Clubjazz - Honda Jazz & HR-V Forums

Other Hondas & General Topics => Off Topic (Non-Honda) => Topic started by: Jocko on January 15, 2019, 08:45:27 PM

Title: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on January 15, 2019, 08:45:27 PM
Looks like we are heading to WTO Rules now. Don't think that would be the disaster that many are predicting. It would certainly get the EU clambering for a Free Trade Agreement.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 15, 2019, 08:59:39 PM
Looks like we are heading to WTO Rules now. Don't think that would be the disaster that many are predicting. It would certainly get the EU clambering for a Free Trade Agreement.

EU and Varadka ( aided by Tony B Liar ) really overplayed the Irish border importance - and the backstop is really what stopped the deal getting through parliament tonight - so 29th March here we come and WTO on the 30th.

Europe sliding into recession as we speak ( including Germany ) so no deal is the last thing they need - really will be the last straw for them and their precious Euro.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: peteo48 on January 15, 2019, 09:27:35 PM
The problem, as I see it, is the erection of tariffs and customs controls where none currently exist. This will adversely affect the firms that export to the EU - 44% of our total export performance.

Very few countries trade on WTO rules alone. Trade deals and organisations exist across the globe. The other thing that often gets missed is that we will also cease to benefit from the trade deals that the EU has with other countries such as Canada and more recently Japan.

We have to leave the EU in line with the referendum but we need to strike a deal that allows for business to continue unfettered by new customs restrictions and tariffs.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: 123Drive! on January 15, 2019, 10:10:23 PM
Hopefully we can buy all those Honda and Toyota that are out sold in Japan which aren't allowed due to EU rules!
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on January 16, 2019, 08:33:45 AM
There is no reason why the EU and UK cannot agree a temporary "no tariff" agreement from 30th March, until a permanent trade deal is agreed. The EU already has "no tariff/no trade deal" trade with over 40 countries worldwide. And after all, it is every bit in the EU's interest as it is the UK's not to immediately introduce tariffs.
With regard to "Project Fear II", yesterday afternoon the financial sector were forecasting Sterling crashing if there was a large vote against the Deal, and what happened? The pound rose on the back of the news.
If there is a Peoples Vote I will vote emphatically "Leave", and irrespective of the outcome I will never vote in another election for the remainder of what days I have left. Politicians and the "Establishment" cannot ride rough shod over the democratic will of the British people. Even if Brexit goes ahead, the SNP will never get my vote again, whether it is in a General Election, Scottish Election, Council Election or Indy Ref 2.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: peteo48 on January 16, 2019, 10:37:05 AM
There is no reason why the EU and UK cannot agree a temporary "no tariff" agreement from 30th March, until a permanent trade deal is agreed. The EU already has "no tariff/no trade deal" trade with over 40 countries worldwide. And after all, it is every bit in the EU's interest as it is the UK's not to immediately introduce tariffs.
With regard to "Project Fear II", yesterday afternoon the financial sector were forecasting Sterling crashing if there was a large vote against the Deal, and what happened? The pound rose on the back of the news.
If there is a Peoples Vote I will vote emphatically "Leave", and irrespective of the outcome I will never vote in another election for the remainder of what days I have left. Politicians and the "Establishment" cannot ride rough shod over the democratic will of the British people. Even if Brexit goes ahead, the SNP will never get my vote again, whether it is in a General Election, Scottish Election, Council Election or Indy Ref 2.


Even though I voted remain, I am against a second referendum. You can't keep asking the question until you get the result you want. Let's get an arrangement that allows wealth creators to go on creating wealth.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 16, 2019, 02:20:04 PM
First of all this government will never offer a second referendum because the would be a green light for Scotland to get anther one. 

The EU history is full of countries being told to vote again when they got the wrong answer the first time, the EU does not understand democracy and has put itself in an ideological straitjacket of its own making with its inflexibility, we cannot even get two political parties to agree, try that with 27+ countries. 2019 will be the year EU folds any way, we are the least of its problems.....
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on January 16, 2019, 03:22:13 PM
I'm afraid you guys are still living in a parallel universe to me.
However, I think the Daily Mash hits it on the head with this.

https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/all-options-ruled-out-20190116181417
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on January 16, 2019, 03:27:39 PM
Here's another one:-
https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/brexiters-told-to-try-walking-away-with-no-deal-in-everyday-life-and-see-how-that-works-for-them-20181121179706
Sorry i'm just trying to cheer myself up. :-[
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: peteo48 on January 16, 2019, 03:34:08 PM
Here's another one:-
https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/brexiters-told-to-try-walking-away-with-no-deal-in-everyday-life-and-see-how-that-works-for-them-20181121179706
Sorry i'm just trying to cheer myself up. :-[

I do know people in manufacturing who are genuinely fearful of no deal. We have a big Airbus factory near us (well just outside Chester) and they need frictionless trade to continue or Airbus might leave. They make the wings for the A380. These then go to Toulouse to be stuck on the plane.

I don't give a toss about the EU to be quite frank but I do want a deal that doesn't cause economic harm. It should be possible.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on January 16, 2019, 04:00:20 PM
I'm afraid you guys are still living in a parallel universe to me.
However, I think the Daily Mash hits it on the head with this.

https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/all-options-ruled-out-20190116181417

A bit like Schrödinger's cat?
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on January 16, 2019, 04:07:08 PM
I do know people in manufacturing who are genuinely fearful of no deal. We have a big Airbus factory near us (well just outside Chester) and they need frictionless trade to continue or Airbus might leave. They make the wings for the A380. These then go to Toulouse to be stuck on the plane.

I don't give a toss about the EU to be quite frank but I do want a deal that doesn't cause economic harm. It should be possible.
"Wings, for example, travel by barge along the River Dee from Broughton in North Wales to the Dee estuary, where they are loaded onto a large capacity roll-on/roll-off vessel. The craft is used to move aircraft sections by sea to the French port of Pauillac, near Bordeaux.
Here, the components are transferred to specially designed barges, which carry them on the penultimate part of their 95-km. voyage up Garonne River from Pauillac to Langon. Four river journeys are required to transport fuselage sections and the horizontal tail plane of one aircraft. In Langon, aircraft sections are transferred to outsized-load trucks to complete their journey to Toulouse by road."

From Airbus' site. Hardly friction-less at the moment. Don't imagine customs checks would add much to the time scale!
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 16, 2019, 04:11:39 PM
Here's another one:-
https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/brexiters-told-to-try-walking-away-with-no-deal-in-everyday-life-and-see-how-that-works-for-them-20181121179706
Sorry i'm just trying to cheer myself up. :-[

The only time walking away without a deal does not work when the people you are dealing with are the only supplier and have a monopoly or a cartel.  This is clearly not the case with the EU.  I have walked away from many energy suppliers and ISPs during the last 20 years simply because their deal is not a good one for me.  There are many people who want to trade with Great Britain,  in fact as global brands go GB or Great Britain is right there at the top of the pile.

Project 'Brexit fear' is a rerun of project 'Euro fear', almost word for word - look back at the elite who said that not joining the Eurozone would be a disaster for UK, the pound would plummet, trade would be affected, investment in the UK would drop,  house prices would drop  etc. etc. and overlay it on project Brexit no-deal fear - don't be surprised if you get a strong feeling of deja-vu....  And don't mention the millenium bug, which was used to scare many people into parting with a fortune by 'project millenium bug fear' - others spent nothing and the millenium dawned - and no planes fell out of the sky,  nobody died, trade carried on as normal,  the banking system did not crash .....

Inward investment in UK still continues apace https://www.economist.com/britain/2018/04/07/why-foreign-investment-into-britain-remains-so-strong

When Boeing heard that Airbus may leave UK they said, 'hurry up then, we want to move in' - but don't forget that BAE is a big part of Airbus,  Sweden also keen to develop new aircraft with UK ( and we should consider it after Germany pulled out of Eurofighter Typhoon quite early in the project and left UK / BAE to carry on with all the development work).   

Project fear was coined by Peter Shaw in 1975 - even then he could see the 'European political project' for exactly what it was ( look at the video of his speech at Oxford embedded in following article).

https://labourheartlands.com/the-month-when-project-fear-became-project-hysteria/
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on January 16, 2019, 04:30:19 PM
In 2017 the EU imported £95 Billion more goods into the UK than we did into the EU (House of Commons Library). Unless the EU wanted to cut off their nose to spite their face, by punishing the UK for daring to leave, then it would be in everyone's interest to trade tariff free. Otherwise the EU would pay £20 Billion a years more in tariffs to the UK than we would to the EU (approximate figure).
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Barky on January 16, 2019, 04:44:48 PM
WTO would be an utter disaster & is already blocked as @ least 20 of it's members have already made moves to veto UK joining in a way that avoids big penalties
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Barky on January 16, 2019, 04:46:38 PM
The problem, as I see it, is the erection of tariffs and customs controls where none currently exist. This will adversely affect the firms that export to the EU - 44% of our total export performance.

Very few countries trade on WTO rules alone. Trade deals and organisations exist across the globe. The other thing that often gets missed is that we will also cease to benefit from the trade deals that the EU has with other countries such as Canada and more recently Japan.

We have to leave the EU in line with the referendum but we need to strike a deal that allows for business to continue unfettered by new customs restrictions and tariffs.
Number of countries that trade on WTO alone is ZERO
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 16, 2019, 05:09:15 PM
WTO would be an utter disaster & is already blocked as @ least 20 of it's members have already made moves to veto UK joining in a way that avoids big penalties

Britain is a founder member of the WTO so does not 'need to apply for membership' - it is just a paperwork excercise to transfer  / update existing trade deals with existing members ( including EU ).  All trade deals are based on WTO terms but tweaked to suit slightly differing priorities, circumstances and needs of different countries.

https://tradebetablog.wordpress.com/2018/09/12/happening-tariff-quotas-uk-wto/
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: peteo48 on January 16, 2019, 05:13:59 PM
I do know people in manufacturing who are genuinely fearful of no deal. We have a big Airbus factory near us (well just outside Chester) and they need frictionless trade to continue or Airbus might leave. They make the wings for the A380. These then go to Toulouse to be stuck on the plane.

I don't give a toss about the EU to be quite frank but I do want a deal that doesn't cause economic harm. It should be possible.
"Wings, for example, travel by barge along the River Dee from Broughton in North Wales to the Dee estuary, where they are loaded onto a large capacity roll-on/roll-off vessel. The craft is used to move aircraft sections by sea to the French port of Pauillac, near Bordeaux.
Here, the components are transferred to specially designed barges, which carry them on the penultimate part of their 95-km. voyage up Garonne River from Pauillac to Langon. Four river journeys are required to transport fuselage sections and the horizontal tail plane of one aircraft. In Langon, aircraft sections are transferred to outsized-load trucks to complete their journey to Toulouse by road."

From Airbus' site. Hardly friction-less at the moment. Don't imagine customs checks would add much to the time scale!

Yes - I was fully aware of the logistical issues involved. It's why there has always been a feeling at Broughton that Airbus might close the factory at some point in any event. Exiting the EU could be the final straw is what my source tells me. It's why we need a deal. Add tariffs on to the issue and it's curtains.


WTO rules exist but as another poster has pointed out almost nobody relies on them alone. Trade deals are the norm.

Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on January 16, 2019, 05:23:25 PM
If the UK government was to announce tomorrow that we were leaving on WTO rules, and Parliament was to back the government we would have a free trade deal with the EU by the 29th of March. But it could never happen. We have people who didn't want Brexit running the show, a parliament who never wanted Brexit voting on the affair, and a Speaker who is so anti Brexit that even if MPs were in favour it could never happen.
On top of all that, the BBC immediately changes the subject whenever someone knowledgeable in what WTO rules would mean, starts to explain.
Me, I'd like Canada +++, as offered by the EU back in October.
https://www.euractiv.com/section/uk-europe/news/tusk-slams-uk-slurs-on-eu-urges-canada-brexit-deal/ (https://www.euractiv.com/section/uk-europe/news/tusk-slams-uk-slurs-on-eu-urges-canada-brexit-deal/)
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Barky on January 16, 2019, 06:00:48 PM
WTO would be an utter disaster & is already blocked as @ least 20 of it's members have already made moves to veto UK joining in a way that avoids big penalties

Britain is a founder member of the WTO so does not 'need to apply for membership' - it is just a paperwork excercise to transfer  / update existing trade deals with existing members ( including EU ).  All trade deals are based on WTO terms but tweaked to suit slightly differing priorities, circumstances and needs of different countries.

https://tradebetablog.wordpress.com/2018/09/12/happening-tariff-quotas-uk-wto/
re-join as a separate member I meant, UK has been blocked from that government procurement bit already btw
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on January 16, 2019, 08:02:19 PM
WTO would be an utter disaster & is already blocked as @ least 20 of it's members have already made moves to veto UK joining in a way that avoids big penalties

Britain is a founder member of the WTO so does not 'need to apply for membership' - it is just a paperwork excercise to transfer  / update existing trade deals with existing members ( including EU ).  All trade deals are based on WTO terms but tweaked to suit slightly differing priorities, circumstances and needs of different countries.

https://tradebetablog.wordpress.com/2018/09/12/happening-tariff-quotas-uk-wto/
re-join as a separate member I meant, UK has been blocked from that government procurement bit already btw
I've just read your reference there and the second half doesn't seem very straightforward at all. It implies that it would be much more complicated if the EU and UK were not in a customs union. Just as Dr Fox assured us that leaving the EU would be easiest deal ever, I would think that there are many ramifications as yet unconsidered.

What really bothers me is that despite last night's defeat, Theresa May seems resolved to sit on in Downing Street and allow the clock to run down till the end of March.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on January 16, 2019, 08:13:54 PM
What really bothers me is that despite last night's defeat, Theresa May seems resolved to sit on in Downing Street and allow the clock to run down till the end of March.
I don't think there is a lot of options. If she was to stand down it would be weeks before a new PM was elected (unless one candidate was presented and that would never happen). We don't have that time. And Article 50 can only be extended if there is an General Election or a second referendum AND all 27 countries agree.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on January 16, 2019, 08:30:19 PM
What really bothers me is that despite last night's defeat, Theresa May seems resolved to sit on in Downing Street and allow the clock to run down till the end of March.
I don't think there is a lot of options. If she was to stand down it would be weeks before a new PM was elected (unless one candidate was presented and that would never happen). We don't have that time. And Article 50 can only be extended if there is an General Election or a second referendum AND all 27 countries agree.

Aye. There's the rub. The latest news is that Corbyn has refused to take part in May's substantive talks unless she takes no deal off the table.
 It's time this FPTP system was replaced.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 16, 2019, 08:43:05 PM
WTO would be an utter disaster & is already blocked as @ least 20 of it's members have already made moves to veto UK joining in a way that avoids big penalties

Britain is a founder member of the WTO so does not 'need to apply for membership' - it is just a paperwork excercise to transfer  / update existing trade deals with existing members ( including EU ).  All trade deals are based on WTO terms but tweaked to suit slightly differing priorities, circumstances and needs of different countries.

https://tradebetablog.wordpress.com/2018/09/12/happening-tariff-quotas-uk-wto/
re-join as a separate member I meant, UK has been blocked from that government procurement bit already btw
I've just read your reference there and the second half doesn't seem very straightforward at all. It implies that it would be much more complicated if the EU and UK were not in a customs union. Just as Dr Fox assured us that leaving the EU would be easiest deal ever, I would think that there are many ramifications as yet unconsidered.

What really bothers me is that despite last night's defeat, Theresa May seems resolved to sit on in Downing Street and allow the clock to run down till the end of March.

The only thing that will get EU negotiators attention is the prospect of no deal, EU has had low growth for years ( never really recovered from 2008 crash ) their banking system is in tatters and are on edge of recession - no deal would push the whole Eurozone over the edge - they cannot  risk it - funny how pound has recovered once the worst deal in history was thrown out..  Problem with treeza is she has never ceased being a remainer and was far too reasonable.. the EU knew that no deal was not on her agenda, but now it is... if ( and a big IF ) art 50 is extended we will have to take part in EU elections and their new budget.  There's a reason 29 March was selected to leave, and we will leave on that date deal or no deal - the default position was always no deal on 29th March, it is in domestic UK and international law.. sorry lads don't get your hopes up...
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on January 16, 2019, 08:55:45 PM
The threat of no deal will not have any effect on the EU. They must maintain their four freedoms.
It's not the same as  bargaining for a car or a cheaper energy deal.
A no deal will affect them but it will hurt the UK much worse.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on January 16, 2019, 09:08:17 PM
A no deal will affect them but it will hurt the UK much worse.
How come? As I said earlier, in 2017 they imported £95 Billion more goods into the UK than we imported into the EU.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on January 17, 2019, 10:15:15 AM
European Editor of Irish broadcaster RTE reporting that Article 50 can only be extended if we agree Backstop before hand. No one saw that coming!
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: MartinJG on January 17, 2019, 10:38:27 AM
European Editor of Irish broadcaster RTE reporting that Article 50 can only be extended if we agree Backstop before hand. No one saw that coming!


Interesting. Extremely busy at the moment and just catching up with the thread so behind the curve here. Some good points 'put'. Truth is, as always, truth is the first casualty.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: MartinJG on January 17, 2019, 10:50:37 AM
Here's another one:-
https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/brexiters-told-to-try-walking-away-with-no-deal-in-everyday-life-and-see-how-that-works-for-them-20181121179706
Sorry i'm just trying to cheer myself up. :-[

The only time walking away without a deal does not work when the people you are dealing with are the only supplier and have a monopoly or a cartel.  This is clearly not the case with the EU.  I have walked away from many energy suppliers and ISPs during the last 20 years simply because their deal is not a good one for me.  There are many people who want to trade with Great Britain,  in fact as global brands go GB or Great Britain is right there at the top of the pile.

Project 'Brexit fear' is a rerun of project 'Euro fear', almost word for word - look back at the elite who said that not joining the Eurozone would be a disaster for UK, the pound would plummet, trade would be affected, investment in the UK would drop,  house prices would drop  etc. etc. and overlay it on project Brexit no-deal fear - don't be surprised if you get a strong feeling of deja-vu....  And don't mention the millenium bug, which was used to scare many people into parting with a fortune by 'project millenium bug fear' - others spent nothing and the millenium dawned - and no planes fell out of the sky,  nobody died, trade carried on as normal,  the banking system did not crash .....

Inward investment in UK still continues apace https://www.economist.com/britain/2018/04/07/why-foreign-investment-into-britain-remains-so-strong

When Boeing heard that Airbus may leave UK they said, 'hurry up then, we want to move in' - but don't forget that BAE is a big part of Airbus,  Sweden also keen to develop new aircraft with UK ( and we should consider it after Germany pulled out of Eurofighter Typhoon quite early in the project and left UK / BAE to carry on with all the development work).   

Project fear was coined by Peter Shaw in 1975 - even then he could see the 'European political project' for exactly what it was ( look at the video of his speech at Oxford embedded in following article).

https://labourheartlands.com/the-month-when-project-fear-became-project-hysteria/

Thanks for the link to Peter Shore's speech. Watched it late last night. Excellent. Compare and contrast the MP's then with the majority of the committee creatures today and you realise the extent to which freedom of thought and speech is under threat. The price we are paying today is just the beginning of an almighty unravelling ball of years of spin and the cost, well, trillions of mickey mouse pounds in debt for a start. My first impression of the EEC was the generous use of 'subsidies' notably in agricultural policies. We now face the spectre of a world on subsidy and debt that is just too hot to handle. Meanwhile, the children play...
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on January 17, 2019, 12:16:19 PM
A no deal will affect them but it will hurt the UK much worse.
How come? As I said earlier, in 2017 they imported £95 Billion more goods into the UK than we imported into the EU.

I’ve never really understood this argument.
The UK will still trade with the EU. We will still buy German cars and Italian fridges and wine. Britain will source some goods elsewhere and the EU will  find other markets for its goods.
Any loss to the EU can be split 27 ways. Britain will have to take any hits to its exports on its own.
More importantly the UK will lose jobs to mainland Europe. I expect it will lose the car industry and others dependent on just in time production.
It will also lose jobs in the financial sector since many of these are at the moment are based in Britain as a gateway to Europe.
Britain will also either have to buy into EU agencies  like Euratom , Europol  the European chemical agency or set up its own to replace them again bearing the cost on its own rather than splitting it 28 times.
https://www.richardcorbett.org.uk/brexit-european-agencies/
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 17, 2019, 03:30:18 PM
The threat of no deal will not have any effect on the EU. They must maintain their four freedoms.
It's not the same as  bargaining for a car or a cheaper energy deal.
A no deal will affect them but it will hurt the UK much worse.

As I said earlier the EU is in a political straitjacket of its own making which also affects their businesses, which is why it is rapidly becoming uncompetitive in the world.  Still it won't be around much longer so why worry about it. 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/01/16/europe-no-fit-state-handle-risks-brexit-brinkmanship/


The European / eurozone banking system is not fit for purpose and is a bit of an oddball in world terms, the ECB has been printing worthless  duetschemarks /
 ( AKA euros ) since 2008, They like to call it QE / quantitative easing, but really it is just printing money that the economy cannot back up - the EU need London as their gateway to the real financial world from their cloud cuckoo land....

Call EU the EUSSR and Brexit is the fall of Berlin wall - which killed the USSR political project . 
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on January 17, 2019, 04:39:07 PM


As I said earlier the EU is in a political straitjacket of its own making which also affects their businesses, which is why it is rapidly becoming uncompetitive in the world.  Still it won't be around much longer so why worry about it. 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/01/16/europe-no-fit-state-handle-risks-brexit-brinkmanship/


The European / eurozone banking system is not fit for purpose and is a bit of an oddball in world terms, the ECB has been printing worthless  duetschemarks /
 ( AKA euros ) since 2008, They like to call it QE / quantitative easing, but really it is just printing money that the economy cannot back up - the EU need London as their gateway to the real financial world from their cloud cuckoo land....

Call EU the EUSSR and Brexit is the fall of Berlin wall - which killed the USSR political project .
Sorry, your quote is behind a pay wall. I think you and I will just have to agree to differ.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: peteo48 on January 17, 2019, 05:22:01 PM
A no deal will affect them but it will hurt the UK much worse.
How come? As I said earlier, in 2017 they imported £95 Billion more goods into the UK than we imported into the EU.

I’ve never really understood this argument.
The UK will still trade with the EU. We will still buy German cars and Italian fridges and wine. Britain will source some goods elsewhere and the EU will  find other markets for its goods.
Any loss to the EU can be split 27 ways. Britain will have to take any hits to its exports on its own.
More importantly the UK will lose jobs to mainland Europe. I expect it will lose the car industry and others dependent on just in time production.
It will also lose jobs in the financial sector since many of these are at the moment are based in Britain as a gateway to Europe.
Britain will also either have to buy into EU agencies  like Euratom , Europol  the European chemical agency or set up its own to replace them again bearing the cost on its own rather than splitting it 28 times.
https://www.richardcorbett.org.uk/brexit-european-agencies/

This is my fear. I've tried to avoid biased views on this (Guardian on one side, the Mail on the other plus opinion pieces generally and asked people I know who actually know the nuts and bolts. Leaving the EU will cause economic harm. I think we will survive but we will be poorer. The more honest approach to Brexit for a Leaver is to say that it is nothing to do with the economy but more to do with loss of sovereignty. I know people who are prepared for economic sacrifice just to achieve that. I don't agree with that view but it is at least coherent. What isn't credible is to argue that we are better off, economically, out rather than in.

I accept the referendum result however so let's crack on and get a deal that causes the least disruption.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 17, 2019, 05:36:14 PM
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2018/03/08/the-eus-current-problems-are-largely-of-its-own-making/

The EU has overeached itself and exceeded its original remit.  Their answer to everything is ' more Europe' - as a common market to ease trade, a great idea, as a political monster that wants to micro manage every aspect of members lives - no thank you.  You would be shocked at the number of member states who want a referendum on membership but will not be given one ( at least until they get a change of government ) - Macron is quoted recently as saying France would vote leave if they had the chance, as would Austria, Netherlands, Italy and even Belgium ( plus most former Russian states ).

