Should We Leave the EU?

[anme]

There has to be a level at which such a tax is administered. I just don't see why it has to be super-national.

Well, that's true. It has to be somewhere. (Although why should the good, hard working people of west Halifax put up with tax rates being imposed on them by the "metropolitan elite" of central Halifax?). But why this obsession with doing things at national level? Remember - IDS is a politician who works at national level. Well, worked.

BTW, despite all this, tax rates actually do vary between EU countries. Quite a lot.

 

[yorksrob]

Ordinary consumers do cross borders to take advantage of lower tax rates, the most obvious example being tobacco where there are lots of cigarette shops in Belgium at the border with France. People also shop online and get deliveries from other EU countries.

True, but in that circumstance, individual countries are more than capable of deciding whether too many people are going on booze cruises and adjusting their rate accordingly.

 

[anme]

True, but in that circumstance, individual countries are more than capable of deciding whether too many people are going on booze cruises and adjusting their rate accordingly.

I'm very confused. I thought you were telling us that tax rates are imposed by Brussels. But now you're saying that individual countries can adjust their tax rates? Which is correct?

 

[yorksrob]

Well, that's true. It has to be somewhere. (Although why should the good, hard working people of west Halifax put up with tax rates being imposed on them by the "metropolitan elite" of central Halifax?). But why this obsession with doing things at national level? Remember - IDS is a politician who works at national level. Well, worked.

BTW, despite all this, tax rates actually do vary between EU countries. Quite a lot.

I suppose it's where you draw the line. Generally I feel that the more devolved things are, the better.

I'm not against the concept of a European Community of countries cooperating on issues, for example, deciding on visa requirements between member states etc, however I don't agree with this deep involvement in countries economies.

If the EU really practiced subsidiarity, I would be less against it, but the fact that it is micro - managing VAT rates suggests to me that this isn't happening.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm very confused. I thought you were telling us that tax rates are imposed by Brussels. But now you're saying that individual countries can adjust their tax rates? Which is correct?

No, I'm saying that countries are capable of adjusting tax rates for themselves. That is why there is no need for the EU to impose harmonised VAT rates, yet for some reason it does.

 

[anme]

I suppose it's where you draw the line. Generally I feel that the more devolved things are, the better.

I'm not against the concept of a European Community of countries cooperating on issues, for example, deciding on visa requirements between member states etc, however I don't agree with this deep involvement in countries economies.

If the EU really practiced subsidiarity, I would be less against it, but the fact that it is micro - managing VAT rates suggests to me that this isn't happening.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


No, I'm saying that countries are capable of adjusting tax rates for themselves. That is why there is no need for the EU to impose harmonised VAT rates, yet for some reason it does.

Please read back those sentences. How does the EU micro-manage VAT rates, and impose harmonised VAT rates, when rates are different in each member state? How can you say "countries are capable of adjusting tax rates for themselves" and then say in the next sentence that the EU imposes harmonised VAT rates, when you know the first of those two things is true and the second is false, and they are directly contradictory?

I am regularly astonished at the logical knots that anti-EU types will tie themselves in to justify their beliefs!

 

[yorksrob]

Please read back those sentences. How does the EU micro-manage VAT rates, and impose harmonised VAT rates, when rates are different in each member state? How can you say "countries are capable of adjusting tax rates for themselves" and then say in the next sentence that the EU imposes harmonised VAT rates, when you know the first of those two things is true and the second is false, and they are directly contradictory?

I am regularly astonished at the logical knots that anti-EU types will tie themselves in to justify their beliefs!

The EU imposes a minimum VAT rate which in practical terms has impacted on our ability to levy a lower rate on certain energy saving products such as insulation as an example.

In terms of my grasp of the English language, there is a difference between being "capable" I.e. having the managerial level of knowledge to do something, and actually having the legal power to do something. I thought this distinction was clear in my previous post, but obviously it required further explanation.

 

[anme]

The EU imposes a minimum VAT rate which in practical terms has impacted on our ability to levy a lower rate on certain energy saving products such as insulation as an example.

The point is that this is part of the operation of the single market. Hardly seems like micro-management. But if you disagree with it, why not try to get it changed at EU level, rather than "throwing one's toys out the pram" and storming out? And one might argue that more tax harmonisation rather than less would be beneficial - it would certainly reduce the tax-minimisation activities of multi-national companies.

