European Union - Ramifications

[Dr Jekyll]

Ozzie Osmond said:

Dr Jekyll said:

For a start we'll be able to import agricultural produce from outside the EU without EU tariffs.

For the past 40 years UK farmers have been protected from global competition by EU policies.

• Do you propose to protect UK farmers from global competition? Without protection their products will be uncompetitive in UK compared with the price of imports?
• What level of subsidy do you propose to pay to UK farmers, if any, to replace the current EU subsidy of £17,000 per farm?
• Do you expect these protections and subsidies to impact on future "free trade" arrangements with other countries? Their products will be placed at a disadvantage when imported to UK, which isn't free trade at all.

I don't. Subsidies should be phased out. As I've said before, where firms and industrial sectors are concerned the Swallows and Amazons rule should apply.

What do you propose to do about Tate and Lyle that are crippled by tariffs on Caribbean sugar Beet designed to protect EU producers? Presumably you want more subsidies to protect Tate and Lyle, and so it goes on.

[Simpo Two]

Ozzie Osmond said:

Unfortunately we already know the answer - British farming is uncompetitive on the world stage.

Free market in coal? UK no longer produces much coal
Free market in steel? UK no longer produces much steel
Free market in ship building? UK no longer produces many ships
Free market in farming?

I seem to recall that the EEC/EU screwed our farming industry and it destroyed our fishing industry. It partly screwed our steel industry by making energy too expensive. Through its obsession with carbon it made gas and electricity more expensive. It made water more expensive. It told us to use unleaded fuel, then told us it was bad and told us to use diesel, then told us diesel was bad. Every change made at vast expense. Those are over-simplifications but people have forgotten just how much damage and expense Europe has cost us. Almost everything has the hand of the EU on it. It is partly our own fault for trying to obey every rule to the letter, and punish ourselves if we fail - when most other countries ignore them.

[mph1977]

Dr Jekyll said:

<snip>
Supposing someone did vote for Leave simply because they believed the £350 million figure being quoted, would they really have voted any differently if the figure had been £100 million?

the thing is the guillible and ill informed would believe the 350 million figure ( thinking it's a lot of money ... )
they also believe the myths about 'illegal immigrants' getting council houses, cars , phones and wide screen TVs ...
they believe the stories that asylum seekers get 26000 pounds a years while pensioners get 6000 ...

they believe that the reason they can't get their offspring into their chosen school is becasue the immigrants are breeding like rabbits, and not because the dead hand of County hall won't let successful schools expand while there are less successful schools with places ( and these kind of people are not the sorts that would be motivated into starting a free school)

they believe that the reason they can;t get GP appointments is because of immigrants rather than the issues caused by the shiny New Blair developed GP contract, the NHS internal assault on Nurse and AHP skills development and of course the fact they as group go to the GPs for self limiting problems or so they can get a 'free' prescription for over the counter meds ...

and all the other bullst that the fellow travellers of the far right put on soshul meeja ...

Edited by mph1977 on Sunday 10th July 23:55

[SELON]

Simpo Two said:

Ozzie Osmond said:

Unfortunately we already know the answer - British farming is uncompetitive on the world stage.

Free market in coal? UK no longer produces much coal
Free market in steel? UK no longer produces much steel
Free market in ship building? UK no longer produces many ships
Free market in farming?

I seem to recall that the EEC/EU screwed our farming industry and it destroyed our fishing industry. It partly screwed our steel industry by making energy too expensive. Through its obsession with carbon it made gas and electricity more expensive. It made water more expensive. It told us to use unleaded fuel, then told us it was bad and told us to use diesel, then told us diesel was bad. Every change made at vast expense. Those are over-simplifications but people have forgotten just how much damage and expense Europe has cost us. Almost everything has the hand of the EU on it. It is partly our own fault for trying to obey every rule to the letter, and punish ourselves if we fail - when most other countries ignore them.

They are oversimplifications. But you're right the EU doesn't get it always right. But I don't recall the EU being responsible for the near total collapse of the British manufacturing base. British Leyland ? Hell, we even lost the Cod War to Iceland - that hurt our fishing fleet, nowt to do with the EU. Re: steel, I think we import 7 times more from the rest of EU (same rules for them and us) than we do from China. Also, you underestimate the power of our own Green lobby in all that. Plus, we have had more than our fair share of commissioners etc etc in EU leading all these "bad" laws. Even BOJOs dad was a commissioner. Not forgetting that his grandfather ran the (hated by some strange folk) European Court of Humans rights for years. So we had our fingers in the till, so to speak.

