Brexit and trade

[Eric the Half a Bee]

Have I got this right?

There was a woman on LBC the other day demonstrating how Tim Martin of Wetherspoon fame had managed to source cheaper alternative produce for his pubs from other parts of the world. This was seen as proof of the opportunities that exist beyond Brexit.

However, the woman failed to understand and acknowledge that Martin's acquisitions exist BECAUSE we are members of the EU and, through that membership and the trade deals that exist between the EU and other nations, he was able to bring in cheaper goods to his pubs.

If we leave without a deal, we default to WTO tariffs, which will mean that all of Martin's bargain buys will no longer be available at the same great rates that we enjoy as part of EU membership.

Of course, we are then free to negotiate with other countries to have our own individual trade deals. These usually take many years to complete, despite us being told otherwise. I'd like to know how the UK, population of around 66 million can get better trade deals with the rest of the world than the EU, with 27 member countries and a population of hundreds of millions. What can we offer that's better than the rest of Europe combined? Is it turning our economy into a low wage, hard work economy to be able to compete?

There's also the issues of tariffs, which some describe as inhibitive. If we decide to drop tariffs unilateraly many years after we've left and all trade deals are in place, how does Britain protect itself from cheap imports? I have friends who are farmers and they believe they'll be wiped out by us being to import cheaper meat.

[RonnieBird]

A marketplace of 66 million comparitvely wealthy people with an economy which by necessity is going to expand is an attractive target for anyone, and a big loss to the EU.
Without the EU we managed to create the industrial revolution , gain an empire which covered 1/3 of the Globe and remained one of the three super powers within my memory. We really need not doubt our ability to function independently.

Now , I address this subject reluctantly because I think all the arguments have been made to a point where it's unlikely that anyone is going to change their minds. Sadly it seems that it cannot be settled by voting since the minority refuse to accept the democratic outcome, and very sadly we know where that leads historically.

As far as your proposition goes, it's rather like discussing the outcome of a football match. We all love to do it and we all have our views, but in the end the outcome will be determined by what happens during the game and our predictions will count for nothing .

Can we , as a nation, go out into the world and compete without German supervision ?

I'm certain that we can, just as you seem certain that we cannot and we won't know till we try. Before that though, we must settle the question of whether the British People , who have voted for Home Rule and independence will be allowed to have their democratically expressed wish, and how much strife there will be before that is permitted.

[Eric Cartman]

A marketplace of 66 million comparitvely wealthy people with an economy which by necessity is going to expand is an attractive target for anyone, and a big loss to the EU.
Without the EU we managed to create the industrial revolution , gain an empire which covered 1/3 of the Globe and remained one of the three super powers within my memory. We really need not doubt our ability to function independently.

Now , I address this subject reluctantly because I think all the arguments have been made to a point where it's unlikely that anyone is going to change their minds. Sadly it seems that it cannot be settled by voting since the minority refuse to accept the democratic outcome, and very sadly we know where that leads historically.

As far as your proposition goes, it's rather like discussing the outcome of a football match. We all love to do it and we all have our views, but in the end the outcome will be determined by what happens during the game and our predictions will count for nothing .

Can we , as a nation, go out into the world and compete without German supervision ?

I'm certain that we can, just as you seem certain that we cannot and we won't know till we try. Before that though, we must settle the question of whether the British People , who have voted for Home Rule and independence will be allowed to have their democratically expressed wish, and how much strife there will be before that is permitted.

When is the debate on Hitler being a socialist starting Ronnie?

[Eric Cartman]

Have I got this right?

There was a woman on LBC the other day demonstrating how Tim Martin of Wetherspoon fame had managed to source cheaper alternative produce for his pubs from other parts of the world. This was seen as proof of the opportunities that exist beyond Brexit.

However, the woman failed to understand and acknowledge that Martin's acquisitions exist BECAUSE we are members of the EU and, through that membership and the trade deals that exist between the EU and other nations, he was able to bring in cheaper goods to his pubs.

If we leave without a deal, we default to WTO tariffs, which will mean that all of Martin's bargain buys will no longer be available at the same great rates that we enjoy as part of EU membership.

Of course, we are then free to negotiate with other countries to have our own individual trade deals. These usually take many years to complete, despite us being told otherwise. I'd like to know how the UK, population of around 66 million can get better trade deals with the rest of the world than the EU, with 27 member countries and a population of hundreds of millions. What can we offer that's better than the rest of Europe combined? Is it turning our economy into a low wage, hard work economy to be able to compete?

There's also the issues of tariffs, which some describe as inhibitive. If we decide to drop tariffs unilateraly many years after we've left and all trade deals are in place, how does Britain protect itself from cheap imports? I have friends who are farmers and they believe they'll be wiped out by us being to import cheaper meat.

