[alancalverd]

If I lose money every time I do business with you, it is better for me to change the rules of business and the scope of those I trade with. The UK has always had a negative balance of trade with Europe: lowering or abolishing mutual tariffs could only make things worse, and it did.

When the plane is on fire, it is a good idea to get out, which is what I voted for. A sane parliament would have spent the last 3 years deploying the parachute instead of voting not to discuss it.

[Bored chemist]

So you are misrepresenting the cost by a factor of about 2,

Not me. Complain to the Central Statistical Office.

Citation needed.

Still waiting.

[alancalverd]

Try google: UK-EU net balance of trade, just like a grownup would do.

[Bored chemist]

Try citing your claimed source- like a scientist would.

Also, my "balance of trade" with the local pub is significant and negative- I buy much more from them than they buy from me.
But it's obviously not a problem.

[alancalverd]

Your drinking would become my problem if I had to pay taxes to subsidise it. And it would become your problem if the pub charged more than other pubs (to protect the internal market), taxed your income from other sources (tariffs), prohibited the sale of the beer you like (because it can't be brewed in Romania) and insisted that anyone else in the village (but not your actual friends from outside the village) could drink at your expense. You might object, but other drinkers would call you a racist, atheist, Little Englander, and a whole host of other things that don't make sense. But truth is less important that the protection of publicans. And you won't be allowed to see the accounts, because the  auditors have refused to sign them off for the last 50 years.

[pensador (OP)]

Your drinking would become my problem if I had to pay taxes to subsidise it. And it would become your problem if the pub charged more than other pubs (to protect the internal market), taxed your income from other sources (tariffs), prohibited the sale of the beer you like (because it can't be brewed in Romania) and insisted that anyone else in the village (but not your actual friends from outside the village) could drink at your expense. You might object, but other drinkers would call you a racist, atheist, Little Englander, and a whole host of other things that don't make sense. But truth is less important that the protection of publicans. And you won't be allowed to see the accounts, because the  auditors have refused to sign them off for the last 50 years.

Your Brexit stupidity has cost those that live outside the UK, who draw income from the UK investments approx 30% of their income.  The pound is almost at parity with the euro £1.08 = 1€ it was trading at approx. 1.3 before Brexit.

Your Brexit stupidity has raised the price of a beer for those holidaying in the EU by 30%. The cost of house purchases up by 30% .  The people deriving their income in Europe felt nothing, due to Brexit.

How is your house price doing in the UK, how is consumer confidence, what are the expectations for employment, business opportunities etc. The UK is screwed and governed by coco the clown, who was elected based on lies about the EU. He should be in prison for treason. 

[Bored chemist]

Your drinking would become my problem if...

But it isn't.

Would you like to address the point that there's more to life than the trade deficit?
Perhaps you can explain why, if paying in more cash than you receive (like me and the pub) is such a bad thing then why do Germany, France and Italy  (among others) do the same?
https://fullfact.org/europe/claim-about-uks-eu-contribution-correct-meaningless/

Here's a hint; there's more to life than money.
But if money is your focus, how's this grab you?
A remarkable fact: “The FTSE has lost more value in 12 months than the UK has paid into the EU during the 45 years since we joined.”


Aslo, should I abandon hope of you actually citing a source for your figures?

[alancalverd]

"They also serve who only stand and wait." Or you could check in with the Office for National Statistics and get all the information you could possibly want.

Britain subscribes to the EU. France and Germany invest in it. Big difference, as you can see from the resulting trade balances.

The FTSE is a summary of other people's guesses of what price their shares might fetch. It isn't real money.

UK unemployment rose steadily from the date of accession to the EU, reaching peaks in 1983, 1993 and 2012. It is now, for the first time, below the 1971 level. Possibly a meaningless statistic, possibly a reflection of a fundamental change in economics. 

If anyone wants to buy a house in a warmer climate, prices in Greece have fallen by about 40% in the last 20 years thanks to the EU, and if you spend more than EUR 250,000 on a house in Portugal, you get automatic EU citizenship and thus the right to live and work in Britain - how's that for border protection?