All I am saying is that we are all going to be extremely disappointed if we think the EU is the cause of all our ills. We have an equally bureaucratic and unaccountable civil service. Even Black Wednesday - which I thought we had renamed as White Wednesday - was rooted in our complete and utter inability to get inflation under any sort of control for decades. The disciplines that we, as a country, couldn't deliver for ourselves because of successive dysfunctional govts looking for quick populist short term fixes to long term problems. I don't see any reason why we won't be going back to that style of govt - and the consequences.

As I say, prepare for disappointment and hope for the best. And while our leaders are plotting their own power games, get on with the real work of adapting to the new order of things.

Edited by SELON on Thursday 7th July 07:52

[Adam B]

Dr Jekyll said:

For a start we'll be able to import agricultural produce from outside the EU without EU tariffs.

won't this destroy our domestic farming industry?

Efbe said:

India and NZ have already openly said so.
this is before we even have a PM to talk to.

edit: poss Aus and SKorea too, but not sure on the source for those.

hmm will do a google but I fear those countries would benefit far more than UK, maybe India would be a strong new trade ally as we still have some residual good will in parts of the country

Jockman said:

Have you googled TTIP, Adam? After all these years of negotiating an EU US deal is unlikely to be sealed before 2020. Clinton has grave concerns, Trump will throw it out.

Brexit makes it even more unlikely that it will ever be signed so how about the UK signing one itself?

No but I will do thanks

[Adam B]

first two results on google tickled me:

What is TTIP? - A valuable trade agreement‎

What is TTIP? - A threat to our environment & local businesses‎
Make the UK TTIP free

[Dr Jekyll]

Adam B said:

hmm will do a google but I [b]fear[/b[ those countries would benefit far more than UK,

Who the hell cares? If we, the UK, would benefit, then it's good for the UK. If it's good for them as well so much the better. Trade is not zero sum.

[Jockman]

Adam B said:

first two results on google tickled me:

What is TTIP? - A valuable trade agreement?

What is TTIP? - A threat to our environment & local businesses?
Make the UK TTIP free

[Adam B]

Dr Jekyll said:

Adam B said:

hmm will do a google but I [b]fear[/b[ those countries would benefit far more than UK,

Who the hell cares? If we, the UK, would benefit, then it's good for the UK. If it's good for them as well so much the better. Trade is not zero sum.

Er OK, the not zero sum is the point!

Maybe some examples will help:

We agree free trade with NZ, NZ invest heavily in efficient sheep farming techniques, produce good cheap lamb, UK lamb farmers decimated, social costs and loss of food independence for UK far exceed slightly cheaper NZ lamb (which goes up in price once they are dominant)

Or UK-India agreement gives freedom of trade, passporting , investment so Nissan, BMW, RR and LR move manufacturing from expensiver UK to cheap India, 100,000+ UK jobs lost

[Dr Jekyll]

Adam B said:

Er OK, the not zero sum is the point!

Maybe some examples will help:

We agree free trade with NZ, NZ invest heavily in efficient sheep farming techniques, produce good cheap lamb, UK lamb farmers decimated, social costs and loss of food independence for UK far exceed slightly cheaper NZ lamb (which goes up in price once they are dominant)

Or UK-India agreement gives freedom of trade, passporting , investment so Nissan, BMW, RR and LR move manufacturing from expensiver UK to cheap India, 100,000+ UK jobs lost

So by your line of argument we should subsidise our farmers to grow Bananas. That way get banana independence which is far more important that cheaper bananas.

One minute you say 'what are these trade opportunities'? Then when given an example you say 'But we might import stuff so trade is bad.'

Edited by Dr Jekyll on Thursday 7th July 11:21

[SELON]

I think the point made was that trade deals, and benefiting from them, are a little more complex than: "there's a queue of countries wanting to do a deal with us" equating to a better deal for us than the ones we have today.

That's all.

[Adam B]

Quite, thank you SELON

The people eagerly queuing for a trade deal are countries who will benefit most from such a deal, not those who seek mutual benefit or any benefit at all for UK

Dr Jekyll said:

One minute you say 'what are these trade opportunities'? Then when given an example you say 'But we might import stuff so trade is bad.'

