Brexit

VG

Then put up a counter argument that refute the criticisms of your views rather than just ignoring them.

If you can’t refute whats been said then the criticisms stand.

I mean hell you don’t even seem to have picked up the basic information that has already been posted.

Why do you say that - what are you basing that view on - I mean that’s all been covered, no reputable source is saying that we will get better deals, so what are you basing your viewpoint on?

AGAIN already covered – do you know anything about what WTO terms would mean, can you please read the posts?

I mean please explain how you think it would work?

What do you mean? Do you even know what you mean?

What has Norway got to do with what hard line leavers are pushing for – as already explained (please read the fucking posts) they have already rejected a Norway type deal, and Norway pays into the EU (and just a bit smaller rate than the UK) for access into its market but has no say in its trading rules while having to stay aligned to them.

You would know all this if you read the posts in the thread.

 

Norway : a quick briefingfor VG benifit

What say does Norway have over EU rules?

None. Norway has representatives in EU institutions, but they have no decision-making power in how EU rules are drafted.

The country has been granted participation rights, but no voting rights, in several of the union’s programmes, bodies and initiatives, including the European Defence Agency, Frontex, Europol and the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction.

Is the Norway option cheaper?

Yes, but not by much. In 2012, Norway was paying €340m (£245m) a year into the EU budget – the tenth-highest contributor. The thinktank Open Europe estimates that the UK would pay 94% of its current costs (£31.4bn annually) if it left the EU but adopted a Norway-type arrangement.


What about immigration?

The UK has more control over its borders than Norway, which is part of the Schengen border-free area. As a result, Norway has higher per capita immigration than the UK. However, as a signatory to the agreement, it does have a say in how it operates.

 

And then there is this one.

Up to £92 billion value added through trade as a result of EU membership


COMPARED TO WHAT?

Not having a free trade deal? When you leave the EU, as if those countries arent going to turn around almost instantly and say oh please please please can we have a free trade deal, so we can get your shit cheap, so you still buy our shit

Its common sense.

You dont need to be an EU member to organize a free trade deal. Your biggest trading partner is the US. There are also a whole bunch of important countries that arent in that list of top 15 because you are too reliant on europe.

You keep saying leavers have no rationale reason for leaving. They have at least one, the most important one Democracy.

I have yet to hear a rational reason from remainers apart from some bizarre camaraderie bullshit.

Trade isnt one of those reasons, you should be broadening and diversifying your trade relationships anyway

 

What has it got to do with the EU? Well you could pump that £9 billion into the rail network

Even more important nowadays since nobody can afford to live on london and you have a lot more people travelling on the train for 2 hrs to get to work

 

UK opted out of the Schengen Agreement well before any talk of Brexit

Norway had two referendums about joining the EU, both were defeated

The fact that you had to quote (well quote without quoting) a think tank told me automatically it was bullshit. EEA is not the same as the EU, and £245 million (million with an m) of course IS a whole lot cheaper than £9 billion (billion with a b)

Norways GNP per capita means EU fees would be too high. Basically they are too wealthy to join the EU, which is a bit of a laugh.

So they get a free trade deal in the EFTA, dont pay EU fees, what they do contribute to the EEA is just a form of charity/ foreign aid anyway

 

VG

AGAIN - And you are basing this on what? It used to be ‘common sense’ that the world was flat.

AGAIN READ THE POSTS – so what we still export some 44% to other EU countries compared with only some 13% to the US.

HOW OFTEN DO I HAVE TO ASK YOU TO READ THE POST? This has been covered, you stillhave not shown a grasp of what WTO terms means.

What do you mean, do you even know what you mean?

What are you talking about? I mean how do you even know what has been said the thing that has become very obvious is that you haven’t read the posts in this thread.

Again do you even know what you are talking about?

ALREADY COVERED - We could pump money into the rail network even in the EU do that know we were planning to build the HS2 at a cost of 30+ billion and are just ending the construction of Cross rail at a cost of around 15 billion, so what the hell are you talking about?

AGAIN COVERED – why is it that its expensive to buy a house in London if you had read the post you would know?[/quote]

 

Hey, how is £245 million cheaper but not by much compared to £9 billion eh?

Wink wink, lolz

 

Let me guess, neoliberalism?

 

Labor is not going to agree to an early election because they know they are going to lose.

And they really need to replace their useless leader now

 

VG

As I guessed you have nothing – please read the thread and answer the questions asked of you and address the criticisms of your views - and maybe you will.

