Jon's Europhobic rant.

[Jon_in_london]

Most of the FDI into the UK comes from Europe, from the EU to be specific. If the UK decides to leave the union it would imply that european companies will have to face a rising in production and export costs to keep on operating or to locate their plants in this country.

Of course, once out of the EU it will be thoroughly impossible to negotiate any kind of trade deal with the EU, such as the one between EU and EFTA? I cant think of any other reason why a rise in production and export costs would occur, and even thats not a very convincing one.

 

[Jon_in_london]

You have not provided a single valid argument to support your opposition to the EU. Decisions should be taken on economic and political basis, no in terms of patriotism and love for our sovereignty. You as a single individual depend on a wage to subsist, therefore you will try to work in that company that pays you the highest wage, independently whether or not your country belongs to a union. Being part of the EU guarantees the highest possible economic scenario for you.

B-S

Yes I have. "Decisions should be taken on economic and political basis" I agree, and Id rather have politicians who have this country's best interests at heart, who are answerable to this country's electorate making those decisions.

"Being part of the EU guarantees the highest possible economic scenario for you. "

Pfff!!! What is this? You think that if you repeat the same fallacy over and over that everyone will eventually become glassy-eyed and say "Yes, the EU is the best for me, to obey is to be free"?

Compare the unemployment and recent economic growth rates of the UK and France and Germany, then tell me with a straight face that "the EU guarantees the highest possible economic scenario for me".

 

[Drooper]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Jon's Europhobic rant.

I asked for the justification of the 2.8 pounds. Because you claim that you only get 35% of your spending back. That sounded like an incredible exaggeration. (which it apparantly was.)

We all know that the UK is a net payer, but so are half of the EU countries.

HM treasury:

2001/2002
9,213 billion ponds gross payments
after reduction of income from the EU
-> 770 million net payments

So for 1 pound which you get, you'll have to pay 1.09 pounds. Not 2.8!

Go back and look at the Treasury paper you sighted. It clearly shows Net EU contributions from the UK of £4bn per annum from 1998 to 2002 and £1.5bn in 2001 and over £2bn in 2002.


You are wrong.

 

[Drooper]

Hello???? wasn't that exactly what I said before?.

Most of the FDI into the UK comes from Europe, from the EU to be specific. If the UK decides to leave the union it would imply that european companies will have to face a rising in production and export costs to keep on operating or to locate their plants in this country. So, the position of the UK is quite vulnerable and most of the debate about whether or not is beneficial to remain with the EU goes around stupid patriotic arguments, such as Jon's.

Q-S

Hello???

Far from being a threat, if UK left the EU, it could see a wave of increased FDI.

Companies would not face rising costs. In fact, freed for the need to follow EU directives, such as the Social Chapter, that place layer upon layer of regulation on production, the UK would do extremely well.

As the data shows,lack of membership of the Euro was no hindrence to FDI. Neither would membership of the EU. It would be the domestice policies of the UK that would be most important.

- its regulatory stance, (cost imposing)
- its macroeconomic management.
- it fiscal contr0ol (ability tokeep tax rates low)

 

[Jon_in_london]

Another example of the EU making laws that seem only to apply to certain countries and not other is EC directive 91/440. Which meant that we had to separate rail operation from infrastructure, which is one of the main reasons our railways are so much worse than say, France's. Hold on though, has France complied with this directive? Has it? No prizes for guessing the answer though..

 

[Mike B.]

I wonder if "The Guardian" will start railing against countries that "think the rules only apply to other people" and "always act in their own interest" and are "arrogant."

Will Steve Bell start drawing Charles Kennedy as a poodle following around Schroeder and Chirac?



My guess is NO.

 

[The Don]

Another example of the EU making laws that seem only to apply to certain countries and not other is EC directive 91/440. Which meant that we had to separate rail operation from infrastructure, which is one of the main reasons our railways are so much worse than say, France's. Hold on though, has France complied with this directive? Has it? No prizes for guessing the answer though..

No, by my reading all it requires is that separate P&L accounts are kept (presumably to avoid hidden cross subsidisation)

from Article 6 of the directive:

1.Member States shall take the measures necessary to
ensure that separate profit and loss accounts and balance sheets are kept and published, on the one hand, for business relating to the provision of transport services by railway undertakings and, on the other, for business relating to the management of railway infrastructure. Public funds paid to one of these two areas of activity may not be transferred to the other. The accounts for the two areas of activity shall be kept in a way
that reflects this prohibition.

2.Member States may also provide that this separation shall require the organisation of distinct divisions within a single undertaking or that the infrastructure shall be managed by a separate entity.