Project fear has never changed its mantra since 1975 referendum, if anyone  watched my posted video from Peter Shore Oxford union speech just before 1975 vote, the same old phrases came out..   same happened with project fear about UK joining Euro, if we did not join apparently our economy was going to nosedive, industry loss to eurozone, house prices up, travel more difficult, food prices up etc etc.

As far as Airbus moving out .. https://capx.co/airbus-project-fear-and-the-truth-about-a-no-deal-brexit/
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on January 17, 2019, 07:12:23 PM
Or ----------
You've been fed the same big bad EU fake news for the last 45 years by the Telegraph.
Here's a post from November 2017

Things seem to be going well?  After 6 months of talks UK must pay EU an undisclosed sum somewhere between £20bn and  £100bn to get a deal which at best will give them 2 years of enjoying the same rights as they have just now but with no say in the running  of the EU.
In that 2 years they have to sort out the problem of the Irish border.
Train enough doctors and nurses to replace those leaving the NHS.
Set up customs posts for imports/exports. Establish large carparks for lorries.
Set up agencies for maintaining standards similar to EU.
Negotiate deals with the rest of the world for trade.
Recruit and train 8000+ civil servants.
Find enough food to feed the population train farmers and employ labourers.
Re-establish a fishing industry. Find away of policing the UK waters.
Maintain a power supply to the UK.
Plus 1001 things I haven't thought about and probably neither have the government.
Time to call the whole thing off and revoke article 50?
https://theavengeruk.com/tag/article-50/

https://eurovote.wordpress.com/2017/02/16/theresa-may-and-the-emperors-new-clothes/

and as far as I see it the only one of the present politicians to see it as it is

https://twitter.com/i/status/1083442098551033857
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 17, 2019, 07:24:01 PM
UK voted to leave, not only to leave if we got a deal. A second 'people's vote' are weasel words by remainders who want to deny the vote result.

Any secondref would mean Scotland would demand ( with good reason ) another indyref - so it ain't going to happen. 

Our present trembling chin crop of politicians are not fit for purpose, and the deal we were offered was because a remainer was leading negotiations, the EU never took her seriously, she should have left the table a few times when EU started talking sh1te..
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on January 17, 2019, 07:49:05 PM
As I have previously said. the EU were, and still are constrained by their four freedoms and could not move from that.
This could have been predicted by the UK politicians. In hindsight big mistakes were made in calling a referendum in the first place and in activating article 50 without having any plan. I would agree with your opinion of the current crop of politicians. Having read a bit about the situation I am finding out that they are not much worse than there predecessors.
I am from Scotland where the the vote was 67% to remain. Scotland has been persistently ignored in the negotiations.
The people of Ireland, both North and South of the Border have also been treated abysmally in this shambles of a negotiation with the real possibility of violence recurring if the border issue is not resolved and the problem seems to me insoluble. The EU has treated the Irish with a lot more respect than the Westminster government has treated Scotland.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: richardfrost on January 18, 2019, 10:22:00 AM
And don't mention the millenium bug, which was used to scare many people into parting with a fortune by 'project millenium bug fear' - others spent nothing and the millenium dawned - and no planes fell out of the sky,  nobody died, trade carried on as normal,  the banking system did not crash .....

...

but don't forget that BAE is a big part of Airbus

Without commenting on either side of the argument, I just need to call you out on two things...

1. The millenium bug was a real thing. The reason it mostly went smoothly is a lot of work was put in to deal with it.
2. BAE is not a big part of Airbus. It sold its stake in 2006 and avoided a merger with EADS in 2012.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: MartinJG on January 18, 2019, 11:20:30 AM

I think the 'remainer' end game is to grind the pro leave down and then force a referendum on the grounds of 'democracy'. Let's face it, they never envisaged a leave vote in the first place and they were caught red faced with their pants down. A referendum would give them chance to marshall their cavaliers. However, if they feel the need to go back to the people for a re match, surely, in the interest of democracy they should ask the people if they want another referendum? Seems elementary to me...
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Basil on January 18, 2019, 03:08:08 PM
Let's face it, the only reason the leave campaign won was that a lot of people believed we would have an extra £350 million a week to prop up the NHS.

Has anyone seen any figures what Brexit has actually cost so far, including the thousands of civil servants working on legislation, the fall in the FTSE and the Pound, the number of jobs lost ?


Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: ColinS on January 18, 2019, 04:20:48 PM
Let's face it, the only reason the leave campaign won was that a lot of people believed we would have an extra £350 million a week to prop up the NHS.
Not true.  One would have to be pretty short sighted to let this be the only reason.

I think the primary reasons were to regain control over borders and laws.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on January 18, 2019, 04:38:45 PM
Let's face it, the only reason the leave campaign won was that a lot of people believed we would have an extra £350 million a week to prop up the NHS.

Has anyone seen any figures what Brexit has actually cost so far, including the thousands of civil servants working on legislation, the fall in the FTSE and the Pound, the number of jobs lost ?



According to the Express £500m per week.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1045243/Brexit-cost-how-much-has-brexit-cost-uk-june-2018-500-million-pounds-a-week
The article was dated last November and according to the title refers to last June. certainly before they ramped up our necessary precautions for a no deal Brexit like simulating traffic jams in SE England with empty lorries and hiring ferries from non-existent companies.
 Don't know if it would include all the man hours involved in stockpiling food and drugs.
Seems strange that the Express would publish this. Wouldn't this money have been better spent on the NHS?
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on January 18, 2019, 04:41:25 PM
Let's face it, the only reason the leave campaign won was that a lot of people believed we would have an extra £350 million a week to prop up the NHS.
Not true.  One would have to be pretty short sighted to let this be the only reason.

I think the primary reasons were to regain control over borders and laws.

We had never lost control of our borders and laws.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: ColinS on January 18, 2019, 05:05:06 PM
Let's face it, the only reason the leave campaign won was that a lot of people believed we would have an extra £350 million a week to prop up the NHS.
Not true.  One would have to be pretty short sighted to let this be the only reason.

I think the primary reasons were to regain control over borders and laws.

We had never lost control of our borders and laws.
Laughs Out Loud
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 18, 2019, 06:56:00 PM
Let's face it, the only reason the leave campaign won was that a lot of people believed we would have an extra £350 million a week to prop up the NHS.

Has anyone seen any figures what Brexit has actually cost so far, including the thousands of civil servants working on legislation, the fall in the FTSE and the Pound, the number of jobs lost ?

You really are being condescending to leave voters now, politicians tell porkies all the time and nobody that I know was taken in by that supposed extra money.

 I see the electoral commission had to back down over the Leave campaign prosecution as well when it turned out that vote leave had asked the question about transfer of funds and had been told it was OK,  so they had egg all over their smug remain supporting faces ( hint - EC are supposed to be neutral but most of their top echelon were outed as ardent remainers ).

As for jobs,  project fear told us we would have rocketing unemployment if we dared vote to leave,  and the very opposite happened ,  whatever few thousand jobs we have lost recently ( which probably have no link to Brexit) you have to subtract them from +800,000 we gained since June 2016.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 18, 2019, 07:15:10 PM
As I have previously said. the EU were, and still are constrained by their four freedoms and could not move from that.
This could have been predicted by the UK politicians. In hindsight big mistakes were made in calling a referendum in the first place and in activating article 50

As I said EU are in a political straitjacket of their own making - they have gone from a trading bloc to a political monster - that was their mistake. 

There was pretty much a unanimous vote by MP to trigger article 50, and for any MP to try and block leaving after voting to trigger art 50 is unforgivable....

The UK vote as a bloc,  not as individual nations in the 2016 referendum,  fishing has always been a big part of Scottish economy and the only way to get their fishing waters back is to leave EU ( whatever Sturgeon says).

As I said earlier,  we are leading the charge with Brexit,  most EU member governments will not give their population a referendum because they could very well vote to leave,  anti-EU ( the political bit ) feeling is running very high amongst members and a lot of countries are envious of UK democratic vote and looking to us for leadership.  Brexit vote is the tip of an iceberg much larger than the one that sunk the Titanic.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Barky on January 18, 2019, 07:37:07 PM
As I have previously said. the EU were, and still are constrained by their four freedoms and could not move from that.
This could have been predicted by the UK politicians. In hindsight big mistakes were made in calling a referendum in the first place and in activating article 50

As I said EU are in a political straitjacket of their own making - they have gone from a trading bloc to a political monster - that was their mistake. 

There was pretty much a unanimous vote by MP to trigger article 50, and for any MP to try and block leaving after voting to trigger art 50 is unforgivable....

The UK vote as a bloc,  not as individual nations in the 2016 referendum,  fishing has always been a big part of Scottish economy and the only way to get their fishing waters back is to leave EU ( whatever Sturgeon says).

As I said earlier,  we are leading the charge with Brexit,  most EU member governments will not give their population a referendum because they could very well vote to leave,  anti-EU ( the political bit ) feeling is running very high amongst members and a lot of countries are envious of UK democratic vote and looking to us for leadership.  Brexit vote is the tip of an iceberg much larger than the one that sunk the Titanic.
not sure where you get yer info but it's very muddled looking to me .. obviously not worth trying to explain in detail as you seem sure of what you post up but IF brexit happens (& it is still IF) you are likely in for shock/disappointment ... will leave you to it ....
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on January 18, 2019, 08:32:43 PM

As I said earlier,  we are leading the charge with Brexit,  most EU member governments will not give their population a referendum because they could very well vote to leave,  anti-EU ( the political bit ) feeling is running very high amongst members and a lot of countries are envious of UK democratic vote and looking to us for leadership.  Brexit vote is the tip of an iceberg much larger than the one that sunk the Titanic.

Wow. As I have said before I think we live in parallel universes.
Your last sentence may be correct but I suspect not in the way you intended.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on January 18, 2019, 10:54:06 PM
Let's face it, the only reason the leave campaign won was that a lot of people believed we would have an extra £350 million a week to prop up the NHS.
Not true.  One would have to be pretty short sighted to let this be the only reason.

I think the primary reasons were to regain control over borders and laws.

Do you really think it's a good idea to give control of our laws to this government because that's who would be gaining control. Not you or me.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-human-rights-act-repeal-brexit-echr-commons-parliament-conservatives-a8734886.html

Much of the problems of immigration are due to the failure of the Home Office to implement a proper registration and
limited stay policy.
If they mess things up with the Irish Border as they appear to be angling for, our borders will be wide open. This is why the EU are insistent  on the Backstop.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Kazcoco on January 19, 2019, 08:19:28 AM
This thread is an example of why we are were we are .
Democratic vote yes or no easy
Winner dictates direction for all on what needs doing to achieve what was set out in vote .
Usually get on get behind objective arguments as to result null and void it was a result .
Pick your team to make it happen and setup sub committee party nominated by opposition ......done
Head off as a united solid country get best deal possible .
Only group at negotiating table was meant to be government .
Every other leader held talks independently with EU........position of strength gone EU happy as Larry ....
There isn't ant right or wrong it's been a free for all of self interest from start to finish .
In truth EU needs us and we need them we are trading partners and that will continue .
I'd prefer an EFTA result but will take what comes as 29th is agreed deal or no deal as written into the article 50 deceleration and passed by parliament without any problems ..
For two years there has been a fervour of hate and recrimination on both side and not one iota of reconciliation I have seen first hand how fast and how disastrous democracy can become chaos .....that's my penny steps down from box thank you for reading 🤫
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Kenneve on January 19, 2019, 09:22:42 AM
This may be going slightly off topic, but of far more concern to me is the so called 'Triple lock'.
I recently came across this article, from the BNP, yes I know what a lot of people think about that party, but if true has far more repercussions than the WTO rules

Within May’s unnecessary ‘Withdrawal Agreements’ – “withdrawal” being an “Orwellian misnomer”, meaning precisely the opposite – legally-minded civil servants had inserted conditions which, by way of stealth, would have guaranteed Britain being shackled to the EU.
Embedded within May’s ‘Withdrawal Agreements’ was her “triple lock” structure, which would play out during the transitional period.
First, it involved ceding an estimated £39 Billion to the EU for nothing, while still being bound by EU law.
Second, it carved out Northern Ireland as an EU province, set a border in the Irish Sea and imposed EU trade tariffs for crossing it.
Third, unless a “future partnership” – a capitulation – was to be conceded to with the bloc, all EU conditions would remain on Britain. In other words, Britain would remain shackled to the EU whichever path she took.
That was Theresa May’s “deal”. A stab in the back for our nation and the British electorate.
 

Is it any wonder that so many MPs voted against the deal?
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on January 19, 2019, 10:37:45 AM
I would settle for Norway + as well. At least we would be out of the political union. The MPs all voted for a default "no deal" when they enacted the Article 50 legislation. Are they now saying they got it wrong? Or is it like the original referendum, where no one thought it would come to pass?
Today I received my Postal Vote registration forms. It made me think about the possibility of having to select another herd of MEPs if Article 50 is extended (and the costs that will incur). I for one won't vote for an MEP (unless there is a UKIP type on the paper). Not many people will I would expect. We could end up with MEPs going to Strasbourg with not enough votes to get elected to the local council!
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: madasafish on January 19, 2019, 12:56:21 PM
In 2017 the EU imported £95 Billion more goods into the UK than we did into the EU (House of Commons Library). Unless the EU wanted to cut off their nose to spite their face, by punishing the UK for daring to leave, then it would be in everyone's interest to trade tariff free. Otherwise the EU would pay £20 Billion a years more in tariffs to the UK than we would to the EU (approximate figure).

Sorry the EP don't pay tariffs . The importer does. Which are then added to the import price.
And ditto with our exports to the EU. The tariffs are paid by the importer in the EU who increases prices to consumers.

Given that most of our imports are : food, cars and car parts,medicines etc..- some of which are non discretionary - car parts for our car factories for example, and food - UK inflation will rise.. a lot...

Strangely enough no politicians tell you that..
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 19, 2019, 12:57:25 PM
This may be going slightly off topic, but of far more concern to me is the so called 'Triple lock'.
I recently came across this article, from the BNP, yes I know what a lot of people think about that party, but if true has far more repercussions than the WTO rules

Within May’s unnecessary ‘Withdrawal Agreements’ – “withdrawal” being an “Orwellian misnomer”, meaning precisely the opposite – legally-minded civil servants had inserted conditions which, by way of stealth, would have guaranteed Britain being shackled to the EU.
Embedded within May’s ‘Withdrawal Agreements’ was her “triple lock” structure, which would play out during the transitional period.
First, it involved ceding an estimated £39 Billion to the EU for nothing, while still being bound by EU law.
Second, it carved out Northern Ireland as an EU province, set a border in the Irish Sea and imposed EU trade tariffs for crossing it.
Third, unless a “future partnership” – a capitulation – was to be conceded to with the bloc, all EU conditions would remain on Britain. In other words, Britain would remain shackled to the EU whichever path she took.
That was Theresa May’s “deal”. A stab in the back for our nation and the British electorate.
 

Is it any wonder that so many MPs voted against the deal?

There was an article about triple lock on UKIP website as well, it makes it impossible to leave EU customs union, which means being a rule taker for ever.  Mendacious civil servants , oily Robbins and mother treeza the remainer who remained a remainer all connived to keep us locked to EU.

Too many fifth columnist quisling politicians ( and former failed politicians like Tony b liar and John minor ) tripping off to EU to pass information to EU about how to put maximum pressure of our negotiators ( is the treason act still in force, and do they still hang traitors ? )

If we had approached negotiations as a united country instead of pulling in all directions they may have taken us seriously,  but the EU was laughing at us every step of the way armed with crucial insider information from traitors.


Huge cheer from BBC question time audience about no deal.

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/question-time-no-deal-brexit-diane-abbott-isabel-oakeshott/O

Hands up who thinks it is a good idea to let Dianne Abbot go on TV representing the Labour party .....
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 19, 2019, 02:35:54 PM
In 2017 the EU imported £95 Billion more goods into the UK than we did into the EU (House of Commons Library). Unless the EU wanted to cut off their nose to spite their face, by punishing the UK for daring to leave, then it would be in everyone's interest to trade tariff free. Otherwise the EU would pay £20 Billion a years more in tariffs to the UK than we would to the EU (approximate figure).

Sorry the EP don't pay tariffs . The importer does. Which are then added to the import price.
And ditto with our exports to the EU. The tariffs are paid by the importer in the EU who increases prices to consumers.

Given that most of our imports are : food, cars and car parts,medicines etc..- some of which are non discretionary - car parts for our car factories for example, and food - UK inflation will rise.. a lot...

Strangely enough no politicians tell you that..

Imports already more expensive due to lower £, but has anyone noticed ? I doubt it.  Exporter may not pay tariffs directly but in practice they do affect them because the tariff makes their goods more expensive / less competitive.  It is good when imports get more expensive as it stimulates  things getting made in UK.   Eurozone in general and Germany in particular are teetering on edge of recession and Germany's woes are due to same cause as Jaguar, the shrinking Chinese economy due to shrinking more expensive exports and lack of a proper consumer market in China because Chinese are by nature savers not spenders ( and who can blame them, they have seen some tough times ).

Brexit is the least of EU problems, they are going down the gurgler anyway and any reprieve will be a short lived affair.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on January 19, 2019, 02:54:34 PM
Given that most of our imports are : food, cars and car parts,medicines etc..- some of which are non discretionary - car parts for our car factories for example, and food - UK inflation will rise.. a lot...

Strangely enough no politicians tell you that..
Only if the UK government imposes tariffs. Tariffs are at the discretion of the importing country, up to the WTO max.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on January 19, 2019, 03:00:56 PM
If we had approached negotiations as a united country instead of pulling in all directions they may have taken us seriously
No truer word said. We should have started from the point of leaving on WTO rules and let the EU barter for a better agreement.
Can you imagine going in to your local car dealer and telling him you need a car and you need it now? Doubt you would come out with a good deal and a full tank of petrol!
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 19, 2019, 03:04:59 PM
Given that most of our imports are : food, cars and car parts,medicines etc..- some of which are non discretionary - car parts for our car factories for example, and food - UK inflation will rise.. a lot...

Strangely enough no politicians tell you that..
Only if the UK government imposes tariffs. Tariffs are at the discretion of the importing country, up to the WTO max.

+1

The receiving country has to impose tariffs,  UK has always championed free trade - the EU only does it as a last resort,   the EU puts up plenty of ' non-tariff barriers' as well, by setting all sorts of needless standards and requirements for imports ( to protect inefficient EU companies ), EU has caused many industries including agriculture to become less efficient by paying subsidies rather than market forces controlling production and demand.

Interesting article mentions how far back the yearning for an EU superstate goes...

“There can be no democratic choice against European treaties,” said Jean-Claude Juncker. National sovereignty is a thing of the past in this globalised  world.

https://brexitcentral.com/brexit-debate-sovereignty-subordination-compromise-impossible/
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Basil on January 21, 2019, 01:15:29 PM
Let's face it, the only reason the leave campaign won was that a lot of people believed we would have an extra £350 million a week to prop up the NHS.
Not true.  One would have to be pretty short sighted to let this be the only reason.

I think the primary reasons were to regain control over borders and laws.

Sorry, I didn't mean everyone who voted leave but enough people were taken in by it to swing the vote.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on January 21, 2019, 02:02:41 PM
but enough people were taken in by it to swing the vote.
Perhaps it did. perhaps it didn't. There was enough backlash and publicity against it to cry it down. That is the problem. No one knows why people voted to leave or what they expected from Brexit.
I voted Leave to escape the political union of the EU, and to give a poke in the eye to the "Establishment". Immigration never figured in my decision. I would have been happy if they had instigated Article 50 on the morning of the vote and left, on WTO rules, two years later. At least it would be all over by now and we would have had two years to prep for "No deal".
If there is another referendum I will vote exactly the same, only this time I will also campaign for it.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: peteo48 on January 21, 2019, 03:01:34 PM
but enough people were taken in by it to swing the vote.
Perhaps it did. perhaps it didn't. There was enough backlash and publicity against it to cry it down. That is the problem. No one knows why people voted to leave or what they expected from Brexit.
I voted Leave to escape the political union of the EU, and to give a poke in the eye to the "Establishment". Immigration never figured in my decision. I would have been happy if they had instigated Article 50 on the morning of the vote and left, on WTO rules, two years later. At least it would be all over by now and we would have had two years to prep for "No deal".
If there is another referendum I will vote exactly the same, only this time I will also campaign for it.

I always describe myself as a 60/40 remainer - maybe even 55/45 - and, like you, it's the political stuff that makes up most the anti EU side of my brain.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 21, 2019, 04:57:06 PM
The EU has morphed out of a purely trading bloc into a political monster that will only be satisfied ( maybe) when all national boundaries and identities are completely erased from the face of Europe and everyone has the same currency, a European army, same tax system, and UK drives on the right. They are obsessed with standardisation of everything - there used to be a joke ( true in fact ) that the EU standard for caramel was longer than the official bible.  They are obsessed with micro managing the member countries affairs and have forgotten what it was like to be democratic, the main people are appointed not elected and Junckers is reported as saying that there is no reason any EU treaties should be subject to democratic approval by members, in other words they should be imposed rather than being voted in.  This explains why several countries who dared hold referendums on some of the treaties were told to vote again because they got the wrong answer the first time, and who is to say that their governments even bothered to count the second vote ? The main worry I have about any people's vote or second referendum is that the establishment would rig the result,  the great British public caught them out the first time, they will not let it happen again......
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on January 21, 2019, 05:53:44 PM
If there is a second vote I will feel that the Establishment has usurped the electorates wishes to suit their own needs. And that requires the people to rise up, with civil disobedience, and I would willingly join them.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: peteo48 on January 21, 2019, 08:07:15 PM
If there is a second vote I will feel that the Establishment has usurped the electorates wishes to suit their own needs. And that requires the people to rise up, with civil disobedience, and I would willingly join them.

Can we really call the result of the 2016 referendum "the will of the people" - it was a narrow if clear win I grant you but it was 51.9% to 48.1% and a third of the people didn't vote at all. In Scotland, the people wanted remain by a large margin.

I don't want a second referendum btw.


Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: d2d4j on January 21, 2019, 08:26:55 PM
Hi

I would say that it is a clear win and shows that a greater number of voters wished to leave.

The people whom chose not to vote cannot complain either way as to the result if they had their chance to vote but chose not too. There were postal votes and proxies

I believe there should not be another vote and if there was, or a general election before leaving, I think if the raving looney party was listed, they might just win on the basis of free beer for everyone

Many thanks

John
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 21, 2019, 08:57:48 PM
The Welsh devolution referendum had 0.3% or about 6000 votes as the margin, and that was accepted.  In the house of commons laws that affect all our lives are passed by 1 vote out of 650.  What people are saying is that if a cricket team win by 1 run it is not a win, or if a golfer wins by 1 stroke there should be a replay ' because they did not really win'.  People had enough notice of referendum to enable them to vote, and the voting deadline was extended because a lot of people crashed the website - the general consensus at the time was that the extension favoured remain vote....
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 21, 2019, 09:32:11 PM
Interesting article about EU.  Seems EU is the Titanic ( the unsinkable ship that sunk ) and Brexit is the UK lifeboat ...

https://nypost.com/2018/12/17/how-brexit-can-save-britain-from-eus-sinking-ship/
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: zzaj on January 21, 2019, 11:08:20 PM
I suspect the masses are being sold something of a pup with this deal-no deal saga.

Under WTO use of Article 24 of the GATT (General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs) allows both parties to agree to operate current terms of trade in relation to, for example, tariffs for a period of time while a free trade agreement (FTA) is being negotiated.

Provided both parties commit to an FTA and set out to negotiate one, this period of time can be many years.

This can be agreed quickly and would result in there being no tariffs between the EU and the UK (in it's third country status) for at least until an FTA is completed. We don't need two years plus of implementation nor a hard border in Ireland.

