EU referendum June 23rd

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**reds8n**

https://orun.wordpress.com/2016/04/22/brexit-and-the-small-uk-wargames-business/

Brexit and the small UK wargames business
Whatever your views on the forthcoming EU referendum, whether you’re in favour or remaining in the EU or of leaving (Brexit), there are some quite simple repercussions of Brexit for the small UK wargames business – and it’s all to do with tax and tax collection.

There are two types of small UK wargames business: those that are not registered for value added tax (VAT), and those that are registered for VAT. As is apparent on wargames forums, the difference between a VAT-registered business and a non-registered business is not widely understood. The ones that are registered for VAT are in general larger: UK businesses must register for VAT if their annual turnover is more than £83,000. The consequence of that is that a VAT-registered wargames business must charge 20% VAT on toy soldiers for sales within the EU.

Currently, the free trade arrangement within the EU allows both types of small wargames business to trade without further tax or tax collection charges being imposed for selling into another country. For non-VAT businesses there is simply no tax to collect; for VAT-registered businesses, tax is charged in the UK at 20% and is collected on behalf of HMRC by the business.

Brexit would change that by bringing in a tax frontier simply for VAT. This is regardless of any trade agreements and ability to set extra tariffs and duties on products that independence from the EU might bring for Brexit UK. It will happen simply because VAT exists across the EU, and VAT in the EU will not go away just because the UK leaves.

Brexit UK may well remain part of the European Free Trade Area (EFTA), like Norway, but Norway provides the prime example of how VAT would work in the UK for any small wargames business trading with the rest of the EU.

Currently, any VAT-registered wargames business selling to Norway removes the 20% UK VAT from its prices and dispatches an order with a customs declaration about order value on the front of the package. Depending on the value of the order, Norway may charge VAT at 25% plus a tax collection charge of NOK 140 (just under £12). VAT kicks in on orders of NOK 350 (about £29.70) for orders sent by post, and VAT and the tax collection charge add 39% to the cost of an order of that size (source: www.tollsjekk.no).

A £29.70 ex-tax order is equivalent to an order value of £35.64 inc VAT in the UK; however, with Norwegian VAT and tax collection fees it becomes equivalent to £41.34, or £5.70 more expensive compared with the same order to a UK customer.

For a non-VAT-registered UK business, the comparative price is worse. There is no tax to deduct on export to Norway, so the apparent price hike is from £29.70 to £41.34, a difference of £11.64. The same situation happens in the UK, by the way: UK wargamers importing from the USA, for example, should find that Royal Mail charges £8 for collecting import VAT, on an order value threshold of just £15.

Although the same value of goods is bought from the non-VAT-registered UK business as from the VAT-registered business, the apparent tax hike for the order from the non-registered business looks much worse to the Norwegian customer.

Post-Brexit, how the UK trades with EU countries will work exactly the same way as trade with Norway at present. All products from wargames businesses in the UK will appear more expensive not necessarily because of a major difference in the VAT rate – many major EU countries have a VAT rate of 19% to 22%, similar to the UK’s 20% – but because of the tax collection fee, once an order passes the low import tax threshold.

Of course, it is possible to send a parcel to Norway without it attracting tax: it simply has to be below the import tax threshold. What this does in practice is to limit the size of orders from Norway, to the extent that to be safe almost no wargamer in Norway orders more than £22 ex-tax of goods at a time, according to Fighting 15s’ experience at least. For any small wargames business that trades extensively with EU countries, the implication of having most orders to those countries reduced to values that slip under the typical import tax collection threshold of 15 to 22 euros is pretty horrifying.

The collection charge, of course, dilutes in effect as orders get bigger. On an order of NOK 1,000 (about £85 ex-tax of goods from a VAT-registered UK business, or £85 of zero-tax goods from a non-registered business), Norway’s import tax and duty come to only 28%, which doesn’t look much in percentage terms but gives the customer a £33 import tax bill on delivery, which can be off-putting. It still makes the equivalent order from a non-VAT-registered UK wargames business £33 more expensive.