Anyone seeking a sensible foreign investment might look at a startup in Ireland. Huge empty factory estates and empty motorways around Cork airport, paid for by your  taxes. Or maybe an entire brand new and unused airport in Spain, ditto.

[Bored chemist]

Britain subscribes to the EU. France and Germany invest in it. Big difference, as you can see from the resulting trade balances.

And the "big difference" is that all 3 have a negative balance of payments with the EU and are in this regard, the same.

But what youare saying is that France and Germany make use of teh EU to make money.

So, if we leave the EU, will we be able to do that?

Or you could check in with the Office for National Statistics and get all the information you could possibly want.

I could, but in this instance, it's your job.
I guess you are seeking to avoid the obvious.
The  ONS condemned Boris for his use of a dishonestly exaggerated figure written on a bus.
We can conclude that the ONS think that the real figure is less than £350M per month.
And, if you use that figure as an upper bound, you can do the calculation I showed which demonstrates that, at the least, you are out overstating things by a factor of two.

It's OK.
We all recognise this fact.

Possibly a meaningless statistic, possibly a reflection of a fundamental change in economics. 

Probably due to changes in the way the  figures are reported.

In any event, it can't be due to EU membership.
https://www.euractiv.com/section/social-europe-jobs/news/unemployment-marks-the-divide-between-france-and-germany/
so why muddy the waters with it?

... rose steadily ..., reaching peaks in 1983, 1993 and 2012.

Make up  your mind.
Which did it do?
Peaks are not steady.

[alancalverd]

And the "big difference" is that all 3 have a negative balance of payments with the EU and are in this regard, the same.

So who is winning, if the major members of the EU are losing? Not Greece (bankrupt) nor Spain (massive unemployment) or Italy (all sorts of balance of payments problems). If everyone in the game is losing money, what's the point of a common market?
'

I guess you are seeking to avoid the obvious.

No, I just don't want to be accused of cherrypicking.

The  ONS condemned Boris for his use of a dishonestly exaggerated figure written on a bus.

It was clear to me that joining the Common Market was bad for the UK,  before Boris Johnson was born.

According to the ONS our net direct contribution to the EU central fund is £267,000,000 per week (£363,000,000 gross before rebate )(https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/articles/theukcontributiontotheeubudget/2017-10-31),  plus a net trade deficit of £1.15 bn per week (https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7851).

It's difficult to find comparable figures for other countries but here's a quote from the most Europhilic of sources
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/apr/08/why-the-uk-trade-deficit-with-the-eu...

08/04/2018 · The deficit with Germany has increased by 5% a year, with France by 7% a year and with the rest of the EU by 11% a year.

and it's worth noting that Germany's annual export of goods to the rest of the EU is about 8 times as large as the UK's. France, about 2 x. That's what I meant by investing in the EU rather than paying for it.

[alancalverd]

Your Brexit stupidity has cost those that live outside the UK, who draw income from the UK investments approx 30% of their income.  The pound is almost at parity with the euro £1.08 = 1€ it was trading at approx. 1.3 before Brexit. Your Brexit stupidity has raised the price of a beer for those holidaying in the EU by 30%. The cost of house purchases up by 30% .  The people deriving their income in Europe felt nothing, due to Brexit.

I find it difficult to sympathise with those who choose to live abroad and extract money from the UK, or to spend their holidays propping up other people's economies.

Unlike Her Majesty's Government, I have chosen to invest in the EU rather than pay for it, and my shares in non-UK companies are doing nicely, thank you, because they have a strong home market and governmental encouragement. 

The British obsession with house prices is one of the reasons this country is less prosperous than it should be. We spend more on housing, both as a fraction of GDP and per square meter of habitable space, than any nation other than Hong Kong. The result is a non-mobile workforce and an exceptionally limited home market for manufactured products: it's very difficult to export if you don't have a home market. Part of the problem is political and media obsession with "the economy" which includes all transactions, from drugs and prostitution to house sales and fine art auctions. "Economic growth" thus has very little to do with economic health or prosperity. A rise in house prices makes a cheap headline but damages prosperity. Decriminalising drugs and building council housing for rent would go a long way to biasing the UK economy towards matters of substance.