PS It does not need 585 pages of a withdrawal agreement - any agreement that long must be very suspect!
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: MartinJG on January 21, 2019, 11:44:16 PM
Let's face it, the only reason the leave campaign won was that a lot of people believed we would have an extra £350 million a week to prop up the NHS.
Not true.  One would have to be pretty short sighted to let this be the only reason.

I think the primary reasons were to regain control over borders and laws.


Do you really think it's a good idea to give control of our laws to this government because that's who would be gaining control. Not you or me.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-human-rights-act-repeal-brexit-echr-commons-parliament-conservatives-a8734886.html

Much of the problems of immigration are due to the failure of the Home Office to implement a proper registration and
limited stay policy.
If they mess things up with the Irish Border as they appear to be angling for, our borders will be wide open. This is why the EU are insistent  on the Backstop.

At least we have a better chance of holding them to account
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: MartinJG on January 22, 2019, 12:08:54 AM
I would settle for Norway + as well. At least we would be out of the political union. The MPs all voted for a default "no deal" when they enacted the Article 50 legislation. Are they now saying they got it wrong? Or is it like the original referendum, where no one thought it would come to pass?
Today I received my Postal Vote registration forms. It made me think about the possibility of having to select another herd of MEPs if Article 50 is extended (and the costs that will incur). I for one won't vote for an MEP (unless there is a UKIP type on the paper). Not many people will I would expect. We could end up with MEPs going to Strasbourg with not enough votes to get elected to the local council!

This is precisely one of the reasons we are in this mess. I am afraid one of the less commendable bi products of democracy is apathy, a paradox if ever there was one in view of the feelings currently on display. Alas, there is the real chance that too many will walk away in disgust and for understandable reasons when they should in fact stand firm. That is exactly what the pencil necks crave and play on. We have all seen it time and again at every level. While the peasants are drowning their sorrows in the local, the pushers will be running their rulers over the texts and invoking various reincarnations of suitable precedent. I am afraid bull***t does indeed baffle even the best brains given half the chance. The bitter irony is that the taxpayer has actually funded the spaghetti of legislation that binds us all together in this not terribly moot scenario.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: MartinJG on January 22, 2019, 12:23:13 AM
If there is a second vote I will feel that the Establishment has usurped the electorates wishes to suit their own needs. And that requires the people to rise up, with civil disobedience, and I would willingly join them.

Can we really call the result of the 2016 referendum "the will of the people" - it was a narrow if clear win I grant you but it was 51.9% to 48.1% and a third of the people didn't vote at all. In Scotland, the people wanted remain by a large margin.

I don't want a second referendum btw.

The fact is, everyone had the opportunity to vote. For those that did not, or cannot reconcile the result, it begs the question over which bit of the majority they appear not to understand. 
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: MartinJG on January 22, 2019, 12:26:08 AM
Interesting article about EU.  Seems EU is the Titanic ( the unsinkable ship that sunk ) and Brexit is the UK lifeboat ...

https://nypost.com/2018/12/17/how-brexit-can-save-britain-from-eus-sinking-ship/

Yes, and the rather ironic twist is that if common sense ever prevails, Brexit could well be the very thing that saves Europe from the EU. They need to wake up first.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on January 22, 2019, 06:44:13 AM
An ICM poll, published yesterday, show that "No Deal" is the public's preferred option with 28% voting for it. 24% would choose a second referendum, with only 8% supporting the current deal.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on January 22, 2019, 08:37:54 AM
Interesting article about EU.  Seems EU is the Titanic ( the unsinkable ship that sunk ) and Brexit is the UK lifeboat ...

https://nypost.com/2018/12/17/how-brexit-can-save-britain-from-eus-sinking-ship/

Sure the EU has problems but Brexit is one of them .It's certainly not a cure.
It's similar to a man sitting in his car in a traffic jam complaining there are to many cars on the road.
By way of a bit of balance here's another speech by David Lammy.
You can click on the link at the top to hear the speech or read the transcript. The video improves after a few seconds.

https://www.reddit.com/r/brexit/comments/a410o4/brexit_speech_by_david_lammy_what_a_speech/
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: richardfrost on January 22, 2019, 08:51:08 AM
Interesting article about EU.  Seems EU is the Titanic ( the unsinkable ship that sunk ) and Brexit is the UK lifeboat ...

https://nypost.com/2018/12/17/how-brexit-can-save-britain-from-eus-sinking-ship/

Sure the EU has problems but Brexit is one of them .It's certainly not a cure.
It's similar to a man sitting in his car in a traffic jam complaining there are to many cars on the road.
By way of a bit of balance here's another speech by David Lammy.
You can click on the link at the top to hear the speech or read the transcript. The video improves after a few seconds.

https://www.reddit.com/r/brexit/comments/a410o4/brexit_speech_by_david_lammy_what_a_speech/

This bunch of politicians we have currently must be the worst collection in history. They are childish, stupid, self serving and dishourable. With the notable exception of David Lammy. He has been a consistent voice if reason for months throughout this.

I do not understand why Corbyn cannot do the honourable thing and meet with May. Neither of them want a 'No Deal' but they can't openly admit that they agree for some stupid reason.

I voted Remain. The public voted Leave. So let's leave. But let's not also shoot ourselves in the foot whilst we do it.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on January 22, 2019, 09:12:59 AM
Agree completely except for last sentence. I still think we are (rather, they are) shooting us in the head. I still want to remain.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: madasafish on January 22, 2019, 09:58:55 AM
The Daily Telegraph - fervent Leave  supporters- have LOTS of economics/comments on Brexit and its impact on the world economy plus a comparison of what UK growth would be with WTO vs without.
Worth reading.

(IF you are not prepared to buy one,it's behind a paywall - but you can subscribe for an initial free period)
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 22, 2019, 10:01:58 AM
I suspect the masses are being sold something of a pup with this deal-no deal saga.

Under WTO use of Article 24 of the GATT (General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs) allows both parties to agree to operate current terms of trade in relation to, for example, tariffs for a period of time while a free trade agreement (FTA) is being negotiated.

Provided both parties commit to an FTA and set out to negotiate one, this period of time can be many years.

This can be agreed quickly and would result in there being no tariffs between the EU and the UK (in it's third country status) for at least until an FTA is completed. We don't need two years plus of implementation nor a hard border in Ireland.

PS It does not need 585 pages of a withdrawal agreement - any agreement that long must be very suspect!

+1

Here is an article on article 24 of the GATT agreement referred to,  it is by John Longworth former head of British Chamber of Commerce ( not the CBI who are all rabid remainers). He has actually been to see his old mates in WTO headquarters in Switzerland and discussed Art 24 with them,  their answer was it is a no-brainer,  it helps us and the EU,  but they also said that if the EU does not agree to this obvious solution it just proves that they are not negotiating about trade at all,  but are desperate to punish UK.

https://brexitcentral.com/brexit-plan-b-built-like-springboard-uk-eu-embrace/

Comment from the article ..

So, why has the Government not adopted this simple approach as Plan B? It would seem, if they do not, that it is proof positive we have a Remain Government hell bent on remaining locked into the EU.

It seems we have a remain parliament ( or even government ) and a leave population.....

Something for the remain 5th columnist MP's to think about ( as well as the poison dwarf John Bercow ) who want to tear up the rule book and trample over democracy..

https://order-order.com/2019/01/21/government-entitled-ask-queen-not-give-assent-brexit-wreckers-bills/
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: peteo48 on January 22, 2019, 10:32:38 AM
The Welsh devolution referendum had 0.3% or about 6000 votes as the margin, and that was accepted.  In the house of commons laws that affect all our lives are passed by 1 vote out of 650.  What people are saying is that if a cricket team win by 1 run it is not a win, or if a golfer wins by 1 stroke there should be a replay ' because they did not really win'.  People had enough notice of referendum to enable them to vote, and the voting deadline was extended because a lot of people crashed the website - the general consensus at the time was that the extension favoured remain vote....

I would re-iterate that I, personally, do not favour a second referendum. My objection is to use of the phrase "the will of the people" as if the entire nation were behind Brexit.

The government said it would respect the result of the referendum so it has to deliver Brexit. The problem with the original referendum was that it should, in my view, have been accompanied by an automatic second referendum so the people could vote on the deal the government negotiated or to remain.

That's all water under the bridge now. Another referendum would just muddy the waters even further. We have to get on with it and provide certainty for both people and wealth creators.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: RichardA on January 22, 2019, 10:48:04 AM
All this sounds very familiar, like the clock has been turned back to 2000. Is Craig David back in the charts?

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2000/oct/31/emu.theeuro

Sent from my Moto G (5) using Tapatalk

Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: madasafish on January 22, 2019, 11:01:29 AM
I suspect the masses are being sold something of a pup with this deal-no deal saga.

Under WTO use of Article 24 of the GATT (General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs) allows both parties to agree to operate current terms of trade in relation to, for example, tariffs for a period of time while a free trade agreement (FTA) is being negotiated.

Provided both parties commit to an FTA and set out to negotiate one, this period of time can be many years.

This can be agreed quickly and would result in there being no tariffs between the EU and the UK (in it's third country status) for at least until an FTA is completed. We don't need two years plus of implementation nor a hard border in Ireland.

PS It does not need 585 pages of a withdrawal agreement - any agreement that long must be very suspect!

+1

Here is an article on article 24 of the GATT agreement referred to,  it is by John Longworth former head of British Chamber of Commerce ( not the CBI who are all rabid remainers). He has actually been to see his old mates in WTO headquarters in Switzerland and discussed Art 24 with them,  their answer was it is a no-brainer,  it helps us and the EU,  but they also said that if the EU does not agree to this obvious solution it just proves that they are not negotiating about trade at all,  but are desperate to punish UK.

https://brexitcentral.com/brexit-plan-b-built-like-springboard-uk-eu-embrace/

Comment from the article ..

So, why has the Government not adopted this simple approach as Plan B? It would seem, if they do not, that it is proof positive we have a Remain Government hell bent on remaining locked into the EU.

It seems we have a remain parliament ( or even government ) and a leave population.....

Something for the remain 5th columnist MP's to think about ( as well as the poison dwarf John Bercow ) who want to tear up the rule book and trample over democracy..

https://order-order.com/2019/01/21/government-entitled-ask-queen-not-give-assent-brexit-wreckers-bills/

This is disingenuous.

If ALL  we were discussing is trade, I would agree. But it is NOT just trade but freedom of movement, borders etc.

Why would the EU agree free access to its markets if we don't agree and  don't hold to EU rules?

Norway has to.

It is so simplistic and ignores so much it is at best disingenuous and at worst lies.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 22, 2019, 11:19:48 AM
The EU allows many countries access to trade who do not 'obey their rules' on free movement etc. ( their sacred 4 pillars) but   there is no totally free movement  between countries outside EU and the EU, sure if you are a Canadian you can stay for 90 days without a Visa but cannot live there without applying through normal procedure. Their 4 pillars are political, they hold the EU in a straitjacket of its own making,  they are mixing politics with trade and politics is winning,  poor old EU....

 
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: MartinJG on January 22, 2019, 11:26:17 AM
Interesting article about EU.  Seems EU is the Titanic ( the unsinkable ship that sunk ) and Brexit is the UK lifeboat ...

https://nypost.com/2018/12/17/how-brexit-can-save-britain-from-eus-sinking-ship/

Sure the EU has problems but Brexit is one of them .It's certainly not a cure.
It's similar to a man sitting in his car in a traffic jam complaining there are to many cars on the road.
By way of a bit of balance here's another speech by David Lammy.
You can click on the link at the top to hear the speech or read the transcript. The video improves after a few seconds.

https://www.reddit.com/r/brexit/comments/a410o4/brexit_speech_by_david_lammy_what_a_speech/

This bunch of politicians we have currently must be the worst collection in history. They are childish, stupid, self serving and dishourable. With the notable exception of David Lammy. He has been a consistent voice if reason for months throughout this.

I do not understand why Corbyn cannot do the honourable thing and meet with May. Neither of them want a 'No Deal' but they can't openly admit that they agree for some stupid reason.

I voted Remain. The public voted Leave. So let's leave. But let's not also shoot ourselves in the foot whilst we do it.

I suspect the answer is party politics. Corbyn is afraid to commit to anything because he knows his hand is worth more as a potential threat than it actually is in reality simply because the labour party is so divided. If push comes to shove, they will be forced to play their hand which would be even more embarrassing for him. He knows that at the moment, the Conservatives are forced to treat labour as un unpredictable and potentially united opposition. This is why he will not be drawn, despite May's best efforts. It's the same psychology that was employed by the Bismarck in WW2. It was parked in a Norwegian fjord doing nothing but it posed a threat which diverted allied resources. Where the plan went wrong was that the Brits found a way of sinking it much to the surprise and annoyance of the owners...
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: MartinJG on January 22, 2019, 11:40:40 AM
The Welsh devolution referendum had 0.3% or about 6000 votes as the margin, and that was accepted.  In the house of commons laws that affect all our lives are passed by 1 vote out of 650.  What people are saying is that if a cricket team win by 1 run it is not a win, or if a golfer wins by 1 stroke there should be a replay ' because they did not really win'.  People had enough notice of referendum to enable them to vote, and the voting deadline was extended because a lot of people crashed the website - the general consensus at the time was that the extension favoured remain vote....

A good analogy. I believe May is a keen follower of cricket and a fan of Boycott's bloody minded determination at the crease. So far so good but she appears to have overlooked one key point. He played with a straight bat.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on January 22, 2019, 01:04:54 PM
My objection is to use of the phrase "the will of the people" as if the entire nation were behind Brexit.
I am quite happy to use the term "the decision of the people" as was coined on today's "Politics Live".
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on January 22, 2019, 02:24:04 PM
I suspect the masses are being sold something of a pup with this deal-no deal saga.



I suspect the masses are being sold something of a pup with this brexit saga. FTFY. See my first (more recent David Lammy speech). The British public were taken in by soundbites like "send 350m per week to the NHS" " Take back control of our borders, laws and money"  and "will of the people" just as the Americans were conned by  "Make America great again"
https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1083442098551033857

The no deal threat was never going to make any difference to the EU.
It is now being used to threaten the UK parliament and people into accepting Theresa May's deal.
Time to take it off the table and have a straight vote between May's deal and remain.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 22, 2019, 02:53:25 PM
To say people were swayed by £350million for NHS is disingenuous in the extreme, the message was that we will have more to spend on what we want to spend it on, rather than giving it to EU to bribe other members to join with infrastructure projects.

Sir Walter Scott must have known a bit about europhiles when he wrote this...

https://www.poetrynook.com/poem/breathes-there-man-soul-so-dead

To pretend EU not worried about no deal is up there with snow white and Cinderella ..  rep of Ireland in particular will be very hard hit by no deal, which makes it even more inexplicable why they volunteered to be the EU useful fool - and no deal could tip EU into recession - while UK unemployment set another low record in last figures of 4%...

As for David Lammy, woo hooo....
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on January 22, 2019, 03:19:39 PM
To say people were swayed by £350million for NHS is disingenuous in the extreme, the message was that we will have more to spend on what we want to spend it on, rather than giving it to EU to bribe other members to join with infrastructure projects.


To pretend EU not worried about no deal is up there with snow white and Cinderella ..  rep of Ireland in particular will be very hard hit by no deal, which makes it even more inexplicable why they volunteered to be the EU useful fool - and no deal could tip EU into recession - while UK unemployment set another low record in last figures of 4%...

As for David Lammy, woo hooo....

Not at all disingenuous. How do you (or Theresa May) know what people are thinking?
The EU wil be affected by a no deal Brexit but not nearly as badly as the UK.
Ireland will indeed be badly affected.
What gives the UK the right to hurt other people? Is it OK to damage the liveliehoods of people in Ireland and indeed the rest of Europe so that we can get a beter deal.  The people most affected will be the disadvantaged people of Britain. The only people to benefit will be the ultra rich tax avoiders and disaster capitalists.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on January 22, 2019, 03:24:31 PM
I don't know where the idea that the £350 Million per week would all go to the NHS. At no time did I read into the slogan that all the money would go to the NHS.
The slogan pointed out how much went to the EU each week, before rebates, etc, and suggested it we voted leave we could fund the NHS. How the slogan was misconstrued was down to the reader (or more precisely, the remainer press).
(http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/brexit-bus-e1511953625149.jpg)
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on January 22, 2019, 03:29:38 PM
I don't know where the idea that the £350 Million per week would all go to the NHS. At no time did I read into the slogan that all the money would go to the NHS.
The slogan pointed out how much went to the EU each week, before rebates, etc, and suggested it we voted leave we could fund the NHS. How the slogan was misconstrued was down to the reader (or more precisely, the remainer press).
(http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/brexit-bus-e1511953625149.jpg)
Thanks for posting Jocko. I hadn't noticed previously that the "take back control " slogan was on the bus too.
Powerful stuff tht psychology.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on January 22, 2019, 04:24:18 PM
WTO rules
Doesn't seem like such a clever idea now.
The European Union has confirmed it would enforce a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland in the event of a no-deal Brexit, in a blow to hopes that a workaround could be found.

A spokesperson for the European Commission told reporters in Brussels that it was “pretty obvious” that new infrastructure would be needed if the UK crashed out without a withdrawal agreement.

Though the premise that a border would appear has defined Brexit talks for months, all sides have so far shied away from saying they would enforce one – as required by World Trade Organisation rules.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-no-deal-irish-border-hard-backstop-theresa-may-withdrawal-good-friday-agreement-a8740676.html
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 22, 2019, 07:26:56 PM
EU are determined not to negotiate at all and to punish UK, it will bite them in the bum though.  I am ashamed and dismayed how much help the EU 'negotiators' have had from UK fifth columnist europhiles ' the enemy within' ....

As far as Ireland taking EU side,  they do say no good deed ever goes unpunished..

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/9813358/British-taxpayers-funded-Irelands-14bn-bail-out.html
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on January 22, 2019, 08:03:03 PM
EU are determined not to negotiate at all and to punish UK, it will bite them in the bum though.  I am ashamed and dismayed how much help the EU 'negotiators' have had from UK fifth columnist europhiles ' the enemy within' ....

The EU have been completely organised from the start. The list of options available to the UKwas freely available on the internet. They even showed it in a  descending staircase diagram. The UK seemed to enter  the negotiations with no sort of plan and prepared to wing it. The picture of the EU team complete with folders of notes facing David Davis armed only with his silly grin may only be symbolic, since presumably no real negotiations would be done on the first day but it pretty much sums up the situation.
If we leave the EU with or without a deal we will have to negotiate trade deals-- the withdrawal arrangements were supposed to be the easy bit. Then we would be entering the situation similar to the one you mentioned earlier where we go into negotiate the purchase of a car stating that we are going to buy at any cost.
 "Give me a deal or I'll starve myself"
The UK hasn't negotiated a deal in 40 years. They will be negotiating with expert negotiators.
 Of course everybody will be queuing up to negotiate wih us.
They're on to a winner there.
Sorry, this is just project fear
I hope the government has thought this through.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-davis-brexit-no-notes-brexit-negotiations-a7845686.html
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 22, 2019, 08:28:05 PM
David Davis was not our negotiator, Olly Robbins had that job, his opposite number was Sabine Weyand.

Barnier and Davis were just figure heads / spokesmen.

https://www.ft.com/content/d4ab87ba-6ba2-11e7-bfeb-33fe0c5b7eaa

Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Barky on January 22, 2019, 08:52:27 PM
EU are determined not to negotiate at all and to punish UK, it will bite them in the bum though.  I am ashamed and dismayed how much help the EU 'negotiators' have had from UK fifth columnist europhiles ' the enemy within' ....

Real negotiations haven't started yet, just at exit stage & it's UK punishing UK - ONLY
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 23, 2019, 10:42:10 AM
Interesting article about Remainers getting Brexiteers motives wrong ( but maybe on purpose ).

https://brexitcentral.com/remainers-wont-get-brexit-understand-caricature-brexiteers-entirely-wrong/
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Basil on January 24, 2019, 12:28:43 PM
Question for Culzean and Jocko, what do you think will happen to all the foreign manufacturing companies (Honda, Nissan, Toyota, Ford etc.) that are currently based in Britain if we crash out of the EU with no deal ?
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 24, 2019, 01:11:13 PM
Question for Culzean and Jocko, what do you think will happen to all the foreign manufacturing companies (Honda, Nissan, Toyota, Ford etc.) that are currently based in Britain if we crash out of the EU with no deal ?

Same thing that happened when we crashed out of ERM ( exchange rate mechanism ) and the same that happened when UK did not join eurozone - we were threatened by exactly the same institutions that are involved in brexit project fear ( CBI, treasury, house of lords and various members of the elite great and good)   with pretty much the same things ( they do not have much imagination and do not learn from their past failures ). 

And what happened ? UK carried on as normal ( as you would expect one of the world's largest markets and economies to do ) - the project fear people have no shame and expect people to have a short memory of their previous attempts to scare the population of UK which ended up being so far from reality that they should have been thoroughly shamed - just remember ex is 'used to be' and spurt is a drip under pressure that is the root of the word 'expert'.....

UK is a great place to do business, people do not flock here to work and have headquarters for their businesses because we are part of EU but because we have great attraction to them, Google is building a massive headquarters in London they ( and many others ) know that UK is going to thrive outside the choking over-regulated uncompetitive EU and they want a piece of it....
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on January 24, 2019, 01:12:39 PM
I think they will remain and wait for the trade deal that the UK and the EU will ultimately strike.
Leaving with "No deal" doesn't suit either side, so if that is the result on the 29th March, or later, then both sides will be desperate to come to an agreement over trade.
That is one of the Remoaner "lies", that if we leave the EU with no deal then we will simply stop trading with them. Trade will go on, just not as smoothly as it currently does, and both sides will work to resolve that situation.
I was listening to Caroline Flint talking yesterday. A Labour MP, who voted Remain, but serves a Leave constituency. She said, "Lets take No Deal off the table, but lets also take Remain off the table". I'd go along with that.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Basil on January 24, 2019, 01:37:28 PM
Don't kid yourself, these companies are here for easy access to the European market, they wouldn't be here if they didn't have tariff free trade and easy access to source parts from across Europe.
 
A trade deal some time in the future is no good and crashing out of the customs union would mean utter chaos.

I think your in for a big shock if we do crash out but I don't think it will come to that, I hope not anyway.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 24, 2019, 01:50:39 PM
Don't kid yourself, these companies are here for easy access to the European market, they wouldn't be here if they didn't have tariff free trade and easy access to source parts from across Europe.
 
A trade deal some time in the future is no good and crashing out of the customs union would mean utter chaos.

I think your in for a big shock if we do crash out but I don't think it will come to that, I hope not anyway.

EU market is shrinking in relation to world trade, EU has massive problems and brexit is just one of many. Business can see the problems in EU and know that UK will certainly not put tariffs on EU goods and EU would have rocks in their head to put tariffs on UK goods.  There is a lot of talk and bluster but EU knows its days are numbered and is trying to limit damage - but think of poor old King Canute and his antics on the beach and you get the picture...


https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/12/ten-myths-from-the-no-deal-project-fear/
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on January 24, 2019, 03:20:36 PM
Don't kid yourself, these companies are here for easy access to the European market, they wouldn't be here if they didn't have tariff free trade and easy access to source parts from across Europe.
 
A trade deal some time in the future is no good and crashing out of the customs union would mean utter chaos.

I think your in for a big shock if we do crash out but I don't think it will come to that, I hope not anyway.