In terms of my grasp of the English language, there is a difference between being "capable" I.e. having the managerial level of knowledge to do something, and actually having the legal power to do something. I thought this distinction was clear in my previous post, but obviously it required further explanation.

EU states *do* have different rates of VAT! Let me repeat that, because it doesn't seem to be getting through - EU states *do* have different rates of VAT!

 

[Oswyntail]

.... I don't see what benefit the North and West has to gain from a London centric English state, but that's another argument.

What immediately springs to mind is that it protects the North from being run by the likes of those people who have been running Yorkshire into the ground for decades!

 

[yorksrob]

The point is that this is part of the operation of the single market. Hardly seems like micro-management. But if you disagree with it, why not try to get it changed at EU level, rather than "throwing one's toys out the pram" and storming out? And one might argue that more tax harmonisation rather than less would be beneficial - it would certainly reduce the tax-minimisation activities of multi-national companies.



EU states *do* have different rates of VAT! Let me repeat that, because it doesn't seem to be getting through - EU states *do* have different rates of VAT!

And how exactly does an EU wide minimum VAT rate facilitate the common market?

If we decide to have insulation at a lower rate than other products for example (which the ECJ has just outlawed because it contravenes the EU's harmonised VAT policy, which you seem to be in denial about) how exactly does that impede the functioning of the common market?

My point is that the EU seems to be involved in a whole lot of economic policy that it doesn't need to be. The Common Market should consist of "Thou shalt not tariff thy neighbours products" and nothing more.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What immediately springs to mind is that it protects the North from being run by the likes of those people who have been running Yorkshire into the ground for decades!

I think you'll find that the Tory party are even more prolific in London

 

[anme]

My point is that the EU seems to be involved in a whole lot of economic policy that it doesn't need to be. The Common Market should consist of "Thou shalt not tariff thy neighbours products" and nothing more.

The idea of a free market is nice but in reality only really exists in countries without governments at all - think Somalia, Afghanistan, etc - and you probably don't want to live in such a place. In developed markets, there are many rules and regulations. We can argue if there should be more or fewer, but at least some are necessary. If you want a functioning free market, these rules have to be harmonised to at least a certain degree, or products and services from one part of the market simply can't be used in other parts and you don't have a functioning common market at all.

 

[yorksrob]

The idea of a free market is nice but in reality only really exists in countries without governments at all - think Somalia, Afghanistan, etc - and you probably don't want to live in such a place. In developed markets, there are many rules and regulations. We can argue if there should be more or fewer, but at least some are necessary. If you want a functioning free market, these rules have to be harmonised to at least a certain degree, or products and services from one part of the market simply can't be used in other parts and you don't have a functioning common market at all.

Depends on what you mean by a 'free market'. My preference would be for a basic removal of tariffs on goods.

You asked me in an earlier post why I don't think we should stay and try and change the EU.

If I do decide to vote out, it will probably be because I don't think that an organisation that has impoverished several of its member countries for the sake of a badly though out single currency, is capable of withdrawing from economic policy to the extent that I believe is necessary.

However, like Bucks Fizz, I'm still making my mind up.

 

[anme]

If I do decide to vote out, it will probably be because I don't think that an organisation that has impoverished several of its member countries for the sake of a badly though out single currency, is capable of withdrawing from economic policy to the extent that I believe is necessary.

Which aspects of economic policy do you think the EU should withdraw from?

As I said, without a certain degree of common rules and regulations, there is no common market. So either someone believes in the common market, which means there must be common rules and regulations, or they do not believe in the common market, meaning common rules and regulations are not necessary. I don't see a middle ground. You can't have one without the other.

 

[yorksrob]

Which aspects of economic policy do you think the EU should withdraw from?

As I said, without a certain degree of common rules and regulations, there is no common market. So either someone believes in the common market, which means there must be common rules and regulations, or they do not believe in the common market, meaning common rules and regulations are not necessary. I don't see a middle ground. You can't have one without the other.

Pretty much everything with the exception of the internal tariffs on goods.

I don't believe there is any need to impose liberalised postal services, separately accounted tracks and trains, liberalised housing markets etc

By contrast, I have no problem with structural and development funds. These don't limit self Government to any great extent and provide a useful additional route through which to draw down on our own funds.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

802 posts on this thread....and still three months to go to the referendum...

