Merged Now What?

[GnaGnaMan]

Yes but it's not very popular as when you use the stuff you need to spit brown liquid out of your mouth every so often.

I see. But why would people chose snus over patches or gum?

About the only difference in THR policy in Sweden is the availability of Snus. They have much lower smoking rates than any other EU country.

The list in WP has Sweden ahead of Norway and Iceland but behind Denmark and Finland (on par with UK).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_cigarette_consumption_per_capita

 

[MCel58]

Yes but it's not very popular as when you use the stuff you need to spit brown liquid out of your mouth every so often.

About the only difference in THR policy in Sweden is the availability of Snus. They have much lower smoking rates than any other EU country.



This is correct, more or less. However the studies used to support Article 20 were badly flawed and mostly based on old technology(circa 2008). Vaping has only been around since the early 2000's and technology has advanced markedly in the past 3 years.

Other much better studies reflecting newer hardware etc etc were given to MEPs but they ignored them.

The pharma industry would like to control the market, (recently vape sales overtook NRT sales) they were lobbying very hard to implement Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) standards, which are pharmaceutical standards of manufacture, far beyond the reach of all but the biggest companies.
Health dept officials quite like this idea, but it would likely kill the market and return us to 2008 technology. You've been able to register vaping devices as medicinal products since 2010 with the MHRA. IIRC to date there is one registered device. The MHRA quote an initial cost of £300k with annual costs running from anything up to £250k.



Not true. In May this year the House of Lords strongly supported vaping. Lots of public health bodies, having viewed the literature are now in favour of vaping as a alternative to smoking. The Royal College of Physicians recently published a report on the subject, as did ASH (Action on Smoking and Health)

The opinion of public health officials and campaign groups is changing, based on actual real scientific evidence that shows the risks are much lower than the studies used to backup the TPD stated.

Much of the evidence that the RCP and ASH and others now base their opinions on was available in 2014 when this directive was passed. I handed some of this to my MEP and my local MP in person.

Unfortunately the Minister for Health and the Departments research scientists and officials do not always agree with the RCP and groups like ASH or in fact the House of Lords but for certain the officials representing the UK Department of Health on these committees were representing the UK policy line and not an EU one. That was my point.

 

[Francesca R]

If the current/next chancellor goes ahead as Osborne promised and cuts CT to 15% that would be a £12bn cut in income.

It would be a cut in government income/revenue, which is fiscal expansion. It would be an increase in corporate post-tax income.

Do you think such a cut will attract (1/3?) more businesses to the UK to realise similar returns

I would think it has a net stimulative effect on growth relative to not cutting corporate tax, but probably not a positive effect on government revenue.

or do you think s/he will look for more savings or will the deficit be allowed to grow at that rate? My guess is a CT cut will stop businesses migrating but will have to be offset by personal tax rises and or a rise in VAT.

Don't know if the government would try to offset the fall in government revenue at all, if so then not completely. Quite possibly not at all.

 

[Lothian]

How can constituents in the UK effect laws as part of the EU?.

Exactly the same way as they do in the UK parliament.
.

 

[Lothian]

It would be a cut in government income/revenue, which is fiscal expansion. It would be an increase in corporate post-tax income.

I would think it has a net stimulative effect on growth relative to not cutting corporate tax, but probably not a positive effect on government revenue.

Don't know if the government would try to offset the fall in government revenue at all, if so then not completely. Quite possibly not at all.

So even bigger debts relatively than the Tories inherited
I trust this time the outgoing treasury ministers would not be so foolish as to leave a jokey note.

 

[uke2se]

What? That's exactly what I was talking about.

No, you were talking about how the people that created the EU laws weren't elected, unlike the UK. This turned out to be yet another of your many misconceptions on the topic.

Right. I disagree with that, and understand Brits who do.

Since I understand the reason why, I don't.

That's nice, but is just empty rhetoric.

Not really. Time and again you have demonstrated that you are way out of your depth here.

I find the lying and exaggeration reprehensible, for the record. But there's nothing drastic about leaving the EU any more than it was drastic to join it. It's a big thing, for sure, but drastic?

It's drastic. If you disagree, you have no concept of what the word 'drastic' means.

I still disagree that when in the process of finding out what people want, you must already have the plan in place in case they decide against the statu quo.

Still can't figure out the difference in roles between election officials and 'leave'-campaigners?

I mean, by that logic, if you ask your kids whether they want to go to New Zealand or Italy for their vacation, you have to already have bookmarked all the websites you'll need to order the tickets and book the hotels. No such thing is needed at that stage.

