ChatterBank0 min ago
Surely Even The More Ardent Brexiteer Understood That This Would Happen?
When you're outside a trading bloc that you used to be inside, you're gonna have to pay tariffs for produce, goods and services.
Surely?
https:/
Surely?
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sp1814. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
//Researchers found that in every member state except Spain, the majority of voters believe the EU will fall apart within the next 10 to 20 years.//
https:/
I think we got out whilst the going was good.
https:/
I think we got out whilst the going was good.
ToraToraTora
//We can both do it. It doesn't help France, Germany et al if we stick tariffs on does it? So lets all accept we have divorced and start cooperating, we could call it the common market......hang on!//
Wise words from the Truss voter who only days ago was bigging her up because she had already ‘annoyed the French’.
What was that bit again about co-operating?
Contradictory as ever.
//We can both do it. It doesn't help France, Germany et al if we stick tariffs on does it? So lets all accept we have divorced and start cooperating, we could call it the common market......hang on!//
Wise words from the Truss voter who only days ago was bigging her up because she had already ‘annoyed the French’.
What was that bit again about co-operating?
Contradictory as ever.
Tim Martin is not complaining about the EU, he's complaining about the UK! He wants something that he's not getting. He claims that we are protectionist. It doesn't appear to be anything to do with the EU, the only connection being that we've left it and he thought that somehow life would be a bed of roses afterwards, where we all took back control, despite the fact that not everybody wants the same thing.
//Whatever the arguments - Brexit has screwed us badly. It’s all becoming obvious now, isn’t it?//
No. But as I've explained, even if it was, it’s of no concern to me. I wanted to leave whatever the consequences.
//all modern trade deals involve a degree of political and economic interference... the EU is on the heavy end of that admittedly but only in scale rather than nature...//
Do they? If so, give me examples of any trade deals which:
- Insist of freedom of movement of people, goods and capital;
- Impose laws unrelated to the goods traded;
- Insist on those laws having supremacy over the participating nations’ legislation;
- Have that legislation enforced by a court foreign to the participants;
- Have a form of Parliament formed of the participating nations;
- Prevent the participating nations agreeing to any other trade deals unilaterally.
- Have the participants bound by a foreign policy which seeks to “preserve peace and bolster international security, to promote democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights and freedoms around the world.”
None of these things (and a lot more besides) are anything to do with trade and no other trade deal (or trading bloc) that I know of has any such stipulations. If you were to accept that the EU is a political construction and not a trading bloc it might help you to understand why so many people were ideologically opposed to the UK’s membership and wanted no part of it. I held that view for a quarter of a century before the referendum and still hold it now.
Few people in this country would object to sensible trading arrangements with those with whom they trade. What they object to is the impositions which the EU insists must go with those arrangements.
No. But as I've explained, even if it was, it’s of no concern to me. I wanted to leave whatever the consequences.
//all modern trade deals involve a degree of political and economic interference... the EU is on the heavy end of that admittedly but only in scale rather than nature...//
Do they? If so, give me examples of any trade deals which:
- Insist of freedom of movement of people, goods and capital;
- Impose laws unrelated to the goods traded;
- Insist on those laws having supremacy over the participating nations’ legislation;
- Have that legislation enforced by a court foreign to the participants;
- Have a form of Parliament formed of the participating nations;
- Prevent the participating nations agreeing to any other trade deals unilaterally.
- Have the participants bound by a foreign policy which seeks to “preserve peace and bolster international security, to promote democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights and freedoms around the world.”
None of these things (and a lot more besides) are anything to do with trade and no other trade deal (or trading bloc) that I know of has any such stipulations. If you were to accept that the EU is a political construction and not a trading bloc it might help you to understand why so many people were ideologically opposed to the UK’s membership and wanted no part of it. I held that view for a quarter of a century before the referendum and still hold it now.
Few people in this country would object to sensible trading arrangements with those with whom they trade. What they object to is the impositions which the EU insists must go with those arrangements.
Good point judge, we've done dozens of deals outside the EUSSR, sadly the remoaners just ignore the facts and persist with their 5C BS.
I posted this for SP at 21:45 last night, no reaction from the 5C: https:/
I posted this for SP at 21:45 last night, no reaction from the 5C: https:/
//How many split-new deals (not ones with, "EU" tippexed out and replaced by, "UK") have been agreed by us and other countries since we left the EU?//
Absolutely no idea, Corby. This is because I'm not counting. That is for two reasons:
1. We've left and whether it's zero or a thousand is immaterial.
2. We've left and that is all that matters to me. Whatever follows - good or bad - will simply have to be endured.
Absolutely no idea, Corby. This is because I'm not counting. That is for two reasons:
1. We've left and whether it's zero or a thousand is immaterial.
2. We've left and that is all that matters to me. Whatever follows - good or bad - will simply have to be endured.
newjudge
It doesn't always look like that but trade is always political... other trading partners will expect us to change our internal laws to their advantage e.g. food standards, subsidies, marketisation in the health sector... these are all questions of uk internal policy but they will be up for debate with for example the USA or China who will expect us to change them...
i do agree that the eu is at the more extreme end of intervention but the idea that you can separate trade and politics simply is not true of the world we currently live in... we will need to make compromises of some sort or another if we want trade agreements of significant size...
It doesn't always look like that but trade is always political... other trading partners will expect us to change our internal laws to their advantage e.g. food standards, subsidies, marketisation in the health sector... these are all questions of uk internal policy but they will be up for debate with for example the USA or China who will expect us to change them...
i do agree that the eu is at the more extreme end of intervention but the idea that you can separate trade and politics simply is not true of the world we currently live in... we will need to make compromises of some sort or another if we want trade agreements of significant size...