EU market is shrinking in relation to world trade, EU has massive problems and brexit is just one of many. Business can see the problems in EU and know that UK will certainly not put tariffs on EU goods and EU would have rocks in their head to put tariffs on UK goods.  There is a lot of talk and bluster but EU knows its days are numbered and is trying to limit damage - but think of poor old King Canute and his antics on the beach and you get the picture...


https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/12/ten-myths-from-the-no-deal-project-fear/

I'm with Basil here.
The EU is a much bigger target market than the UK so why bother with all the shipping backwards and forwards of parts especially when there is all the hassle of tariffs and disruption to just in time manufacturing.
As Culzean says Brexit is only one of the problems the EU has so why be a part of the problem rather than part of the solution?
What makes you think Britain would have any advantages over mainland Europe?
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: RichardA on January 24, 2019, 03:58:20 PM


Question for Culzean and Jocko, what do you think will happen to all the foreign manufacturing companies (Honda, Nissan, Toyota, Ford etc.) that are currently based in Britain if we crash out of the EU with no deal ?

Same thing that happened when we crashed out of ERM ( exchange rate mechanism ) and the same that happened when UK did not join eurozone - we were threatened by exactly the same institutions that are involved in brexit project fear ( CBI, treasury, house of lords and various members of the elite great and good)   with pretty much the same things ( they do not have much imagination and do not learn from their past failures ). 

And what happened ? UK carried on as normal ( as you would expect one of the world's largest markets and economies to do ) - the project fear people have no shame and expect people to have a short memory of their previous attempts to scare the population of UK which ended up being so far from reality that they should have been thoroughly shamed - just remember ex is 'used to be' and spurt is a drip under pressure that is the root of the word 'expert'.....

UK is a great place to do business, people do not flock here to work and have headquarters for their businesses because we are part of EU but because we have great attraction to them, Google is building a massive headquarters in London they ( and many others ) know that UK is going to thrive outside the choking over-regulated uncompetitive EU and they want a piece of it....

That's why I posted the link to The Guardian from 2000 a few posts back. The same dire predictions were made about not joining the Euro back then as we're hearing now about Brexit. It all seems ridiculous looking back now. Who knows if the same will be said about Brexit.

Sent from my Moto G (5) using Tapatalk

Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 24, 2019, 04:16:02 PM
No one knows how long the slow motion train crash that is the eurozone can carry on, the eurozone banks are pretty much bankrupt, the ECB is printing worthless money to prop the currency up, they call it quantitive easing but it is the same as Zimbabwe and other third world countries do most of the time - printing money as the economy fails, fiddling while Rome burns..........  The euro has only been a success for Germany, for all other countries it has been a disaster.  If you call the euro the deutschmark it makes sense.

http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2017/02/euro-zone-woes-continue-enshrouded-by.html

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/24/the-failure-of-the-euro

https://www.ftadviser.com/investments/2018/12/12/buxton-says-eurozone-is-unsustainable/
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on January 24, 2019, 04:28:13 PM
All this sounds very familiar, like the clock has been turned back to 2000. Is Craig David back in the charts?

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2000/oct/31/emu.theeuro

Sent from my Moto G (5) using Tapatalk

It's that deja vu again.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2000/nov/05/theobserver.observerbusiness4
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on January 25, 2019, 06:44:22 AM
So the Pound is on the rise and the Euro is on the decline. I wonder why?
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Basil on January 25, 2019, 08:47:07 AM
So the Pound is on the rise and the Euro is on the decline. I wonder why?

Because it's looking increasingly likely that that the deadline is going to be extended.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on January 25, 2019, 08:48:34 AM
I don't know why that would depress the Euro.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 25, 2019, 09:26:33 AM
Here is a little poem - sadly more true than funny .....

Won’t you join our Common Market? said the Spider to the Fly,
It really is a winner and the cost is not too high,
I know De Gaulle said “Non”, but he hadn’t got a clue,
We want you in, my friends and I, for we have plans for you.

You’ll have to pay a little more than we do, just for now,
As Herr Kohl said, and I agree, we need a new milch cow.
It’s just a continental term believe me, mon ami,
Like “Vive la France” or “Mad Anglais” or even “E.E.C.”

As to the rules, don’t worry friend, there’s really but a few,
You’ll find that we ignore them – but they all apply to you!
Give and share between us, that’s what it’s all about
You do all the giving, and we all share it out.

It’s very British, is it not, to help a friend in need?
You’ve done it twice in two World Wars, a fact we must concede,
So climb aboard the Market Train, don’t sit there on the side,
Your continental cousins want to take you for a ride.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 25, 2019, 09:31:09 AM
I don't know why that would depress the Euro.

Why is the Euro dropping ?  mainly because it is a 'dead man walking' and investors know it..
( hint - it is dropping against all currencies not just the pound,  the ECB has stopped its economic
stimulus program QE - or printing worthless banknotes to prop up the failing Euro ... ).

Add that Germany as an exporting country is going to be badly hit by Chinese economy shutting down and other world events such as Donald Trump 'leveling the playing field on trade' ( Germany is the main support of Euro and the EU paymaster) and watch out for Euro dropping even further.

http://www.eurorateforecast.com/category/the-week-ahead/



So the Pound is on the rise and the Euro is on the decline. I wonder why?

Because it's looking increasingly likely that that the deadline is going to be extended.

Ha Ha ( or should it be boom-boom Basil) - dream on,  there is nothing that the EU bully boys can come up with during an extension that they couldn't have come up with during the last 2 years, the EU always 'negotiates' down to the wire expecting the others to blink first,  so we leave on the 29th and then negotiate from a stronger position as a non member that the EU wants to have a trade deal with - simples... The other way lies madness and humiliation - like when someone keeps talking to a brick wall hoping that it will answer.

The EU already backing off on Irish border,  withdrawing support for the hard line Varadkar position ( he was only their useful fool while he was useful) and saying checks will have to be done away from the border - which UK suggested 2 years ago,  but this will hit RoI hard,  but EU wont care as they have bigger problems.

Here is a good article from London School of Economics about some of the myths of UK membership of EU and the wilful distortion of the effects of leaving by establishment.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/03/08/how-the-economics-profession-got-it-wrong-on-brexit/
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: peteo48 on January 25, 2019, 10:21:01 AM
The problem with quoting economists is you can take your pick and just select the ones who agree with your point of view. It's confirmation bias pure and simple. Both sides do it.



Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 25, 2019, 10:24:52 AM
The problem with quoting economists is you can take your pick and just select the ones who agree with your point of view. It's confirmation bias pure and simple. Both sides do it.

True but 'establishment' economists tend to input the very worst figures and scenarios into the computer models to justify their pro-EU bias and make matters look as bad as can be.

One of the myths about EEC / EU is that the economy of the UK improved after joining, but the real figures tell a different story.

https://www.socialeurope.eu/eu-membership-accelerate-uk-economic-growth
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Basil on January 25, 2019, 01:02:00 PM
I don't know why that would depress the Euro.

Look at it the other way around, it's more that it's boosted the pound as we don't appear to be crashing out in March without a deal.

Remember it was almost 1.3 euros to the pound before the referendum.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on January 25, 2019, 01:22:32 PM
I am not talking about the Euro against the Pound, that is skewed by Brexit. I am talking about the Euro against the US Dollar, the Yen the Yuan and other world currencies.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on January 25, 2019, 01:56:12 PM
Maybe all is not lost.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-46999458 (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-46999458)
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on January 25, 2019, 03:36:13 PM
So the Pound is on the rise and the Euro is on the decline. I wonder why?

I wouldn't read too much into short term fluctuations but Euro was at about 1.3 to pound in 2016 and now about 1.15
and can I say "we haven't left yet "
Don't know if this link will work. but it should give an idea of fluctuations.

https://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=GBP&to=EUR&view=10Y

 The Sun interprets the high of the pound midweek to Labour being about to table an amendment to block no deal Brexit
https://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=GBP&to=EUR&view=10Y

Anyway Pound back down again on Thursday due to uncertainty

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-sterling-open/pound-slips-after-reaching-11-week-highs-idUKKCN1PI126

Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 26, 2019, 08:17:16 AM
Every time there is a threat of a Corbyn government the £ drops,  only to rebound when that prospect is taken off the table,  It is not so much Brexit as Corbyn that gives investors chills down their spines......
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 28, 2019, 07:48:00 PM
My brother has just written to his local ( Labour ) MP who despite representing a constituency that voted over 60% leave is now calling for a 'peoples vote'. He just said that because she was ignoring the Labour party manifesto pledges that she was elected on, that her constituents would be well within their rights to demand another vote on whether she could carry on being their MP and was she OK with that ? She accepted the electors first vote for her although she stood on a false prospectus as she never supported leaving EU.. although it was in black and white on her party  manifesto that we would be leaving single market and customs union.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on January 28, 2019, 08:00:26 PM
Quite a few MPs run the risk of being deselected before the next general election, on both sides of the house and both sides of the debate.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: peteo48 on January 28, 2019, 10:09:41 PM
Indeed. Brexiter Labour MP Kate Hoey represents Vauxhall in London which voted 78% to remain. Her constituents are not pleased!
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: richardfrost on January 28, 2019, 10:27:21 PM
Yay. Major retailers are telling us there will be food shortages following a no deal Brexit. Isn’t that what Brexiteers wanted? To take us back to the glory days of rationing just after the war?

To be honest, I can’t really apply too much credit to KFC warning on food shortages when they couldn’t even deliver chicken to their own chicken shops last year.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 29, 2019, 09:40:00 AM
Indeed. Brexiter Labour MP Kate Hoey represents Vauxhall in London which voted 78% to remain. Her constituents are not pleased!

But Labour had leaving the single market and customs union in their 2017 manifesto,  the Labour party is such a mess on their policy about Brexit - they have the benefit of being in opposition and can basically say anything they like without having to do anything about it,  John McDonald and Corbyn ( and many others ) have been lifelong Eurosceptics,  but since Labour party membership was invaded by remainers before 2017 election they have been sending out totally mixed messages.  What Labour leadership should realise is that members / supporters are not the same as voters, so if a few thousand members say no to brexit but Labour core voters want it ( 70% of labour constituencies voted Leave) - guess who will have the final say ?
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on January 29, 2019, 09:51:00 AM
A shortage of fresh, tasteless, fruit and vegetables. As a Scot that will barely trouble me at all!
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on January 29, 2019, 10:33:55 AM
EU stance appears to be altering.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47036591 (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47036591)
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: richardfrost on January 29, 2019, 11:30:58 AM
A shortage of fresh, tasteless, fruit and vegetables. As a Scot that will barely trouble me at all!
I was laughing at that too. If a few weeks without lettuce is the worst part of a no deal Brexit, I say bring it on. And I'm a remainer. We fought two World Wars to retain our freedom. A month without salad hardly seems to compare.

So I am a remainer and I would like us to stay in Europe. But I also hate bullies and something perverse about me is reacting against all the threats and project fear stuff coming from the EU and big business.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: zzaj on January 29, 2019, 12:01:56 PM
EU stance appears to be altering.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47036591 (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47036591)

I note this from the link:

"Ireland - as every other EU member - has a veto over any future EU-UK trade deal and could use it if Dublin felt the border wasn't adequately protected."

and, in the Withdrawal Agreement, we cannot sign new trade deals until we have agreed a future trade deal with EU.


Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on January 29, 2019, 12:10:04 PM
and, in the Withdrawal Agreement, we cannot sign new trade deals until we have agreed a future trade deal with EU.
But not if we leave on WTO Rules!
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: zzaj on January 29, 2019, 12:57:25 PM
Quite!
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on January 29, 2019, 02:35:10 PM
and, in the Withdrawal Agreement, we cannot sign new trade deals until we have agreed a future trade deal with EU.
But not if we leave on WTO Rules!

But not even the most enthusiastic Leave campaigners claimed to want to do that

Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on January 29, 2019, 02:45:01 PM
EU stance appears to be altering.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47036591 (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47036591)

I note this from the link:

"Ireland - as every other EU member - has a veto over any future EU-UK trade deal and could use it if Dublin felt the border wasn't adequately protected."

and, in the Withdrawal Agreement, we cannot sign new trade deals until we have agreed a future trade deal with EU.

I think it might be a bit worse than that.
I don't think the EU have bullied us in any way.
Their case was made quite clear at the start of negotiations and they have stuck to it.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on January 29, 2019, 02:48:16 PM
A shortage of fresh, tasteless, fruit and vegetables. As a Scot that will barely trouble me at all!
I was laughing at that too. If a few weeks without lettuce is the worst part of a no deal Brexit, I say bring it on. And I'm a remainer. We fought two World Wars to retain our freedom. A month without salad hardly seems to compare.

So I am a remainer and I would like us to stay in Europe. But I also hate bullies and something perverse about me is reacting against all the threats and project fear stuff coming from the EU and big business.

Sorry  I linked my last post to the wrong quote. I meant to reply to this one.

I think it might be a bit worse than that.
I don't think the EU have bullied us in any way.
Their case was made quite clear at the start of negotiations and they have stuck to it.

https://www.indy100.com/article/brexit-bbc-news-interview-food-shortages-supplies-no-deal-video-8751676
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: peteo48 on January 29, 2019, 03:08:32 PM
That YouTube video is the one I posted on another site in answer to somebody who said that he knew exactly what we were voting for and that was coming out of the single market and the customs union. It absolutely was not what we voted for which was quite simple - to come out of the EU - end of.

To be fair, the guy I sent the video too admitted he had been clean bowled. It's odd but I have seen Farage and Hannan drone on about how great the Swiss or Norway option was for years - I don't know why they haven't been picked up on it.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: madasafish on January 29, 2019, 03:15:04 PM
I have just bought new headlamp bulbs: Philips Extreme.
Ordered Sunday, shipped by plane from Germany Monday and delivered this pm..

Will WTO rules change that?
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 29, 2019, 03:25:50 PM
It is only the former USSR and i5lam where people are not allowed to leave  ( ok the Hotel California is another one ).

We are the EU biggest single market and Germany's biggest trading partner,  if EU had the will and were not protecting the politics of the EU rather than looking at future trade it would have been simple.  Nowhere else are trade deals combined with visa free movement of people ( if we send all EU people back they will have an even bigger unemployment problem than they have now).  This is all about politics and setting precedents for the other countries who would follow UK if only they were allowed a referendum on membership.

The EU needs to go back to its roots as a free trade area and forget all the purely political stuff about social democrat federal superstates and wiping out borders and national identities - if they had realised sooner they were going in the wrong direction we would have probably voted to stay,  but they have political zealots running the show.....
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 29, 2019, 03:29:14 PM
I have just bought new headlamp bulbs: Philips Extreme.
Ordered Sunday, shipped by plane from Germany Monday and delivered this pm..

Will WTO rules change that?

Why should it ?

You can order stuff from USA or China and get it delivered by plane. Nobody in their right mind is going to refuse to sell you stuff, it is a very bad business model..
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on January 29, 2019, 03:40:23 PM
I have just bought new headlamp bulbs: Philips Extreme.
Ordered Sunday, shipped by plane from Germany Monday and delivered this pm..

Will WTO rules change that?

Why should it ?

You can order stuff from USA or China and get it delivered by plane. Nobody in their right mind is going to refuse to sell you stuff, it is a very bad business model..


Yes you can, but airmail takes 2-4 weeks, has to go through customs, and there's a £15 value limit before you're hit for Import VAT, any Excise duty and handling fees of £8 plus. Customs Duties are also levied on goods over £135.

I trade overseas all the time, and trading both ways with EU and EFTA countries is infinitely preferable.

Of course no one will refuse to trade with you on WTO rules, that's quite plainly nonsense. It just adds cost and administrative burden at both ends, before you even consider tariffs.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: peteo48 on January 29, 2019, 09:21:34 PM
I think we can get hung up on various trading models and systems. For me, and I am not a passionate remainer, the EU is far from perfect, the problem is that a hard or no deal Brexit erects financial and bureaucratic barriers to trade that do not currently exist.

That's why we should be looking to keep frictionless trade as far as possible when we leave the EU.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on January 30, 2019, 08:57:05 AM
A good analogy to last night's pantomime here:-

" MPs do battle over amendments to motions that change standing orders to permit bills to insist on extensions to a negotiating period, without saying what they think the outcome of that negotiation should be. Meanwhile, the prime minister invites her backbenchers to vote against something she has agreed in Brussels so she can go back and ask for something that she knows will be rejected."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/29/may-brexit-brady-amendment
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on January 30, 2019, 09:19:29 AM
Did anyone watch "Inside Europe: Ten Years of Turmoil" on Monday night? Well the government knew what to expect from the EU. I think May is just running the clock down to the last minute, hoping, when all else fails, that MPs will vote for her deal, but content to take us to WTO rules if the deal is still voted down.
Stephen Barclay did a fine job of that, last night, just prior to the votes. When asked what the "alternative arrangements" would be he said "I'll come to that", then kept allowing interruptions, knowing that the time would run out before he would need to answer. Basically what May has been doing for 2 years.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 30, 2019, 09:20:15 AM
The Irish border is such a rotten red herring that people as far as Norfolk and Newcastle can smell it.

It is a cooked up scheme between EU and RofI to unite Ireland, the upside for the EU is that it increases the area they control.  Varadkar has been played by the EU as their useful fool, but if the border becomes the only sticking point on 28th March the EU will pull the rug on Varadkar.

I have no doubt whatever that on the day after referendum that Tony B Liar was on the phone to Barnier and Varadkar telling them about how to muddy the water and weaponise the GFR...
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on January 30, 2019, 10:39:28 AM
Did anyone watch "Inside Europe: Ten Years of Turmoil" on Monday night? Well the government knew what to expect from the EU. I think May is just running the clock down to the last minute, hoping, when all else fails, that MPs will vote for her deal, but content to take us to WTO rules if the deal is still voted down.
Stephen Barclay did a fine job of that, last night, just prior to the votes. When asked what the "alternative arrangements" would be he said "I'll come to that", then kept allowing interruptions, knowing that the time would run out before he would need to answer. Basically what May has been doing for 2 years.

Yes, I watched it. My interpretation is that the country has been shafted by Cameron's arrogance.
Agree that May is just running down the clock.
Disagree that this is clever. There is no feasible plan.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on January 30, 2019, 10:47:41 AM
The Irish border is such a rotten red herring that people as far as Norfolk and Newcastle can smell it.

It is a cooked up scheme between EU and RofI to unite Ireland, the upside for the EU is that it increases the area they control.  Varadkar has been played by the EU as their useful fool, but if the border becomes the only sticking point on 28th March the EU will pull the rug on Varadkar.

I have no doubt whatever that on the day after referendum that Tony B Liar was on the phone to Barnier and Varadkar telling them about how to muddy the water and weaponise the GFR...

The Irish border problem is very real.
Brexit risks the Good Friday Agreement.
That the UK government risks the peace in Ireland so that it can pursue it's fantasy ideas of economic freedom is beyond my comprehension.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: peteo48 on January 30, 2019, 10:52:00 AM
I agree Jim. All the good work that went into getting peace in Ireland must not be put at risk.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 30, 2019, 11:09:50 AM
I agree Jim. All the good work that went into getting peace in Ireland must not be put at risk.

https://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/ruth-dudley-edwards/why-i-think-the-good-friday-agreement-needs-to-be-fixed-36640426.html

Brexit is a red - or rather, green herring. Like Trimble - now a Conservative peer - I voted Brexit because I think the EU has also outlived its usefulness and is doing more harm than good. Trimble has pointed out that the GFA was about constitutional not economic issues and the EU had nothing to do with it. The only threat to peace he sees would be if the Irish Government persists in trying to out out-Sinn Fein Sinn Fein by pushing for an internal border running down the Irish Sea as part of a strategy to break up the UK.
Neither the British nor the Irish want direct rule, but under the actual rather than the imaginary terms of the agreement, that's the only option if no deal materialises. Can't we just face the fact that the agreement was expected to be transitionary, that it no longer works, and that it needs to be renegotiated so as to give hope to all those people in Northern Ireland who just want to work and live together in peace?


Don't forget that Blair had letters sent to known IRA killers pardoning them,  while doing nothing to protect British Army personnel from prosecution,  no statute of limitations for them.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 30, 2019, 11:15:30 AM
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/01/the-new-mood-of-question-time-audiences-reflects-the-changing-brexit-debate/

People just want government to get on with job they were given get out of EU.  There has been far too much obfuscation and stalling from people putting politics before country.  The EU were never going to play ball,  see comment about Barnier making deal so bad that UK would want to stay --- too many trembling chins amongst our elected representatives..
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on January 30, 2019, 11:35:06 AM
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/01/the-new-mood-of-question-time-audiences-reflects-the-changing-brexit-debate/

People just want government to get on with job they were given get out of EU.
Conservative politicians keep telling people that


 There has been far too much obfuscation and stalling from people putting politics before country. 
Couldn't agree more. Although you and I have completely different people in mind.

 The whole shambles has been about placating the right wing Eurosceptics in the Conservative party
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 30, 2019, 12:26:54 PM
Quote
Couldn't agree more. Although you and I have completely different people in mind.

 The whole shambles has been about placating the right wing Eurosceptics in the Conservative party

The eurosceptics have the result of referendum on their side, it is more a case of pandering to europhiles within the parties - who voted to trigger article 50 and then renaged on manifesto pledges - all their antics have achieved is to embolden the EU and ensure they gave us  a terrible deal. 

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2018/01/it-s-time-accept-labour-manifesto-you-voted-promised-hard-brexit
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on January 30, 2019, 12:50:35 PM
As the programme the other night pointed out, it was not just the Eurosceptics in the Conservative party that forced Cameron's hand, but the people of the UK and the success of UKIP in the European voting.
It is the people of the UK that voted to leave the EU, me among them.
With regards to taking "No Deal" of the table, that is impossible. To do that would mean that the EU could tell us to leave, but they will retain our fishing rights, or leave but Gibraltar would return to Spain, in fact anything they like. It is only the threat of us leaving with "No Deal" that gives us any leverage at all.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: peteo48 on January 30, 2019, 02:52:11 PM
Leave won the referendum and the government promised to implement the result so Brexit it must be but the combined total of remainers and don't knows far exceeds the leave vote which was 17 million out of an electorate of 46 million.

So I dispute that the "people" voted Leave. Brexit is not the will of the entire British Nation or anything close to a majority of the population. I would also say that the narrowness of the victory gives no mandate for a hard Brexit and the consequent economic harm.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 30, 2019, 03:17:49 PM
Leave won the referendum and the government promised to implement the result so Brexit it must be but the combined total of remainers and don't knows far exceeds the leave vote which was 17 million out of an electorate of 46 million.

So I dispute that the "people" voted Leave. Brexit is not the will of the entire British Nation or anything close to a majority of the population. I would also say that the narrowness of the victory gives no mandate for a hard Brexit and the consequent economic harm.

That argument will get no one anywhere.  Only 64% of electorate voted in 1975 EU referendum, 73% in 2016.

Democracy can be messy sometimes but no one has come up with anything better.  By constituency over 400 out of 650 voted leave, no general election has ever come close to that mandate. The libdums were the only people to specifically have oppose brexit on their 2017 manifesto and voters did not flock to them ( they got a couple of extra seats to add to their existing 8 ) over 80% of people voted for parties who had it in their manifesto to leave customs union and single market.

Labour membership was invaded by remainers who did not read Labour manifesto or realise that Labour party has always been eurosceptic. Problem for Labour is that a few thousand of their 'members' may want customs union and second vote, but their core voters do not.....

Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on January 30, 2019, 04:41:36 PM
I think it should be compulsory to vote, like Australia, Belgium, Switzerland and quite a few others. In Australia, if you fail to vote and don't have a valid reason, you are fined $170.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: ColinS on January 30, 2019, 05:01:58 PM
I think it should be compulsory to vote, like Australia, Belgium, Switzerland and quite a few others. In Australia, if you fail to vote and don't have a valid reason, you are fined $170.

I agree and I think it should be compulsory not to moan if you fail to vote.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: peteo48 on January 30, 2019, 05:07:42 PM
Leave won the referendum and the government promised to implement the result so Brexit it must be but the combined total of remainers and don't knows far exceeds the leave vote which was 17 million out of an electorate of 46 million.

So I dispute that the "people" voted Leave. Brexit is not the will of the entire British Nation or anything close to a majority of the population. I would also say that the narrowness of the victory gives no mandate for a hard Brexit and the consequent economic harm.

