acd1202:
It is my understanding that WTO terms do not impose any tariff on componenta for assembly only on comleted vehicles.
I think the same applies in the case of the EEC/EU ?.IE Jensen Interceptor US made engine and trans and Jag XJ US made trans and air con but both sold in the European single market as a Brit product.Also obviously also no UK taxes imposed on components used to make products for re export.
Spardo:
Fodenway:
It was less than three weeks ago that the European Court of Justice gave a ruling that a leaving country does not need the permission of the remaining members, the European Parliament or anyone else to revoke Article 50 and stay in the Union.That was a case brought by some Scottish MPs and MEPs (remember Scotland voted to remain) to clarify that a state cannot be forced out of the Union and therefore if a change of mind was expressed legally (by referendum or UK parliament) before the UK actually left (March 31 2019) then nobody can stop it staying in. Simple as that.
Stating that ‘ever closer union’ changes nothing at all, can’t be done without all countries agreeing. So might therefore be more likely having got rid of Britain, who was very unlikely to agree, although I doubt that all the others would agree either.
So more fake news and scaremongering.
Spardo, let me correct you on one of your points. You say that Scotland voted to remain - I presume you mean they voted to remain in the EU - but remember the referendum applied to the United Kingdom as a whole, not its constituent countries separately, and Scotland had already voted to remain a part of the UK in their Independence Referendum. True, a majority of Scottish people wanted to continue being part of the EU, but as I said, it was a UK-wide referendum. If and when Scotland became independent of the rest of the UK at some point after Brexit, they would then have to apply for membership of the EU afresh, and have to meet all their criteria as would any other prospective new member state. That is clearly set out in the Lisbon Treaty.
Another thing, I never stated that ‘ever closer union changes nothing at all’ - those are your words, not mine.
Fake news and scaremongering? I don’t think so, not from me at least.
Spardo:
can you enlighten us as to whether it actually says that the monarch can be replaced, dethroned or executed in 2022?As a staunch republican since the power of thought developed in my brain, a little bit of me hopes it’s true.
But I don’t think it is.
You mean the ‘Monarch’ who provided assent to the European Communities Act. 
fodenway:
Spardo, let me correct you on one of your points. You say that Scotland voted to remain - I presume you mean they voted to remain in the EU - but remember the referendum applied to the United Kingdom as a whole, not its constituent countries separately, and Scotland had already voted to remain a part of the UK in their Independence Referendum. True, a majority of Scottish people wanted to continue being part of the EU, but as I said, it was a UK-wide referendum. If and when Scotland became independent of the rest of the UK at some point after Brexit, they would then have to apply for membership of the EU afresh, and have to meet all their criteria as would any other prospective new member state. That is clearly set out in the Lisbon Treaty.
Another thing, I never stated that ‘ever closer union changes nothing at all’ - those are your words, not mine.
Fake news and scaremongering? I don’t think so, not from me at least.
The case was brought before the European Court by Scottish representatives, my reference to the way Scotland voted, which you have agreed with, was merely to explain why it was them that brought the case and not someone else.
The ‘ever closer union’ was a direct quote from your post
Fodenway:
but there is still the stated intention of “ever closer Union”, which could by inference mean that some of the items on Buzzer’s list are indeed in the EU’s sights.
and I countered that by referencing the Treaty which, in effect, says that that can’t happen without the agreement of all.
Spardo, I know full well that the case was brought up by Scottish representatives, but the fact remains that Scotland voted to remain in the UK, and is therefore bound by the UK majority vote in the EU referendum. You seem unable to grasp that point. As for “ever closer union”, that was indeed me quoting from the Treaty wording, but you added the “changes nothing at all” bit yourself in your original post, not me.
acd1202:
Franglais:
acd1202:
Franglais:
ramone:
Still no one seems to realise the EU needs us more than we need them . They will only trade under their terms , try telling German Swedish French Italian Belgian car commercial vehicle manufacturers that . I think the Germans sell more cars here than anywhere else in Europe . We will need travel visas to stay in EU countries for extended trips but not holidays , how convenient for Spain and Portugal take our tourists out of those two countries and see the reaction . This is a great opportunity for the few British car manufacturers over here and definitely DAF to make a killing . The EU will be pleading with us to deal with them ,can you imagine the bosses at BMW AUDI and Mercedes looking at their stock of unsold RHD cars sat rotting away because the EU want to play games .Well seems to me that many in this country don’t seem to notice that we both need each other to have a stable future.