Indeed. And as far as I'm aware, with 802 posts, no one has yet attempted to respond to my invitation in the first post to argue either for or against staying in the EU based on what is good for international relations/cooperation between countries/etc. rather than narrowly on the perceived interests of the UK alone:

I want to see a World in which countries, as far as practical, cooperate for the good of humanity - for all the people in the world. That seems to me to give a very good argument for having an organization like the EU. The fact that so much business is multinational, and so many problems (such as pollution and crime) ignore national boundaries and therefore cannot be solved by individual Governments working in isolation gives - to my mind - strong argument in favour of national Governments allowing some decisions to be made at an international level - which again seems to imply that an organization like the EU would be a good thing.

On the other hand, what I see in the EU looks more like almost every country squabbling and trying to look after its own interests, without much thought for those outside its own borders (the response to the current migrant crisis is an obvious example). If that's what the EU has become, is it really a force for good any more? And the recent experience of Greece suggests to me that it is important for national Governments to be able to control their own economies - their levels of economic growth, and of public spending etc. - rather more than is permitted by the free market and the Euro.

<snip>

Based on that, I invite anyone to try to persuade me on the merits for either staying in the EU or leaving it

(note that since I wrote that, my views have moved towards staying in)

 

[anme]

I notice that no member of the "out" brigade has responded to my question about what they want to see after a no vote, for example - should the UK remain part of the EEA like Norway and Switzerland, or should it abandon all institutional cooperation to become more like Belarus or Morocco, or something else.

You must, surely, have thought long and hard about this!

 

[90sWereBetter]

One of the arguments for leaving the EU is that we can strengthen ties with the USA. But, given the possibility of a Drumpf presidency, do you really want Britain to have a close relationship with what almost certainly be a rogue state should Drumpf win in November? I certainly wouldn't.

 

[LateThanNever]

Indeed. And as far as I'm aware, with 802 posts, no one has yet attempted to respond to my invitation in the first post to argue either for or against staying in the EU based on what is good for international relations/cooperation between countries/etc. rather than narrowly on the perceived interests of the UK alone:

The most obvious problem would be if a British exit precipitated the gradual - or faster - disintegration of the rest of the EU. As an old democracy, Britain's hissy fit sets a poor example that would not be good for international relations anywhere.

 

[yorksrob]

Indeed. And as far as I'm aware, with 802 posts, no one has yet attempted to respond to my invitation in the first post to argue either for or against staying in the EU based on what is good for international relations/cooperation between countries/etc. rather than narrowly on the perceived interests of the UK alone:

For something like NATO which is limited in scope to what individual countries decide to do for a particular purpose, it is possible to argue for or against it in terms of international relations alone.

For something with consequences as far reaching as the EU in its present form, which has the ability to impose legislation and develop the law through court action, it would be foolish to argue one way or another, purely on the basis of international relations. This goes to the heart of every day Government of the country, so the effect on international relations is a small proportion of the argument.

 

[anme]

One of the arguments for leaving the EU is that we can strengthen ties with the USA. But, given the possibility of a Drumpf presidency, do you really want Britain to have a close relationship with what almost certainly be a rogue state should Drumpf win in November? I certainly wouldn't.

Does the USA want a closer relationship with the UK? The US government has expressed the wish that the UK remains in the EU.

 

[Steveman]

Does the USA want a closer relationship with the UK? The US government has expressed the wish that the UK remains in the EU.

Don't be so sure it's a Govt. wish it's more of an Obama wish, he's made no secret of his disdain for this country and in doing so a lot of Americans are not happy.

They had a member of congress on the tv last week and he said the main issue with us is they want to us to play a leading role in NATO the EU business isn't that crucial.

 

[WessexEclectic]

I notice that no member of the "out" brigade has responded to my question about what they want to see after a no vote, for example - should the UK remain part of the EEA like Norway and Switzerland, or should it abandon all institutional cooperation to become more like Belarus or Morocco, or something else.

You must, surely, have thought long and hard about this!

Here you go. Have a read of this.

You're welcome...

 

[anme]

Here you go. Have a read of this.

You're welcome...

Interesting document. Do you agree with it?