Fail analogy is fail, for reasons already mentioned.

 

[catsmate]

Well, those first two paras were summarised in my "(i)sn't the Commission put together after an EU Parliament election?"

You could have just said "yes"...

Well I felt someone should be adding detailed information to the thread.

 

[CapelDodger]

You think that Osborne-Cameron told the truth about taxes rising and spending being cut after a leave vote? Which Osborne then ruled out on Monday 27th.

Osborne only ruled out an immediate emergency budget to fill his projected £30bn "black hole".
https://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/osborne-backs-away-emergency-budget/

“However, it is already evident that as a result of Thursday’s decision, some firms are continuing to pause their decisions to invest, or to hire people.

“As I said before the referendum, this will have an impact on the economy and the public finances – and there will need to be action to address that.

“Given the delay in triggering Article 50 and the Prime Minister’s decision to hand over to a successor, it is sensible that decisions on what that action should consist of should wait for the Office for Budget Responsiblity to assess the economy in the autumn, and for the new Prime Minister to be in place.”

Now that the budget deficit target has been jettisoned borrowing may take all the strain, but all will be revealed in the autumn.

 

[Belz...]

Some will and some won't. And some Canadians will have different considerations from other Canadians. Your observations are rather banal right now.

What's banal is your current inability to understand the point. Some Canadians would agree with some North Koreans, too, but it doesn't mean that I'd like NK to make decisions about my laws and regulations.

By voting for their governments and voting for their MEPs.

But they don't vote for the commission.

So they are not all alike but they all have different considerations than all people elsewhere who are also not alike and none of these overlap in any way?

No, that's stupid. I suspect that you know it's stupid, so it brings up a question: why construct the strawman in the first place if not to actively prevent discussion and understanding?

Exactly the same way as they do in the UK parliament.

No, that is actually wrong, for the reasons already explained.

 

[Belz...]

No, you were talking about how the people that created the EU laws weren't elected, unlike the UK. This turned out to be yet another of your many misconceptions on the topic.

Now you're the one changing the subject. You said I was changing the subject, and now you're saying that I'm instead wrong. Perhaps you should take a bit more time to answer my posts so that yours make some sort of sense.

Since I understand the reason why, I don't.

Does it enter your mind that two informed people can come to different conclusions, or have you learned nothing of your years on this forum?

Not really. Time and again you have demonstrated that you are way out of your depth here.

That is not an argument.

It's drastic. If you disagree, you have no concept of what the word 'drastic' means.

Of course. I cannot possibly disagree for rational reasons. I must be wrong, if I disagree with you at all. What a fine forum of skeptical, rational thinkers we have, here.

Still can't figure out the difference in roles between election officials and 'leave'-campaigners?

At this point it's clear that you are deliberately failing to follow the conversation.

Fail analogy is fail, for reasons already mentioned.

You have not mentioned any reasons.

 

[catsmate]

Actually not really true as these as covered by Geographical Indicators which is a form of trademark covered not only by EU treaties but a wide range of International treaties and managed through the World Intellectual Property Organisation.
The EU has created a way to manage these on an EU basis if companies desire multiple registrations in Europe through both the European Patent Office and the EU intellectual property office throughout the EU 28. The case of Scotch Whisky is different again and is managed through the UK intellectual property office.

The issue will be where UK businesses have planned their trademark and design rights strategies to use EU mechanisms which means that instead of registering in each country and paying both registration fees and translations costs they have chosen to register through the EU and pay only one fee and have no translation costs.

Also, for the last 10 years or so there have been ongoing discussion about an EU patent which would have reduced costs for Innovative EU companies by allowing a single patent application in one language that would cover all 28 countries. We were just about to have agreement.

I wonder will the UK be leaving the European Patent Organisation too?

 

[Lothian]

No, that is actually wrong, for the reasons already explained.

No it is correct.
The only way I can introduce a new law in the UK is to lobby the Minister, in Europe I would lobby the commissioner.
However I am more than happy for you to attempt to correct me and tell me I can effect a law in the UK.

 

[Castro]

I wonder will the UK be leaving the European Patent Organisation too?

Switzerland has been a EPO member since 1977 as the UK. I don't see why the UK would have to leave
https://www.epo.org/about-us/organisation/member-states/date.html

 

[MCel58]

I wonder will the UK be leaving the European Patent Organisation too?

