Out.Anything else is just short sighted Federalist nonsense.
out
regards dave
Carryfast:
Winseer:
I’d say the correct way to influence the balance of trade - is to go on a diet with regards to overspending on imports - rather than giving those imports up (not popular) and pushing those exports that buyers cannot easily source from another nation - thus keeping prices at a level that can resist downward pressures from fresh sourcing overseas.Right now for example, the price differential of Brent crude above WTI and other crudes - has remained high. The differential involves mostly the cost of transportation and the £/$ exchange rate to the UK rather than to the buyer.
This means that since the price of transportation has fallen these last couple of years, and the differential has remained high - why not push up production, and flog as much of this overpriced anomaly as we can?We’re effectively exporting our own transport at a premium price!
"To become richer, one needs to emulate what rich people do more often, and what poor people do - less often."
The usual story with Brent crude is that it is valued more because it’s lighter better quality stuff that needs less refining to make petrol etc.I’d say the opposite to your idea.As in 1973 we should limit its export because the reserves are relatively limited by comparison with Saudi or Russia.Then keep it for ourselves sold at Saudi type local prices.The downward effect on ( real ) inflation would then effectively be the same thing as a massive wage increase across the board which would cut pressure on wage costs thereby increasing competitiveness.That,combined with getting the coal industry back on line to reduce energy costs and import trade barriers/quotas,would be a game changer for domestic industry while also cutting the import bill.
Brent Crude is considered above Saudi Sour in quality, but WTI is still considered “better”. The reason it’s cheaper than Brent - is because you’ve got to go to a hub such as Cushing, Oklahoma or New York Harbour to get it with your own transport doing the fetch and carry. Should we ever move Brent onto the same transport footing as WTI therefore, the price differential would collapse. Since it’s possible to change the transport downwards, but not upwards - one has an opportunity to flog Brent with a compounded premium for how much longer? - Anyone’s guess. It won’t last forever though, making it similar to the prospect of taking out a mortgage fixed for 25 years now - because “interest rates might rise any minute”. All the time the likely rise range remains at 5-10 years out - the only products lenders will be selling are 2-5 year fixes, and 6+ year fixes only with a massive fee, low LTV or lousy fixed rate. 
I say therefore, borrow as much fixed for 6+ years as you can - IF you can get it cheap and flog as much Brent as we can - whilst that transport premium remains in the price.
Dolph:
chicane:
Dolph, the same scare tactics and lies were used in the run up to the Scottish indi referendum, all complete unsubstantiated BS and but they scared a enough of the hard of thinking to swing the vote.The EU is a busted flush, their accounts haven’t been signed off for 14yrs FFS, it’s run by a bunch of bureaucrats and failed politicians with delusions of grandeur, who couldn’t run a bath let alone a collection of highly diverses advanced economies.
Lets wait and see what Brexit is going to show, based on the result Scotland might decide to have 2nd referendum…
Just watching the Daily Politics show on the BBC and it blows a massive hole in your EU ■■■■■■■■ propaganda
It features the ex Greek Prime minister who is now free to speak now he hasn’t got Adolf Merkel twisting his arm
I’ve never heard or listened to such a honest politician on how much power the kraut ■■■■■ Merkel as the EU under one of her jackboots
It shows how much of a dictatorship the EU as become
Angela Merkel backs UK calls for EU reform.
“I agree that Britain should stay in the European Union, but of course the decision is not up to us, it will be up to the British,” she told the BDI conference of business and industry leaders. She was speaking before George Osborne addressed the conference to outline the UK’s agenda for change within the EU.
Contraflow:
Well that’s pretty conclusive then.Having said that, according to the TruckNet General Election 2015 poll, Nigel Farage was supposed to be tucking himself into bed at number 10 Downing Street right about now.
yes but don’t forget we lorry drivers know whats going on , most of joe public don’t give a ■■■■ lol 
What gets me about “The General Public” is that so many of them would apparently vote “In” because it would upset all their local riff-raff - and nothing more. 