No - my problem is when people use phrases like the will of the people. I object to that phrase and I wonder why people in the press and in politics use it. It is the will of 37% of the electorate - no more no less.


Just to be clear - I accept that Brexit has to go ahead because the government said it would implement the result of the referendum. In my own view there is much to be said for compulsory voting as Jocko has implied.

That argument will get no one anywhere.  Only 64% of electorate voted in 1975 EU referendum, 73% in 2016.

Democracy can be messy sometimes but no one has come up with anything better.  By constituency over 400 out of 650 voted leave, no general election has ever come close to that mandate. The libdums were the only people to specifically have oppose brexit on their 2017 manifesto and voters did not flock to them ( they got a couple of extra seats to add to their existing 8 ) over 80% of people voted for parties who had it in their manifesto to leave customs union and single market.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on January 30, 2019, 06:59:42 PM
No - my problem is when people use phrases like the will of the people. I object to that phrase and I wonder why people in the press and in politics use it. It is the will of 37% of the electorate - no more no less.

I don't like that either.

With regard to the 27% who failed to vote, what proportion of those would you think would be pro-Brexit? It seems to me that people will turn out and mark their X if they want change, and folk who don't vote are more likely to be happy with things as they are. That's why referenda to decide such complex issues are totally inadequate, unless as was suggested above, people are forced to choose one way or the other.

As I like to put it, 27% were so incensed by the status quo that they couldn't be arsed to vote.

By constituency over 400 out of 650 voted leave, no general election has ever come close to that mandate.

Purely a technical point, but I thought you would be old enough to remember the 1997 general election  ;)
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on January 30, 2019, 08:28:18 PM
But surely Pete intended posting something. It is just a case of changing it to what was originally intended.

I think his comment ended up in the middle of the quote, it just needs moving to the end.

I'm guessing it was meant to be like this

Leave won the referendum and the government promised to implement the result so Brexit it must be but the combined total of remainers and don't knows far exceeds the leave vote which was 17 million out of an electorate of 46 million.

So I dispute that the "people" voted Leave. Brexit is not the will of the entire British Nation or anything close to a majority of the population. I would also say that the narrowness of the victory gives no mandate for a hard Brexit and the consequent economic harm.

That argument will get no one anywhere.  Only 64% of electorate voted in 1975 EU referendum, 73% in 2016.

Democracy can be messy sometimes but no one has come up with anything better.  By constituency over 400 out of 650 voted leave, no general election has ever come close to that mandate. The libdums were the only people to specifically have oppose brexit on their 2017 manifesto and voters did not flock to them ( they got a couple of extra seats to add to their existing 8 ) over 80% of people voted for parties who had it in their manifesto to leave customs union and single market.


No - my problem is when people use phrases like the will of the people. I object to that phrase and I wonder why people in the press and in politics use it. It is the will of 37% of the electorate - no more no less.

Just to be clear - I accept that Brexit has to go ahead because the government said it would implement the result of the referendum. In my own view there is much to be said for compulsory voting as Jocko has implied.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on January 30, 2019, 08:54:42 PM
As the programme the other night pointed out, it was not just the Eurosceptics in the Conservative party that forced Cameron's hand, but the people of the UK and the success of UKIP in the European voting.
It is the people of the UK that voted to leave the EU, me among them.
With regards to taking "No Deal" of the table, that is impossible. To do that would mean that the EU could tell us to leave, but they will retain our fishing rights, or leave but Gibraltar would return to Spain, in fact anything they like. It is only the threat of us leaving with "No Deal" that gives us any leverage at all.

As the programme the other night pointed out, the Tory party had been in disarray for some time before the referendum. David Cameron tried to heal it by offering a referendum which he never expected to lose.
The conservative party is still very split and Theresa May has spent the last two years trying to placate first one side and then the other and ended up pleasing no-one. Many Leave voters were targeted and  influenced, maybe subconsciously,  by internet advertisements promoted by the Leave campaigns ( I watched an item on Channel 4 news about them ramping up these adverts again) (preempting a Peoples’ Vote? )
A No Deal situation would be disastrous – border chaos, food and medicine shortages etc. (not all Project Fear) and would be much worse for the UK than the EU.
 The EU ‘s four freedoms are more important to them than any financial hit and so they are not going to move on the backstop.
A No Deal threat gives us no leverage. Theresa May must know she has no chance of achieving anything by going back to Brussels but she will succeed in running down the clock by another two weeks.
The EU have been completely transparent. All their cards were laid on the table throughout. Unlike the UK side who would not disclose any of their plans (if they had any) for fear of giving away secrets to the “enemy.” Remember David Davis and his “constructive ambiguity” and his “statement of intent.”
It was this sort of attitude that led to the EU putting everything into legal documents,  making them Davis proof,
and leading to the Backstop.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/12/david-davis-has-damaged-trust-in-the-uk-for-brexit-talks-says-verhofstadt

Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 30, 2019, 08:59:07 PM
No - my problem is when people use phrases like the will of the people. I object to that phrase and I wonder why people in the press and in politics use it. It is the will of 37% of the electorate - no more no less.

I don't like that either.

With regard to the 27% who failed to vote, what proportion of those would you think would be pro-Brexit? It seems to me that people will turn out and mark their X if they want change, and folk who don't vote are more likely to be happy with things as they are. That's why referenda to decide such complex issues are totally inadequate, unless as was suggested above, people are forced to choose one way or the other.

As I like to put it, 27% were so incensed by the status quo that they couldn't be arsed to vote.

By constituency over 400 out of 650 voted leave, no general election has ever come close to that mandate.

Purely a technical point, but I thought you would be old enough to remember the 1997 general election  ;)

yeah but I was living in Australia then.....

Remainers love to claim that the ones who did not vote would have voted remain,  they already extended the cut-off for voter registration which probably favoured remain..  You can advertise something all over national press and TV for 12 months and some idiots still leave it until the night before to register..

Young people can't be arsed to vote because they have  more important things to do like playing with their phones and getting pi55ed.   There is a statistic that voters get 0.5% more conservative every year as they grow up ( and they realise that Labours handling of the economy is unsustainable, and money does not grow on trees ).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42747342
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 30, 2019, 09:10:34 PM
The EU have been completely transparent. All their cards were laid on the table throughout.

The EU is as transparent as a solid wooden door

https://www.opendemocracy.net/can-europe-make-it/olivier-hoedeman/transparency-ethics-accountability-and-democracy-brussels-crisis

here are 5 books you should read 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Rotten-Heart-Europe-Dirty-Europes-ebook/dp/B009UMZWTI

The only transparent thing about their negotiations was the fact that they would make any deal so bad that they hoped it would scare the UK into staying.  Their precious 4 freedoms are political, and politics never made your unemployment any less - " its the economy stupid " ( thanks Bill Clinton ).  As I have said before the EU is a 1950's project that is now starting to smell ( as most things do when they go way past their 'use by ' date and are going rotten ).

Everything happens behind closed doors in Brussels,  the multinational companies love the EU because they can be lobbied in secret and deals done that nobody gets to know about.

The real reason Cameron held a referendum ( which was voted through parliament on a large majority by the way) was because UKIP was running away with Conservative votes,  it was actually Nigel Fagage who caused the referendum due to UKIP success in the polls and Cameron wanted to shut them down..  The law of unintended consequences claimed another victim......
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on January 30, 2019, 10:39:32 PM
Remainers love to claim that the ones who did not vote would have voted remain

It seems patently obvious to me, for the reasons I gave earlier. Someone who wants change is surely more motivated to vote.

Also, take "No Deal". It's been proven in polling that a significant number of the public believe that "No Deal" means that everything will stay as it is, blame Noel Edmonds for that one.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on January 30, 2019, 10:52:53 PM
The EU have been completely transparent. All their cards were laid on the table throughout.

The EU is as transparent as a solid wooden door



Everything recorded and available on internet

https://europa.eu/newsroom/highlights/special-coverage/brexit_en
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on January 31, 2019, 07:03:27 AM
I remember the UK before the EU, and everything tootled along nicely under WTO rules. I don't doubt there will be issues initially, but nothing we will not be able to overcome.
I was listening to Owen Paterson, former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the other night. Granted, he is a Brexiteer, but he explained that there is already a managed economic border between the North and South which requires no infrastructure on the border itself and he can see no reason, other than Ireland and the EU's insistence, why we would need one under the current proposed deal, minus Backstop.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on January 31, 2019, 08:31:43 AM
I remember the UK before the EU, and everything tootled along nicely under WTO rules. I don't doubt there will be issues initially, but nothing we will not be able to overcome.
I was listening to Owen Paterson, former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the other night. Granted, he is a Brexiteer, but he explained that there is already a managed economic border between the North and South which requires no infrastructure on the border itself and he can see no reason, other than Ireland and the EU's insistence, why we would need one under the current proposed deal, minus Backstop.

Aye but times have changed Jocko.
Things weren't really that great back then either.

https://www.economist.com/buttonwoods-notebook/2017/07/19/britain-back-to-being-the-sick-man-of-europe

"IN THE 1970s, Britain was dubbed “the sick man of Europe”, a role previously played by the Ottoman empire in the late 19th century. A poor growth record since the second world war combined with terrible industrial relations (29m days lost to strikes in 1979) to make many ask the question “Is Britain governable?”.

The reason Britain joined what was then the EEC in 1973 (at the third attempt) was, in large part, a desperate attempt to find a way of forcing the country to become more competitive. Whether Europe was the key factor, or whether it was Margaret Thatcher’s reforms, by the mid-1990s, the trick seemed to have worked. In particular, London, which lost a quarter of its population between 1939 and the early 1990s, became a global, self-confident city, attracting expats from all over the world. There was a point, a decade ago, when London started to talk of overtaking New York as the global financial centre."
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: richardfrost on January 31, 2019, 10:12:30 AM
A poor growth record since the second world war

To be fair, Britain spent most of the late '40s and 1950s famously rebuilding Germany, including the VW business. Did you know that rationing carried on in the UK for much longer than Germany, 4 years longer I believe, and during that time we continued to provide food to Europe. People forget that we won the war and lost the peace. Britain and the USA effectively carried on fighting the war and funding NATO until very recently, with little financial support from the rest of Europe, other than, say, France.

There was a point, a decade ago, when London started to talk of overtaking New York as the global financial centre."
Would that have been just before the crash and burn of 2008/9?

I am on your side Jim, but I am also a fact checker. There is a lot of crap being talked on this thread by a lot of people. Recently, for example, about why we might have joined the EEC in 1973.

The fact is, no one really knows why, and there was no one reason. All I know is if I am in some sort of agreement and enjoy all the benefits of that until stuff starts to go wrong, and then I just leave, that makes me a bit pathetic. The way forward is to fix the problems, not run away from them. And you can't fix the problems from the outside looking in. Which is where we will be after Brexit. We will not be the sick man of Europe. We will be the pathetic loser that left the party because momentarily these was something we didn't like.

I have no doubt that after many years of turmoil, hardship and hard work, we will emerge better off as a nation than we are now. But we will never know how things could have been had we stayed in Europe and tried to make things better.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 31, 2019, 10:14:41 AM
Was funny to watch the Dutch Onion producers and Belgian fishermen on BBC this morning.  In the event of no deal the Dutch were proposing a fast track trusted trader system where shipments were 'pre-cleared electronically before they got to the docks' - don't they know that the EU already said that would not work and refused to admit it could be used in Ireland >

The Belgian fishermen are at present fishing in British waters and in no deal they would not be able to do that,  they would have to buy British fish from British fishermen LOL

All over EU businesses are pi55ing themselves at the thought of losing British market, The EU council is pi55ing itself that UK will out-compete them when EU regulations are removed - I guess Claude Drunkers has got through a lake of booze these past couple of years to be able to keep saying ' that is the deal and we will not change it'...  keep opening the bottles but when you stop drinking and face reality you are going to have one hell of a hangover

http://www.cityam.com/249559/why-single-market-problem-not-solution

it was Thatchers reforms, curbing union power and fiscal changes that reformed UK,  not particularly being a member of EU.

https://www.ft.com/content/0b0afe92-ac40-11e8-8253-48106866cd8a
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Kenneve on January 31, 2019, 11:07:03 AM
A colleague sent me an interesting article which appeared in one our daily papers, written by the editor of a large German paper, which paints a quite different slant on the Brexit issue by the likes of Merkel compared with many of the German population.
Unfortunately part of the title was missed during the scanning process, but it reads:-

'We Germans have insulted you. How can we have forgotten the huge debt that we owe you?'

Maybe the french should also read it!!
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on January 31, 2019, 11:37:34 AM
A poor growth record since the second world war

To be fair, Britain spent most of the late '40s and 1950s famously rebuilding Germany, including the VW business. Did you know that rationing carried on in the UK for much longer than Germany, 4 years longer I believe, and during that time we continued to provide food to Europe. People forget that we won the war and lost the peace. Britain and the USA effectively carried on fighting the war and funding NATO until very recently, with little financial support from the rest of Europe, other than, say, France.

There was a point, a decade ago, when London started to talk of overtaking New York as the global financial centre."
Would that have been just before the crash and burn of 2008/9?

I am on your side Jim, but I am also a fact checker. There is a lot of crap being talked on this thread by a lot of people. Recently, for example, about why we might have joined the EEC in 1973.

The fact is, no one really knows why, and there was no one reason. All I know is if I am in some sort of agreement and enjoy all the benefits of that until stuff starts to go wrong, and then I just leave, that makes me a bit pathetic. The way forward is to fix the problems, not run away from them. And you can't fix the problems from the outside looking in. Which is where we will be after Brexit. We will not be the sick man of Europe. We will be the pathetic loser that left the party because momentarily these was something we didn't like.

I have no doubt that after many years of turmoil, hardship and hard work, we will emerge better off as a nation than we are now. But we will never know how things could have been had we stayed in Europe and tried to make things better.
That's what  I get from quoting from the Economist.
Re. Recovery after the war. We  are talking 70 years ago. Surely we should have recovered by now.
Re. Last paragraph. Wish I had your confidence in the present government. Have just been listening to Jeremy Hunt finally admitting we might need a bit more time.
This government wants to take back control of our laws, money and borders.
They want to retain all the power in the British ruling class and return to the days of the empire -except there is no longer an empire.
It would have been so much better to have remained inside to improve the EU.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: ColinS on January 31, 2019, 02:02:37 PM
Unfortunately part of the title was missed during the scanning process, but it reads:-

'We Germans have insulted you. How can we have forgotten the huge debt that we owe you?'

Scottish Daily Mail - 2019-01-24
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: ColinS on January 31, 2019, 02:10:20 PM
It would have been so much better to have remained inside to improve the EU.
If only the British public had thought that way.  This thread wouldn't exist and we wouldn't have spent ££££s trying to set up deals. 

But clearly they didn't as they couldn't be bothered to get off their arses and vote.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on January 31, 2019, 03:21:29 PM
Unfortunately part of the title was missed during the scanning process, but it reads:-

'We Germans have insulted you. How can we have forgotten the huge debt that we owe you?'

Scottish Daily Mail - 2019-01-24
Thanks
I wondered about the validity of the article especially since it was written in English.
Looked up Bild on Google.  Found Wiki entry.
I wonder if the article featured in the German edition.

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

"The Bild newspaper (or Bild-Zeitung, literally Picture; [ˈbɪlt]) is a German tabloid published by Axel Springer AG. The paper is published from Monday to Saturday; on Sundays, its sister paper Bild am Sonntag ("Bild on Sunday") is published instead, which has a different style and its own editors. Bild is tabloid in style but broadsheet in size. It is the best-selling non-Asian newspaper and has the eight-largest circulation worldwide.[1] Bild has been described as "notorious for its mix of gossip, inflammatory language, and sensationalism" and as having a huge influence on German politicians.[2] Its nearest English-language stylistic and journalistic equivalent is often considered to be the British national newspaper The Sun, the second highest selling European tabloid newspaper, with which it shares a degree of rivalry.[3][4][5]

Der Spiegel wrote in 2006 that Bild "flies just under the nonsense threshold of American and British tabloids ... For the German desperate, it is a daily dose of high-resolution soft porn"."
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Kenneve on January 31, 2019, 03:47:07 PM
Thanks for the info, JimSh
I understand it was published here in the Daily Mail 24th Jan.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on January 31, 2019, 03:54:26 PM
Alexander von Schoenburg is German correspondent for Vanity Fair and the Bild-Zeitung, among others. Kenneve did say it was in a local paper. Just because his piece was in the Scottish Daily Mail in no way detracts from the sentiment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander,_Count_of_Sch%C3%B6nburg-Glauchau (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander,_Count_of_Sch%C3%B6nburg-Glauchau)
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 31, 2019, 04:04:59 PM
It would have been so much better to have remained inside to improve the EU.
If only the British public had thought that way.  This thread wouldn't exist and we wouldn't have spent ££££s trying to set up deals. 

But clearly they didn't as they couldn't be bothered to get off their arses and vote.

Trying to reform the EU from within is like old King Canute putting his throne on the beach - we all know he got wet feet.  We have been trying to reform the EU since we joined,  but they continued to go in a direction that does not suit us - their answer to everything is 'more Europe' ( closer integration ) - Thatcher managed to get them to be more open and free trading but they continue to be inward looking and protectionist, opaque and unaccountable.

We will be well shot of them - I notice the cheeky bar-stewards have said we still have to pay them all the money even without a deal,  we leave a massive hole in their budget, one of their milch cows is leaving and the others will have to start paying in now - they won't like that after being used to taking all the time.

Germany should be ashamed of themselves,  we should have left them to rot after they had tried to destroy Europe for the second time, instead we put up with rationing in UK until into the 1950's so that we could send them food and then saved them again with the Berlin airlift.. and through NATO ( which they hardly contribute to ) we have protected them from USSR / Russia.  The Euro has suited Germans while it has impoverished most of southern Europe - why were they not honest enough to call it the Deutschmark ?

If this is the way the EU treats their allies words fail me -
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on January 31, 2019, 04:16:02 PM
Thanks for the info, JimSh
I understand it was published here in the Daily Mail 24th Jan.

Sorry,
I misread the original post by Kenneve and thought that the article had originated in Germany.
Seems like a lot of discrediting of sources today.
Nobody knows who to believe anymore.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on January 31, 2019, 05:07:35 PM
When I was an apprentice I worked with an engineer who worked in aviation industry during and after ww2.  He told me a story that I could hardly believe - after the war government people came round their factory putting tags on machinery, he said that a lot of their best machine tools got tagged and shipped to Germany - how stupid are we as a country ?
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: zzaj on January 31, 2019, 05:15:43 PM
Trying to reform the EU from within is like old King Canute putting his throne on the beach - we all know he got wet feet. 

Just for reference: King Canute was one of our greatest Kings and was very highly regarded throughout the Anglo Scandinavian Empire  and the Holy Roman Empire of the time.

"Henry of Huntingdon tells the story as one of three examples of Canute's "graceful and magnificent" behaviour*.

In Huntingdon's account, Canute set his throne by the sea shore and commanded the incoming tide to halt and not wet his feet and robes. Yet "continuing to rise as usual [the tide] dashed over his feet and legs without respect to his royal person.

Then the king leapt backwards, saying: 'Let all men know how empty and worthless is the power of kings, for there is none worthy of the name, but He whom heaven, earth, and sea obey by eternal laws.'"

He then hung his gold crown on a crucifix, and never wore it again "to the honour of God the almighty King".

*[the other two being his arrangement of the marriage of his daughter to the later [not]Holy [not] Roman [not] Emperor, [ the Holy Roman Empire being the precursor to the Third Reich (military) and now the EU (economic)] and the negotiation of a reduction in tolls [read tariffs] on the roads across Gaul to Rome at the imperial coronation of 1027]".

Nothing much seems to have changed in 1,000 years!




Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: RichardA on January 31, 2019, 08:26:51 PM
The libdums were the only people to specifically have oppose brexit on their 2017 manifesto and voters did not flock to them ( they got a couple of extra seats to add to their existing 8 ) over 80% of people voted for parties who had it in their manifesto to leave customs union and single market.

Minus that figure by one. Lib Dem Stephen Lloyd won back his seat in 2017 (after losing it in the 2015 GE) on a promise made on local TV that he'd respect the 57% that voted leave. He's honoured his promise by voting for May's deal and has now lost the party whip and stands as an independent. 

Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on February 01, 2019, 05:19:23 PM
So now Gibraltar is a "colony" under EU law. The quicker we are out the better.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47087439 (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47087439)
Can you imagine the conditions that will be put on the UK to allow an agreement that releases us from the Backstop?
Gibraltar a colony that is ceded to Spain? Whatever they ask we will have to give. They will have us over a barrel, or more likely in the barrel.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=in%20the%20barrel (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=in%20the%20barrel)
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 01, 2019, 05:46:37 PM
EU really taking the pi55 now, well they should enjoy it while it is still funny !

I thought article 50 obliged EU to negotiate in good faith - there has been precious little of that, just pushing and shoving and sniggering. 

At the moment the EU are mainly involved in rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic , and Junckers getting as much free booze as he can before his supply sinks....

They have elections coming up in May this year, now it will be funny if the right wing populists do very well..... and upset their cosy political applecart.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on February 02, 2019, 05:20:32 PM
Welcome to the future.

https://news.sky.com/story/nissan-casts-further-gloom-on-car-industry-with-x-trail-blow-11625885

Quote
One automotive analyst said that falling consumer demand for diesel vehicles and Nissan's weak recent sales performance in Europe were likely to be factors in the decision.

That may be, but they have to build them somewhere.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 02, 2019, 06:01:04 PM
Welcome to the future.

https://news.sky.com/story/nissan-casts-further-gloom-on-car-industry-with-x-trail-blow-11625885

Quote
One automotive analyst said that falling consumer demand for diesel vehicles and Nissan's weak recent sales performance in Europe were likely to be factors in the decision.

That may be, but they have to build them somewhere.

The government can't say they weren't warned.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/oct/04/will-nissan-stay-once-britain-leaves-sunderland-brexit-business-dilemma
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 02, 2019, 06:07:46 PM
Welcome to the future.

https://news.sky.com/story/nissan-casts-further-gloom-on-car-industry-with-x-trail-blow-11625885

Quote
One automotive analyst said that falling consumer demand for diesel vehicles and Nissan's weak recent sales performance in Europe were likely to be factors in the decision.

That may be, but they have to build them somewhere.

They will more than likely be built in Japan, where they are built now - without UK contribution to their budget the EU will not have the cash to bribe Nissan to build them in EU.

It is because of the EU legislators being in car companies pockets that VW et al were able to fake emissions on diesels, this has resulted in a massive drop in demand for diesels like X- Trail, so no point in building the in Europe anyway, unless they are going to make an electric X-Trail.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on February 02, 2019, 09:07:26 PM
this has resulted in a massive drop in demand for diesels like X- Trail, so no point in building the in Europe anyway, unless they are going to make an electric X-Trail.

They make a petrol version of the old model, as well as hybrids for other markets. I'm sure that electric versions of most model segments are on the horizon.

Production may stay in Japan, but there's the problem. They obviously thought that the cost savings involved in building the car with the shared platform Qashqai in Sunderland made sense when certain Government assurances were made to them in 2016, but now the UK will probably end up outside the single market, and quite possibly any sort of trading arrangement too.

If production at Sunderland is outside the EU, and in particular the single market, there's little incentive to base new production in the UK, especially as Nissan have access to multiple production facilities in France, Slovakia, Romania and other EU countries. The Micra is already being built at Flins in France, alongside the Renault Clio and Zoe, with most of the major components coming from the Le Mans plant.

There's a worrying trend developing, and too many people don't want to see it - it's like the Emperor's New Clothes. Brexiters are now telling us that these things "were going to happen anyway", after two years of telling us they wouldn't happen.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 02, 2019, 09:54:06 PM
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jan/08/its-not-brexit-britain-most-likely-to-suffer-recession-its-germany

The whole Eurozone is heading for recession - and it will be speeded up by a deal that interrupts trade between UK and Europe. At the moment the EU is fighting to save its political project and has ignored the problems facing its economies.  UK has a massive trade deficit with EU,  we have a surplus with pretty much every other country we trade with - that should speak volumes for what the EU has done for us...