Norway, of course, isn’t a major market for wargames figures. The effect of its VAT tax-frontier within the free-trade zone of the EU reduces order sizes from customers based there. The EU-wide market for wargames businesses, however, is much bigger.

Across the EU, import tax thresholds are low, typically 15 to 22 euros (additional duty based on the type of goods, by the way, typically doesn’t come in until an order reaches 150 euros). With import tax collection fees for VAT ramping up the cost of orders above these low values to EU countries, any UK wargames business – VAT-registered or not – that currently sells to the EU will be affected post Brexit. And non-VAT-registered UK wargames businesses will be worse off than VAT-registered ones because of the greater apparent price hike of import tax and tax collection fees.

Whether post-Brexit UK can set its own tax it won’t matter. The rest of the EU’s existing VAT system and import tax charges will simply come into effect, even for associated countries within the European Free Trade Area, and that’s what will penalise the ability of the small UK wargames business to sell to EU countries if Brexit comes to pass.

**whembly**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
My reaction to Hague's article:

First, I would note that British leaders and commentators do not hesitate to hold forth on the foreign policy of the United States: a policy supported by David Cameron, attacked by Jeremy Corbyn, and denounced or questioned by many others with regard to the Middle East, defence spending, drone strikes, the handling of Cuba and scores of other issues.

Obama is well within his rights to say that America's best interests are served by the UK in the EU. It would be a dereliction of duty for a American president not to say it. However, there's a fine line between saying this, and then visiting that country ahead of a crucial vote in a referendum.

Could you imagine a British Prime Minister in the USA this November telling American voters who to vote for? No, neither could I. Obama has crossed a line.

And since the US is our one indispensable ally, our biggest single trading partner and the ultimate guarantor of our security, its interests matter to everyone in Britain whether we like it or not.

A few months ago the Americans were saying that the French were their oldest ally.

As for the USA being the ultimate guarantor of our security...what a load of horsegak. You're embarrassing yourself now, Mr Hague.

This is partly because the UK plays a crucial role in ensuring the EU generally supports the objectives of the US and that there is usually transatlantic unity of action. When America needed strong sanctions to bring Iran to the nuclear negotiating table, Britain helped to make sure the whole EU adopted and implemented those sanctions. And without Britain to push for sanctions on Putin’s Russia when Crimea was invaded and annexed, the response of the EU would have been tremulously weak.

De Gaulle has been proven right - Britain is a Trojan horse for the USA. As for the Crimea, did I miss the bit where Russia annexed it or was it my imagination? As for Iran, I'm pretty sure non European nations were also involved.

In 2012, many EU states, led by France, made a determined push to set up an EU military headquarters. For the obvious reason that this would duplicate and potentially undermine Nato and in my capacity as the then foreign secretary, I strongly opposed it. I sat through the 12-hour meeting explaining that no British government would ever agree to it and then I vetoed it. Without the UK, it would have got through, and hands would have been wrung in Washington over the expensive and divisive results.

75% of spending in NATO is from the USA - this won't last for ever. I'm opposed to the creation of an EU military, but sooner or later, European nations are going to have to crank up defence spending, because America won't foot the bill forever.

None of this is to suggest that Britain is a permanent agent of the US, constantly subverting European ideas

Um, you've just spent most of the article saying otherwise!

A further reason why the President should feel free to speak out is that the last thing America, or the West in general, needs over the next few years is a self-inflicted bout of introversion and instability

Agreed. The more people feel cut of from the democratic process, the more likely we'll see mass unrest and riots on the streets of Europe. A united states of Europe which sees ordinary people feeling detached from the elites, will only help to create instability.

but their biggest concern would be the years of effort diverted by their main allies into a long and very painful attempt to negotiate a new relationship.

Never underestimate the effect of pragmatism and realpolitik to make things happen quickly. You would think a former foreign secretary would know this.