Dolph:
Angela Merkel backs UK calls for EU reform.
“I agree that Britain should stay in the European Union, but of course the decision is not up to us, it will be up to the British,” she told the BDI conference of business and industry leaders. She was speaking before George Osborne addressed the conference to outline the UK’s agenda for change within the EU.
You might be underestimating the feeling among the populations in France and Germany concerning the credibility of anything that Merkel says or wants.As it stands I’d guess that there are possibly more people in those two countries who want her out and to leave the EU than here.The fact is the EU is a failed experiment in Socialist/Federalism which will be finished where it started in France and Germany regardless of what the naive gullible Brit electorate decide.The only thing that Merkel and her Socialist cronies are worried about is that a Brexit will just make that more likely and happen much faster and sooner.
Britexit will mean the end of free movement of goods; goods will have to entered to Customs so the VAT can be paid. £100 will added to each import for the Cuasoms entry
Brexit doesn’t have to mean any such thing. It could mean as little as Britain no longer being required to implement EU laws over here. Trade and Law are two seperate matters unless MADE to be “Joined at the hip” by some crossover legislation such as DCPC or Driving hours etc. These latter items are already a fait accompli - and are too firmly entrenched to be removed now. I suggest the same applies to trade rules and laws.
Besides, the EU choosing to “trade sanction” us as some kind of “punishment” for denying Brussels - is an act of war!
The only legislation in any real danger from the UK leaving the EU - is the unloved “Human Rights Charter”. I actually don’t have any problems with the UK being to make it’s own criminal justice laws again - including bringing back hanging. Bring it on! 
Winseer:
Brexit doesn’t have to mean any such thing. It could mean as little as Britain no longer being required to implement EU laws over here. Trade and Law are two seperate matters unless MADE to be “Joined at the hip” by some crossover legislation such as DCPC or Driving hours etc. These latter items are already a fait accompli - and are too firmly entrenched to be removed now. I suggest the same applies to trade rules and laws.
Besides, the EU choosing to “trade sanction” us as some kind of “punishment” for denying Brussels - is an act of war!The only legislation in any real danger from the UK leaving the EU - is the unloved “Human Rights Charter”. I actually don’t have any problems with the UK being to make it’s own criminal justice laws again - including bringing back hanging. Bring it on!
Good luck with that, if you want to trade with EU after Brexit you will have to obey EU rules.
I didn’t know we all(the EU) declared war on Russia by implementing trade sanctions!
“The Out campaigners respond to such criticisms by saying they don’t favour the Norwegian or Swiss option, instead talking up Britain’s ability to strike trade deals on a global basis. But this argument was brutally shot down last week by the US trade negotiator Mike Froman, who said the United States, which is Britain’s biggest export market outside the EU, was “not particularly in the market” for a trade agreement with a single country such as the UK, and: “Britain has a greater voice at the trade table being part of the EU.”
The outcome of Brexit without a separate UK-US trade agreement would mean, as Froman put it, tariffs for our producers on the same basis as those for China’s, Brazil’s or India’s.
In a new Policy Network pamphlet, we consider in depth all the main alternatives to UK membership – the Norwegian, Swiss, World Trade Organisation (WTO) and UK Free Trade Agreement models. Each is different but they all share a single problem – far from enhancing sovereignty and control, each one moves Britain from being a rule-maker to a rule-taker. Each one would mean Britain outside the EU either signing back up to much of what it has just opted out of, but without the leverage of deciding the rules; or subjecting our exporters to greater risk of tariff and non-tariff barriers. Under WTO rules, for example, our car exporters could be hit with a tariff of 10%, putting a great British success story at a clear disadvantage compared with our French or German rivals, as well as making our country less attractive to foreign investment from outside the EU”.
