| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
Ah, the poor old lorry drivers who wanted public sympathy in 2000 when 16 years previous they were ploughing through picket lines and counting the dosh.
Even Jacob Rees Mogg thinks it could take 50 years to "reap the benefits" of Brexit. Which of course would never actually materialise. Because by then, most of the people who voted for it will be long dead, and if we've had to sit through even 20 years of it being a bad decision, then it will get reversed.Originally Posted by Former Labour leader
No he hasn't. And yes, you can. You can argue for a more balanced economy and trade deals that do not come with strings attached in terms of non economic matters. Very few free trade deals require the almost total absence of cross-border deregulation that the single market does.
how about food and animal welfare standards?
1 - No one advocates less trade with Germany.
2- No one advocates trade with South Korea for trade with Germany. Quite the opposite; the EU trade deal actively prevents a bilateral deal with, for example, South Korea.
3 - The NHS is actually receiving far more than £350m a week even accounting for inflation. It wasn't a direct transfer of EU contributions to the NHS, but the commitment was met. I agree, the UK doesn't need more prestige.
4 - Currect me if I'm weong, but you are claiming inflation is caused by Brexit, when our inflation rate is lower than the eurozone, so your argument is somewhat weak.
Again, more insults, more theory, no facts. Put up some sound predictions so they can be judged. I'm happy to make some clear, quantifiable predictions on inflation, the £, unemployment, wages, GDP etc. I've done that already, you claimed it was bollocks, but didn't put any prediction up.
Academics often get accused of dealing in theory not reality. I have argued that was unfair, but perhaps I was wrong?
what strings did access to the EU come with?
as for deregulation, you need to make your mind up. Once of the principle reasons given by the pro-Brexit movement was removing purported unaccountable bureaucrats from our decision making process, thus freeing us from the red-tape mad Brussels bureaucracy. Bendy bananas etc etc....
so if you don't mind, please confirm if the EU was no regulation, or just red tape?
NB the EU Commission was akin to the UK civil service, and is appointed by the EU Parliament much in the way the UK civil service is. Hardly unaccountable as its appointed is made by those we directly elect to represent us.
They haven't.
The economic benefits of being in or outside of the EU are a pretty complex debate. If you compare comparative advanced western countries such as France, UK, Germany, Spain, Italy et al with those outside such as Norway, South Korea, Japan, Australia, Canada, USA etc then it doesn't suggest EU membership benefits economies in any identifiable way - GDP growth is generally lower. Unemployment is generally higher etc.
#coughs in american#
I don't anticipate any lowering of food standards. Animal welfare is anything will be enhanced if things like live animal exports are outlawed.
Not direcltly related, but in terms of land management, I think the proposed replacement to CAP is much better.
but that is the unintended consequence of leaving the EU, as we have to follow WHO rules, adding more costs to trade with the Germans.
no it does not. The EU has a trade deal with South Korea. The EU negotiates on behalf of all member states. do you advocate Wales, N Ireland, Scotland and England all negotiate their own deals, or do you think we should negotiate as one political block getting a better deal overall?
why the straight face when you say this?
I am saying that inflation was always going to happen because we import a large part of what we consume, which primarily came from the EU. Goods which previously did not have VAT or duty now do so.
yet all of those highlighted are joining their own free trade blocs - why is that?
do you really believe the US has better animal welfare regulations that the EU?
A “free trade deal” would entail no barriers whether tariff or non-tariff. You’re arguing for implicit or explicit non-tariff barriers which means it wouldn’t be free trade. It’s inconsistent to simultaneously argue for self-sufficiency and (real) free trade.
Here`s a conjecture for you. GB (not NI) will be worse off forever as a result of leaving the EU.
Strings attached include rules on things such as procurement, immigration, state subsidies, primacy of national law, EU contributions of circa £10bn a year etc.
I don't argue that the EU burdened business with red tape, nor should there be a bonfire of regulations, but it required us to view our economy as one; from Bridgend to Bucharest, with zero protections within that - that was deregulation element.
In terms of the regulation element, it actively prevents access to the fastest growing global economies. So it's laissez-faire internallly and protectionist externally.
I think countries should be free to make their own decisions better, and I think that is what will happen going forward. In short, we sacrifice a slightly less good deal with the EU, for greater deals globally, whilst regaining controls over levers of our economy.
Indeed - and the one you haven't highlighted is in the European single market.
That’s simplistic, one-eyed bollocks.
Feedy owns you.
Why are you talking about the US?
As with many aspects of EU membership, animal welfare sets a base level (which is good, especially for accession countries) but non EU countries often exceed it. Why wouldnt we?
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/...l-welfare.html
I disagree with you. Now quantify your prediction, so we can assess it. I'm happy to.
When you get called out, you keep replying with insults.
My friend, I’ve decided not to engage any more. You disagree with the basic principles of simple logic apparently so there is no point in debating with you.
All I've asked is for you to apply some predictions to your theory, so we can assess how accurate your theory is. It may be that my predictions (that you labelled as bollocks or bullshit or some such sophisticated term) may be substantially more accurate than your own.
Looks like we won't get to find out.
there is so much wrong with this I'm not sure where to start.
Whilst the EU may have issued regulations or directives, it was down to each national legislature to interpret and enact their own laws which conformed to the aforementioned regulations and directives.
Immigration was down to the individual state, although internal migration within the EU had no (or very little) restriction.
Ensuring limited state subsidies are a good thing as this stops larger states such as France subsidising their inefficient farms and coal mines, impeding competition.
As an economic student you will be aware that there are always fiscal transfers from the richer parts of a customs union to the poorer parts. £10bn for access to the free market was much less than we're paying now in tariffs.
make your mind up. you are pro and anti EU red tape at the same time. you seem to be saying that there was not enough red tape and too much at the same time. Is this Schroedingers red tape?
we are still going to buy most of our goods from the EU, albeit at a higher rate. We're not suddenly going to start buying almost all of our imports from the USA, Australia and the Far East.
and how is this being self sufficient?
We are clearly coming at this from different angles and positions, and that's fine. I would add that I am where we are. It really is no use wishing we were still in the EU single market, because it isn't happening, at the very least not until some time after the next general election, depending on what platforms parties stand on and who wins, and even then it would take years.
In short, we have to see how this is going to work, so we can spend years crying over spilt brexit, or we can get on with it.
As I mentioned, i was 45/55 on the original question of remain or leave, so I get your arguments. I understand that the deal we now have with the EU is less good than it was from a trade perspective, but I think, on balance, the trade disadvantages can be offset by trading advantages elsewhere (in economies growing far quicker) and in terms of being nimbler to react (vaccines a classic example) and in terms of giving society a few more protections from the 'strings attached' to EU membership - for example I think managed immigration from the EU is better than unmanaged, and I think being able to circumvent state aid rules in limited examples can be a good thing too.
And I don't want us to be self-sufficient, I just want us to be more self-sufficient. I think shorter, more sustainable supply chains is probably a good thing on balance, certainly is from an environmental perspective, and tentatively it seems the motor industry is reacting to that positively. I think moving on from the 'just in time' economy can bring benefits.
But we shall see. All I ask if that we look at real world data and compare ourselves properly to the EU as opposed to using isolated, anecdotal data or only listen to sectors that will be more adversely affected, because even though I think on balance the UK will be better off, I recognise that this doesn't mean every sector in the economy will be.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote