of calulating GDP that I referred to (as I think you are fully aware).  After all, as you said in an earlier post, that this was only announced during the late spring of this year.

So the Treasury had 4 months to tell the politicians that there was a rise in calculated income, and therefore there would be a surcharge?  Well, as I said, this is either stupidity or some kind of deliberate act.  Or maybe they did tell the politicians, and it was politically too sensitive, in the light of UKIP?  I guess we will never know.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's not a suggestion.  It has been agreed for years, that extra income would incur a surcharge.  Then in May this year, the UK is credited with extra income, and this seems to be publicized as good news, but of course, it carries more tax. 

I wasn't referring to the concept of the surcharge, wiggi.  As you say that has been around for donkey's years. It was the revised way of calulating GDP that I referred to (as I think you are fully aware).  After all, as you said in an earlier post, that this was only announced during the late spring of this year.

So the Treasury had 4 months to tell the politicians that there was a rise in calculated income, and therefore there would be a surcharge?  Well, as I said, this is either stupidity or some kind of deliberate act.  Or maybe they did tell the politicians, and it was politically too sensitive, in the light of UKIP?  I guess we will never know.

Too sensitive back in May.
Ideal now since it makes Cameron look tough on Europe and that always gets Middle Englands political G Spot.

[Harrowby Hall]

Your well reasoned reply is somewhat tainted by this unsavoury piece of hyperbole.

Hyperbole? Surely, you're exaggerating!

Oh I  see, so the 'foreigner' in our midst is perceived to be the perpetual outsider, a hate figure in hock to international banking and intrinsically disloyal and hence ripe for whatever hatred and abuse we throw on them. Get a grip man!!! Concerns about the addition of 1m added to our population since the mid 90's without additional infrastructure is not an insignificant concern.

Good Heavens. A whole million added to our population since the mid 90s?

Yes, we must think carefully about this. So, over 20 years an increase of about 1.75%. Not much, is it. That is an annual increase of about 0.08%. With the population measurement tools at our disposal such a quantity falls well within the margin of error.

Consider also - we have an ageing population. People are living longer and more and more people are retiring from the workforce. The proportion of the non-economically active portion of the workforce is growing and there is a real need for national income to support the non-active people.

Immigrants pay taxes. Without their contribution the situation would be even less secure than it is now.

Do you really think that Nigel Farage would lead us to the promised land?

[Hope]

Or maybe they did tell the politicians, and it was politically too sensitive, in the light of UKIP?  I guess we will never know.

What's the current timelag in publishing Government paperwork?  Is it still 30 years?   

[wigginhall]

It's not a suggestion.  It has been agreed for years, that extra income would incur a surcharge.  Then in May this year, the UK is credited with extra income, and this seems to be publicized as good news, but of course, it carries more tax. 

I wasn't referring to the concept of the surcharge, wiggi.  As you say that has been around for donkey's years. It was the revised way of calulating GDP that I referred to (as I think you are fully aware).  After all, as you said in an earlier post, that this was only announced during the late spring of this year.

So the Treasury had 4 months to tell the politicians that there was a rise in calculated income, and therefore there would be a surcharge?  Well, as I said, this is either stupidity or some kind of deliberate act.  Or maybe they did tell the politicians, and it was politically too sensitive, in the light of UKIP?  I guess we will never know.

Too sensitive back in May.
Ideal now since it makes Cameron look tough on Europe and that always gets Middle Englands political G Spot.

You could argue the reverse; that this has made Cameron look weak, and trailing behind UKIP.  Hence, his synthetic anger.   The Rochester by-election looks lost.   It does suggest that the Treasury is somehow being tricky.

[ippy]

Yes the only referendum we had was for joining the EEC

When was there a referendum for joining the EEC?

Without going into a semanticle debate, which seems to be your forte, the rererendum conducted when Ted Heath was PM, if you wish to argue about the terms I have used, please enjoy arguing with yourself.

ippy

[wigginhall]

Incidentally, the new statistics on the British economy were published in May by the Office for National Statistics, which is of course, a British outfit, not some nasty EU one.    It also said that these new figures would be used by the EU to calculate the contribution to the EU.   So somewhere there is a gap in the chain of communication, from the ONS stats, to Treasury officials, who would presumably read this (as did the Daily Mail), and then to politicians.  Maybe like Nelson, somebody put the telescope to their blind eye.

[Elevenses81]

Do you really think that Nigel Farage would lead us to the promised land?

God no Harrowby!!!!!!!!!! I may be a pompous and judgemental old sod, but credit me with one more brain cell than Jack. In posing a question about immigration I value the reasoned reply that you have given, but you can't deny that it is a big issue for many people who blame it for suppressing wages and placing great strain on local underfunded infrastructure.

[wigginhall]

Yet an area like London, which has high immigration, has high wages.   And somewhere like Clacton, which is economically more run-down has low immigration.   I know it's sometimes said in Manchester, that local areas with low immigration (and low wages), object to immigration, which is an interesting human trait.

[Elevenses81]

Maybe if the EU recognised the additional social cost of an unbalanced movement of EU citizens across Europe and granted those regions additional funding, hostility, warranted or otherwise, could be tempered.

[wigginhall]

Maybe if the EU recognised the additional social cost of an unbalanced movement of EU citizens across Europe and granted those regions additional funding, hostility, warranted or otherwise, could be tempered.

