Winseer:
The Pound is down heavily today (3c - a big move for a single day’s trading) but that’s against the USD. It’s down 1c vs the Euro.
0
A cheap pound will help us sell stuff to the rest of the world a whole lot easier, should we by then be “out”. An expensive Euro on the other hand, will hopefully encourage Brits to buy less Euro goods rather than encourage them to buy none of our stuff.
I can’t see where the downside risk to trade is going to come from… If the pound had DOUBLED in price vs other currencies, then yes. We would be in the crapper make no mistake. But that’s not what’s happened, nor was expected to happen with Sterling though.
The downside is a falling pound also hits the value of wages in real terms and the value of cash reserves to pay our foreign debts.So great a form of import tarrif in itself ‘but’ which also has the effect of reducing spending power at home and the value of exports and therefore no real gain to the economy.
While it’s obvious that the globalist bankers have a lot of exposure to the German economy which would obviously be hit ‘if’ we vote out and leave ze Germans to pick up the shortfall in EU contributions.So no surprise those same bankers would see an advantage in using the scare tactics of hitting the pound in order to influence the vote.In addition to the fact that the US government predictably finds the idea of secession toxic wherever it happens to be.So more motive to try to scare us into submission.
Except there’s probably a lot more credibility in those than in yours.
Nope, this is pure scaremongering. UK is not in Schengen, does travel like between Belgium and France is not possible. Second all major terrorist attack’s in UK were carried by British citizens.
Third UK out EU and Calais moved to Dover is going to be less safe then is now.
Simple politician scaremongering.
On trade “wars”. Its simple fact, any country that wants preferential trade agreement with EU must follow EU rules. If UK wants it, will have to back down, like Swiss, Norway etc. This can be checked easily, google it.
More then half of UK food comes from EU, close to 45% of UK export goes to EU, when only 8% of EU export goes to UK and on and on.
Time will tell what’s good or bad, but politicians mustn’t hide the fact how economies and people life’s are interconnected in EU.
Except there’s probably a lot more credibility in those than in yours.
Nope, this is pure scaremongering. UK is not in Schengen, does travel like between Belgium and France is not possible. Second all major terrorist attack’s in UK were carried by British citizens.
Third UK out EU and Calais moved to Dover is going to be less safe then is now.
Simple politician scaremongering.
On trade “wars”. Its simple fact, any country that wants preferential trade agreement with EU must follow EU rules. If UK wants it, will have to back down, like Swiss, Norway etc. This can be checked easily, google it.
More then half of UK food comes from EU, close to 45% of UK export goes to EU, when only 8% of EU export goes to UK and on and on.
Time will tell what’s good or bad, but politicians mustn’t hide the fact how economies and people life’s are interconnected in EU.
Schengen has nothing to do with Merkel giving a German issue EU passport to her Asian immigrant population.
As for the trade figures we’re not interested in the 'EU’s total export figure we’re interested in the effect on the ‘German’ economy of EFTA,with ‘us’ again in it,imposing unilateral trade sanctions against ‘Germany’.In which UK industry fills much of the void left by the loss of German imports and Germany loses much of its export markets in EFTA.
Or we reach a compromise.In which the UK gets a bigger market share across Europe while Germany maintains a fairer viable share and EFTA doesn’t have to meet any of the previously imposed bs EU trading conditions ( blackmail ).
Except there’s probably a lot more credibility in those than in yours.
Nope, this is pure scaremongering. UK is not in Schengen, does travel like between Belgium and France is not possible.
I don’t think that was the point of the article, it was if asylum seekers got EU passports, they have freedom of movement, but I believe they don’t get a full passport for many years.
Second all major terrorist attack’s in UK were carried by British citizens.
But it would appear some of the people who carried out the recent attacks in France, had come into the EU with the wave of asylum seekers and other had crossed from Belgium.
Third UK out EU and Calais moved to Dover is going to be less safe then is now.
The agreement which allows our Border checks to be in Calais isn’t an EU agreement it’s a bi-lateral treaty between the UK and France.