The ECB can no longer afford to keep printing worthless Euros and stopped its quantitive easing program in December,  since then the slippery slope into recession has got steeper and more slippery.  We are Germanies biggest market in the EU - pretty soon German business leaders are gonna bang Barnier - Junckers and Verhofstadt heads together as the reality of the situation hits - B,J and V are letting their members economies down in their search for the holy grail of a European superstate,  but power outside their control are taking over, the next Euro crisis may well be the last...

Itis good insurance and business for car makers to build the same model in different countries,  it encourages people to buy a car that is made in  'their' country and it dates back to the days of strong trade unions where worker in UK would not go on strike to support workers in Belgium, or the other way round.  The reason Honda is so strong in USA is that they were probably the first Japanese maker to open a production plant there, no doubt the Japanese workers objected to start with but it was a great move for Honda as a company.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on February 03, 2019, 10:38:55 AM
If production at Sunderland is outside the EU, and in particular the single market, there's little incentive to base new production in the UK, especially as Nissan have access to multiple production facilities in France, Slovakia, Romania and other EU countries. The Micra is already being built at Flins in France, alongside the Renault Clio and Zoe, with most of the major components coming from the Le Mans plant.
If they end up building the model elsewhere in Europe I will admit that Brexit played its part, but if they build it in Japan, or what is looking increasingly likely, the don't build it for Europe at all, then it will be down to the market and the particular falling out of favour for diesel in Europe.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on February 03, 2019, 12:47:08 PM
If they end up building the model elsewhere in Europe I will admit that Brexit played its part, but if they build it in Japan, or what is looking increasingly likely, the don't build it for Europe at all, then it will be down to the market and the particular falling out of favour for diesel in Europe.

But they already build the platform in the EU, here in the UK. The investment announced in 2016 was to increase capacity to enable production of the the sister model there too. If they end up building the car in Japan, the deciding factors will be the tariff-free access to the EU markets and unfettered access to component supply lines. It is not a good sign.

The problem is not so much what is happening now, but maybe over the next 10-20 years when it comes to major investment to build new models and platforms. I have no doubt that production of the Qashqa, Juke & Leaf is safe at Sunderland in the short and probably medium term, but the long term outlook has to be less secure outside of the EU market - which is ten times the size of the UK. Even if British loyalty to UK built cars kicked in and everyone bought cars manufactured here, there will be less incentive to make large investments in vehicle manufacturing in a country which is based outside the main market you are trying to sell to, especially if there are also logistical difficulties moving components and finished goods across borders. The current freedoms are the reason these companies are here now, building cars for the EU market.

The risk of all this is significant. 160,000+ work directly in the UK car industry, many more work in support industries and the local economy. Of the 1.75 million vehicles produced in the UK, 80% are exported, over half are exported to the EU, and many more are exported to countries we already have free trade agreements with through the EU, including Japan. The EU exports only 11.7% of their total car production to the UK, so proportionately, we are far more vulnerable.

Let's face it, whatever the outcome, the UK will not stop buying cars produced in the EU. Where else are people going to buy their BMWs, Mercs, Audis, VWs, etc., from? It is completely disingenuous to suggest that it will damage EU car manufacturers anywhere as much as those in the UK. The danger will not come from short term logistics difficulties and tariffs, but from the long term drift towards building cars within the EU market.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: zzaj on February 03, 2019, 01:47:35 PM
All these are fair points – however potential tariff costs have already been absorbed in the lower pound. Imported cars into UK will be at a double disadvantage with import tariffs added to the lower pound. I can’t speak for Korean cars which presumably bear an EU import tariff at the moment.

In the medium (5 year) / longer (10 year) if we were to [ever] achieve a Free Trade Deal with EU then the situation will be back to where we were before plus other markets would become available too.

Looking at my Honda many of the parts seem to have been made in Japan but it was assembled in EU so presumably they would have come in through the existing WTO rules. I can’t speak for UK assembled Toyota or Nissan (which I count as French these days). I don’t know what the UK content is.

Honestly I do not know enough about this, but I have the feeling “it ain’t that simple”!

Anyway, we could always treat car plants as Tax Free Economic Zones or Customs Bonded Factories as we used to have.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on February 03, 2019, 02:16:19 PM
I can’t speak for Korean cars which presumably bear an EU import tariff at the moment.

South Korea has had a free trade agreement with the EU since 2011. Kia Motors have also had a large manufacturing facility within the EU since 2006, building over 300,000 vehicles annually in their Slovakia plant, and half of their EU vehicle sales.

Looking at my Honda many of the parts seem to have been made in Japan but it was assembled in EU so presumably they would have come in through the existing WTO rules.

40% of Honda UK components are sourced from other EU countries, 350 lorry loads per day via the Channel Tunnel.

A free trade agreement between the EU and Japan came into force on 1st February.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 03, 2019, 03:45:36 PM
It is so much easier to be a pessimist than an optimist. I would love to know why the EU is treating us as the enemy, we have poured billions into their political project and are their biggest market.  Why they have to treat us as a hostile country just to prop up their failing political project is unfathomable to me,  make no mistake the EU is fighting for its continued existence over Brexit, there are many countries disillusioned and disturbed with the way the EU is heading and would undoubtedly vote leave if they were given the chance.  The political union was dreamed of as far back as Charlemaine and has festered in the minds of people like Junker - it is a religion with people like him, a lot of our failed politicians like the Kinnock clan have gone over to the dark side of EU and grown fat and sleek with their noses in the trough, they can live of expenses without touching their fat salary, and don't start me about their fat pensions. The EU is possibly the most wasteful and extravagant set-up on planet Earth.

As I said in earlier post, brexit project fear is just a rerun of earlier project fears, such as if we did not join Euro all the companies would move to countries that used the euro. The slow motion economic train crash that the euro has inflicted on every country except its main beneficiary ( Germany ) is still going on, and now it is even dragging Germany down because they have to pay to support it, we would also be paying if we had been stupid enough to join.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/economics-blog/2013/jun/02/britain-euro-what-if-joined

The same europhile idiots like Ken Clarke who are trying to keep us in EU today were the ones trying to push us into Euro, they are too stupid to learn...
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 03, 2019, 04:22:52 PM
It is so much easier to be a pessimist than an optimist. I would love to know why the EU is treating us as the enemy, we have poured billions into their political project and are their biggest market.  Why they have to treat us as a hostile country just to prop up their failing political project is unfathomable to me,  make no mistake the EU is fighting for its continued existence over Brexit, there are many countries disillusioned and disturbed with the way the EU is heading and would undoubtedly vote leave if they were given the chance.  The political union was dreamed of as far back as Charlemaine and has festered in the minds of people like Junker - it is a religion with people like him, a lot of our failed politicians like the Kinnock clan have gone over to the dark side of EU and grown fat and sleek with their noses in the trough, they can live of expenses without touching their fat salary, and don't start me about their fat pensions. The EU is possibly the most wasteful and extravagant set-up on planet Earth.

As I said in earlier post, brexit project fear is just a rerun of earlier project fears, such as if we did not join Euro all the companies would move to countries that used the euro. The slow motion economic train crash that the euro has inflicted on every country except its main beneficiary ( Germany ) is still going on, and now it is even dragging Germany down because they have to pay to support it, we would also be paying if we had been stupid enough to join.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/economics-blog/2013/jun/02/britain-euro-what-if-joined

The same europhile idiots like Ken Clarke who are trying to keep us in EU today were the ones trying to push us into Euro, they are too stupid to learn...

The EU is not treating us as the enemy. At every point they have expressed regret that we are leaving.
The UK chose to leave. The EU have to defend their principles. Their four freedoms.
If anything is a religion it is the idea of Brexit which its followers are intent on following despite the harm it will do to to the UK, the EU and in particular the people of Ireland.
 If we are their biggest market does that not mean it suits us to buy from them?

Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 03, 2019, 04:32:30 PM
The main reason EU is sorry we are leaving is the hole we leave in their budget, they will have to curb their extravagant ways. They also fear a successful UK ( and it will be ) outside of EU, which will show the EU up for what it is, a bloated uncompetitive political construct out of place in the modern world, a late 19th early 20th century idea past its 'best before'  date.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 03, 2019, 04:47:45 PM
The main reason EU is sorry we are leaving is the hole we leave in their budget, they will have to curb their extravagant ways. They also fear a successful UK ( and it will be ) outside of EU, which will show the EU up for what it is, a bloated uncompetitive political construct out of place in the modern world, a late 19th early 20th century idea past its 'best before'  date.
I see it more as the Brexiteers wishing to return to a previous time when Britain had an empire.
The only British people to profit from Brexit will be the tax avoiders, disaster capitalists and the Eton and Oxbridge- educated ruling classes.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 03, 2019, 05:36:57 PM
The main reason EU is sorry we are leaving is the hole we leave in their budget, they will have to curb their extravagant ways. They also fear a successful UK ( and it will be ) outside of EU, which will show the EU up for what it is, a bloated uncompetitive political construct out of place in the modern world, a late 19th early 20th century idea past its 'best before'  date.
I see it more as the Brexiteers wishing to return to a previous time when Britain had an empire.
The only British people to profit from Brexit will be the disaster capitalists and the Eton and Oxbridge- educated ruling classes.

So junckers and company building an empire does not bother you,  see junckers quote that there should be no democratic oversight of EU treaties - in other words we propose something and you say yes, because if you don't we will send in the heavy mob to ask you again, nothing must be allowed to stand in the way of their 4th Reich..

The hypocrisy of Germany is staggering, they never paid back their international debts after WW1 and half their WW2 debts were written off in 1953. Yet Germany insists that Greece pays in full for bailout.  UK only paid the last of its lend-lease debt to USA and Canada in 2006.  When the EU puts its hands out for our money to leave their club they need to remember history..

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/08/business/economy/germanys-debt-history-echoed-in-greece.html

Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: MartinJG on February 03, 2019, 09:22:36 PM
The main reason EU is sorry we are leaving is the hole we leave in their budget, they will have to curb their extravagant ways. They also fear a successful UK ( and it will be ) outside of EU, which will show the EU up for what it is, a bloated uncompetitive political construct out of place in the modern world, a late 19th early 20th century idea past its 'best before'  date.
I see it more as the Brexiteers wishing to return to a previous time when Britain had an empire.
The only British people to profit from Brexit will be the tax avoiders, disaster capitalists and the Eton and Oxbridge- educated ruling classes.

Ironically, I think that is actually quite a revealing statement and one which is consistent with many a remainer argument. The fact is, what is really on the table here is the balance of power and that is as old as the hills, Eton or not. To believe otherwise is, at best, naive. Anyone who has even a loose grasp of history will know that. You might think the cuddly EU is a blessed institution but just check the price tag before you get too carried away. Let me assure you, they will not be the ones who settle the bill. This is nothing more than a trinity between corporates, central banks and central government all with their own different agenda but with one thing in common. Mass manipulation where democracy is reduced to little more than a sham. Fortunately, there are those who see through it and are prepared to act before it is too late. Just remember, power corrupts and absolute power is even nicer.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 03, 2019, 09:41:47 PM
Tony Blair is a europhile but his judgement is really bad, he wanted UK to join the euro, but this is the same guy that thought illegally invading Iraq was a good thing - and lied through his teeth to convince MPs that Iraq had WMD, even though UN inspectors had been looking for years and found nothing.  What the invasion did was destabilise the whole middle east for the foreseeable future.  The Euro has succeeded in destabilising Europe.

Blair has not realised yet that he is so despised in UK that every time he opens his mouth majority of people either take no notice or do the exact opposite ..
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 04, 2019, 02:04:50 PM
https://twitter.com/julianHjessop/status/1092134878697717762
https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/cars/928482/diesel-car-scrappage-toyota-diesel-engine-UK

Many car makers are stopping manufacture of Diesel for Europe and UK,  Nissan X-Trail is nothing to do with Brexit,  if they did make petrol version in UK the engines would be shipped from Japan anyway, not a particularly good idea..

The £60Million grant to Nissan was to help develop their EV production in UK
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: madasafish on February 04, 2019, 03:24:23 PM
I am amazed.

People are quoting WW2.

WW2 ended nearly 74 years ago.

Over 80% of the UK's population were born after the end of the War.

Talk about living in the past.

Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on February 04, 2019, 03:52:33 PM
Talk is that the change of plan by Nissan is as much to do with Ghosn's arrest, then anything else.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on February 04, 2019, 04:52:01 PM
if they did make petrol version in UK the engines would be shipped from Japan anyway, not a particularly good idea..

Why would they do that when they already manufacture the same MR20 petrol engine in Sunderland for the Qashqai?
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 04, 2019, 04:56:50 PM
I am amazed.

People are quoting WW2.

WW2 ended nearly 74 years ago.

Over 80% of the UK's population were born after the end of the War.

Talk about living in the past.



It is certainly necessary to mention history ( if you do not learn from history your are doomed to repeat the same mistakes ) ,  it just shows how trustworthy the people UK is dealing with in EU are,  it was merely highlighting that Germany defaulted on WW1 payments, and was relieved of the need to pay more than 50% of WW2 debt) - the UK on the other hand received money under the Marshal plan to rebuild ( so did pretty much every country in Europe) but the UK did not pay the last installment on lend-lease we had from USA until 2006.  Pointing out the hypocrisy of Germany ( paymaster and leader of EU who call all the shots ) is necessary.  WW2 bankrupted the UK,  but Germany was relieved of debt and spent the money on building up their economy - there are still rumblings from many countries like Poland and Greece who suffered massively under German aggression that Germany should be paying them reparations - don't hold your breath guys, Germany does not even pay its way in NATO.

For Germany to insist that Greece repays all bail outs they had to have,  which were directly cause by the Euro is hypocrisy of the worst kind.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on February 04, 2019, 05:25:27 PM
it just shows how trustworthy the people UK is dealing with in EU are

I have to agree with MaaF. All this talk of hypocrisy, the "people" the UK are dealing with now are not responsible for the history of Europe, they weren't even alive in WW2, let alone WW1.

Quite bizarre.

Germany defaulted on WW1 payments, and was relieved of the need to pay more than 50% of WW2 debt

If we are going to bring stuff like this up, it should at least be factually accurate. Whilst Germany did indeed default on WW1 reparations in the 1930s, after WW2 it offered to repay them in addition to WW2 debts. Germany was subsequently relieved of roughly half of the total of WW1 and WW2 debts, it didn't only pay half of the WW2 debts.

The UK was indeed broke, but was the largest recipient of non-repayable grants from the Marshall plan, 26% of the total. West Germany received 11%.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 04, 2019, 06:34:17 PM
it just shows how trustworthy the people UK is dealing with in EU are

I have to agree with MaaF. All this talk of hypocrisy, the "people" the UK are dealing with now are not responsible for the history of Europe, they weren't even alive in WW2, let alone WW1.

Quite bizarre.

Germany defaulted on WW1 payments, and was relieved of the need to pay more than 50% of WW2 debt

If we are going to bring stuff like this up, it should at least be factually accurate. Whilst Germany defaulted on WW1 reparations in the 1930s, after WW2 it offered to repay them in addition to WW2 debts. Germany was subsequently relieved of roughly half of the total of WW1 and WW2 debts, it didn't only pay half of the WW2 debts.

The UK was indeed broke, but was the largest recipient of non-repayable grants from the Marshall plan, 26% of the total. West Germany received 11%.

Germany has wreaked destruction on the world twice in 20th century with its expansionist ambitions, it has also ruined Europe culturally with its EU project and economically with the Euro ( the Deustchmark ). Well done Germany, you lost the wars but won the peace.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 04, 2019, 07:48:39 PM
https://twitter.com/julianHjessop/status/1092134878697717762
https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/cars/928482/diesel-car-scrappage-toyota-diesel-engine-UK



The £60Million grant to Nissan was to help develop their EV production in UK

Not according to the letter from Greg Clark to Carlos Ghosn in 2016 which the Government published this morning.

"Nissan was promised protection from any Brexit fallout in a 2016 letter from business secretary Greg Clark to Carlos Ghosn, then-chief executive of Nissan.

The British government told the car maker that it would not be “adversely affected” by Brexit, and said it would look after the company if it went ahead with plans to expand operations in Sunderland.

It was previously known that the government had “offered reassurances” to Nissan, sparking concerns over secret deals.

The correspondence with the business ministry had not been released publicly because it was deemed to be too commercially sensitive.

However, on Monday the government published the letter in full.

The letter from Mr Clark promised approximately £80m in investment in the Sunderland site in return for Nissan’s pledge to expand SUV production there, as well as “a positive decision by the Nissan board to allocate production of the Qashqai and X-Trail models to the Sunderland plant”."

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/nissan-sunderland-brexit-factory-x-trail-letter-greg-clark-carlos-ghosn-a8762521.html
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on February 04, 2019, 08:10:19 PM
Greg Clark's statement to parliament this afternoon was very enlightening. I recommend watching it to see the extent of the original agreement with Nissan.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: zzaj on February 04, 2019, 08:29:58 PM
I am amazed.

People are quoting WW2.

WW2 ended nearly 74 years ago.

Over 80% of the UK's population were born after the end of the War.

Talk about living in the past.



I have to agree with MaaF. All this talk of hypocrisy, the "people" the UK are dealing with now are not responsible for the history of Europe, they weren't even alive in WW2, let alone WW1.

Quite bizarre.

Lest we forget 70/ 85 millions of people (yes - 70/85 millions - more than today's population of UK)  died in WW2 so that .................80% of the UK population could even be born.

Be amazed but do not forget.

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

While we are at this history thing, this all started way back in 800 AD with Charlemagne - you could even argue the Romans.
 
And lets not forget that Richard the Lion Heart was ransomed on his way back from the Crusades for today's equivalent of £12 billion and England became (nominally) a vassal state of the Holy Roman Empire.

No one is harking back to the old British Empire (which actually wasn't really an Empire) - only India was an Empire. We muddled into our overseas possessions more so than the French, Germans (very brutal colonialists), Belgians (even more brutal), Spanish (even more brutal) or Dutch).  And let's not forget the Russians more recently.

We shouldn't over rate ourselves - we are still muddling about today - even tomorrow!

Nothing changes.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 04, 2019, 08:52:33 PM
Greg Clark's statement to parliament this afternoon was very enlightening. I recommend watching it to see the extent of the original agreement with Nissan.


He puts a good spin on it after the event.

"Now we know why the government was so keen to keep Greg Clark’s letter to Nissan in 2016 under wraps. The document was embarrassing. The business secretary was making promises he couldn’t underwrite and was offering cash he would struggle to reclaim if the Japanese car company didn’t stick to its half of the supposed bargain at Sunderland.

On both scores, the foolishness has been exposed. Clark’s vow that Nissan’s UK plants would not be “adversely affected” by Brexit was merely an expression of hope. Two months before the UK is supposed to leave the European Union, the minister is in no position to guarantee that a no-deal exit can be avoided or, if a deal is secured, say what trading terms with the EU will apply."




https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/promises-promises-greg-clark-apos-194159151.html

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/04/government-letter-to-nissan-reveals-brexit-promise-to-carmarkers

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/04/north-east-england-nissan-eu-membership-japanese-carmaker
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 05, 2019, 09:25:18 AM
Car makers and other companies often move production around,  and a lot of it boils down to which country offers the best financial deals ( no or very low rates on business premises, lump sum payments, etc.)   The EU is guilty of offering financial aid to companies to move production plants, normally by 'back door' schemes to get below radar,  there is a reason the EU finances have never passed an audit.  State aid to industries is forbidden under EU rules,  if you obey the rules that is....

https://www.ft.com/content/74ab02a6-fd85-11df-a049-00144feab49a

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/angela-merkel-germany-breaks-more-eu-rules-worst-bottom-class-a8198271.html
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 05, 2019, 02:23:51 PM


Lest we forget 70/ 85 millions of people (yes - 70/85 millions - more than today's population of UK)  died in WW2 so that .................80% of the UK population could even be born.

Be amazed but do not forget.

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

While we are at this history thing, this all started way back in 800 AD with Charlemagne - you could even argue the Romans.
 
And lets not forget that Richard the Lion Heart was ransomed on his way back from the Crusades for today's equivalent of £12 billion and England became (nominally) a vassal state of the Holy Roman Empire.

No one is harking back to the old British Empire (which actually wasn't really an Empire) - only India was an Empire. We muddled into our overseas possessions more so than the French, Germans (very brutal colonialists), Belgians (even more brutal), Spanish (even more brutal) or Dutch).  And let's not forget the Russians more recently.

We shouldn't over rate ourselves - we are still muddling about today - even tomorrow!

Nothing changes.

Which is why it would be such a mistake to break up the EU which has been responsible for maintaining peace in Europe for the second half of the 20th century.
All these people didn't die so that their descendents could return to the murder and mayhem of the first half.
Co-operation is much better than confrontation.
I would imagine that a lot of the people on this forum are like myself and have been lucky enough to have lived for the last seven decades in peace.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: richardfrost on February 05, 2019, 02:26:02 PM
I am a Remainer, as I said before, but even I can see that all the noise around Nissan and Jaguar Land Rover is not really related to Brexit. It is down to changing demand for vehicles and these particular manufacturer's business challenges in re-configuring themselves for a world where Diesel is plummeting in popularity.

Which is why it would be such a mistake to break up the EU which has been responsible for maintaining peace in Europe for the second half of the 20th century.

And I am sorry but this argument doesn't work for me either. I think the UK and the USA and, to a degree, the rest of NATO, was responsible for that. I think what happens on the edge of the EU (former Yugoslavia, Ukraine, Turkey) gives a clue as to how the EU has been ineffective at keeping the peace. The EU is a political and financial union. When it starts to become some sort of military union, even I start to get concerned.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 05, 2019, 02:50:53 PM
The arguments in favour of EU that it has kept the peace is fallacious - NATO and the thermo Nuclear device have been responsible.  The EU was thrown into a state of paralysis by the violence in Bosnia and it fell mainly to UK / USA to sort it out. I hate to think how they would respond to anything larger.  The EU is good at making regulations and expanding its political empire,  but when it comes to making real decisions and taking real actions they are utterly useless..
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on February 05, 2019, 02:52:17 PM
Irrespective of the outcome the two sides will never agree. No wonder the politicians cannot come to an agreement. Remainers will always be remainers, Leavers will always be leavers. We here are the same. Entrenched in our views and not about to change.
About the only thing to come out of the entire Brexit debacle is that Scotland will never vote for independence.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 05, 2019, 03:01:08 PM
I am a Remainer, as I said before, but even I can see that all the noise around Nissan and Jaguar Land Rover is not really related to Brexit. It is down to changing demand for vehicles and these particular manufacturer's business challenges in re-configuring themselves for a world where Diesel is plummeting in popularity.

Which is why it would be such a mistake to break up the EU which has been responsible for maintaining peace in Europe for the second half of the 20th century.

And I am sorry but this argument doesn't work for me either. I think the UK and the USA and, to a degree, the rest of NATO, was responsible for that. I think what happens on the edge of the EU (former Yugoslavia, Ukraine, Turkey) gives a clue as to how the EU has been ineffective at keeping the peace. The EU is a political and financial union. When it starts to become some sort of military union, even I start to get concerned.

I didn't mean that it was a military union.
But if two guys are co-operating together to build an aeroplane. They are not going to be building their own aeroplanes to kill each other.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 05, 2019, 03:04:25 PM

About the only thing to come out of the entire Brexit debacle is that Scotland will never vote for independence.

I wouldn't bet on that either Jocko
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on February 05, 2019, 03:23:32 PM
I wouldn't bet on that either Jocko
I voted for Independence last time, but not next time. The principle sounds good, but the issues with leaving the EU would be multiplied if Scotland was trying to leave the UK. Besides, the SNP's input into the whole Brexit debate has shown me what a bunch of Numpties they are.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Barky on February 05, 2019, 03:52:25 PM

About the only thing to come out of the entire Brexit debacle is that Scotland will never vote for independence.