"If you were to accept that the EU is a political construction and not a trading bloc it might help you to understand why so many people were ideologically opposed to the UK’s membership and wanted no part of it."
all trading blocs are political constructions... i think it is naive to suggest otherwise
all trading blocs are political constructions... i think it is naive to suggest otherwise
Yes, untitlted, I understand that trade deals are political (if for no other reason, they are usually negotiated by politicians and their lackies). But have a look at my response at 18:24 yesterday and see if you can identify any other “trade deals” that insist on such conditions.
The EU is not a trading bloc. It started out that way, but has since evolved into a political entity unlike any other trading organisation. Its aim is to construct a federal Europe and without the UK it will achieve that aim far more quickly. Have a look at some of the features I listed in my earlier post and try to find a trading organisation anywhere else in the world that comes even close to that. I haven’t actually mentioned the single currency (principally because the UK did not participate) but how many other trading organisations have developed their own currency with political control of the users’ interest rates, public expenditure and exchange rates? As davebro says, your suggestion that the EU is at the “extreme end” of intervention is certainly an understatement. Its intervention is so severe that no country in its right mind would acquiesce to such conditions if they were asked to sign up to them in one hit. The EU has evolved to its currents state “salami style”, each step “only a little different to the status quo, so nothing to worry about”. To understand what I mean, compare the Treaty of Rome (1957) to the Treaty of Lisbon (2009). In fact, there’s no need to go that far, just compare Rome to Maastricht (1992). The people and governments of Europe have fallen for it lock, stock and barrel.
The EU is not a trading bloc. It started out that way, but has since evolved into a political entity unlike any other trading organisation. Its aim is to construct a federal Europe and without the UK it will achieve that aim far more quickly. Have a look at some of the features I listed in my earlier post and try to find a trading organisation anywhere else in the world that comes even close to that. I haven’t actually mentioned the single currency (principally because the UK did not participate) but how many other trading organisations have developed their own currency with political control of the users’ interest rates, public expenditure and exchange rates? As davebro says, your suggestion that the EU is at the “extreme end” of intervention is certainly an understatement. Its intervention is so severe that no country in its right mind would acquiesce to such conditions if they were asked to sign up to them in one hit. The EU has evolved to its currents state “salami style”, each step “only a little different to the status quo, so nothing to worry about”. To understand what I mean, compare the Treaty of Rome (1957) to the Treaty of Lisbon (2009). In fact, there’s no need to go that far, just compare Rome to Maastricht (1992). The people and governments of Europe have fallen for it lock, stock and barrel.
any trade deals we sign in future will require a tradeoff with our sovereignty because our partners will insist on significant changes to how our economy is governed as a condition of entry...
... i do not have a problem with this on principal... i am ok to trading some sovereignty for trade... i was ok giving up aspects of our sovereignty for EU membership too... we still do that to a smaller extent with membership of the WTO...
... what I want to observe is that Brexists are 100% undying sovereignty purists in some instances and completely unbothered about it in others... because i suspect that "sovereignty"
has never actually been the issue and that it was actually all about free movement.
... i do not have a problem with this on principal... i am ok to trading some sovereignty for trade... i was ok giving up aspects of our sovereignty for EU membership too... we still do that to a smaller extent with membership of the WTO...
... what I want to observe is that Brexists are 100% undying sovereignty purists in some instances and completely unbothered about it in others... because i suspect that "sovereignty"
has never actually been the issue and that it was actually all about free movement.
//...because i suspect that "sovereignty" has never actually been the issue and that it was actually all about free movement.//
In my case you're incorrect. When I decided I'd like the UK to leave the EU (in 1992), movement of people was not a particular issue. There were only twelve members with reasonably similar economies (except perhaps those of Portugal, Spain and Greece, but they were still reasonable). Vast numbers of people were not migrating to the UK. That came in with the eastern expansions of 2004 and 2007 which increased the numbers from 15 to 28.
//any trade deals we sign in future will require a tradeoff with our sovereignty because our partners will insist on significant changes to how our economy is governed as a condition of entry...//
So once again, find me an example of a trade deal which insists on the features I have mentioned that were a requirement of EU membership. Actually, I'll save you the trouble - you won't. Most of the requirements the EU places on its members have little or nothing to do with trade and that's because it's moved on from being a trading bloc. I've no objection to this now because the UK electorate was asked whether it wanted the country to continue as a member, it gave its answer and that decision was enacted (after a struggle). But the question should have been asked much, much earlier.
In my case you're incorrect. When I decided I'd like the UK to leave the EU (in 1992), movement of people was not a particular issue. There were only twelve members with reasonably similar economies (except perhaps those of Portugal, Spain and Greece, but they were still reasonable). Vast numbers of people were not migrating to the UK. That came in with the eastern expansions of 2004 and 2007 which increased the numbers from 15 to 28.
//any trade deals we sign in future will require a tradeoff with our sovereignty because our partners will insist on significant changes to how our economy is governed as a condition of entry...//
So once again, find me an example of a trade deal which insists on the features I have mentioned that were a requirement of EU membership. Actually, I'll save you the trouble - you won't. Most of the requirements the EU places on its members have little or nothing to do with trade and that's because it's moved on from being a trading bloc. I've no objection to this now because the UK electorate was asked whether it wanted the country to continue as a member, it gave its answer and that decision was enacted (after a struggle). But the question should have been asked much, much earlier.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.