The Norwegian/Swiss option is not fit for purposes, as they have the same illegal immigrant problems that we get. Because illegal immigrants are just being branded “migrants” - they have gained some kind of social status regardless of their final destination within Europe - “In” or “Out” as it were. Getting Britain “OUT” of the EU isn’t about making the UK some kind of “undesirable” place for illegal immigrants to try and get to - they are illegals after all. Anywhere in or out of the EU is just as illegal for them to try and get to. The difference is that OUT would allow common sense to prevail, and we get to make our own laws that can do many things such as “do not recognise criminals arriving from the EU on their say-so” anymore. It doesn’t even mean “closing our borders” although of course the scare camp will say otherwise.
Adopting trade sanctions vs Russia on little or no evidence whatsoever WAS an act of war - which Russia has been very restrained in responding to. I reckon it probably had a hand in them “not giving a hoot” about what they now do in Syria though - having lost any of Russia’s goodwill that we might have had. Argentina invading the Falklands was another example of an act of war - that Argentina seriously thought we would NOT respond much to in a similar manner to Russia now. “Acts of War” are not hard-coded rules of engagement. The reason wars are so terrible is because the rulebooks go out of the window on day one of each new war - rather than “because we’ve grown too fond of them” to paraphrase General Robert E Lee.
On the subject of trade - we really need to cut away all the bull that concerns trade, trade routes, trade tariffs, and of course trade exchange prices. The commodity exchanges around the world are supposed to be already globalized. It should be made EASIER rather than “restricted” to move trade agreements around on the click of a mouse. I could buy 1,000 barrells of Oil on the click of a mouse - but if I actually wanted to buy 1,000 Cookoo clocks from Switzerland - I’d find that rather harder to achieve on-line… Trade should be done by using the internet to make the world one big mega global exchange similar to the stock and futures markets.
zaax:
Britexit will mean the end of free movement of goods; goods will have to entered to Customs so the VAT can be paid. £100 will added to each import for the Cuasoms entry
Why do we need the free movement of goods.When that ‘free movement’ has actually just resulted in a massive unsustainable trade deficit and de industrialisation and resulting unemployment and wage reductions.With domestic industry having lost more business in the domestic market to imports than it ever gained in exports.
Dolph:
Winseer:
Brexit doesn’t have to mean any such thing. It could mean as little as Britain no longer being required to implement EU laws over here. Trade and Law are two seperate matters unless MADE to be “Joined at the hip” by some crossover legislation such as DCPC or Driving hours etc. These latter items are already a fait accompli - and are too firmly entrenched to be removed now. I suggest the same applies to trade rules and laws.
Besides, the EU choosing to “trade sanction” us as some kind of “punishment” for denying Brussels - is an act of war!Good luck with that, if you want to trade with EU after Brexit you will have to obey EU rules.
I didn’t know we all(the EU) declared war on Russia by implementing trade sanctions!“The Out campaigners respond to such criticisms by saying they don’t favour the Norwegian or Swiss option, instead talking up Britain’s ability to strike trade deals on a global basis. But this argument was brutally shot down last week by the US trade negotiator Mike Froman, who said the United States, which is Britain’s biggest export market outside the EU, was “not particularly in the market” for a trade agreement with a single country such as the UK, and: “Britain has a greater voice at the trade table being part of the EU.”
The outcome of Brexit without a separate UK-US trade agreement would mean, as Froman put it, tariffs for our producers on the same basis as those for China’s, Brazil’s or India’s.
In a new Policy Network pamphlet, we consider in depth all the main alternatives to UK membership – the Norwegian, Swiss, World Trade Organisation (WTO) and UK Free Trade Agreement models. Each is different but they all share a single problem – far from enhancing sovereignty and control, each one moves Britain from being a rule-maker to a rule-taker. Each one would mean Britain outside the EU either signing back up to much of what it has just opted out of, but without the leverage of deciding the rules; or subjecting our exporters to greater risk of tariff and non-tariff barriers. Under WTO rules, for example, our car exporters could be hit with a tariff of 10%, putting a great British success story at a clear disadvantage compared with our French or German rivals, as well as making our country less attractive to foreign investment from outside the EU”.