I wouldn't bet on that either Jocko

Would be utterly insane for Scotland to remain in a post brexit UK, all the supposed benefits of being in UK would be gone & Scotland would end up getting same trade deal with remainder of UK that France, Germany & rest of EU would get
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on February 05, 2019, 04:25:23 PM
Would be utterly insane for Scotland to remain in a post brexit UK, all the supposed benefits of being in UK would be gone & Scotland would end up getting same trade deal with remainder of UK that France, Germany & rest of EU would get
Take it you voted Remain. I am am ardent Leaver.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 05, 2019, 04:35:10 PM
I wouldn't bet on that either Jocko
I voted for Independence last time, but not next time. The principle sounds good, but the issues with leaving the EU would be multiplied if Scotland was trying to leave the UK. Besides, the SNP's input into the whole Brexit debate has shown me what a bunch of Numpties they are.
The only party who have had a consistent and sensible position in this shambles has been the SNP.
They have been treated with contempt by the government.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: richardfrost on February 05, 2019, 04:40:32 PM
But if two guys are co-operating together to build an aeroplane. They are not going to be building their own aeroplanes to kill each other.
You'd like to think that but tell that to those aboard HMS Sheffield, hit and killed by French missiles sold to Argentina. Or the many more victims on the General Belgrano, a former US Navy ship equipped with French helicopters and British Sea Cat anti-aircraft missiles, sunk by ourselves.

The prospect of a military force governed by 27 nation states in a political union does not fill me with a massive amount of confidence. The talk of an EU military is one of the things that has alarmed people on both sides of this argument.

I would agree that nations trading and working closely together can keep the peace between themselves in a potentially destabilised zone like Europe was, but it is not a strong argument for me. We don't see South American states at war with each other any more. Even Asia has been relatively free of localised conflicts that aren't at least agitated by super powers.

I think the real argument for political union in Europe was to create an economic superpower to compete with the USA and the USSR. With the rise of China, South Korea, Brazil and other economies, the effectiveness of this European super state is diminished by the need for it to be governed by an unelected clique in order to avoid constantly gaining the agreement of each individual state. That does make me nervous too.

And yet I remain a Remainer.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on February 05, 2019, 04:47:24 PM
The only party who have had a consistent and sensible position in this shambles has been the SNP.
They have been treated with contempt by the government.
Once again it depends on your point of view and what side of the argument you are on.
Regarding Scotland rejoining the EU after Brexit and a Yes Indyref 2 vote, do you think the EU would want another land border with the smaller UK? And if it was a No deal Brexit, would Scotland want a hard border? Too many obstacles to contemplate.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 05, 2019, 05:46:42 PM
The only party who have had a consistent and sensible position in this shambles has been the SNP.
They have been treated with contempt by the government.
Once again it depends on your point of view and what side of the argument you are on.
Regarding Scotland rejoining the EU after Brexit and a Yes Indyref 2 vote, do you think the EU would want another land border with the smaller UK? And if it was a No deal Brexit, would Scotland want a hard border? Too many obstacles to contemplate.

The only consistent SNP policies are being obnoxious in Westminster and wanting their cake and eating it in regard to wanting to be free of CFP but remaining in EU.  Scotland in the EU without UK would be exposed just the way Ireland was, but UK came to Ireland's aid many times, only to be stabbed in the back by Varadkar who chose to be the EU useful idiot in Brexit negotiations. A hard brexit will not be ideal for UK, but we will get over it,  but a hard Brexit will be catastrophic for RofI.

https://theweeflea.com/2018/03/22/the-great-betrayal-fishing-the-eu-and-the-scottish-and-uk-governments/
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: peteo48 on February 05, 2019, 08:52:20 PM
But if two guys are co-operating together to build an aeroplane. They are not going to be building their own aeroplanes to kill each other.
You'd like to think that but tell that to those aboard HMS Sheffield, hit and killed by French missiles sold to Argentina. Or the many more victims on the General Belgrano, a former US Navy ship equipped with French helicopters and British Sea Cat anti-aircraft missiles, sunk by ourselves.

The prospect of a military force governed by 27 nation states in a political union does not fill me with a massive amount of confidence. The talk of an EU military is one of the things that has alarmed people on both sides of this argument.

I would agree that nations trading and working closely together can keep the peace between themselves in a potentially destabilised zone like Europe was, but it is not a strong argument for me. We don't see South American states at war with each other any more. Even Asia has been relatively free of localised conflicts that aren't at least agitated by super powers.

I think the real argument for political union in Europe was to create an economic superpower to compete with the USA and the USSR. With the rise of China, South Korea, Brazil and other economies, the effectiveness of this European super state is diminished by the need for it to be governed by an unelected clique in order to avoid constantly gaining the agreement of each individual state. That does make me nervous too.

And yet I remain a Remainer.


Good post Richard and I think it encapsulates nicely that this Remain/Leaver debate is far too binary. I am a 60/40 Remainer and I think there will be 60/40 Leavers. I deplore this division that we are seeing now.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 05, 2019, 08:57:06 PM
But if two guys are co-operating together to build an aeroplane. They are not going to be building their own aeroplanes to kill each other.
You'd like to think that but tell that to those aboard HMS Sheffield, hit and killed by French missiles sold to Argentina. Or the many more victims on the General Belgrano, a former US Navy ship equipped with French helicopters and British Sea Cat anti-aircraft missiles, sunk by ourselves.

Maybe I used a bad example. I didn't expect to be taken so literally. Anyway I was thinking of Concorde or Airbus rather than weapons of war.
The Falklands War was a terrible waste of nearly 1000 lives. Was it really necessary?

The prospect of a military force governed by 27 nation states in a political union does not fill me with a massive amount of confidence. The talk of an EU military is one of the things that has alarmed people on both sides of this argument.

Is this much different from NATO?
Is it not better to have one army,rather than 28 individual ones?

I would agree that nations trading and working closely together can keep the peace between themselves in a potentially destabilised zone like Europe was, but it is not a strong argument for me. We don't see South American states at war with each other any more. Even Asia has been relatively free of localised conflicts that aren't at least agitated by super powers.


Are South American countries not united in a union (USAN) ?
http://www.internationaldemocracywatch.org/index.php/union-of-south-american-nations

I think the real argument for political union in Europe was to create an economic superpower to compete with the USA and the USSR. With the rise of China, South Korea, Brazil and other economies, the effectiveness of this European super state is diminished by the need for it to be governed by an unelected clique in order to avoid constantly gaining the agreement of each individual state. That does make me nervous too.

I think so but I would disagree with the "unelected clique" In lots of ways the EU system is more democratic than the UK system.(it  also seems to gain agreement a lot quicker than than the UK parliament during the current negotiations).
If any good comes out of this Brexit fiasco I would hope it would be the reform of our present effectively (or should it be ineffectively) two party confrontational system.


And yet I remain a Remainer.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 05, 2019, 09:22:46 PM
Any of you guys who want to help sort out the backstop mess.

https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/judicial-review-of-irish-backstop/

Lord David Trimble is a Nobel prize winner and one of the original authors of the good Friday / Belfast agreement and he is concerned over the total mis-use of the agreement by republic and EU to justify a backstop.  Trimble has said before that the Belfast agreement should not have been used to weaponise the border issue.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on February 06, 2019, 09:07:41 AM
Lord David Trimble is a Nobel prize winner and one of the original authors of the good Friday / Belfast agreement

...and a Conservative Peer and committed leave campaigner. No thanks.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 06, 2019, 04:15:09 PM
Before anybody starts posting on soundbites on the television or in the papers, here is the full text of Donald Tusk's speech today.
It's the first time in this debate that I've heard any senior politician express any sympathy  for the people who did not want this fiasco.

 https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2019/02/06/remarks-by-president-donald-tusk-after-his-meeting-with-taoiseach-leo-varadkar/pdf 4
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 06, 2019, 06:50:54 PM
UK is a democracy and EU commissars do not understand democracy, certainly not at a nation state level, such things are verboten in the EU and not discussed much.  The EU have a track record of ignoring national referendums.  The pressure is telling on Tusk, he just wishes the whole thing would go away,  but it won't !! Watch this space.

Trimble is gonna make things a whole lot worse for EU when he exposes in court their cynical plan to illegally use the Belfast GF agreement to tie UK to EU in perpetuity...

Looks like Tusk and EU have finally got the message that there will be no second referendum with remain as an option because many labour MPs have realised they will not be forgiven by voters for frustrating brexit.  The Labour party membership has been infiltrated by remainers, but party members are different to voters, the members can say what they like,  but it is voters that count.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 06, 2019, 09:35:45 PM
John Crace is usually a sketch writer but things aren't really funny any more.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/06/donald-tusks-special-place-in-hell-looks-like-where-we-are-right-now
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Barky on February 06, 2019, 10:07:45 PM
UK is a democracy and EU commissars do not understand democracy, certainly not at a nation state level, such things are verboten in the EU and not discussed much.  The EU have a track record of ignoring national referendums.  The pressure is telling on Tusk, he just wishes the whole thing would go away,  but it won't !! Watch this space.

Trimble is gonna make things a whole lot worse for EU when he exposes in court their cynical plan to illegally use the Belfast GF agreement to tie UK to EU in perpetuity...

Looks like Tusk and EU have finally got the message that there will be no second referendum with remain as an option because many labour MPs have realised they will not be forgiven by voters for frustrating brexit.  The Labour party membership has been infiltrated by remainers, but party members are different to voters, the members can say what they like,  but it is voters that count.
UK a democracy? Not really true - brexit is a takeover of what was left of democracy in UK concentrating power even further in the elite untouchable few - MPs are just managers - it's UK in trouble, NOT the EU
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Barky on February 06, 2019, 10:25:11 PM
Would be utterly insane for Scotland to remain in a post brexit UK, all the supposed benefits of being in UK would be gone & Scotland would end up getting same trade deal with remainder of UK that France, Germany & rest of EU would get
Take it you voted Remain. I am am ardent Leaver.
How did you guess? Been Pro-EU & anti-westminster for a long, long time ever since I realised how rotten to core westminster is ... have seen nothing in UK gov handling of brexit that inspires any hope they have slightest clue what they are doing. UK side has wrongly assumed they had leverage & wrongly suggested WTO is the answer. Underlying problem is internal UK incompetence over decades which instead of being dealt with has been blamed on forces outside UK, EEC/EU in recent decades ... got to stage now where UK break up could be imminent
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 07, 2019, 04:55:03 PM
Would be utterly insane for Scotland to remain in a post brexit UK, all the supposed benefits of being in UK would be gone & Scotland would end up getting same trade deal with remainder of UK that France, Germany & rest of EU would get
Take it you voted Remain. I am am ardent Leaver.
How did you guess? Been Pro-EU & anti-westminster for a long, long time ever since I realised how rotten to core westminster is ... have seen nothing in UK gov handling of brexit that inspires any hope they have slightest clue what they are doing. UK side has wrongly assumed they had leverage & wrongly suggested WTO is the answer. Underlying problem is internal UK incompetence over decades which instead of being dealt with has been blamed on forces outside UK, EEC/EU in recent decades ... got to stage now where UK break up could be imminent

Here is the story of how the EU CAP has decimated farmland, caused widespread loss of trees ( and therefore massive runoff and widespread flooding ), paid farmers and landowners to grub up hedges then once the damage was done it paid farmers and landowners to replant hedges.   What a total mess the 50 billion Euro CAP is,  no wonder landowners ( but not farmers) want to stay in EU,  it now pays them to take land out of production....  What a load of idiots those EU rule makers are.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/nov/26/europe-bung-landowners-farm-subsidies
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 07, 2019, 07:49:55 PM

Here is the story of how the EU CAP has decimated farmland, caused widespread loss of trees ( and therefore massive runoff and widespread flooding ), paid farmers and landowners to grub up hedges then once the damage was done it paid farmers and landowners to replant hedges.   What a total mess the 50 billion Euro CAP is,  no wonder landowners ( but not farmers) want to stay in EU,  it now pays them to take land out of production....  What a load of idiots those EU rule makers are.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/nov/26/europe-bung-landowners-farm-subsidies

Monbiot talks a lot of sense on the environment. However I notice that your link leads to an article in 2012.
 The EU policy on farming may be far from perfect but I still think it would be preferable to one devised by Gove and co. which would no doubt be skewed even further towards the benefit of wealthy landowners.
Also the economics of Patrick Minford which is the one always quoted by the Brexiteers depends on almost wiping out manufacturing and farming which, when you think about it , isn't a great idea for an isolated island nation.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Barky on February 07, 2019, 08:05:26 PM

Here is the story of how the EU CAP has decimated farmland, caused widespread loss of trees ( and therefore massive runoff and widespread flooding ), paid farmers and landowners to grub up hedges then once the damage was done it paid farmers and landowners to replant hedges.   What a total mess the 50 billion Euro CAP is,  no wonder landowners ( but not farmers) want to stay in EU,  it now pays them to take land out of production....  What a load of idiots those EU rule makers are.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/nov/26/europe-bung-landowners-farm-subsidies

Monbiot talks a lot of sense on the environment. However I notice that your link leads to an article in 2012.
 The EU policy on farming may be far from perfect but I still think it would be preferable to one devised by Gove and co. which would no doubt be skewed even further towards the benefit of wealthy landowners.
Also the economics of Patrick Minford which is the one always quoted by the Brexiteers depends on almost wiping out manufacturing and farming which, when you think about it , isn't a great idea for an isolated island nation.
Yes, way things are going a huge % of farming in UK is going to stop - around 40%
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 07, 2019, 08:27:06 PM

Monbiot talks a lot of sense on the environment. However I notice that your link leads to an article in 2012.
 

The CAP has been trashing the environment since 1957, so a few years won't make anything better.

The CAP is horrendously expensive and wasteful, but it also keeps food prices high - a lose-lose situation.  French farmers have been the biggest winners from CAP, the farms are kept in the family and regularly sub-divided which brings even more people into the CAP gravy train....
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 08, 2019, 08:16:06 AM

Monbiot talks a lot of sense on the environment. However I notice that your link leads to an article in 2012.
 

The CAP has been trashing the environment since 1957, so a few years won't make anything better.

The CAP is horrendously expensive and wasteful, but it also keeps food prices high - a lose-lose situation.  French farmers have been the biggest winners from CAP, the farms are kept in the family and regularly sub-divided which brings even more people into the CAP gravy train....

No, but it's before 2016.
Here is Monbiot's take on a no deal Brexit --
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/07/disaster-capitalists-no-deal-brexit-environment
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 08, 2019, 09:48:10 AM

No, but it's before 2016.


Well anyone reading that before the 2016 referendum would have been given a very good reason to vote leave,  so what has changed except a bit of tinkering around the edges so as not to upset the French farmers ? Bit like re-arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic if you ask me..

https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sites/agriculture/files/policy-perspectives/policy-briefs/05_en.pdf

https://iea.org.uk/blog/abolish-the-cap-let-food-prices-tumble
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: madasafish on February 08, 2019, 11:26:48 AM
One thing I will say on Brexit  which I hope we can all agree on:

The Irish position (that is the country of Ireland - not NI) - is likely to be self defeating. To insist on a LEGAL agreement which prevents a Hard Border  and have that insistence lead to a Hard Brexit - which WILL mean a Hard Border - seems irrational to me..

Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on February 08, 2019, 12:30:45 PM
https://iea.org.uk/blog/abolish-the-cap-let-food-prices-tumble

Not the IEA, please. From wikipedia:

"The Institute of Economic Affairs is a non-profit, right-wing libertarian think tank based in Westminster, London, United Kingdom. Founded by businessman and battery farming pioneer Antony Fisher in 1955, it promotes free market economics."

If, as they seem to suggest, farmers receive 28% of their income in subsidies, and farm gate prices are 17% higher than they need to be, how come many British pastoral farmers are already saying they're on the verge of going out of business?

I was speaking to someone the other day who has come over from the US, they can't get over how cheap food is here.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on February 08, 2019, 02:16:46 PM
I was speaking to someone the other day who has come over from the US, they can't get over how cheap food is here.
I have not been to the US since 9-11, but when I was working in the States they were paying in $ what we paid in £ for their food.
And their wages were (on average), 2.5 times what a similar worker was paid here in the UK
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on February 08, 2019, 04:17:08 PM
I was speaking to someone the other day who has come over from the US, they can't get over how cheap food is here.
I have not been to the US since 9-11, but when I was working in the States they were paying in $ what we paid in £ for their food.
And their wages were (on average), 2.5 times what a similar worker was paid here in the UK

It was a friend's brother in law, I couldn't tell you where they live, whether it's town or country. He said the supermarkets here are cheap, I was surprised too - I always thought food was cheap in the US.

This is interesting

https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/rankings_by_country.jsp

The UK appears to be at the lower end of the western world for grocery prices. If you order by grocery cost index on the linky above, US is currently the 11th most expensive (67.44) and the UK is the 30th most expensive (51.85). That's a significant difference, putting US groceries 30% more expensive than the UK in 2019.

Switzerland is a scary 120.81 on the index, Norway 92.67 - both in Europe, but outside the EU and the CAP.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 09, 2019, 04:42:44 PM
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/brexit-no-deal-medicine-shortage-stockpile-nhs-health-netherlands-a8769796.html

Stockpiling works both ways, lots of medicines and other stuff Europe gets from UK.

This is about the time where EU business people will bang the heads together of zealots like Barnier, Vehofstadt and Juncker and tell them to stop playing politics and negotiate for business.. They could always threaten to take Junckers booze allowance away and make him pay for his own.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Barky on February 09, 2019, 05:19:23 PM
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/brexit-no-deal-medicine-shortage-stockpile-nhs-health-netherlands-a8769796.html

Stockpiling works both ways, lots of medicines and other stuff Europe gets from UK.

This is about the time where EU business people will bang the heads together of zealots like Barnier, Vehofstadt and Juncker and tell them to stop playing politics and negotiate for business.. They could always threaten to take Junckers booze allowance away and make him pay for his own.
It's NOT Barnier, Vehofstadt and Juncker that are playing politics, & playing it very poorly, It's the clueless Theresa May etc
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 09, 2019, 06:08:02 PM
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/brexit-no-deal-medicine-shortage-stockpile-nhs-health-netherlands-a8769796.html

Stockpiling works both ways, lots of medicines and other stuff Europe gets from UK.

This is about the time where EU business people will bang the heads together of zealots like Barnier, Vehofstadt and Juncker and tell them to stop playing politics and negotiate for business.. They could always threaten to take Junckers booze allowance away and make him pay for his own.
It's NOT Barnier, Vehofstadt and Juncker that are playing politics, & playing it very poorly, It's the clueless Theresa May etc

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/11/27/brexit-the-four-freedoms-and-the-indivisibility-dogma/

It is a pity the EU is run on political dogma and not business, it long ago ceased to be a trading bloc for business ( just about the time the zealots took over the asylum ) but it was always destined to creep from trading into a political superstate bound by a common currency - this was done 'slowly, slowly catchee monkey' style by the various treaties that popped up from time to time ( and Junckers said 'there can be no democratic oversight of EU treaties by member states ) - Imagine how hard it would be for UK to leave if we were using the Euro,  and that was always the idea,  to make it harder for any country to leave..
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Barky on February 10, 2019, 05:53:19 PM
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/brexit-no-deal-medicine-shortage-stockpile-nhs-health-netherlands-a8769796.html

Stockpiling works both ways, lots of medicines and other stuff Europe gets from UK.

This is about the time where EU business people will bang the heads together of zealots like Barnier, Vehofstadt and Juncker and tell them to stop playing politics and negotiate for business.. They could always threaten to take Junckers booze allowance away and make him pay for his own.
It's NOT Barnier, Vehofstadt and Juncker that are playing politics, & playing it very poorly, It's the clueless Theresa May etc

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/11/27/brexit-the-four-freedoms-and-the-indivisibility-dogma/

It is a pity the EU is run on political dogma and not business, it long ago ceased to be a trading bloc for business ( just about the time the zealots took over the asylum ) but it was always destined to creep from trading into a political superstate bound by a common currency - this was done 'slowly, slowly catchee monkey' style by the various treaties that popped up from time to time ( and Junckers said 'there can be no democratic oversight of EU treaties by member states ) - Imagine how hard it would be for UK to leave if we were using the Euro,  and that was always the idea,  to make it harder for any country to leave..
Sorry, EU superstate is just Boris Johnson etc scaremongering & joining Euro currency entirely voluntary ... guidance for leaving that makes it come with big penalty was of course set down by a current member of house of lords
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 10, 2019, 07:36:28 PM
https://off-guardian.org/2016/08/06/eu-unmasked-after-brexit-plans-for-full-eu-superstate-revealed/

The super state is not a figment of Bojos imagination, the Polish leaked an EU document that shows it was real and maybe still is.   The EU has never ceased in its quest for ever closer union, their answer to everything is more Europe.  It is no good thinking there has ever been a status quo with the EU, Think of it as the 4th Reich, but with even more ambitious goals than the 3rd Reich. UK was subject to same project fear about the Euro as we have been regaled with over Brexit, almost word for word, about companies leaving, London losing its financial institutions to Europe etc. etc. Ad nauseam........
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 11, 2019, 08:42:43 AM
https://off-guardian.org/2016/08/06/eu-unmasked-after-brexit-plans-for-full-eu-superstate-revealed/

The super state is not a figment of Bojos imagination, the Polish leaked an EU document that shows it was real and maybe still is.   The EU has never ceased in its quest for ever closer union, their answer to everything is more Europe.  It is no good thinking there has ever been a status quo with the EU, Think of it as the 4th Reich, but with even more ambitious goals than the 3rd Reich. UK was subject to same project fear about the Euro as we have been regaled with over Brexit, almost word for word, about companies leaving, London losing its financial institutions to Europe etc. etc. Ad nauseam........
Looks like another reputable unbiased source you are quoting there. Not.
Meanwhile back in the real world.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/09/brexit-uk-companies-discuss-moving-to-netherlands
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on February 11, 2019, 08:49:19 AM
The original document here (https://www.tvp.info/25939587/europejskie-superpanstwo-zobacz-oryginalny-dokument) makes for scary reading. Though the site is in Polish the document is in English.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 11, 2019, 09:57:27 AM
Looks like the Irish backstop implementation in the EU withdrawal agreement is illegal even in EU law..

https://sites-herbertsmithfreehills.vuturevx.com/20/19043/landing-pages/a-view-from-brussels-february-2018-briefing(2).pdf
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 11, 2019, 09:59:49 AM
The original document here (https://www.tvp.info/25939587/europejskie-superpanstwo-zobacz-oryginalny-dokument) makes for scary reading. Though the site is in Polish the document is in English.

And it's all Chinese whispers. ::)
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 11, 2019, 10:03:02 AM
The original document here (https://www.tvp.info/25939587/europejskie-superpanstwo-zobacz-oryginalny-dokument) makes for scary reading. Though the site is in Polish the document is in English.

Thanks for that,

As I have said previously the EU answer to everything is 'more Europe' - which is ( amongst other reasons) why I voted to leave - the EU is not only un-democratic it is proactively anti-democracy..
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 11, 2019, 10:05:24 AM
The original document here (https://www.tvp.info/25939587/europejskie-superpanstwo-zobacz-oryginalny-dokument) makes for scary reading. Though the site is in Polish the document is in English.

And it's all Chinese whispers. ::)

No Chinese whispers on that document,  it is a clear statement of intent to centralise even more power with an un-elected poiltburo.

In fact it is the next step towards the EU federal superstate that remain voters are in denial about.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 11, 2019, 10:24:01 AM

Looks like another reputable unbiased source you are quoting there. Not.
Meanwhile back in the real world.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/09/brexit-uk-companies-discuss-moving-to-netherlands

Nothing wrong with companies setting up representative agencies in EU, makes business sense - but my feeling is that they are doing it temporarily while Brexit is sorted and then quietly move back to UK,  watch out for the 'to let' signs in Netherlands later in the year.

