1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Brexit Discussion - The new thread

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by Feek, Sep 5, 2019.

  1. Greebo

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 20, 2005

    Posts: 33,110

    Location: Co Durham

    oh is that to replace Big Ben bonging? I thought bj had settled on projecting a clock, didn’t realise he had organised with god for the sky to fall. I will be very impressed if he pulls that off :rolleyes:
     
  2. Greebo

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 20, 2005

    Posts: 33,110

    Location: Co Durham

    we are still waiting debate from the Brexiteer team. So far it seems to me reposting fake news and made up stuff with the occasional gut feeling thorn in :p
     
  3. nkata

    Soldato

    Joined: Mar 1, 2010

    Posts: 7,458

    Location: Cheshire / Staffordshire

    Actually it was in the political declaration, not the withdrawal bill so not legally binding on either side. The WA does retain some EU regulation to ensure that protections, quota systems etc. do carry over past Brexit day. These waters are UK waters, and the Government are able to pass primary legislation to determine who and how much fishing occurs, similar to Norway.

    https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-8396
     
  4. do_ron_ron

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Oct 23, 2002

    Posts: 9,664


    How much do you really know about EU politics(other than from a tabloid)?

    All trade deals are protectionist to a large degree. No politician is going to agree a trade deal that causes large unemployment in his country, he is going to protect that industry. (if only for selfish reasons)

    What subsidies are wrongly targeted?

    Do better by giving up the largest market on our doorstep?
     
  5. Greebo

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 20, 2005

    Posts: 33,110

    Location: Co Durham

    point being though that fishing rights don’t change and are fulling in the hands of the eu until 2021. That is in the law bit. The bit about new fishing quotas have to be agreed by July 2020 is only in the political declaration but if you don’t agree with it, why have it in an agreement in the first place?

    plus if straight away you are going to rip up bits of the political agreement and say sorry we didn’t really mean that bit, then good luck negotiating all the other bits you have agreed in principal.
     
  6. GordyR

    Soldato

    Joined: Dec 1, 2003

    Posts: 5,261

    Location: Essex

    Well you do, you just told people to stop discussing Brexit in the Brexit thread of a debate forum. :confused:

    Of course there is plenty to discuss. In your mind do events cease to be discussion worthy when they cannot be effected by those engaged in the discussion?

    Have you ever had a conversation about a professional game of football? How about a discussion about historic events like WW2 or the holocaust?

    Yes? Applying your logic you should immediately cease to do so as the outcome is settled.

    Some people are "talking crap" yes. I mean, some people are even making meaningless contributions to a thread rather than debating the topic; which is you know, the reason this forum exists.
     
  7. garnett

    Soldato

    Joined: Mar 25, 2008

    Posts: 5,555

    Yup, and the Government are able to determine how much fishing (worth £1.4bn to UK industry annually) they want to trade off against access to the EU service marketplace (in June of last year 3 years of Brexit had already cost UK financial service firms £4bn).

    Theres some maths there that looks simple enough for everyone.
     
  8. nkata

    Soldato

    Joined: Mar 1, 2010

    Posts: 7,458

    Location: Cheshire / Staffordshire

    I am not saying we should. I was countering your implication that we had already signed away all the fishing rights. The EU request that we ratify an agreement for the FIRST year of fishing after the transition ends in 2020 does not sound unreasonable in my view. After then we should have the Fisheries Act up and running correctly, again as in Norway?
     
  9. Murphy

    Mobster

    Joined: Sep 16, 2018

    Posts: 3,253

    What point has it proven exactly?

    If you think it's proven that any poster who doesn't agree with the dominant posters in here are almost immediately leapt upon, talked down to, patronised, ridiculed and just generally treated with total contempt that acts to completely stifle any sort of debate, that it's an echo chamber full of luvvies, that nobody is here to consider other viewpoint, that you'll be ridiculed for your different opinion, that we're all self-righteous and stick together like a pack of Hyenas then it's not proven that at all, making fun (note the emote) of a fallacious opinion isn't any or all of the things above, it's simply highlighting the fallaciousness of such a claim using humor as you could quiet easily debunk it by providing empirical evidence, reason, and logic but you choose not to do so.