The message coming back from American embassies across Europe will be sobering: don’t expect Britain to strike any easy deal any time soon with the EU if it votes to leave. Anyone who has seen government from the inside knows how much energy would be drained from dealing with all the other economic and security challenges in London, Paris and Berlin.

Translation: politicians like myself will now have to work for a living instead of outsourcing it to the EU.

Whatever we think about Europe, the fact that a vote to leave would be such bad news for our closest allies should be a material factor in deciding how to vote.

To paraphrase a well known American: Britain has no allies, only interests.

So... I read this today:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/22/europe/obama-british-reaction/index.html

On behalf of America, I'd like to apologize to the good folks in Britain on my President's asshat smug remarks regarding a potential Brexit.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

No need to apologise, Whembley.

Like I said, any American president would have done the same, and at least Obama was honest enough to admit he was acting in the USA's best interests.

However, he should have done it from the White House and not turned up in the UK. It crossed a line in my book.

Now, I'm a regular feature on the US politics thread, and I freely give my opinion on US politics: Trump is a dangerous idiot, HRC is a crook, and Ted Cruz should be exiled to Alaska! But, at no point do I ever tell American dakka members who to vote for - that's not my place.

Obama could have handled it better.

On a separate note, it's quite sad how the referendum is panning out. I said it earlier, but this is what happened during the Scottish independence referendum - mud slinging and people fighting in the gutter, the big ideas of democracy etc going out the window.

I'm bitterly disappointed at the tone of the debate, because there is an opportunity for somebody to present a vision of the UK at the heart of the EU, reforming it and making it accountable to the people and fit for the 21st century and all its challenges.

And on the other side, the same opportunity exists for a vision to be presented of Britain going it alone and building a better nation for the 21st century.

Sadly, our politicians are A) unable to do this because they're incompetent or B) happy to let the debate be played out like this.

Either way, they're not fit to lead the people of Britain.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

I think we should dispatch David Cameron to the USA a couple of months before the Presidential election to lecture Americans on how electing a war monger like Trump or Clinton to the White House wouldn't be in Britain's best interests.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

I'm bitterly disappointed at the tone of the debate, because there is an opportunity for somebody to present a vision of the UK at the heart of the EU, reforming it and making it accountable to the people and fit for the 21st century and all its challenges.

The EU will never be reformed. There is no desire for reform in Europe's institutions, indeed quite the opposite. They like their gravy train too much. The only way the EU will ever be reformed is if they are forced to reform, and the only to achieve that is to blackmail them with a threat of a member state withdrawing. And even then, they'll just lie to us. Any "deal" and promise of future reform they give us is only temporary and easily vetoed by other member states with vested interests.

**Sarouan**

reds8n wrote:
https://orun.wordpress.com/2016/04/22/brexit-and-the-small-uk-wargames-business/

Interesting article. Since there are a lot of wargame editors in UK, I think that a Brexil would still hurt them. What is sure is that it will make the possibility of exporting nice UK games out of their main island a bit more difficult.

Playing a few games from companies only set in UK, it will become annoying for me in the case of a Brexit. But of course, nationalists wouldn't care about that. Fair game.

**Howard A Treesong**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I think we should dispatch David Cameron to the USA a couple of months before the Presidential election to lecture Americans on how electing a war monger like Trump or Clinton to the White House wouldn't be in Britain's best interests.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

I'm bitterly disappointed at the tone of the debate, because there is an opportunity for somebody to present a vision of the UK at the heart of the EU, reforming it and making it accountable to the people and fit for the 21st century and all its challenges.

The EU will never be reformed. There is no desire for reform in Europe's institutions, indeed quite the opposite. They like their gravy train too much. The only way the EU will ever be reformed is if they are forced to reform, and the only to achieve that is to blackmail them with a threat of a member state withdrawing. And even then, they'll just lie to us. Any "deal" and promise of future reform they give us is only temporary and easily vetoed by other member states with vested interests.