You should work in newspapers I didn't "say" I asked a question. I am genuinely interested in understanding the benefits the OUT camp say are out there if we are not constrained by EU regulation. If someone explains a benefit and I see the logic, I will take it on board. If someone gives me a half-arsed logic with zero supporting evidence I may challenge it and ask for some more facts.

Dr Jekyll said:

So by your line of argument we should subsidise our farmers to grow Bananas. That way get banana independence which is far more important that cheaper bananas.

Yes that's exactly what I said My line of argument was simple - we should question the impact of a free trade agreement on existing UK industry before signing. Just because India (a low-cost production location with a huge population) wants to sign with UK does not make it a good thing per se - in fact India/China are exactly the sort of country I would most concerned about agreeing free trade with.

Edited by Adam B on Thursday 7th July 12:44

[Dr Jekyll]

Adam B said:

Yes that's exactly what I said My line of argument was simple - we should question the impact of a free trade agreement on existing UK industry before signing. Just because India (a low-cost production location with a huge population) wants to sign with UK does not make it a good thing per se - in fact India/China are exactly the sort of country I would most concerned about agreeing free trade with.

This has been tried before you know. In the 18th century the corn laws were abolished, free trade was adopted, and a few farmers who thought the world owed them a living whinged. Everyone else got cheaper imports and the economy boomed. So much so that other countries copied us until their special interest groups complained.
This wasn't trade agreements, no officials travelling round the world to spend years discussing how complex it all was, just unilateral free trade.

We finally abandoned the experiment and went back to tariffs in 1932, and look how that turned out.

[Adam B]

See that is a good example of how has worked in the (distant) past. I don't think it is particularly relevant in 2016.

So I am asking for an example of a new trading opportunity and how the UK would benefit and not be the net loser.

[SELON]

Anyone has a sensible answer to that question wins the jackpot.

[sidicks]

Adam B said:

See that is a good example of how has worked in the (distant) past. I don't think it is particularly relevant in 2016.

So I am asking for an example of a new trading opportunity and how the UK would benefit and not be the net loser.

?

We can negotiate a trade deal that suits what we and the other party need, not one that suits the combined requirements of the vastly different members of the EU.

[Dr Jekyll]

Adam B said:

See that is a good example of how has worked in the (distant) past. I don't think it is particularly relevant in 2016.

So I am asking for an example of a new trading opportunity and how the UK would benefit and not be the net loser.

I've already give you one and you objected on the grounds that it would UK consumers the chance to buy stuff cheaper than they can at present. Which is the whole point of imports.

[Adam B]

Dr Jekyll said:

I've already give you one and you objected on the grounds that it would UK consumers the chance to buy stuff cheaper than they can at present. Which is the whole point of imports.

Sorry, aside from the 1846 repeal of corn laws which I said was a good example but out of date, I could only see this:

Adam B said:

Dr Jekyll said:

For a start we'll be able to import agricultural produce from outside the EU without EU tariffs.

won't this destroy our domestic farming industry?

Not sure where I "objected on the grounds that it would UK consumers the chance to buy stuff cheaper", my concern (not objection) above is completely different and very clear. If the only result of a bilateral free trade agreement was cheaper imports and/or greater opportunity to export this of course would be a great thing for the UK.

[twoblacklines]

It is pointless arguing/debating with Remainers.

You show an example backed up by facts and they just dismiss it with heresay.

I don't even think they read your example.

[twoblacklines]

Ozzie Osmond said:

Unfortunately we already know the answer - British farming is uncompetitive on the world stage.

Free market in coal? UK no longer produces much coal
Free market in steel? UK no longer produces much steel
Free market in ship building? UK no longer produces many ships
Free market in farming?

This is why people in the UK make little money. They don't like change.

"No one wants my product? NOT FINE. Instead of creating a product that people do want we will instead create this product that people don't want, and sell it for a higher price than everyone else, and then expect our government to subsidise us."

That's the kind of opinion that ruins the country.

Much easier to blame Leavers or the government than actually do some real work.

I see plenty of other opportunities for farmers. If you own a ton of acres why not build solar farms on all of it? Free money (minus security and maintenance)