[Bored chemist]

. If everyone in the game is losing money, what's the point of a common market?

Straw man.
I already posted a link to the answer. They aren't.
https://fullfact.org/europe/claim-about-uks-eu-contribution-correct-meaningless/
For what it's worth, Poland is currently the biggest net drawer.

But, as I said, the major gains aren't cash.
It's still like me going to the pub and spending money; I don't expect to get my money back.

So the bit here about a trade deficit is a red herring.

According to the ONS our net direct contribution to the EU central fund is £267,000,000 per week (£363,000,000 gross before rebate )(https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/articles/theukcontributiontotheeubudget/2017-10-31),  plus a net trade deficit of £1.15 bn per week

And that leaves us with the 267M per week
Shared among 66 million people
About £4 per week
£210 per  year
As I said, roughly half what you claimed it was.

Plus the membership fee of another £500 p.a. for the privilege.

Just before you said

But Remainers don't believe government statistics, do they?

Now, do you accept that the Remainers- backed up by the govt's figures are actually the ones who got the arithmetic right?

Decriminalising drugs and building council housing for rent would go a long way to biasing the UK economy towards matters of substance.

Yay!
It must be Friday.
There's something we agree on.

[alancalverd]

For what it's worth, Poland is currently the biggest net drawer.

If I were Polish, I would be in favour of my country's continued membership of the EU. If I were Polish and working in the UK to support a family in Poland, I would be in favour of the UK remaining in the EU. But I'm not.

It's a pity that you can't see the difference between the UK's direct contribution (the membership fee) to the EU, and the UK trade deficit that results from all members exercising the privileges of that membership. 

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Intra-EU_trade_in_goods_-_recent_trends#Intra-EU_trade_in_goods_balance    has some interesting graphs (fig 4a, Tables 2,3)  which show the UK as the biggest loser in the game.

[Bored chemist]

So, what you seem to be saying is that in 2004 the "other" 26 members of the EU voted to let Poland in, even though they knew this would be a cost to the EU and they knew that (in most cases) they would be paying for it, or at least, the Poles would be taking money out  which they  would no longer be able to.
This was no secret.
Everyone recognised that Poland would get more cash than they gave.

Since it seems you think "getting more cash out than you put in" is the only important thing, what you are implying is that, all the other 26 members of the EU are stupid, and it's only the UK that's sensible enough to cut its losses.

Or do you actually accept that for some reason it's good to have Poland there, even if their net contribution is negative, and that  it's not stupid for the other member states to pay in.

Well, if it's reasonable for the other 26 states to pay in more (at least to Poland) than they receive, why isn't it sensible for us to do that?
What so ****ing special about us?

It's a pity that you can't see the difference between the UK's direct contribution (the membership fee) to the EU, and the UK trade deficit that results from all members exercising the privileges of that membership. 

I made it clear that I can tell the difference.
I stated that one is a red herring and the other is less than half what you said it was.

has some interesting graphs (fig 4a, Tables 2,3)  which show the UK as the biggest loser in the game.

And you still refuse to understand that , if you buy services, you pay to do so- just like buying beer.

[alancalverd]

in 2004 the "other" 26 members of the EU voted to let Poland in

with the enthusiastic support of Tony Blair and every employer in the UK - massive resources of cheap skilled labour!

What so ****ing special about us?

I live here, not there. It's my money, and I'd prefer to spend it on cheaper food and goods from the rest of the world, and on staff recruited on merit, not nationality. Unfortunately all the pro-EU arguments I have ever seen, have been about sentiment.  The EU is about business, and there is no room for sentiment in business. If you want sentiment, look back 80 years and ask yourself why the official language of Poland is not German.

if you buy services, you pay to do so

The major trade deficit is in goods, not services. The service we buy from the EU is the obligation to import goods from other EU countries without tariff, to host workers from other EU countries without visa limitations, and to discriminate against the rest of the world.

[Bored chemist]

ith the enthusiastic support of Tony Blair and every employer in the UK - massive resources of cheap skilled labour!