Simple politician scaremongering.
Yes and it’s only going to get worse from both sides, but you may have realised that anything that disagrees with carryfast is scaremongering or BS.
Carryfast:
As for the trade figures we’re not interested in the 'EU’s total export figure we’re interested in the effect on the ‘German’ economy of EFTA,with ‘us’ again in it,imposing unilateral trade sanctions against ‘Germany’.In which UK industry fills much of the void left by the loss of German imports and Germany loses much of its export markets in EFTA.
Or we reach a compromise.In which the UK gets a bigger market share across Europe while Germany maintains a fairer viable share and EFTA doesn’t have to meet any of the previously imposed bs EU trading conditions ( blackmail ).
Dolph:
I don’t know actually, I can tell you that most continental EU countries want UK out of EU any way.
Then instead of battling to keep us in why not just let us go?
UK never wanted to be part of the EU as an ultimate United States of Europe plan. Always wanted the best for herself and never cared about EU core idea. Never sign for Schengen, refuse to adopt the Euro, continue with its stupid hypocrisy - twisting EU for better deal and opting out from whatever wanted.
In all fairness we’re not the only country that has opt-outs within the EU. Denmark has the same number as us (four), Eire has two and Poland has one - with us it opts out of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; and the reason why Poland did this? . . because it might force Poland to grant homosexual couples the same kind of benefits which heterosexual couples enjoy. and the Prime Minister of Poland when the Charter acquired legal ascent through the Treaty of Lisbon in 2009■■? - one Donald Tusk, now President of the European Council.
And just to clarify Mr Tusk’s hypocrisy is the agreement he has just bartered with Cameron that the UK would never have to sign up to further political integration into the EU. The whole point of the EU is political integration, it is its raison d’etre. So now we have the ludicrous situation whereby a majority of the member states don’t want us in the EU, but are desperate to keep us in the EU to the point whereby they will agree an opt out on the very reason for being a member of the EU. You couldn’t make it up.
Dolph:
On trade “wars”. Its simple fact, any country that wants preferential trade agreement with EU must follow EU rules. If UK wants it, will have to back down, like Swiss, Norway etc.
The UK is the fifth largest economy in the world, just US$500bn/yr behind Germany - and closing. If the UK told the EU to shove it’s rules what do you think would happen? Business is business, trade is trade, money talks.
“The real problem is that the BBC doesn’t even realise it has a problem in the first place. So ingrained is the veneration of the European Union as a force for good at the BBC that they are totally unaware of any bias in their reporting on the question of Britain’s future relationship with the EU.”
Carryfast:
As for the trade figures we’re not interested in the 'EU’s total export figure we’re interested in the effect on the ‘German’ economy of EFTA,with ‘us’ again in it,imposing unilateral trade sanctions against ‘Germany’.In which UK industry fills much of the void left by the loss of German imports and Germany loses much of its export markets in EFTA.
Or we reach a compromise.In which the UK gets a bigger market share across Europe while Germany maintains a fairer viable share and EFTA doesn’t have to meet any of the previously imposed bs EU trading conditions ( blackmail ).
Off to La La land again.
Feel free to explain why it’s ok for the EU to impose trade sanctions on Norway and Swiss if they don’t toe the EU line regards immigration policy.But not for us to retaliate by hitting Germany.Bearing in mind the UK’s trade deficit position of strength.
Carryfast:
As for the trade figures we’re not interested in the 'EU’s total export figure we’re interested in the effect on the ‘German’ economy of EFTA,with ‘us’ again in it,imposing unilateral trade sanctions against ‘Germany’.In which UK industry fills much of the void left by the loss of German imports and Germany loses much of its export markets in EFTA.
Or we reach a compromise.In which the UK gets a bigger market share across Europe while Germany maintains a fairer viable share and EFTA doesn’t have to meet any of the previously imposed bs EU trading conditions ( blackmail ).
Off to La La land again.
Feel free to explain why it’s ok for the EU to impose trade sanctions on Norway and Swiss if they don’t toe the EU line regards immigration policy.But not for us to retaliate by hitting Germany.Bearing in mind the UK’s trade deficit position of strength.