Have the agreements won by Cameron been ratified yet? Or could they be kicked into the long grass once we vote in?

Meanwhile I've read that the German and Dutch armed forces are agreeing to some sort of merger. The unnecessary creep towards an EU army inches along.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Howard A Treesong wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I think we should dispatch David Cameron to the USA a couple of months before the Presidential election to lecture Americans on how electing a war monger like Trump or Clinton to the White House wouldn't be in Britain's best interests.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

I'm bitterly disappointed at the tone of the debate, because there is an opportunity for somebody to present a vision of the UK at the heart of the EU, reforming it and making it accountable to the people and fit for the 21st century and all its challenges.

The EU will never be reformed. There is no desire for reform in Europe's institutions, indeed quite the opposite. They like their gravy train too much. The only way the EU will ever be reformed is if they are forced to reform, and the only to achieve that is to blackmail them with a threat of a member state withdrawing. And even then, they'll just lie to us. Any "deal" and promise of future reform they give us is only temporary and easily vetoed by other member states with vested interests.

Have the agreements won by Cameron been ratified yet? Or could they be kicked into the long grass once we vote in?

Meanwhile I've read that the German and Dutch armed forces are agreeing to some sort of merger. The unnecessary creep towards an EU army inches along.

Germany is one of the few NATO nations not to hit the 2% of GDP on defence target that other nations have achieved, Britain being an example.

For historical reasons, I can understand the German reluctance, but if they pulled the finger out and increased spending, there would be no need for a merger, unless of course the merger goes beyond financial reasons...

Given that the USA accounts for 75% of the NATO budget, Europe really needs to reconsider its defence plans, as a future US president may decide to cut their loses, especially, with the focus being on the Pacific.

Even if Britain leaves the EU, Europe's big 3 (France, Germany, UK) should sit down and say, we can handle Russia in Europe if need be, lets increase defence spending, let the USA pull out, but with the option of America sending in the cavalry if the worst comes to the worst.

Such an arrangement I believe, would suit all parties concerned and allow the USA to focus on the Pacific.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sarouan wrote:
reds8n wrote:
https://orun.wordpress.com/2016/04/22/brexit-and-the-small-uk-wargames-business/

Interesting article. Since there are a lot of wargame editors in UK, I think that a Brexil would still hurt them. What is sure is that it will make the possibility of exporting nice UK games out of their main island a bit more difficult.

Playing a few games from companies only set in UK, it will become annoying for me in the case of a Brexit. But of course, nationalists wouldn't care about that. Fair game.

We've all heard of British people making the trip to Calais for cheap wine and tobacco. Will we see the Europeans making the trip to Britain for cheap wargames?

Honestly, Mr Customs Man, this is a year's supply of plastic miniatures for me!

**notprop**

....personal limit of 12 sprues or the equivilent number of blisters.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Surprise, surprise - Hilary Clinton backs Britain staying in the EU. Never seen that coming!

Normally, I'd be the first to stop Whembly from going on about Hilary Clinton again

but if there was ever a time for Whembly to provide links and sources showing Hilary's links to the EU, this is it!

Whembly, if you can hear us, Britain needs you!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

notprop wrote:
....personal limit of 12 sprues or the equivilent number of blisters.

Not that I would take advantage of our European friends, but I spy an opportunity to make some cash!

I used to sell GW stuff to our Australian friends to help them avoid GW's Australian tax, and even factoring in postage costs and my 10% fee, everybody was happy, so I'm not to worried about BREXIT from this point of view.

**reds8n**

... I'll grant you I'm not an expert with regards to UKIP polices but one someone how doubts this is actually their policy.

Still good to see someone finally sticking it to those lazy widows, laying around, dressed in black weeping all the time...

One assumes this is a parody or joke post...

but these days ....