And finally, you realise that there's a benefit which isn't in straight cash paid to or from the EU.
That's the sort of thing which costs me the price of a coffee each week. (along with freedom of trade and movement, Euratom, etc)
 Personally, I think it's good value.
You might not, but since you didn't seem to understand what  it was, and you thought it cost more than twice as much, it's probably time you reconsidered.

If you want sentiment, look back 80 years and ask yourself why the official language of Poland is not German.

I think you mean "If you want to know what the EU is really for, look back 80 years and ask yourself why the official language of Poland is not German."

The EU is about business,

No, it's not.
That's why France, Germany and the UK etc are all in it even though, on a straight profit/ loss account basis, it costs more than it gives back.

The major trade deficit is in goods, not services. The service we buy from the EU is the obligation to import goods from other EU countries without tariff, to host workers from other EU countries without visa limitations, and to discriminate against the rest of the world.

The service we buy from the EU as an organisation is not the same as the services we buy and sell to countries that are members of the EU.
The UK buys cheese from France, but it buys [membership of the galileo project] from the EU.
Access to projects like that is why it's worth the cost of a coffee each week.
I'm not actually a massive fan of some aspects of the EU, simplistically, it's a cartell.
But, if you can't break the cartell, you are better off in it than out- the members make very sure of that.
What do you think will happen if we leave?
Do you somehow think they will give us a better deal?

[alancalverd]

The service we buy from the EU as an organisation is not the same as the services we buy and sell to countries that are members of the EU.

which is why I have been careful to distinguish between the membership fee and the money we lose by being members of the cartel.

They won't give us anything - it's not about sentiment.

[Bored chemist]

which is why I have been careful to distinguish between the membership fee and the money we lose by being members of the cartel.

OK, that's a start.
Now the relevant question.
If we were not members of the cartel would they
(1) let us make more money or
(2) Make very sure we made even bigger losses?

Oh, I see you essentially already answered that.
"They won't give us anything "
So, why do you want to leave?

[alancalverd]

So, why do you want to leave?

So that we can establish tariffs that reduce our trade deficit with the EU and reduce the consumer cost of imports from the rest of the world; control migration and immigration (not the same thing) with a fair system based on need and  merit rather than nationality; return gradually to a simple legal system based on wrongs rather than rights; make our own rules about state ownership and subsidies; establish a Norwegian-style fishing  policy in protected waters; and eliminate an unaccountable and apparently corrupt level of nondemocratic government. For starters.   

Thanks to parliamentary gamesmanship and David Cameron's lack of a Plan B, it will take a long time to repair the damage caused by unpreparedness, but our grandchildren will be grateful.

"If you want to know what the EU is really for, look back 80 years and ask yourself why the official language of Poland is not German."

The EU was established after the wholesale destruction and Allied occupation of Germany, without which life in Poland would be intolerable. Poland was not a founding member.

Meanwhile, how do we go about reducing the human population to a climate-resilient level? Or any realistic techniques for reversing climate change? Since the half-life of atmospheric CO2 is said to be about 100 years, even halving our per capita consumption of carbon fuels won't do the trick in 12 years, never mind 18 months.

[alancalverd]

Quote from: alancalverd on Today at 09:34:30

with the enthusiastic support of Tony Blair and every employer in the UK - massive resources of cheap skilled labour!

And finally, you realise that there's a benefit which isn't in straight cash paid to or from the EU.That's the sort of thing which costs me the price of a coffee each week. (along with freedom of trade and movement, Euratom, etc) Personally, I think it's good value.

Me too.

I can hire a Romanian consultant for the salary I would have to pay a British houseman - good for business. But he sends most of his salary back to Romania where it is spent in the Romanian economy - bad for Britain.

Polish builders arrive on Monday (£45 from Warsaw to Stansted - cheaper than the train from Leicester, but it's an Irish airline, not BA) fully trained in State technical schools, and take home a pile of cash on Friday, having  done a thoroughly professional job in my clinic. Good for business, bad for Britain, and another example of businesses and governments investing in the EU rather than just subscribing to it.

And so forth.