    You could quiet easily cite examples of posts where people who disagreed were leapt upon, were talked down to, patronised, ridiculed and just generally treated with total contempt that completely stifle any debate, for example i can point to what you said above as you talking down to people, of patronising, treating people with contempt and trying to stifle debate among some other rather choice accusations that i could fling your way, but i won't because i want you to see this doesn't end up where you think it does.
    At the same time Brexiters stop appealing to ridicule. ;)
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2020
  10. uncle_rufus

    Mobster

    Joined: Mar 14, 2011

    Posts: 3,978

    *sigh*... and again you prove the point with a long rambling explanation as if I'm just so stupid I'm incapable of understanding what you obviously see as such a simple premise... it's just dripping in patronising terms and language. I wonder if the less condescending posters like Gordy see your posts and roll their eyes as they can practically feel it tainting their points with your own
     
  11. Murphy

    Mobster

    Joined: Sep 16, 2018

    Posts: 3,253

    Ah i forget you prefer nice simple sound bites and catchy slogans because you're so intelligent you can read peoples minds and know exactly what they mean.

    Oh and i do beg your pardon for using terms and language that you find patronising, I'll try not to use so much of the English language in the future. :rolleyes:

    Or maybe you could actually address the points raised instead of constantly whining about other peoples style of posting as you wouldn't want to come across as patronising or anything would you.
     
  12. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 44,921

    ^^^ and there we go, more snide little replies with a bit of sarcasm, the old :rolleyes: emoji...
     
  13. GordyR

    Soldato

    Joined: Dec 1, 2003

    Posts: 5,261

    Location: Essex

    That's a demonstrably false statement. The evidence strongly suggests that the EU is very supportive of free trade and not pursuing protectionist policies.

    In fact, today it is by far the busiest of the world’s large economies in seeking new or upgraded free trade accords, whereas the US under the Trump administration has become the western world’s most strident critic of global free trade.

    My recommendation to you would be to read something from actual economists and experts on the matter.

    This piece from the London School of Economics would be a good start, although it predates Trump's most recent lurch towards economic protectionism somewhat; I suspect the authors would have an easier task were they to write the piece today:

    https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/...-one-of-the-most-open-economies-in-the-world/


    Anyway, here's a few points you might wish to consider, as well as some brief rebuttals to common arguments I've seen made here:


    1. EU tariffs are some of the lowest in the world. Please see below, countries ranked by tariff rate, applied, simple mean, all products (%):

    https://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/TM.TAX.MRCH.SM.AR.ZS/rankings

    Only 11 small countries and territories have lower tariffs. According to the WTO, the EU have lower average tariffs than the US, China, Japan, Canada, Australia, Russia, India, S. Korea, every country in South America etc.

    I've seen it argued here that EU tariffs are high in some more important areas. Its easy to pick and choose here; agriculture is a common example. But if you take a look at the WTO's world tariff profiles:

    https://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/wto2016_en.pdf (page 16, bound simple average)

    You can see that EU external agricultural tariffs are still far below average.

    Close to half the countries have agricultural tariffs above 50% and EU agricultural tariffs are less than those of other major economies (Russia, Canada, Japan, China, India etc.) and non-EU developed European countries (Norway, Switzerland, Iceland).


    2. The EU's Single Market and it's four freedoms (free movement of labour, capital, services and goods) among its 28 members, has streamlined trade more than any other trade bloc on the planet.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Single_Market

    The aim of this is to remove protectionist barriers, not create them. As I'm sure you're aware, each EU country benefits from zero tariffs on all products from the other 27 members of the EU. Given the low costs of transport from neighbouring countries and the speed with which they arrive, it is essential for Just In Time production as well as a huge source of our imported food.


    3. EU tariffs have been falling since its inception, and continue to fall with each new trade deal.

    https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/TM.TAX.MRCH.WM.AR.ZS

    The above isn’t easy to read, but look at the data for any EU country and you’ll see a decline in tariff rates since at least the 1980s.

    Similarly, the share of the EU budget going to the Common Agricultural Policy (which involves protection of agriculture from natural disasters and from overuse, as well as some competitive aspects), has also been falling year by year.


    4. The EU has a huge number of trade agreements. Every single one of these removes barriers to trade:

    https://fullfact.org/europe/how-many-free-trade-deals-has-eu-done/

    [​IMG]

    It's been argued here that the EU has been unsuccessful at creating trade deals with other large economies. The premise is dubious, see the recent press regarding the EU-Japan trade deal:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44857317

    As noted above, all of these other economies have higher tariffs than the EU on average and are reluctant to reduce those barriers down to EU levels or lower.