IE more pro EU biased bs.
Tell me why you think a great way for Britain to succeed out of the EU would be to start a trade war?
Tell me why you think a great way for Britain to succeed out of the EU would be to start a trade war?
Tell me why you think its ok for the EU to start a trade war by using the threat of trade sanctions against anyone who refuses to toe Merkel’s line on immigration etc.IE I didn’t say we’ll ‘start it’ I said we’ll ‘finish it’ with the win win situation that it can only improve our current trade deficit inbalance v Germany.
Dolph:
On trade “wars”. Its simple fact, any country that wants preferential trade agreement with EU must follow EU rules. If UK wants it, will have to back down, like Swiss, Norway etc.
The UK is the fifth largest economy in the world, just US$500bn/yr behind Germany - and closing. If the UK told the EU to shove it’s rules what do you think would happen? Business is business, trade is trade, money talks.
Actually its more like 10th largest economy. We gonna see how big will remain to be without EU market.
From what I’ve read, back in the day UK economy was in the trash, thats why you begged twice to enter EEA. Thanks to EU, UK economy and way of life improved enormously.
UK lost it diplomatic traditions, nothing will happen. Shove the rules as you want, you country in the end of the day.
Its gonna take you 10 years to negotiate the trade agreements you are enjoying today as part of EU, please mind that no one is stopping you to trade with China. But we see what’s happen with steel industry in that regard.
Dolph:
Actually its more like 10th largest economy. We gonna see how big will remain to be without EU market.
From what I’ve read, back in the day UK economy was in the trash, thats why you begged twice to enter EEA. Thanks to EU, UK economy and way of life improved enormously.
UK lost it diplomatic traditions, nothing will happen. Shove the rules as you want, you country in the end of the day.
Its gonna take you 10 years to negotiate the trade agreements you are enjoying today as part of EU, please mind that no one is stopping you to trade with China. But we see what’s happen with steel industry in that regard.
'What ‘you’ve read’ is obviously pro EU bs.Do the maths using the real figures we were a much stronger economy pre EEC membership.While save us the biased one sided bs that the EU can impose trade sanctions without us retaliating.As I said bearing in mind the effects of such a trade war ‘if’ we do it right by concentrating on hitting Germany.
Tell me why you think a great way for Britain to succeed out of the EU would be to start a trade war?
Tell me why you think its ok for the EU to start a trade war by using the threat of trade sanctions against anyone who refuses to toe Merkel’s line on immigration etc.IE I didn’t say we’ll ‘start it’ I said we’ll ‘finish it’ with the win win situation that it can only improve our current trade deficit inbalance v Germany.
You’re the one that thinks there is a trade war, the Agreements allow free trade between EEA, EFTA and EU countries, if you’ve ever had to export stuff to Norway you’d know it was a dam site easier than getting a load stuff to parts of Asia.
The free movement of people also works both ways I’ve worked with Norwegians and I know people from the UK who are working in Switzerland.
So I really don’t know why you want a trade war with Germany?
Carryfast:
Tell me why you think its ok for the EU to start a trade war by using the threat of trade sanctions against anyone who refuses to toe Merkel’s line on immigration etc.IE I didn’t say we’ll ‘start it’ I said we’ll ‘finish it’ with the win win situation that it can only improve our current trade deficit inbalance v Germany.
You’re the one that thinks there is a trade war, the Agreements allow free trade between EEA, EFTA and EU countries, if you’ve ever had to export stuff to Norway you’d know it was a dam site easier than getting a load stuff to parts of Asia.
The free movement of people also works both ways I’ve worked with Norwegians and I know people from the UK who are working in Switzerland.
So I really don’t know why you want a trade war with Germany?
Firstly in the case of ‘immigration’ policy we’re not talking about limited movement between the developed countries of Northern/Western Europe.Although having said that I don’t remember any free movement clause in EFTA’s membership conditions.IE free market in goods/services but not labour movement with EFTA membership certainly not giving anyone the right to live in Switzerland.Unlike the EU rules being imposed on it for the privilege of the Swiss economy and industry being taken over by ze Germans.