Ronnie has one thing spot on, no one is moving on the issue. The woman who phoned into LBC got politely demolished and still left thinking that they 'agreed to disagree'.

Brexit should have been about a populace weighing up the pro's and con's and casting a vote unfortunately for years people have been convincing others who don't have the mental faculties to perform such analysis to pick a single issue and vote on that. This time they all took that advice, turned out to vote and the rest is history.

I can remember sitting in the office with my head in my hands before the 2015 election as a colleague with a diasabled daughter and whose husband is an estate agent was convinced to pick a single issue and vote on that. She chose 'rent controls' because that would possibly affect her husband's income and life has become infinitely harder for disabled youngsters like her daughter because of it.

People who pick a single issue and vote are begging to be conned.

[the other bob wilson]

A marketplace of 66 million comparitvely wealthy people with an economy which by necessity is going to expand is an attractive target for anyone, and a big loss to the EU.
Without the EU we managed to create the industrial revolution , gain an empire which covered 1/3 of the Globe and remained one of the three super powers within my memory. We really need not doubt our ability to function independently.

Now , I address this subject reluctantly because I think all the arguments have been made to a point where it's unlikely that anyone is going to change their minds. Sadly it seems that it cannot be settled by voting since the minority refuse to accept the democratic outcome, and very sadly we know where that leads historically.

As far as your proposition goes, it's rather like discussing the outcome of a football match. We all love to do it and we all have our views, but in the end the outcome will be determined by what happens during the game and our predictions will count for nothing .

Can we , as a nation, go out into the world and compete without German supervision ?

I'm certain that we can, just as you seem certain that we cannot and we won't know till we try. Before that though, we must settle the question of whether the British People , who have voted for Home Rule and independence will be allowed to have their democratically expressed wish, and how much strife there will be before that is permitted.

According to this

https://ukandeu.ac.uk/fact-figures/h...ive-in-the-eu/

There were 508 million people living in the EU in 2015. So, by taking away our 66 million, you get the total population of the other EU members. Therefore, if you were to substitute 442 million for 66 million and change the letters EU for U.K. In your first sentence, it seems to me that, by using your logic, we could also swap the word "big" for, say, the word "gigantic" because this is what we face with a no deal Brexit especially.

Also, although it has been harder to maintain this position as time has passed since June 2016 and the vote to Leave has been hijacked by the Zealots to mean authorisation of a no deal Brexit, I still feel the result of the vote should be respected and a negotiated Brexit delivered. However, given what Nigel Farage was saying prior to the vote in 2016

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-new...rendum-7985017

I can completely understand why there are so many who are pushing for a second referendum.

[Gofer Blue]

Re: the Mirror article you quote:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-new...rendum-7985017

This confirms to me what I believe was Cameron's BIG mistake. For a referendum of this importance he should have insisted on a two thirds majority either way.

[RonnieBird]

According to this

https://ukandeu.ac.uk/fact-figures/h...ive-in-the-eu/

There were 508 million people living in the EU in 2015. So, by taking away our 66 million, you get the total population of the other EU members. Therefore, if you were to substitute 442 million for 66 million and change the letters EU for U.K. In your first sentence, it seems to me that, by using your logic, we could also swap the word "big" for, say, the word "gigantic" because this is what we face with a no deal Brexit especially.

Also, although it has been harder to maintain this position as time has passed since June 2016 and the vote to Leave has been hijacked by the Zealots to mean authorisation of a no deal Brexit, I still feel the result of the vote should be respected and a negotiated Brexit delivered. However, given what Nigel Farage was saying prior to the vote in 2016

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-new...rendum-7985017

I can completely understand why there are so many who are pushing for a second referendum.

It took me a while to understand what you meant in the first part, but I think you misunderstood my point.

I was pointing out that our economy is big enough to be an attractive marketplace or trading partner for anyone.

Many many countries will want to trade with us without insisting that we let them make our laws for us. Similarly , the EU won't want to disadvantage itself in this respect once it's been made clear that they can't blackmail us over trade deals which we can get elshere in any case.

I say all this just to clarify, but I repeat that there's little point in anyone debating it any longer since there's not a political resolution available as long as a few MPs remain determined to block the democratic vote at any price.

I will say, though, that the referendum was about leaving or staying, and not in any way dependent upon any deal.

[RonnieBird]

Re: the Mirror article you quote:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-new...rendum-7985017

This confirms to me what I believe was Cameron's BIG mistake. For a referendum of this importance he should have insisted on a two thirds majority either way.

Article won't load, but if we'd done that we'd be having weekly re runs because neither side would get two thirds.
You probably mean they should have made it two thirds to leave, but that would have been cheating. Mind you , I don't think remain are bothered about cheating so I expect it'd be popular with them.

[RonnieBird]

When is the debate on Hitler being a socialist starting Ronnie?