I'm not sure.  Cornwall gets EU investment (not about immigration), yet UKIP seem popular there, don't they?  I think it's currently half a billion euros, from 2014 to 2020.  Maybe they need more immigrants to increase the cash flow!

[Elevenses81]

Many people would be shocked how economically disadvantaged Cornwall is. It certainly is not just surfing, Rock, Padstow and stunning scenery, but more about empty holiday homes at inflated prices, no jobs and a great deal of poverty. Someone in this thread posted a cost figure to the UK of £90bn/annum which is nonsense when the figure is actually about £8bn when refunds are taken into account.

[jeremyp]

We have always looked across the pond in the past to the US for support

You seem to have forgotten that we have just finished paying off our WW2 loans to the US. They even made us pay for clapped-out WW1 destroyers. With the election of a Labour government after the war, all reconstruction loans were withdrawn and Maynard Keynes spent months in Washington trying to reverse the decision.

Ever heard of the Marshall Plan?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan

[jeremyp]

Should we leave the EEC(sic)?

No.

[Elevenses81]

Ever heard of the Marshall Plan?


The UK didn't get a penny of it. I suggest you rely less on internet sources for your knowledge of history and go down your library and do some proper research.

[jeremyp]

Ever heard of the Marshall Plan?


The UK didn't get a penny of it.

Is that what you really think?  If so, your understanding of economics is rather limited.

The European economy is not a zero sum game.  If the European economy stagnates or is in depression, our economy suffers too.  If the European economy does well, we benefit.

Now you could look on the USA making us pay back all the money we borrowed in the war as being nasty or you could look on it as them selling us stuff and not making us pay for it all for up to 60 years.  How cool is that?

[Elevenses81]

Ever heard of the Marshall Plan?


The UK didn't get a penny of it.

Is that what you really think?  If so, your understanding of economics is rather limited.

The European economy is not a zero sum game.  If the European economy stagnates or is in depression, our economy suffers too.  If the European economy does well, we benefit.

Now you could look on the USA making us pay back all the money we borrowed in the war as being nasty or you could look on it as them selling us stuff and not making us pay for it all for up to 60 years.  How cool is that?

Remind me who saved Europe from annihilation and stood alone. Remind me who our ally was. Remind me which was the only European nation to be in hock to the US for 65 years. Remind me why the US withdraw its reconstruction loans with the election of a Labour [sorry, communist] government. Do you have a library card? 

[jeremyp]

Ever heard of the Marshall Plan?


The UK didn't get a penny of it.

Is that what you really think?  If so, your understanding of economics is rather limited.

The European economy is not a zero sum game.  If the European economy stagnates or is in depression, our economy suffers too.  If the European economy does well, we benefit.

Now you could look on the USA making us pay back all the money we borrowed in the war as being nasty or you could look on it as them selling us stuff and not making us pay for it all for up to 60 years.  How cool is that?

Remind me who saved Europe from annihilation and stood alone.

The Soviet Union.

Remind me who our ally was.

The USA and the Soviet Union.

Remind me which was the only European nation to be in hock to the US for 65 years.

Did you expect them to just give us all of that military hardware?  Don't you think a 65 year term for repayment is generous?

And remind me which nation sent hundreds of thousands of soldiers to Europe to die on the Western Front despite not being directly involved and having a greater threat from Japan.

As well as that, Britain got $3 billion or more under the Marshall Plan.  If I was an American I'd be telling you to shove your library card up your ass now. 

[Elevenses81]

This board always welcomes erudite contributions such as yours Jeremy. So you don't have a library card then?

[jeremyp]

This board always welcomes erudite contributions such as yours Jeremy. So you don't have a library card then?

Why are you obsessing about who has got a library card and who hasn't? 

What does it matter if I found my facts on Wikipedia or in a library as long as they are correct? 

I'm currently thinking that your fascination with my library card is because you are trying to deflect attention from the fact that I am, broadly speaking, right on this occasion.

[ippy]

Yes the only referendum we had was for joining the EEC

When was there a referendum for joining the EEC?

Without going into a semanticle debate, which seems to be your forte, the rererendum conducted when Ted Heath was PM, if you wish to argue about the terms I have used, please enjoy arguing with yourself.

ippy

Really.
Ted Heath took us into the EEC following a general election, it was a manifesto pledge.
The only EEC referendum was under a Harold Wilson government and that was to ask whether we should REMAIN in it.
You like this word "semantic" , I suggest that you look it up and find out what it means.

Semantics Proff, just as I said true to form.

ippy

[jeremyp]

Yes the only referendum we had was for joining the EEC

When was there a referendum for joining the EEC?

Without going into a semanticle debate, which seems to be your forte, the rererendum conducted when Ted Heath was PM, if you wish to argue about the terms I have used, please enjoy arguing with yourself.

ippy

Really.
Ted Heath took us into the EEC following a general election, it was a manifesto pledge.
The only EEC referendum was under a Harold Wilson government and that was to ask whether we should REMAIN in it.
You like this word "semantic" , I suggest that you look it up and find out what it means.

Semantics Proff, just as I said true to form.

ippy

I don't think it is semantics to say that the referendum conducted under Edward Heath didn't happen because it didn't.