In other news

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36123014

A senior figure in the campaign for UK exit from the EU has urged the Home Office to bar French far right leader Marine Le Pen from visiting Britain.

**Sarouan**

Bah, it's not really that surprising.

In this case, it sounds like it's easy and of no real consequence for Britain. Sure, it will be annoying for people like me who still like UK wargames, but like I said, it's fair game.

I'm not so sure it will be so full of advantages for Britain, though. But that, only time will tell. I'm pretty sure than even if it goes really bad, the same people arguing for a Brexit will just say it was the fault of evil other countries/EU.

**Ketara**

I have no issue with Obama telling us which way he'd prefer we vote. The man is looking out for American interests after all, it's his job.

If anything I feel a little sorry for him and rest of America. I didn't know you chaps were so hard up over in the American Foreign office that you couldn't negotiate more than one trade treaty at once. Clearly your economy must be diving as well, or you'd be able to hire a few more staff to deal with the 'queue'.

I'm sure that in the interests of charity, we could loan you gents a civil servant or two to help speed things along? Out of fond regard of that wonderful 'special relationship' and all that.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

I think its bloody insulting for any foreign figures to be jetting in and interfering in our referendum to lecture us on how we should vote, whether its the POTUS in favour of Remain or Le Penn in favour of Leave.

By all means, speak your mind, but do it in your own fething country.

Its like David Cameron flying to the united states shortly before the next presidential campaign and lecturing Americans on xenophobia.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

@ Ketara and Shadow Captain:

First and foremost, I'm not having a go at you guys, but how does it feel to be on the other side?

During the Scottish referendum, every man and his dog was saying we couldn't go it alone. Too small, too poor, wouldn't get the trade deals etc etc

Now every man and his dog is saying that Britain is too small, won't get the trade deals etc etc

Funny how things turn, eh?

**notprop**

America has failed to finish negotiating a trade teaty with the EU in nearly 40 years. Iceland and America managed it in a decade.

It sounds to me that the EU is the deadweight we all know it is in that field. I'm sure they'll bee even more efficient now it's 28 (nee 27) nations championing their own interests.

How anyone with half a brain can listen to Obama on this issue and not see the flaws in PoV. Yes he's making the case for the US but he has also inadvertantly made the cause to leave for us. I honestly thought he was cleverer than than. Shame.

As for Clinton well she would be better off keeping an eye on her old man rather than us.

**Ketara**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
@ Ketara and Shadow Captain:

First and foremost, I'm not having a go at you guys, but how does it feel to be on the other side?

During the Scottish referendum, every man and his dog was saying we couldn't go it alone. Too small, too poor, wouldn't get the trade deals etc etc

Now every man and his dog is saying that Britain is too small, won't get the trade deals etc etc

Funny how things turn, eh?

There's several differences. Scotland's economy was more likely to become an issue than not (and judging by the subsequent oil market, would definitely have been). Britain, on the other hand, is collectively the 5th largest economy in the world. So worries about the economy were a legitimate concern for the former, but making the sorts of announcements of doom Obama/Cameron are doing here are demonstrably false.

I hadn't even made my mind up until I saw that Five Presidents Report, so when it comes to economics of the matter, I'm reasonably neutral. It doesn't affect my opinion either way. If we leave, I estimate we'll be in for a rough bumpy ride of 3-5 years, economically speaking, but things will be okay assuming appropriate actions are taken by the government.

Cameron ahs clearly decided that if the fear strategy worked one time though, it should the second time, and the mor ehe talks about economics, the less he has to talk about immigration and sovereignty issues, and can pretend they don't exist.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Ketara wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
@ Ketara and Shadow Captain:

First and foremost, I'm not having a go at you guys, but how does it feel to be on the other side?

During the Scottish referendum, every man and his dog was saying we couldn't go it alone. Too small, too poor, wouldn't get the trade deals etc etc

Now every man and his dog is saying that Britain is too small, won't get the trade deals etc etc

Funny how things turn, eh?