From a quick scan, it advocates the Norwegian model, with the UK becoming a part of the EEA. This will mean that we are still subject to most of the same rules and regulations as today, and will preserve freedom of movement, living and working with the EU. I am strongly in favour of both of those things which is why I'm in favour of remaining in the EU, which would have the advantage that we would also have a say over the making of those rules and regulations.

The question is whether the out-ers would find this satisfactory. Would you?

The later part of the document, proposing replacing the Brussels institutions with new UN backed institutions in Geneva is a new one to me. It seems to duplicate most of the functions of the EU today in a rather less democratic way. Maybe you could explain why any country would want to do this?

 

[STEVIEBOY1]

I notice that no member of the "out" brigade has responded to my question about what they want to see after a no vote, for example - should the UK remain part of the EEA like Norway and Switzerland, or should it abandon all institutional cooperation to become more like Belarus or Morocco, or something else.

You must, surely, have thought long and hard about this!

If the EU was just a common market as it first was that would be fine. It's all the other rules and regulations that I am not keen on. Maybe being out but having a trading relationship such as Norway & Switzerland would be ok?

 

[radamfi]

If the EU was just a common market as it first was that would be fine. It's all the other rules and regulations that I am not keen on. Maybe being out but having a trading relationship such as Norway & Switzerland would be ok?

But Norway and Switzerland have to observe these rules and regulations.

 

[anme]

If the EU was just a common market as it first was that would be fine. It's all the other rules and regulations that I am not keen on. Maybe being out but having a trading relationship such as Norway & Switzerland would be ok?

Which rules don't you like?

 

[Blamethrower]

This is what I've advocated from the start.

Being a member of the EEA will let us have our cake and eat it, just like Norway.

It's just not being spelled out, correlated with or compared to any alternatives. What we need is a list of the european bodies (cartels?) and tell us all exactly what they do and what they stand for. At the moment, the "In's" are advocating rules that are mostly are part of the EEA and not the EU, others are advocating the EFTA as the EU.

Clarity of debate is what is needed, until this information becomes freely available, and people actually read it, then the vote will just be governed by the big business fear factor

 

[tony_mac]

If the EU was just a common market as it first was that would be fine. It's all the other rules and regulations that I am not keen on. Maybe being out but having a trading relationship such as Norway & Switzerland would be ok?

If you think about it, all of these regulations are actually a necessary part of having a free market. Otherwise it would give an unfair advantage to those countries who choose to have lower standards for safety etc.

There's a short BBC video which gives an example here :-http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03kjc4h

 

[anme]

This is what I've advocated from the start.

Being a member of the EEA will let us have our cake and eat it, just like Norway.

How would having to obey most of the same rules but not having any say in making them be "having our cake and eating it"? What advantage do you think it will bring?

 

[miami]

How would having to obey most of the same rules but not having any say in making them be "having our cake and eating it"? What advantage do you think it will bring?

We wouldn't have to go through that hassle of voting every few years for representitives. Democracy is overrated, especially when it's raining on election day.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

One of the arguments for leaving the EU is that we can strengthen ties with the USA. But, given the possibility of a Drumpf presidency, do you really want Britain to have a close relationship with what almost certainly be a rogue state should Drumpf win in November? I certainly wouldn't.

In what manner do you think the EU prevents us from having closer ties with the US?

Don't be so sure it's a Govt. wish it's more of an Obama wish, he's made no secret of his disdain for this country and in doing so a lot of Americans are not happy.

What an extraordinary accusation! Would you like to share with us your evidence that Obama regards the UK with disdain?

If you think about it, all of these regulations are actually a necessary part of having a free market. Otherwise it would give an unfair advantage to those countries who choose to have lower standards for safety etc.

I think that's an important point. A lot of people seem to be saying that they want something like the common market or a free trade area but without any of the associated political or regulatory framework - but I rather suspect that if those people got what they wanted, they'd probably be horrified by the results: A free market without some common regulatory framework would mean multinational corporations able to pick and choose wherever the lowest wages/lowest safety standards/etc. are, and Governments would be forced into a race to the bottom to keep companies in their own countries. It seems to me that if you want a common, free, market, and don't want a nightmare of individual Governments being held hostage to unethical businesses, then you have to accept some corresponding degree of regulatory union.