It may have to, membership is only open to the EU28 or now EU27 or a member of the EEA like Switzerland or Norway. It could end up with Validation state status but this limits powers.

 

[Francesca R]

So even bigger debts relatively than the Tories inherited

Total public debt, in pounds and as a percent of output (GDP) was already going to be bigger in 2020 than in 2015 or in 2010 (and back in 2010 it was already going to be bigger on either measure in 2015 than 2010), because the Tories and the previous coalition were only going to get the yearly deficit (borrowing requirement) back to small surplus by the target date(s). At that point the total debt (in pounds) would level off and start to fall (unless, as is more likely, the surplus was used up in more spending or tax cuts). In %GDP terms it could be falling before the deficit became a surplus . . . . approximately as soon as the deficit is smaller than annual nominal GDP growth. That is not happening yet and is obviously pretty unlikely now for quite a while. But bottom line the government never said total debt would be lower. (Unless you can find a quote otherwise)

The pre-Brexit OBR projection for debt/GDP is in chart 5.3 of the "Economic and fiscal outlook charts and tables" at this link, apparently debt/GDP was expected to fall in the current fiscal year. (but would not be lower than 2010)

I trust this time the outgoing treasury ministers would not be so foolish as to leave a jokey note.

There's almost never been any money left; it's negative (future) money.

 

[MikeG]

Total public debt, in pounds and as a percent of output (GDP) was already going to be bigger in 2020 than in 2015 or in 2010 (and back in 2010 it was already going to be bigger on either measure in 2015 than 2010), because the Tories and the previous coalition were only going to get the yearly deficit (borrowing requirement) back to small surplus by the target date(s). At that point the total debt (in pounds) would level off and start to fall (unless, as is more likely, the surplus was used up in more spending or tax cuts). In %GDP terms it could be falling before the deficit became a surplus . . . . approximately as soon as the deficit is smaller than annual nominal GDP growth. That is not happening yet and is obviously pretty unlikely now for quite a while. But bottom line the government never said total debt would be lower. (Unless you can find a quote otherwise)........

Sounds like you may be replying to someone who doesn't know the difference between debt and deficit.

 

[Francesca R]

Osborne only ruled out an immediate emergency budget to fill his projected £30bn "black hole".

Which he had said he would do.

Since then he wants to cut corporation tax, and I don't think any other ideas have emerged.

So he has gone from a promise to contract fiscal policy "to fill a black hole" to expanding it because the economy will be negatively impacted by Brexit. Which was the same expectation as before it is not as if the expected impact is any different; but the Osborne-Cameron policy prescription was reversed in a matter of weeks.

I think it is an act of extreme charity to call that a change or even a U-turn, and not a lie. Extreme inconsistent charity at that, since one does not see it being similarly extended to the leave campaign.

 

[MCel58]

This is exactly what Georgr Osborne said about debt in the 2016 budget statement

"In cash terms the national debt is lower than it was forecast to be in the autumn, but so too is the nominal size of our economy.

We measure the fiscal target against debt to GDP.

So while debt as a percentage of GDP is above target and set to be higher in 2015-16 than the year before;

Compared to the forecast, the actual level of our national debt in cash is £9 billion lower.

In the future, debt falls to 82.6% next year, then 81.3% in 2017-18, then 79.9% the year after.

In 2019-20, it falls again to 77.2%, then down again the year after to 74.7%."

So he was suggesting lower debt by 2020 but that may not be achievable now

 

[Francesca R]

In the future, debt falls to 82.6% next year, then 81.3% in 2017-18, then 79.9% the year after.

In 2019-20, it falls again to 77.2%, then down again the year after to 74.7%."

So he was suggesting lower debt by 2020 but that may not be achievable now

That comes straight from the Office for Budget Responsibility data I linked to, it's Osborne's source data for projections. But it does not get debt as a fraction of GDP lower than 2010 when Labour was voted out. And in pounds it obviously has / would have increased every single year up to 2020. ("lower than forecast to be in Autumn" doesn't mean lower than it was last year)

 

[MCel58]

That comes straight from the Office for Budget Responsibility data I linked to, it's Osborne's source data for projections. But it does not get debt as a fraction of GDP lower than 2010 when Labour was voted out. And in pounds it obviously has / would have increased every single year up to 2020. ("lower than forecast to be in Autumn" doesn't mean lower than it was last year)

Except he actually said that in cash terms
"Compared to the forecast, the actual level of our national debt in cash is £9 billion lower."