There's several differences. Scotland's economy was more likely to become an issue than not (and judging by the subsequent oil market, would definitely have been). Britain, on the other hand, is collectively the 5th largest economy in the world. So worries about the economy were a legitimate concern for the former, but making the sorts of announcements of doom Obama/Cameron are doing here are demonstrably false.

I hadn't even made my mind up until I saw that Five Presidents Report, so when it comes to economics of the matter, I'm reasonably neutral. It doesn't affect my opinion either way. If we leave, I estimate we'll be in for a rough bumpy ride of 3-5 years, economically speaking, but things will be okay assuming appropriate actions are taken by the government.

Cameron ahs clearly decided that if the fear strategy worked one time though, it should the second time, and the mor ehe talks about economics, the less he has to talk about immigration and sovereignty issues, and can pretend they don't exist.

Cameron's a dead man walking. If it's BREXIT, he's out, and even if it's remain, he's alienated that many Tory MPs and Tory grassroots, a leadership challenge against him is inevitable.

I read that Stanley Baldwin in 1937 was the last Tory leader to leave on his own terms. Every Tory leader since then has resigned or been forced out. It doesn't bode well for Mr Cameron.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
@ Ketara and Shadow Captain:

First and foremost, I'm not having a go at you guys, but how does it feel to be on the other side?

During the Scottish referendum, every man and his dog was saying we couldn't go it alone. Too small, too poor, wouldn't get the trade deals etc etc

Now every man and his dog is saying that Britain is too small, won't get the trade deals etc etc

Funny how things turn, eh?

For one, I think its a false equivalence. Scotland really is too small and poor to go it alone, but Scotland, England and Wales together? We did just fine, nay, we thribed as sn independent unified country for 3 centuries,

As for the Scottish referendum, I respected your democratic right to vote for and get independence and I would have wished you good luck, and I made that very clear in the Dakka Dakka thread. But as your countrymen we English had every right to voice our views and participate in the independence debate (albeit not the right to vote) because we would all have been directly affected.

Obama on the other hand is not our countryman, his country will not be directly affected and he has no right to directly intervene. By all means, he has every right to voice his opinion to American and British media in AMERICA, but to jet into Britain on an official visit to directly interfere in our national politics is an insult.

I think Cameron should jet into Washington to endorse Trump. We'll see how Obama likes that.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for economics...the EU is a sinking ship. There are difficult times ahead of us whether we leave or stay. And when the next recession or depression comes along I'd rather not be chained at the hip to the EU.

**A Town Called Malus**

His country will be directly affected. We live in a global economy. Destabilisation of the EU will have an impact on the USA.

Also, the entire point of visiting countries is to push the agenda that will best benefit your country and to attempt to influence the politics of that nation. Should Cameron not press leaders in Saudi Arabia (amongst others) on human rights because it doesn't directly affect the UK? Hell no!

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

As for the Scottish referendum, I respected your democratic right to vote for and get independence and I would have wished you good luck, and I made that very clear in the Dakka Dakka thread. But as your countrymen we English had every right to voice our views and participate in the independence debate (albeit not the right to vote) because we would all have been directly affected.

Fair point.

For what it's worth, I wasn't happy at the doom and gloom stories that came from the rest of the UK during the Scotland referendum, but because of the shared history we have, I always respected your right to voice that opinion.

Obama as you say, is different. He's a foreigner looking out for the interests of a foreign nation, which is his job, but I'm more annoyed at his comments on the EU than I ever was at comments from England, Wales, NI etc that said that Scotland couldn't go it alone.

And Obama stuck his nose in the Scottish referendum as well, so I'm double mad!

Back OT.

I've spoken to the people I know who are interested in politics, and the general consensus on Obama's comments is don't care/who is he to tell us what to do or it'll be forgotten about by June.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

A Town Called Malus wrote:
His country will be directly affected. We live in a global economy. Destabilisation of the EU will have an impact on the USA.