    5. Under the EU's Everything But Arms programme, the EU has zero tariffs and no quota for everything except weapons from the poorest 47 countries in the world. So it helps lift the poorest out of poverty while at the same time giving us access to their exports, which include a lot of affordable essentials (Food, clothing):

    https://trade.ec.europa.eu/tradehelp/everything-arms

    • Absolutely zero tariffs, zero duties on everything in every sector except ‘arms and armaments’. This includes premium products, agricultural products… everything. You can play around with Trade Helpdesk to confirm this.
    • No quotas
    • No expiry date
    • Countries do not need to apply
    • EU doesn’t pick the list of countries. They are the countries on the Least Developed Country (LDC) list by the UN Committee for Development Policy.
    • There’s no graduation mechanism for products. So even if a country is very successful on a particular product, its still zero tariffs on that product.
    • Countries don’t lose their zero tariff status by entering a Free Trade Agreement with the EU. For example, if the West African Union signs an FTA with the EU, those least developed countries in West Africa would still pay zero tariffs.
    • Everything But Arms can be withdrawn, but only in exceptional circumstances like ‘serious and systematic violation of principles laid down in fundamental human rights and labour rights conventions’. This makes sense to me. If a country is using revenue from its exports to commit genocide on its people, it shouldn’t get preferential treatment.
    • Even once a country is no longer on the LDC list, the zero tariffs will continue to apply for at least 3 years.
    I could go on and on, and am more than happy to continue elaborating as to why I believe your claim is not only incorrect, but spectacularly so; however I believe the above should be enough to demonstrate that the EU is categorically not protectionist in the way that you're claiming, nor is it in any way against free trade.

    Also, so far when I've tried to probe your views on the matter, my requests have been ignored:

    Obviously I don't want to continue writing long detailed responses if you're not interested in putting forward your own arguments in support of your claims. I'm sure you'll understand.
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2020
  14. do_ron_ron

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Oct 23, 2002

    Posts: 9,664

    Another comprehensive list of facts that the Brexiteers will (maybe) read but ignore......because feels;);)
     
  15. Greebo

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 20, 2005

    Posts: 33,110

    Location: Co Durham

    Except the DM and Express and hard core brexiters have gone into meltdown over the fact that we are meant to agree the new fishing quotas by July 2020 and before any trade deal and equally a lot of people dont seem to realise we have committed to the existing fishing arrangements until 2021 yet some people seem to think we take back control come 31st January.

    So yeah signed away for this year with no seat at the table and committed (in principal) to agree new rights before any trade deal.
     
  16. nkata

    Soldato

    Joined: Mar 1, 2010

    Posts: 7,458

    Location: Cheshire / Staffordshire

    @GordyR

    I will accede to your researched piece and withdraw that part of my argument and argue it no more.

    I trust that the EU will afford mutual recognition status to the UK codes and standards and we will reach a good understanding on future trading and in good time. This will be the test I suspect.
     
  17. Greebo

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 20, 2005

    Posts: 33,110

    Location: Co Durham

    Now that will depend on how much we lower our standards which seems to be the most likely thing listening to senior Government ministers.
     
  18. nkata

    Soldato

    Joined: Mar 1, 2010

    Posts: 7,458

    Location: Cheshire / Staffordshire

    Any new rights are obviously to be negotiated for the period following transition ie july 2020 to june 2021. The key words here are UK waters, English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish. The negotiation for countries and quotas in UK waters will therefore be for a single year. Until UK laws and protections catch up. I know fishermen know this, I cannot answer for the press and others.
     
  19. chroniclard

    Capodecina

    Joined: Apr 23, 2014

    Posts: 14,384

    Location: Hertfordshire

    Who wants to buy a car made with Javid's new UK regulations? Think I will stick with EU quality. :D

    Having multiple standards seems a ludicrous and costly exercise to me.
     
  20. Greebo

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 20, 2005

    Posts: 33,110

    Location: Co Durham

    Except that the existing rights currently last until January 2021 not July 2020. So clearly you and fishermen don;t know what you think you know.

    ANd where does it say it will only be for a year? If you think that we export 80% of the fish we catch, who do you think is going to win the fishing rights discussion?