 

Lets dwell on this little chestnut for a while

£245 million is "cheaper but not by much" compared to £9 Billion

Why dont you explain to our readers the difference between EU fees and EEC contributions

 

I wonder how many of your politicians dont actually understand all this.

You leave the EU, nothing all that much changes. 21 Tories just threw away their own careers

 

Norway currently pays €391 million per year, plus some extra for access to various other EU instruments, according to a new paper from the People’s Vote campaign. This brings its net total to around €115 per person.

Meanwhile, the UK’s average annual net contribution to the EU budget is around €8 billion per year, once all EU money paid back to the UK government and private sector is taken into account, according to the latest EU figures. What’s more, the government counts roughly half billion of our EU contribution towards our foreign aid budget. All in, that’s also about €115 per person.

https://infacts.org/norway-plus-could-mean-paying-as-much-to-eu-as-today/

Population of Norway – 5.25 million

Population of UK – 66.04 million

But to repeat all the Norway options are rejected by hardline leavers.

TO REPEAT – Can you please read the thread and answer the questions asked of you and address the criticisms of your views - you are going off at tangents again to try and distract from you inability to acyually answer anything

 

VG

What the hell are you talking about now – can you please explain your thinking?

 

I see you are still up to your boring shite tactic of explain this and explain that.
This even though doing that constantly makes you a prize thick Pratt.

Personally I long done trying to educate you on the merits of Brexit.
I failed!
Now please just put your dummy in your mouth and get Mummy to change your Diaper.
Cause after all.
You are so full of Shite! He he he!

 

The £245 million figure you originally quoted was Norways contibution to the EEC, not the EU. Around half of which are direct grants to the poorer EU countries. i.e Norway gets to say where the money goes and its more like foreign aid

After 2009 those contibutions are paid to the EEA/ EFTA, not the whole framework of the EU

All explained here

Norway's EU payments

 

I see you are still writing basically the same pointless post to everything Balbus says
despite you claiming he is a "prize thick pratt"

Personally I don't remember ever seeing an attempt by you to even educate yourSELF, let alone anyone else on Brexit.
You failed.
Now please learn to debate without filling your posts with insulting attempts to belittle your debating partner
and absolutely no substance to your opinions whatsoever.

 

I dont believe you know what a hard brexit actually means, its a phrase you hear in the media and just regurgitate

As for hard borders, so what. If you ended up with an American TSA style arrangement, a little more inconvenient to tourists, but it would mean a lot more border control jobs. The actual impact that would have on tourism, you or anyone else would have no clue on until it actually happens and its going to be inconsequential to the positive effect a falling currency has on tourism.

As for trade, you and many others seem to be under the impression if you Brexit you are some how not going to be able to negotiate free trade agreements with these same countries which is just nonsense. What do you think they are going to resist for a short term just out of spite? Why the assumption its all going to be negative?

In both cases, borders and trade, Brexiting, you are just talking about doing it the same way the rest of the world does

None of your politicians have a clue whats actually going to happen until it happens. To claim otherwise is bullshit

 

So 8.9 billion pounds is about 1.39% of the UK's 637 billion trade with the EU.

https://assets.publishing.service.g...0402_UK_Trade_in_Numbers_full_web_version.pdf

UN estimates conservatively it would cost 16 billion.

'No deal' Brexit would cost at least $16 billion in UK sales to the EU: UN report

Plus the 39 billion from the divorce fee.

Brexit divorce bill - Wikipedia

Financially it doesn't seem like it's in the UK's best interest.

 

See Balbus, they just do a quick google search and link the most dramatic headline, maybe partially read the article. That CNN article doesnt even link to the UNCTAD report


Then bizarrely a link to the wikipedia page on the brexit divorce bill, like Ive never heard of it before


Lode: some homework for you. Is that what the UNCTAD report actually says or does it offer up treatise on non tariff deals vs tariff deals. We are talking about the UN, why would they take sides. UNCTAD didnt write the headline "would cost at least". You are actually being influenced by the article, not the report

Just on what you have written there, 16 billion vs 637 billion, does that make sense to you. How long do you think that would take to correct itself? Even find somewhere else in the world to replace it

The so called divorce deal is mostly infrastructure commitments the UK has already agreed to, and will likely agree to even after leaving the EU. Just that after leaving it will be up to them where the money goes

The Digital services tax, US/UK future trade deals murky at the moment because the UK and EU want to try slap on a 2% tax to the likes of google, amazon. The impact of that could easily be as big as all of this brexit stuff. More in your area of interest. To put things in perspective