Yes I'd forgotten about that.
How about the fact that he took away the rights of individuals and put everything in the hands of an all powerful state just to start you rolling ?

[Eric Cartman]

Yes I'd forgotten about that.
How about the fact that he took away the rights of individuals and put everything in the hands of an all powerful state just to start you rolling ?

That is a meaningless statement in the context of socialism. That would make Theresa May a socialist.

[Wales-Bales]

That is a meaningless statement in the context of socialism. That would make Theresa May a socialist.

Well spotted! She definately ain't a Tory

[Gofer Blue]

Article won't load, but if we'd done that we'd be having weekly re runs because neither side would get two thirds.
You probably mean they should have made it two thirds to leave, but that would have been cheating. Mind you , I don't think remain are bothered about cheating so I expect it'd be popular with them.

No I didn't mean that. If neither side achieved a two thirds majority then it would be status quo (like the Scottish independence referendum). Wait another 5 years, gauge public opinion, then try again. I think at the time Cameron & Co really thought there would be a landslide victory for the Remainers. I'm sure they didn't expect it to be so tight, certainly not a victory for the Brexiteers!

[Eric Cartman]

Well spotted! She definately ain't a Tory

What has she done that makes you think that?

[Wales-Bales]

What has she done that makes you think that?

She is whatever Blair is in this red v blue pantomime.

[Eric the Half a Bee]

A marketplace of 66 million comparitvely wealthy people with an economy which by necessity is going to expand is an attractive target for anyone, and a big loss to the EU.
Without the EU we managed to create the industrial revolution , gain an empire which covered 1/3 of the Globe and remained one of the three super powers within my memory. We really need not doubt our ability to function independently.

Now , I address this subject reluctantly because I think all the arguments have been made to a point where it's unlikely that anyone is going to change their minds. Sadly it seems that it cannot be settled by voting since the minority refuse to accept the democratic outcome, and very sadly we know where that leads historically.

As far as your proposition goes, it's rather like discussing the outcome of a football match. We all love to do it and we all have our views, but in the end the outcome will be determined by what happens during the game and our predictions will count for nothing .

Can we , as a nation, go out into the world and compete without German supervision ?

I'm certain that we can, just as you seem certain that we cannot and we won't know till we try. Before that though, we must settle the question of whether the British People , who have voted for Home Rule and independence will be allowed to have their democratically expressed wish, and how much strife there will be before that is permitted.

So nothing about the post I actually made then? Sounds normal W-B.

[Wales-Bales]

So nothing about the post I actually made then? Sounds normal W-B.

Been on the pop again EtHaB?

[RonnieBird]

That is a meaningless statement in the context of socialism. That would make Theresa May a socialist.

Well I'd argue that Theresa May is a kind of socialist insofar as she's a globalist , and they operate as fake socialists using the mechanisms of socialism to mask power grabbing .

As far as Hitler is concerned this clip explains and saves me writing an essay.

[RonnieBird]

So nothing about the post I actually made then? Sounds normal W-B.

It's got everything to do with what you posted. Specifically you mentioned Weatherspoons I think, but my reply covered the wider view, that's all.

I know you mean well and you probably think remain would be best - it's just a matter of judgement really.

Unfortunately of course, we must consider how wide of the mark you are on the Wales Bales thing in weighing your ability to make judgements mustn't we ?

Think of it like this, W-B and Ronnie B must -ipso facto - half NOT be....... You see ?

[RonnieBird]

Is this wretched demi bee, who doesn't like democracy, a freak from some menagerie ?

[life on mars]

When is the debate on Hitler being a socialist starting Ronnie?

No debate needed ,history tells us :
Nazism (or National Socialism; German: Nationalsozialismus) is a set of political beliefs associated with the Nazi Party of Germany. It started in the 1920s. Party gained power in 1933, starting the Third Reich. They lasted in Germany until 1945, at the end of World War II.

[City123]

No debate needed ,history tells us :
Nazism (or National Socialism; German: Nationalsozialismus) is a set of political beliefs associated with the Nazi Party of Germany. It started in the 1920s. Party gained power in 1933, starting the Third Reich. They lasted in Germany until 1945, at the end of World War II.

History also tells us that the Nazi Party abolished trade unions and were completely opposed to universal equality, that members of the Social Democratic Party and Communist Party in Germany were imprisoned in concentration camps and that Gregor Strasser, the only leading Socialist in the party was murdered in the Night of the Long Knives

[Eric Cartman]

Well I'd argue that Theresa May is a kind of socialist insofar as she's a globalist , and they operate as fake socialists using the mechanisms of socialism to mask power grabbing .

As far as Hitler is concerned this clip explains and saves me writing an essay.

He actually wrote an essay and I have read it before. What he described in it was totalitarianism in my opinion although he didn't actually provide a lot of evidence for the claims he was making about government interference in private industry either (however likely they seem).