Also, the entire point of visiting countries is to push the agenda that will best benefit your country or to attempt to influence the politics of that nation. Should Cameron not press leaders in Saudi Arabia (amongst others) on human rights because it doesn't directly affect the UK? Hell no!

IMO the impact is greatly exaggerated. Sure, a few stock brokers on Wall street might lose a few million here and there, and the economy might contract half a percentage point or something, but given the mess we've seen the last 15 years, I doubt if it could get worse.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
His country will be directly affected. We live in a global economy. Destabilisation of the EU will have an impact on the USA.

Also, the entire point of visiting countries is to push the agenda that will best benefit your country and to attempt to influence the politics of that nation.

Which is all well and good, but to schedule an official visit during the election season or in the run up to a referendum is taking the mick. Do you think David Cameron should be flying to Washington right now and endorsing a Presidential candidate?

Should Cameron not press leaders in Saudi Arabia (amongst others) on human rights because it doesn't directly affect the UK? Hell no!

I never said that. I said foreign leaders should not jet in to a country in the middle of an election or referendum campaign trying to directly influence the result. That is a gross interference in a country's national sovereignty.

**A Town Called Malus**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Should Cameron not press leaders in Saudi Arabia (amongst others) on human rights because it doesn't directly affect the UK? Hell no!

I never said that. I said foreign leaders should not jet in to a country in the middle of an election or referendum campaign trying to directly influence the result. That is a gross interference in a country's national sovereignty.

So when exactly should he comment on how America views the UK as being strongest and what affect leaving the EU will have on American/British relations? When the UK is not having a referendum (in which case there is no need to even mention it) or after the referendum when it makes absolutely no difference?

Political visits are entirely about messing in other countries affairs, that is their nature.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Should Cameron not press leaders in Saudi Arabia (amongst others) on human rights because it doesn't directly affect the UK? Hell no!

I never said that. I said foreign leaders should not jet in to a country in the middle of an election or referendum campaign trying to directly influence the result. That is a gross interference in a country's national sovereignty.

So when exactly should he comment on how America views the UK as being strongest and what affect leaving the EU will have on American/British relations? When the UK is not having a referendum (in which case there is no need to even mention it) or after the referendum when it makes absolutely no difference?

Oh FFS. Read what I say.

I said foreign leaders should not jet in to a country in the middle of an election or referendum campaign

He can say whatever the feth he likes, whenever the feth he likes, to the media in America.

Political visits are entirely about messing in other countries affairs, that is their nature.

Like I said, scheduling a political visit in the middle of a campaign season is pushing it too far. If he wants to voice his opinions on the British referendum, he can invite British press to the White House for a press conference.

**A Town Called Malus**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Oh FFS. Read what I say.

I said foreign leaders should not jet in to a country in the middle of an election or referendum campaign

He can say whatever the feth he likes, whenever the feth he likes, to the media in America.

How exactly would the outcome of that be any different? The internet exists. All of the media companies in the UK would have picked up the story and ran with it. The end result is exactly the same.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Oh FFS. Read what I say.

I said foreign leaders should not jet in to a country in the middle of an election or referendum campaign

He can say whatever the feth he likes, whenever the feth he likes, to the media in America.

How exactly would the outcome of that be any different? The internet exists. All of the media companies in the UK would have picked up the story and ran with it. The end result is exactly the same.

Its entirely different. A single White House press conference is not the same thing as a 4 day long official State visit touring the UK and endorsing one side of a political campaign.

Like I said, its like David Cameron flying to Washington and endorsing a Presidential candidate. Do you think that would be acceptable?

**A Town Called Malus**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Oh FFS. Read what I say.

I said foreign leaders should not jet in to a country in the middle of an election or referendum campaign

He can say whatever the feth he likes, whenever the feth he likes, to the media in America.

How exactly would the outcome of that be any different? The internet exists. All of the media companies in the UK would have picked up the story and ran with it. The end result is exactly the same.