Does it really matter who looses most, if we BOTH loose?If course Merc BMW etc won’t have stocks of unsold rhd cars. They are all made to customer order on the line.
Will EU makers be happy about a decrease in their market? Of course not. As you rightly say a poorer British economy won’t be buying so many luxury imports.Sent from my SM-G361F using Tapatalk
It’s a very long time since Mercedes and BMW only built cars to order, if that were ever entirely true, they are always carrying unsold stock although I think it’s fair to admit that in the scheme of things nobody will be losing sleep over them, they can always be modified to suit other RHD markets. I believe it is true though that should the EU be foolish enough to implement trade barriers then those manufacturers with final assembly here would stand to gain in the UK market.
If there were to be trade barriers (if it’s a hard Brexit, won’t that be obligatory under WTO rules?)
Would companies be happy having plants in the UK? Complete cars and components will be liable for tariffs, so would they want tariffs coming into the UK (one market) or from the the UK into all the EU markets?
The UK is currently a large market, true, but is nowhere near as big as the rest of the EU combined, so tax one small part of the market or a much larger part?Sent from my SM-G361F using Tapatalk
It is my understanding that WTO terms do not impose any tariff on componenta for assembly only on comleted vehicles. The UK takes a much higher percentage of The output of EU, particularly German car plants than the EU takes from UK plants. I am of the mindset that any and all barriers to trade are a mistake, but equally we must not forget that many “European” manufacturers have for years built cars outside of Europe and therefore voluntarily paid EU import duties, for instance VW in South Africa, BMW in South Africa, USA and Brazil, Mercedes in South Africa, USA, Brazil and Mexico and most recently Volvo to China. Firstly how many people realise that their new Merc wasn’t built in Stuttgart or that their new S90 has just come all the way from China on the train? But whilst it is true that we may loose out on some models all of these non EU built cars will actually be cheaper here, or more profitable to their manufacturer.
WTO rates are 10% on cars and 4.5% on components.
Currently 95% of cars sold in the UK are zero tariffs.
56% of UK exports go to EU.
7% of EU exports come to the UK.
Still seems to me we’d potentially be the biggest looser in the short term, through lost sales due to cost, and us paying more for cars. And also on the long term if new plants are built elsewhere to avoid tariffs making the end product dearer.
Edit. Data from Gov report on Brexit impact.
Sent from my SM-G361F using Tapatalk
fodenway:
Spardo, I know full well that the case was brought up by Scottish representatives, but the fact remains that Scotland voted to remain in the UK, and is therefore bound by the UK majority vote in the EU referendum. You seem unable to grasp that point. As for “ever closer union”, that was indeed me quoting from the Treaty wording, but you added the “changes nothing at all” bit yourself in your original post, not me.
Yes, I fully grasp that point, of course I do, I was merely explaining who brought the case and why.
And yes, Buzzers joke was that Britain would be dragged into a united country. And I mentioned why it could not.
Sounds a bit like angels dancing on the head of a pin to me mate.
Just out of interest Spardo, do you agree with Angela Merkel, here quoted on 23rd November in Berlin?
She told the event, titled ‘Parliamentarianism Between Globalisation and National Sovereignty’: "In this day nation states must today - should today, I say - be ready to give up sovereignty.
"But of course in an orderly procedure.”
Mrs Merkel said that countries who think “they can solve everything on their own” are simply nationalistic and not patriotic because they “only think about themselves.”
She said: “Either you are one of those who believe they can solve everything on their own and only have to think about themselves. That is nationalism in its purest form.