If your (or his, as it seems) point is that Nazi Germany is an example of community ownership and regulation of the means of production then you are vastly overestimating the freedom and influence that the average German person had during this period.

I don't doubt it fits your warped view of socialism but the fact I knew what you were going to post before you did suggests this view isn't widely held.

[RonnieBird]

He actually wrote an essay and I have read it before. What he described in it was totalitarianism in my opinion although he didn't actually provide a lot of evidence for the claims he was making about government interference in private industry either (however likely they seem).

If your (or his, as it seems) point is that Nazi Germany is an example of community ownership and regulation of the means of production then you are vastly overestimating the freedom and influence that the average German person had during this period.

I don't doubt it fits your warped view of socialism but the fact I knew what you were going to post before you did suggests this view isn't widely held.

Well you see , I have both a personal view of socialism and what I'm fairly confident is an understanding of its nature and history. They're quite different things, the former being formed by the latter.

The fact that you choose to describe either as "warped" speaks volumes though. Since I haven't set either out, I can deduce that you are offended - and PERSONALLY offended -by the very fact that someone has questioned that philosophy . Interesting then, that you used the term " totalitarianism" in your post, because such a reaction to dissent is an indication of that.

Rational men can discuss matters and perhaps learn something from such conversations, but you can never convince a fanatic of any type to consider alternative views.

I did say at the outset that there was little point in arguing the toss on the point because I suspected that your beliefs were pretty set in stone, and your somewhat angry response bears that out.

Incidentally , and I digress entirely , if you knew what I was going to post before I did that suggests either that you're psychic or that the view must be quite widely held because you'd apparently heard it expressed before.

That said, the test of truth really isn't how widely something is believed, but whether it's true.

[Eric Cartman]

Well you see , I have both a personal view of socialism and what I'm fairly confident is an understanding of its nature and history. They're quite different things, the former being formed by the latter.

The fact that you choose to describe either as "warped" speaks volumes though. Since I haven't set either out, I can deduce that you are offended - and PERSONALLY offended -by the very fact that someone has questioned that philosophy . Interesting then, that you used the term " totalitarianism" in your post, because such a reaction to dissent is an indication of that.

Rational men can discuss matters and perhaps learn something from such conversations, but you can never convince a fanatic of any type to consider alternative views.

I did say at the outset that there was little point in arguing the toss on the point because I suspected that your beliefs were pretty set in stone, and your somewhat angry response bears that out.

Incidentally , and I digress entirely , if you knew what I was going to post before I did that suggests either that you're psychic or that the view must be quite widely held because you'd apparently heard it expressed before.

That said, the test of truth really isn't how widely something is believed, but whether it's true.

It doesn't have a history, it is an ideology, a textbook definition. There are instances of it being implemented by people who inevitably use the conditions created to help themselves.

I feel the need to point that out because the majority of people who denounce the concept socialism using evidence of historical implementations do so with the intention of explaining why things simply can't be more equal in our society. It is nonsense and creates this polarisation, you have to nail your colours to one mast or the other despite your true positon being somewhere in the middle.

That being said, you still haven't convinced me that Hitler implemented a socialist model. On my psychic abilities you miss my point, this guy is almost the only academic who agrees with you and I have read his paper on this topic so it was likely to be where you were going.

Oh and on the issue of fanaticism. In multiple threads now you have trotted out the 'socialism is evil' shtick despite it having not much relevance. You are the one who sounds fanatical, I am simply trying to bring you back to reality my friend.

[the other bob wilson]

It's got everything to do with what you posted. Specifically you mentioned Weatherspoons I think, but my reply covered the wider view, that's all.

I know you mean well and you probably think remain would be best - it's just a matter of judgement really.

Unfortunately of course, we must consider how wide of the mark you are on the Wales Bales thing in weighing your ability to make judgements mustn't we ?

Think of it like this, W-B and Ronnie B must -ipso facto - half NOT be....... You see ?

There's only two posters on here who know for certain whether you and Wales Bales are the same person, but most sane, "normal" people would conclude when reading a post in the name of Wales Bales that reads like it was posted by you that you are. That's the evidence that brought about these claims and so, in a matter which, let's face it, is not very important in the grand scheme of things, when it comes to cock up v conspiracy, people, hardly surprisingly, opt for a pretty funny versio of the former.

Aha! Poor, deluded fools that they are, they have fallen into your trap! According to the one or two of you, the whole thing is some sort of experiment designed to prove how gullible people are when faced with a subtle ploy laid by the master puppeteer (at least that's how he sees himself) that is Wales Bales, while you, who, as a great conjurer would say, have never met this man in my life, are perfectly happy to be his stooge.

Those are the two possibilities then - seems to me that either one of them amount to distinctly odd behaviour.