As I’ve said if we rejoin EFTA then us Norway and Switzerland would be in a much stronger position v what is blatant EU economic blackmail.Although no surprise that EU supporter logic thinks it can win a trade war against EFTA from a position of net trade surplus weakness.IE you hit us we hit you and the EU ,especially Germany,has a lot more to lose in that regard than us.While from our point of view such a trade war would only strengthen our domestic industrial base in a more protected domestic market. 
The sad thing being that this country has lost its bottle in that regard.
I agree that it does indeed look as if Cameron is about to bottle it with Brussels - the same as Tsipras did. Varoufakis had a “people’s QE” project lined up. He wasn’t allowed to proceed, because Tsipras was worried about it being declared illegal by Brussels. Tsipras being in love with the idea of “staying in the EU” - has been the downfall of Greece, now that Varoufakis has resigned in disgust at not being allowed to take the gloves off.
I never understood why Hitler never invaded Switzerland either. Being an arch enemy of Zionism - one would have thought the first thing to do was “cut the throat of the Swiss banks” rather than ponce around with Operation Barbarossa - which brought Stalin down upon him like a ton of bricks in due course… Doh!
I’ve heard it said that 40% of the world’s top 1% of wealth is in Switzerland, much of it “bent money” from dictators around the world, arch criminals, and other international people of mystery such as work for outfits like FIFA or the World Bank or the IMF or some Diesel engine manufacturing plant… Switzerland also has substantial gold reserves of course. Capturing (or rather, annexing!) Switzerland would render the rest of the western powers so impoverished overnight - that a war retaliation coalition would likely NOT be forthcoming. Big wars are not fought and won by broke nations. We never got to hear about “What happened to Gadaffi’s billions” or “Osama’s $150m cashpile”… 
whats often overlooked with trade positions is the fact of trade/ business being fluid . Organic .
if for example EU trade sanctions made German machine tools more expensive , business would simply look for alternative markets for supply . Indeed , supply and demand might encourage other markets to start producing to satisfy that demand .
this is not the case with immigration . Ex soviet and middle east immigrants remain a negative impact on society for many generations . and a permanent impact on our environment and eco systems for ever !! worse , in fact the negative impact only increases with time .
so to argue we have to put up with bums from all over the middle east and the slavs , who offset their impact with positive trade benefits is dumb .
one (trade) is subject to laws of supply and demand ; and the other (immigration) is the law of supply with no demand
on the subject of eu poll …
im pretty certain we will never get one . politicians will argue they have got a super deal and there is no need for one until next parliament . and so on .
the only way to get one will be if an anti eu party gets a majority in parliament .
and then the establishment will just refuse to accept result . like ireland .
so im not holding my breath .
Winseer:
I never understood why Hitler never invaded Switzerland either. Being an arch enemy of Zionism - one would have thought the first thing to do was “cut the throat of the Swiss banks”
Probably because like in the case of fighting ( and effectively losing ) a partisan war in the mountains of Yugoslavia he knew that he’d lose more than would be gained in a real fight with the Swiss Forces. 
While also probably confirming that he didn’t believe his own bs and propaganda making a scapegoat of the Jews in supposedly taking over the world banking system.
boredwivdrivin:
on the subject of eu poll …im pretty certain we will never get one . politicians will argue they have got a super deal and there is no need for one until next parliament . and so on .
the only way to get one will be if an anti eu party gets a majority in parliament .
and then the establishment will just refuse to accept result . like ireland .
so im not holding my breath .
^This.
Carryfast:
boredwivdrivin:
on the subject of eu poll …im pretty certain we will never get one . politicians will argue they have got a super deal and there is no need for one until next parliament . and so on .
the only way to get one will be if an anti eu party gets a majority in parliament .
and then the establishment will just refuse to accept result . like ireland .
so im not holding my breath .
^This.
The longer it goes on, the harder it will be to reverse it though - any backpeddling from Brussels I mean.