“This is not patriotism. Because patriotism is if you include others in the German interest and accept win-win situations.”
John.
Edit.
I should add this isn’t meant as a trap or trick question, I’m just genuinely interested if you agree with ever closer union. I’m sure you can guess, I don’t think it is a good thing.
fodenway:
Spardo, I know full well that the case was brought up by Scottish representatives, but the fact remains that Scotland voted to remain in the UK, and is therefore bound by the UK majority vote in the EU referendum. You seem unable to grasp that point. As for “ever closer union”, that was indeed me quoting from the Treaty wording, but you added the “changes nothing at all” bit yourself in your original post, not me.
Part of the campaign for Scotland to remain part of the UK was about Scotland finding difficulties if it wished to join the EU after leaving the UK.
Given that the circumstances around their vote has changed, would you think it fair that they have another?
Given the honesty with Spardo…There may be a bit of a twist in this question.
Sent from my SM-G361F using Tapatalk
Scotland, the same as The Irish Republic should realise that their biggest customer ( England) is on their doorstep and if they want to play “silly people” they should consider the consequences i.e. if they persist well England should just say " sorry we are not playing your silly games" and just close off all trade period ! and before there are “tirades” various just remember it is a free world and if England did choose to take this course of action ( Which I don’t believe the Shower of MP’s we have currently would take) it would be perfectly acceptable even though the screaming from Dublin and Edinburgh would be deafening ! Tough ■■■■ it up ! Cheers Bewick.
Franglais:
fodenway:
Spardo, I know full well that the case was brought up by Scottish representatives, but the fact remains that Scotland voted to remain in the UK, and is therefore bound by the UK majority vote in the EU referendum. You seem unable to grasp that point. As for “ever closer union”, that was indeed me quoting from the Treaty wording, but you added the “changes nothing at all” bit yourself in your original post, not me.Part of the campaign for Scotland to remain part of the UK was about Scotland finding difficulties if it wished to join the EU after leaving the UK.
Given that the circumstances around their vote has changed, would you think it fair that they have another?Given the honesty with Spardo…There may be a bit of a twist in this question.
Sent from my SM-G361F using Tapatalk
No, I don’t believe it would be ‘fair’ for Scotland to have another vote, particularly at this late stage in the Brexit process. Circumstances do change, and it is usually better to see how things work out over time rather than to make drastic changes as a knee-jerk reaction. We’ve had forty-odd years to see how the EU is working out, and a democratic majority of UK voters are not happy with it and want to leave. The questions in both the Scottish Independence and EU withdrawal referenda were simple - stay in or leave, and the results of both should be respected and carried out. It’s not a ‘best of three’ vote. The unfortunate truth is that you can’t please all the people all the time, but that’s the way of the world.
Franglais:
fodenway:
Spardo, I know full well that the case was brought up by Scottish representatives, but the fact remains that Scotland voted to remain in the UK, and is therefore bound by the UK majority vote in the EU referendum. You seem unable to grasp that point. As for “ever closer union”, that was indeed me quoting from the Treaty wording, but you added the “changes nothing at all” bit yourself in your original post, not me.Part of the campaign for Scotland to remain part of the UK was about Scotland finding difficulties if it wished to join the EU after leaving the UK.
Given that the circumstances around their vote has changed, would you think it fair that they have another?Given the honesty with Spardo…There may be a bit of a twist in this question.
The twist is in the inconsistency of so called Scottish Nationalists wanting to be ruled by the EU instead of the UK.On that note no surprise that we’ve not been given a vote on English independence.Also bearing in mind that none of the votes in question are binding on the government so what’s the point anyway.Oh wait the EU Federalists’ idea of democracy is that any referendum which goes in their favour is binding and those which don’t are just opinion polls.
fodenway:
Franglais:
fodenway:
Spardo, I know full well that the case was brought up by Scottish representatives, but the fact remains that Scotland voted to remain in the UK, and is therefore bound by the UK majority vote in the EU referendum. You seem unable to grasp that point. As for “ever closer union”, that was indeed me quoting from the Treaty wording, but you added the “changes nothing at all” bit yourself in your original post, not me.Part of the campaign for Scotland to remain part of the UK was about Scotland finding difficulties if it wished to join the EU after leaving the UK.