We’re actually talking about free movement from the basket case economies of most/all of Eastern Europe and Merkel’s obvious intentions regards Asian/African free movement of so called ‘refugees’ ( economic migrants ) let alone the addition of membership of the scam of Turkey.In which case Dolph ( and you ? ) are obviously saying ‘if’ we leave the EU we still have to comply with Merkel’s bs rules or she’ll apply trade sanctions on us.In which case as usual ze Germans obviously would have ‘started it’ and as usual we would be in a better position to finish it.Bearing in mind Germany’s economy being more reliant of flogging stuff to us than ours is on flogging stuff to it.
Carryfast:
Tell me why you think its ok for the EU to start a trade war by using the threat of trade sanctions against anyone who refuses to toe Merkel’s line on immigration etc.IE I didn’t say we’ll ‘start it’ I said we’ll ‘finish it’ with the win win situation that it can only improve our current trade deficit inbalance v Germany.
You’re the one that thinks there is a trade war, the Agreements allow free trade between EEA, EFTA and EU countries, if you’ve ever had to export stuff to Norway you’d know it was a dam site easier than getting a load stuff to parts of Asia.
The free movement of people also works both ways I’ve worked with Norwegians and I know people from the UK who are working in Switzerland.
So I really don’t know why you want a trade war with Germany?
Firstly in the case of ‘immigration’ policy we’re not talking about limited movement between the developed countries of Northern/Western Europe.Although having said that I don’t remember any free movement clause in EFTA’s membership conditions.IE free market in goods/services but not labour movement with EFTA membership certainly not giving anyone the right to live in Switzerland.Unlike the EU rules being imposed on it for the privilege of the Swiss economy and industry being taken over by ze Germans.
We’re actually talking about free movement from the basket case economies of most/all of Eastern Europe and Merkel’s obvious intentions regards Asian/African free movement of so called ‘refugees’ ( economic migrants ) let alone the addition of membership of the scam of Turkey.In which case Dolph ( and you ? ) are obviously saying ‘if’ we leave the EU we still have to comply with Merkel’s bs rules or she’ll apply trade sanctions on us.In which case as usual ze Germans obviously would have ‘started it’ and as usual we would be in a better position to finish it.Bearing in mind Germany’s economy being more reliant of flogging stuff to us than ours is on flogging stuff to it.
I’ve never said that we have to comply with any rules if we leave the EU? it seems something you taken from Dolph posts, which seems strange as you dismiss most of his posts as BS, but obviously this one fitted with your preconceptions.
All I wanted to know is why you thought a trade war with Germany would be a good idea?
muckles:
I’ve never said that we have to comply with any rules if we leave the EU? it seems something you taken from Dolph posts, which seems strange as you dismiss most of his posts as BS, but obviously this one fitted with your preconceptions.
All I wanted to know is why you thought a trade war with Germany would be a good idea?
I was certainly replying to Dolph’s issues.Of which you then got involved,not to disagree with Dolph,but to have a go at my comments for some reason.
In which my point was ‘if’ the EU ( Germany ) wants ‘to start’ a trade war,by imposing sanctions on us for not toeing the EU line ‘if/when’ we leave as described by Dolph.Then we obviously reserve the right to ‘retaliate’.The argument then being why does the in campaign take the biased position that it’s ok for the EU to hit us but not for us to hit them in that case.
Although having said that any so called ‘free trade’ agreement that doesn’t allow for trade barriers to maintain trade balance isn’t worth the paper it’s written on anyway.On that note as I said we actually stand to benefit massively from such a trade war in either case anyway.
Hopefully that explains your question.Although you obviously haven’t explained why you think that sorting the EU out in that situation is supposedly a bad thing in your obviously biased pro EU view.
and the Prime Minister of Poland when the Charter acquired legal ascent through the Treaty of Lisbon in 2009■■? - one Donald Tusk, now President of the European Council.