Its entirely different. A single White House press conference is not the same thing as a 4 day long official State visit touring the UK and endorsing one side of a political campaign.

Like I said, its like David Cameron flying to Washington and endorsing a Presidential candidate. Do you think that would be acceptable?

Apart from a single press conference, what has Obama done to endorse remaining in the EU?

As far as I can tell he took questions on US politics and went to the theatre on Shakey's birthday.

**AlmightyWalrus**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Oh FFS. Read what I say.

I said foreign leaders should not jet in to a country in the middle of an election or referendum campaign

He can say whatever the feth he likes, whenever the feth he likes, to the media in America.

How exactly would the outcome of that be any different? The internet exists. All of the media companies in the UK would have picked up the story and ran with it. The end result is exactly the same.

Its entirely different. A single White House press conference is not the same thing as a 4 day long official State visit touring the UK and endorsing one side of a political campaign.

Like I said, its like David Cameron flying to Washington and endorsing a Presidential candidate. Do you think that would be acceptable?

Apart from a single press conference, what has Obama done to endorse remaining in the EU?

As far as I can tell he took questions on US politics and went to the theatre on Shakey's birthday.

This. People are throwing a hissy-fit because the President of the most powerful country on the planet made clear his country's interests. He's not in the UK to fight Brexit, and even if he were attacking him for doing it, as opposed to his arguments, is an ad hominem. Project Fear indeed...

**zedmeister**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

This. People are throwing a hissy-fit because the President of the most powerful country on the planet made clear his country's interests. He's not in the UK to fight Brexit, and even if he were attacking him for doing it, as opposed to his arguments, is an ad hominem. Project Fear indeed...

This isn't a temper tantrum as you seem to think it is. Having Obama saying that a US-UK trade deal post-Brexit “won’t happen any time soon” and claiming Britain “will be at the back of the queue” is fething arrogant, rank stupidity and the height of meddling. The US is the biggest investor in the UK and I'd imagine that US investment is similarly as large (we're the second largest foreign investor in the US after Canada). Over a million Americans work for British companies and over a million Britons are employed by American companies. That's quite a lot. I can't see any sane businessman or politician, stateside, who'd be unwilling to hammer out some sort of deal to keep to keep that flow of money intact. The lobbiests will be busy applying pressure left and right. Besides, Obama can't make promises for whomever will replace him, so you can add a touch of dishonesty to that list.

Edit:
In fact, his intervention and talk of trade deals is the very definition of Project: Fear and is a bit of red herring. The US and EU doesn't have a trade deal currently (TTIP is supposed to be it). In an amusing twist, British trade with America has grown whereas our trade with the EU has fallen without any deals in place. So this "Beware" is a classic case of FUD.

**AlmightyWalrus**

How is it arrogance to tell a country that won't cooperate that cooperation won't happen as easily? If anything, the UK expecting that leaving will lead to no negative consequences at all is naïve at best.

**Ketara**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
How is it arrogance to tell a country that won't cooperate that cooperation won't happen as easily? If anything, the UK expecting that leaving will lead to no negative consequences at all is naïve at best.

Because it's a blatant lie, designed to coerce voters in another country into voting for American interests. The'negative consequences' he is outlining are a misstatement at best and obvious deception at worst. Why?

Firstly, because Obama is on the way out. The door is about to hit his arse as he steps through the doorframe from the Oval Office. By the time the referendum is held and the ramifications begin to percolate, what Obama thinks is important will become irrelevant.

Secondly, America, like all nations, operates on realpolitik, and once the decision has been made to leave, will not feel itself bound by previous comments (and will thus continue to treat us much as they ever have done, aka however best suits their interests at the time). They won't slow relations for GB because Obama said they would.

Thirdly, the concept that there's a 'queue' for American diplomacy is laughable. You guys do have more than one employee keeping the lights on I would assume. The Foreign Office can handle more than one set of negotiations at a time, y'know?