Given that the circumstances around their vote has changed, would you think it fair that they have another?Given the honesty with Spardo…There may be a bit of a twist in this question.
Sent from my SM-G361F using Tapatalk
No, I don’t believe it would be ‘fair’ for Scotland to have another vote, particularly at this late stage in the Brexit process. Circumstances do change, and it is usually better to see how things work out over time rather than to make drastic changes as a knee-jerk reaction. We’ve had forty-odd years to see how the EU is working out, and a democratic majority of UK voters are not happy with it and want to leave. The questions in both the Scottish Independence and EU withdrawal referenda were simple - stay in or leave, and the results of both should be respected and carried out. It’s not a ‘best of three’ vote. The unfortunate truth is that you can’t please all the people all the time, but that’s the way of the world.
I see your point of course, but what of those who voted to stay in the UK because they wanted to stay in Europe? Haven’t they a right to be unhappy and call for a vote?
After all many who called for the Brexit referendum did do because they claimed it was a change from a simple trading deal into something more? Isn’t there a parallel?
Maybe after we leave, not yet.
Sent from my SM-G361F using Tapatalk
Bewick:
Scotland, the same as The Irish Republic should realise that their biggest customer ( England) is on their doorstep and if they want to play “silly people” they should consider the consequences i.e. if they persist well England should just say " sorry we are not playing your silly games" and just close off all trade period ! and before there are “tirades” various just remember it is a free world and if England did choose to take this course of action ( Which I don’t believe the Shower of MP’s we have currently would take) it would be perfectly acceptable even though the screaming from Dublin and Edinburgh would be deafening ! Tough ■■■■ it up ! Cheers Bewick.
Very valid point.Contrary to this, one could simply just substitute Scotland/Ireland with UK,vis a vis Europe,biggerst customer on their doorstep etc etc
John West:
Just out of interest Spardo, do you agree with Angela Merkel, here quoted on 23rd November in Berlin?She told the event, titled ‘Parliamentarianism Between Globalisation and National Sovereignty’: "In this day nation states must today - should today, I say - be ready to give up sovereignty.
.
Personally I do agree with that part of your question, It is well known that I am a federalist, I stated quite openly early on in this thread that my greatest regret was losing my European Citizenship, I felt good about being a member of a larger European ideal. One of the reasons why I did not continue with my application to become a French citizen was because I realised that it wasn’t really what I wanted.
But that doesn’t mean that I think it is likely, or even desirable at the moment. And it certainly doesn’t mean that it is inevitable, but, for all its faults, the EU is little by little getting there, and the fact that I am to be excluded from that is a great sadness to me.
Now I sit back and wait for CF to deliver his predictable federalist bile. Federalism isn’t a dirty word, but the sort of xenophobic nationalism that he and others have expressed in much of this thread, is. Because it is that sort of thing which caused the spilling of so much blood in Europe in the last century.
Whiplash:
Very valid point.Contrary to this, one could simply just substitute Scotland/Ireland with UK,vis a vis Europe,biggerst customer on their doorstep etc etc
Exactly.
whiplash:
Bewick:
Scotland, the same as The Irish Republic should realise that their biggest customer ( England) is on their doorstep and if they want to play “silly people” they should consider the consequences i.e. if they persist well England should just say " sorry we are not playing your silly games" and just close off all trade period ! and before there are “tirades” various just remember it is a free world and if England did choose to take this course of action ( Which I don’t believe the Shower of MP’s we have currently would take) it would be perfectly acceptable even though the screaming from Dublin and Edinburgh would be deafening ! Tough ■■■■ it up ! Cheers Bewick.Very valid point.Contrary to this, one could simply just substitute Scotland/Ireland with UK,vis a vis Europe,biggerst customer on their doorstep etc etc
Typical remainer comparison of apples v oranges.Unlike our relationship with the EU Ireland isn’t a net contributor to the UK budget nor subject to dictat by unelected UK MP’s.Nor suffering the massive burden of a trade deficit of more than £ 50 billion pa massive customer yeah right.Ironically all that owing to a costly war of secession v Federal aggression to extricate itself from UK rule.As for the Scots the whole basis of Scottish Nationalism is to free itself from foreign rule from Westminster.To which,like the Irish,their answer is let’s be ruled by the EU instead.They couldn’t make it up.
Spardo and Whiplash are making excellent points.
Plus the posts from some here wanting us to leave the EU whilst deriding the Scots Nationalists reeks of hypocrisy.
Sent from my SM-G361F using Tapatalk
Franglais:
Spardo and Whiplash are making excellent points.
Plus the posts from some here wanting us to leave the EU whilst deriding the Scots Nationalists reeks of hypocrisy.
How can the SNP possibly be both Nationalists and EU Federalists.The truth is,like the Irish EU supporters,Soviet style Socialists masquerading as so called ‘Nationalists’ .Which is similar to Hitler’s rabble claiming to be Nationalists while the reality was anti Nation State Socialist Federalists in the form of their 3rd Reich.
As for the contradiction between pro UK anti EU Federalist that’s more like stupidity and ignorance ( Bewick for one ? ) than the intentional hypocrisy and lies of the the Scottish ‘Nationalists’ flying under a Nationalist flag of convenience.On that note,unlike EU federalists,I’d guess that most like Bewick would have no objections to a Confederal UK just as I’d be happy in a Confederal Europe which recognises and maintains the sovereignty of the Nation States which make up the group.As opposed to Socialists in typical form instinctively always wanting an ever greater and closer collective and in this case the unelected elites like Blair and Juncker who also see an advantage in that type of dictatorship.
As for you like Spardo you’re just an EU Federalist who’s allegiance is to the EU Federation.In which case define exactly who you are referring to by the term ‘us’.Bearing in mind that by definition the UK,let alone Scotland and England,can’t possibly exist as sovereign states and entities under the rule of your EU 4th Reich.
Spardo:
John West:
Just out of interest Spardo, do you agree with Angela Merkel, here quoted on 23rd November in Berlin?She told the event, titled ‘Parliamentarianism Between Globalisation and National Sovereignty’: "In this day nation states must today - should today, I say - be ready to give up sovereignty.
.
Personally I do agree with that part of your question, It is well known that I am a federalist, I stated quite openly early on in this thread that my greatest regret was losing my European Citizenship, I felt good about being a member of a larger European ideal. One of the reasons why I did not continue with my application to become a French citizen was because I realised that it wasn’t really what I wanted.
But that doesn’t mean that I think it is likely, or even desirable at the moment. And it certainly doesn’t mean that it is inevitable, but, for all its faults, the EU is little by little getting there, and the fact that I am to be excluded from that is a great sadness to me.
Now I sit back and wait for CF to deliver his predictable federalist bile. Federalism isn’t a dirty word, but the sort of xenophobic nationalism that he and others have expressed in much of this thread, is. Because it is that sort of thing which caused the spilling of so much blood in Europe in the last century.
Whiplash:
Very valid point.Contrary to this, one could simply just substitute Scotland/Ireland with UK,vis a vis Europe,biggerst customer on their doorstep etc etcExactly.
No it was Federalist aggression which caused the spilling of so much blood in Europe from the Romans to Napoleon to the German Federation imposing its will over the former German sovereign states and then rampaging across the continent in trying to form an even Greater German Reich including its alliance with the Austro Hungarian ‘empire’ which kicked off WW1 and the Soviet Union trying to do the same in the joint invasion of Poland.To the JNA trying and failing to put down secession in the former Yugoslavia.On that note you and your federalist rabble are just outdated dictatorial zealots who need to be stopped by either civil debate and when that inevitably doesn’t work by force.
A non loaded question here , why would you prefer to be ruled by Europeans rather than British ?