On another subject,  looks like the EU politburo is not happy with Tony B Liar,  looks like he ( and other anti-UK pro-EU British political has-beens ) gave them bad advice,  they should have looked at this most hated of British Prime Ministers track record of bad judgements before they trusted him..

https://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/1085094/brexit-news-tony-blair-donald-tusk-eu-deal-theresa-may
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 11, 2019, 10:30:16 AM
The original document here (https://www.tvp.info/25939587/europejskie-superpanstwo-zobacz-oryginalny-dokument) makes for scary reading. Though the site is in Polish the document is in English.

And it's all Chinese whispers. ::)

No Chinese whispers on that document,  it is a clear statement of intent to centralise even more power with an un-elected poiltburo.

Sorry, I hadn't read Jocko's link.
Now that I have, I don't see anything scary in it. I see it as sensible and promoting peace unlike Williamson's silly sabre rattlings.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/11/brexit-uk-military-defence-gavin-williamson
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on February 11, 2019, 01:08:53 PM
I don't see anything scary in it.
You don't think Germany and France, working bilaterally, to control the way forward for Europe, without the rest of Europe on board, is scary? Other European countries are worried about it.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 11, 2019, 01:54:58 PM
I don't see anything scary in it.
You don't think Germany and France, working bilaterally, to control the way forward for Europe, without the rest of Europe on board, is scary? Other European countries are worried about it.
Nope. The original purpose of the EU was to keep Germany and France from being at each other's throats.
It doesn't say it is bilateral. It talks about bringing other European nations on board.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 11, 2019, 02:12:15 PM
I don't see anything scary in it.
You don't think Germany and France, working bilaterally, to control the way forward for Europe, without the rest of Europe on board, is scary? Other European countries are worried about it.
Nope. The original purpose of the EU was to keep Germany and France from being at each other's throats.

The British and French have had more battles than French and Jermans and even after WW2 ( when De Gaulle hid in UK for the course of the war ) De Gaulle went back to France and started slagging the British off, ungrateful cheese eating surrender monkey that he was,  mind you maybe De Gaulle did like us after all because he tried to block us from joining EU... and he was right because our economic system, our law system and our style of democracy do not fit in with European ways of doing things - and he was worried that English language would take over EU ( which it did ).

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/if-france-kept-fighting-how-world-war-ii-might-have-gone-17590

When the French white flag factory was bombed by the Jermans,  this single act wiped out 95% of the French military capability at a stroke.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Barky on February 11, 2019, 03:49:13 PM
https://off-guardian.org/2016/08/06/eu-unmasked-after-brexit-plans-for-full-eu-superstate-revealed/

The super state is not a figment of Bojos imagination, the Polish leaked an EU document that shows it was real and maybe still is.   The EU has never ceased in its quest for ever closer union, their answer to everything is more Europe.  It is no good thinking there has ever been a status quo with the EU, Think of it as the 4th Reich, but with even more ambitious goals than the 3rd Reich. UK was subject to same project fear about the Euro as we have been regaled with over Brexit, almost word for word, about companies leaving, London losing its financial institutions to Europe etc. etc. Ad nauseam........
A small number in EU like idea of superstate, majority don't so it's not going to happen. I do realise why idea seems so abhorrent as it revives part of what Nazis were about BUT that was 80 years ago & EU exists to prevent nations of Europe going down a path to warfare again.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Barky on February 11, 2019, 03:54:19 PM
The original document here (https://www.tvp.info/25939587/europejskie-superpanstwo-zobacz-oryginalny-dokument) makes for scary reading. Though the site is in Polish the document is in English.

And it's all Chinese whispers. ::)

No Chinese whispers on that document,  it is a clear statement of intent to centralise even more power with an un-elected poiltburo.

In fact it is the next step towards the EU federal superstate that remain voters are in denial about.
what? un-elected poiltburo? The EU officials/MEPs & Council of Europe members (different organisation) are ALL elected
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 11, 2019, 05:42:35 PM
what? un-elected poiltburo? The EU officials/MEPs & Council of Europe members (different organisation) are ALL elected

MEPs have no real power and are just window dressing, they can only 'vote' on stuff proposed by commission, and are not allowed to put forward bills like our MPs are.  The big boys like J Claude Junket and Martin Selmayr are appointed by some arcane process.  The EU civil servants who dream up all the stuff for commissioners are employees, and there are a huge number of them.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: zzaj on February 11, 2019, 08:08:02 PM
The EU civil servants who dream up all the stuff for commissioners are employees, and there are a huge number of them.

And none of them pay any tax and have pensions to absolutely dream of.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 12, 2019, 12:53:55 PM
http://standpointmag.co.uk/node/7089/full

Interesting article comparing project fear 2016 with the 1975 version.  It is notable that after UK joined the EEC in 1973 our exports to Europe fell, and our economic growth was strangled for the next 10 years, then Thatcher came along with her new ideas and supercharged the economy ( but this was nothing to do with EU MEmbership ).  We still run a mahoosive deficit between exports to and imports from EU, they have never really liked us and our free trade and democracy ideas,  but they like our contributions to their budget - we will leave a brexit shaped hole in their spending ambition after March this year.


Also this about uncontrolled immigration and open borders.

http://standpointmag.co.uk/features-september-2018-rw-johnson-the-inevitability-of-fortress-europe-migration
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 13, 2019, 09:49:38 AM
The original document here (https://www.tvp.info/25939587/europejskie-superpanstwo-zobacz-oryginalny-dokument) makes for scary reading. Though the site is in Polish the document is in English.

And it's all Chinese whispers. ::)

No Chinese whispers on that document,  it is a clear statement of intent to centralise even more power with an un-elected poiltburo.

In fact it is the next step towards the EU federal superstate that remain voters are in denial about.


Leaked Letter in Polish Paper ?????

Meanwhile, here's Monbiot on something much more important :-

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/13/dark-money-hard-brexit-targeted-ads-facebook

and
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/18/dark-money-democracy-political-crisis-institute-economic-affairs
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 13, 2019, 03:08:04 PM
See also Monbiot's reply to criticism of his first article.


"Some people are suggesting I've highlighted these abuses because I'm desperate to prevent Brexit from occuring. It's true that Brexit worries me, but I'm much more concerned about what's happening to democracy. This is why my article is highly critical not only of the anonymity of Britain's Future, but also of the failure by both People's Vote and Best for Britain to reveal all their major funders. Their lack of transparency on this issue is disgraceful, and seriously undermines the credibility of their campaigns.

I am a Eurosceptic Remainer. I voted remain, but for me it was a finely balanced decision. There is plenty wrong with the EU. I hate the Common Agricultural Policy, the EC's disgraceful attempt to strike the TTIP trade deal against the wishes of so many citizens, the shocking levels of corporate lobbying. To me, being in the EU is like democracy, diplomacy and old age: the best that can be said for it is that it's better than the alternative. I think leaving the EU will do us great harm, and provide opportunities for the worst forms of disaster capitalism, especially with this grisly crew in charge, but at the same time I understand the Leave case, and sympathise with it.

But bigger even than Brexit is the subversion of democracy by big money - particularly hidden money - not just in the EU Referendum, but throughout the political cycle. If, like me, you want to take back control, you don't want your life to be governed by remote and faceless elites, and you want popular and parliamentary sovereignty to count for something, you should be equally concerned about it, whether you voted Remain or Leave."
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on February 13, 2019, 05:06:16 PM
A German think tank says German industry is already suffering because of Brexit, and calls for concessions.
"The EU should, as a quick fix at least, offer to remove both the backstop and the withdrawal agreement's current time limit on the mobility of goods and capital so that the provisional agreement would keep the EU and the UK in a joint customs territory association even after 2020 without making a difference between Northern Ireland and the UK. That would be key,"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47223787 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47223787)
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on February 13, 2019, 05:24:47 PM
"...keep the EU and the UK in a joint customs territory association even after 2020..,"

...only the ERG don't want that at any costs, do they?
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 13, 2019, 05:46:53 PM
A German think tank says German industry is already suffering because of Brexit, and calls for concessions.
"The EU should, as a quick fix at least, offer to remove both the backstop and the withdrawal agreement's current time limit on the mobility of goods and capital so that the provisional agreement would keep the EU and the UK in a joint customs territory association even after 2020 without making a difference between Northern Ireland and the UK. That would be key,"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47223787 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47223787)

I have said many times that when the EUropolitical fanatics have had their say about 'protecting the four pillars etc.' that the business community will step in and bang their heads together.  So far the EU has not negotiated with business in mind,  just their precious political project,  they need to now get real and look at the bigger picture - the Euro is already in big trouble ( all of its own making ) with young people in southern Europe consigned to unemployment because the unbalancing effect the Euro has had on the different economies in the Eurozone.  There is no 'one size fits all' solution available for the vastly differing economies tied together by Euro ( or by the whole outdated 1950's  EU project for that matter).

The whole of the Eurozone is already on slippery slope to depression, are Drunckers and Barmier really willing to a full scale depression for the sake of their political fanaticism ?
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on February 13, 2019, 05:50:03 PM
...only the ERG don't want that at any costs, do they?
I know, but that is a stop gap to get us out and allow further negotiation without a backstop. "as a quick fix at least,"
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 13, 2019, 06:46:22 PM
A German think tank says German industry is already suffering because of Brexit, and calls for concessions.
"The EU should, as a quick fix at least, offer to remove both the backstop and the withdrawal agreement's current time limit on the mobility of goods and capital so that the provisional agreement would keep the EU and the UK in a joint customs territory association even after 2020 without making a difference between Northern Ireland and the UK. That would be key,"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47223787 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47223787)

Do German think tanks have any more credibility than UK ones?
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 13, 2019, 06:54:30 PM
A German think tank says German industry is already suffering because of Brexit, and calls for concessions.
"The EU should, as a quick fix at least, offer to remove both the backstop and the withdrawal agreement's current time limit on the mobility of goods and capital so that the provisional agreement would keep the EU and the UK in a joint customs territory association even after 2020 without making a difference between Northern Ireland and the UK. That would be key,"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47223787 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47223787)


I have said many times that when the EUropolitical fanatics have had their say about 'protecting the four pillars etc.' that the business community will step in and bang their heads together.  So far the EU has not negotiated with business in mind,  just their precious political project,  they need to now get real and look at the bigger picture - the Euro is already in big trouble ( all of its own making ) with young people in southern Europe consigned to unemployment because the unbalancing effect the Euro has had on the different economies in the Eurozone.  There is no 'one size fits all' solution available for the vastly differing economies tied together by Euro ( or by the whole outdated 1950's  EU project for that matter).

The whole of the Eurozone is already on slippery slope to depression, are Drunckers and Barmier really willing to a full scale depression for the sake of their political fanaticism ?

Your main objective would appear to be to damage the EU as much as possible rather than to benefit the UK.
A hard Brexit will hurt the EU but will hurt the UK much worse. Why make everybody suffer?
The EU will not back down over its four freedoms.
Perhaps you could explain why the collapse of the EU would benefit the UK?
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 13, 2019, 07:01:01 PM
...only the ERG don't want that at any costs, do they?
I know, but that is a stop gap to get us out and allow further negotiation without a backstop. "as a quick fix at least,"

The ERG and its backers want to avoid the clampdown on tax evasion which the EU is bringing in and so want to press for a quick hard Brexit.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on February 14, 2019, 08:13:34 AM
I see Germany narrowly avoided going into recession, with zero growth in the last quarter. If it is anything like the UK government's figures they were probably well massaged to avoid a negative number.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 14, 2019, 09:48:25 AM
Your main objective would appear to be to damage the EU as much as possible rather than to benefit the UK.
A hard Brexit will hurt the EU but will hurt the UK much worse. Why make everybody suffer?
The EU will not back down over its four freedoms.
Perhaps you could explain why the collapse of the EU would benefit the UK?

I am not saying damage the EU, ( it can do that very well on its own) - but the EU sells much more to UK ( £95billion more in goods,  but we have a surplus of £28billion in services - so overall deficit £67billion in 2017) The LCH handle vast majority of Euro transactions ( something like Euro 900 billion per day),  which involves standing surety for any defaults by buyer or sellers in contracts - which needs a massive amount of financial muscle that the City of London has but nowhere in the EU has because their financial system is not fit for purpose - the costs to EU business would be far greater if the EU tried to take over the clearing,  you would have expected Frankfurt and Paris to have attracted service businesses from UK by now ( they have been trying hard enough ) but it just ain't happening .

The Euro clearing is why the EU has drafted emergency powers to keep access to UK financial system ( services ) in event of no-deal.

The EU think they are the only game in town, but they are rapidly shrinking both in world trade and influence - they need a reality check and the EU business leaders will give them one - as I said they will bang together the heads of Drunckers, Barmier and Verhofstagger  when push comes to shove,  telling them to forget the politics because they need the business.

If it had not been for sore-loser remain chatter and pulling in the opposite direction we would have had a deal months ago,  but the opposition within the UK emboldened the EU that if they cooked up the worst possible deal they could persuade the UK to not leave. But despite mother Theresa being a remainer who still wants to stay in EU she has not found it so easy because she has one eye on the ballot box and knows that if she does get a deal she will attract millions of voters who are totally fed up with labour party disarray and their MPs trying to frustrate Brexit, despite 70% of labour constituencies voting leave.  The labour party is being pushed by the members ( who have been well and truly infiltrated by remainers) to frustrate Brexit but in the process many true labour supporters are leaving the party ( about 150,000 at last count ) - labour leaders need to realise the difference between party members and voters, a few hundred thousand members do not have enough election votes to make any difference compared to the millions of voters who are being driven away..
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 14, 2019, 09:52:54 AM
I see Germany narrowly avoided going into recession, with zero growth in the last quarter. If it is anything like the UK government's figures they were probably well massaged to avoid a negative number.

The Chinese are best at massaging trade figures because they have centralised control of everything and heavy censorship - they are still a hybrid capitalist / communist dictatorship who want to have 'best of both worlds'.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: richardfrost on February 14, 2019, 10:29:57 AM
Do German think tanks have any more credibility than UK ones?
Don't know about their Think Tanks, but their Tank Tanks used to be pretty good.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 14, 2019, 12:03:24 PM
Your main objective would appear to be to damage the EU as much as possible rather than to benefit the UK.
A hard Brexit will hurt the EU but will hurt the UK much worse. Why make everybody suffer?
The EU will not back down over its four freedoms.
Perhaps you could explain why the collapse of the EU would benefit the UK?

I am not saying damage the EU, ( it can do that very well on its own) - but the EU sells much more to UK ( £95billion more in goods,  but we have a surplus of £28billion in services - so overall deficit £67billion in 2017) The LCH handle vast majority of Euro transactions ( something like Euro 900 billion per day),  which involves standing surety for any defaults by buyer or sellers in contracts - which needs a massive amount of financial muscle that the City of London has but nowhere in the EU has because their financial system is not fit for purpose - the costs to EU business would be far greater if the EU tried to take over the clearing,  you would have expected Frankfurt and Paris to have attracted service businesses from UK by now ( they have been trying hard enough ) but it just ain't happening .

The Euro clearing is why the EU has drafted emergency powers to keep access to UK financial system ( services ) in event of no-deal.

The EU think they are the only game in town, but they are rapidly shrinking both in world trade and influence - they need a reality check and the EU business leaders will give them one - as I said they will bang together the heads of Drunckers, Barmier and Verhofstagger  when push comes to shove,  telling them to forget the politics because they need the business.

If it had not been for sore-loser remain chatter and pulling in the opposite direction we would have had a deal months ago,  but the opposition within the UK emboldened the EU that if they cooked up the worst possible deal they could persuade the UK to not leave. But despite mother Theresa being a remainer who still wants to stay in EU she has not found it so easy because she has one eye on the ballot box and knows that if she does get a deal she will attract millions of voters who are totally fed up with labour party disarray and their MPs trying to frustrate Brexit, despite 70% of labour constituencies voting leave.  The labour party is being pushed by the members ( who have been well and truly infiltrated by remainers) to frustrate Brexit but in the process many true labour supporters are leaving the party ( about 150,000 at last count ) - labour leaders need to realise the difference between party members and voters, a few hundred thousand members do not have enough election votes to make any difference compared to the millions of voters who are being driven away..

Thanks for the reply.
I’ve never bought into your first argument. It just implies that we rely on the EU to supply most of our goods.
The banking  business was mainly in London due to the UK being in the EU. (passporting) . If we leave the EU that business will be more easily done through mainland Europe.  I would imagine the European financial institutions are just as capable as the city of London.
The EU business leaders have accepted right from the start of negotiations that their profits are not as important as the unity of the EU.
The whole sorry mess has been about, first Cameron and then May trying to keep control of their party and not thinking through the consequences.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 14, 2019, 01:08:04 PM
Thanks for the reply.
I’ve never bought into your first argument. It just implies that we rely on the EU to supply most of our goods.
The banking  business was mainly in London due to the UK being in the EU. (passporting) . If we leave the EU that business will be more easily done through mainland Europe.  I would imagine the European financial institutions are just as capable as the city of London.
The EU business leaders have accepted right from the start of negotiations that their profits are not as important as the unity of the EU.
The whole sorry mess has been about, first Cameron and then May trying to keep control of their party and not thinking through the consequences.

You have the trade gap wrong way around, we don't have to buy their goods but are a 'good customer' because they need and like selling to UK,  we have the biggest profit margin for many companies in EU that sell to us.

As for your second point about the City of London - Europe has nothing like the City and it would take decades and a lot of money to even get within spitting distance.  London and New York take it in turns to get top world financial centre crown,  there is only a whisker in it.

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-6258533/Trillions-reasons-EU-needs-deal-Bank-England-warns-risk-European-lenders.html

 Europes banks are broken,  the whole financial sector is a huge toxic mess. The whole point you make about capable EU banks is very far from the truth,  Deutsche Bank ( Germanys largest) has been downgraded to BBB and the ECB is funding the whole sagging Eurozone single-handedly - but how long can they continue ?

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/comment/article-5796597/ALEX-BRUMMER-Eurozones-broken-banks.html
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: richardfrost on February 14, 2019, 01:37:21 PM
As for your second point about the City of London - Europe has nothing like the City and it would take decades and a lot of money to even get within spitting distance.  London and New York take it in turns to get top world financial centre crown,  there is only a whisker in it.

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-6258533/Trillions-reasons-EU-needs-deal-Bank-England-warns-risk-European-lenders.html

 Europes banks are broken,  the whole financial sector is a huge toxic mess. The whole point you make about capable EU banks is very far from the truth,  Deutsche Bank ( Germanys largest) has been downgraded to BBB and the ECB is funding the whole sagging Eurozone single-handedly - but how long can they continue ?

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/comment/article-5796597/ALEX-BRUMMER-Eurozones-broken-banks.html

You know,I respect your knowledge, expertise and research on most things, but I work in Banking and have done for 30 years. On this, I believe differently. If Brexit happens, you won't believe how quickly the banking markets will change. Germany will rise and London will dip. There is no one I know in banking who thinks otherwise, and quietly, they are making plans accordingly.

Just to add, Banks are the most ruthless money making machines in history. Look how they have looked after themselves over the last ten years, despite increasing regulation. And the people in their Treasury departments, where the trading and the real money is made, are more ruthless than ever. They will go where the banks go, and the banks will follow the money.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 14, 2019, 03:12:04 PM
Thanks for the reply.
I’ve never bought into your first argument. It just implies that we rely on the EU to supply most of our goods.
The banking  business was mainly in London due to the UK being in the EU. (passporting) . If we leave the EU that business will be more easily done through mainland Europe.  I would imagine the European financial institutions are just as capable as the city of London.
The EU business leaders have accepted right from the start of negotiations that their profits are not as important as the unity of the EU.
The whole sorry mess has been about, first Cameron and then May trying to keep control of their party and not thinking through the consequences.

You have the trade gap wrong way around, we don't have to buy their goods but are a 'good customer' because they need and like selling to UK,  we have the biggest profit margin for many companies in EU that sell to us.

 

Here is a list of the countries and organisations to which the EU has access.

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

Here is an article showing the present state of the UK's attempts at signing trade agreements

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47213842

The EU has many more outlets for trade than the UK has sources.
Dr Fox will need to work very hard in the next month.
Besides we will still source much of our goods through the EU
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on February 14, 2019, 04:06:05 PM
I watched an interview with Liam Fox who said that most of the trade deals were ready to be signed but could not be signed until we left the EU. May just be BS, but it does make sense and it would be very awkward, not to say damaging, to his reputation and future career if it was BS.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 14, 2019, 04:58:20 PM
This Dr Fox
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/14/biggest-failure-brexit-cabinet-chris-grayling-liam-fox

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/07/trade-deals-britain-liam-fox-brexit
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on February 14, 2019, 05:07:32 PM
May just be BS

More than likely

but it does make sense and it would be very awkward, not to say damaging, to his reputation and future career if it was BS.

Damage what reputation? Fox isn't fit to hold a ministerial role.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/theresa-may-cabinet-liam-fox-disgraced-mp-2011-defence-secretary-boris-johnson-back-into-frontline-a7136236.html
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 14, 2019, 05:10:47 PM
There will not be any large scale movement of business to EU because it has its own massive problems that dwarf Brexit.  It is a hostile place to do financial business and its regulations have affected the operations of London based financial institutions.

The Euro is on life support and although it suits German export businesses because it is valued lower than a currency specific to Germany would be, its value is kept artificially low by southern European economies, but the currency is still too highly valued for their economies.  It is these massive imbalances that will finally finish off the Euro, and it makes Eurozone a risky place for investors.

http://worldmag.uk.com/european-union-history/
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Barky on February 14, 2019, 05:54:40 PM
Reports coming out today that Theresa May is going to prevent no deal happening whatever happens so the already dead prospect of WTO could well just have been a empty threat on UK by UK after all?

WTO option as hoped for by Tories has as most will know already been blocked by WTO members
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Barky on February 14, 2019, 06:03:13 PM
I watched an interview with Liam Fox who said that most of the trade deals were ready to be signed but could not be signed until we left the EU. May just be BS, but it does make sense and it would be very awkward, not to say damaging, to his reputation and future career if it was BS.
It's Liam Fox so it's guaranteed BS, they won't be ready to sign - just ready to start negotiations lasting x number of years with clauses that won't be liked by UK & anything with China has just his a big set back thanks to unfortunate threatening words of Gavin Williamson MP towards China
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 14, 2019, 06:54:16 PM
Pots and Kettles.
No 10 accuses Labour of putting party interests ahead of national interest

Downing Street has released this statement about the result. A spokesman said:

Jeremy Corbyn yet again put partisan considerations ahead of the national interest – and yet again, by voting against the government’s motion, he is in effect voting to make no deal more likely.

While we didn’t secure the support of the Commons this evening, the prime minister continues to believe, and the debate itself indicated, that far from objecting to securing changes to the backstop that will allow us to leave with a deal, there was a concern from some Conservative colleagues about taking no deal off the table at this stage.

The motion on 29 January remains the only one the House of Commons has passed expressing what it does want – and that is legally binding changes to address concerns about the backstop. The government will continue to pursue this with the EU to ensure we leave on time on 29 March.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 18, 2019, 11:13:25 AM
What are they playing at?
First Williamson rattles his sabre at the Chinese and now Hunt and Fox insult the Japanese.
https://www.ft.com/content/9cd62bde-32ba-11e9-bd3a-8b2a211d90d5?fbclid=IwAR1CTjPSbrQQbOV7w4a-010AeebCA0RGzSFmwleSdgNWRxRNtqrhXfyhE_g

Sorry, I see my link is behind a paywall.

   
   "The UK’s latest attempt to persuade Japan to agree a quick post-Brexit trade deal has backfired after officials in Tokyo reacted with dismay at British tactics.

Theresa May’s government is already battling to mend relations with China, after Beijing cancelled a key trade meeting with chancellor Philip Hammond in protest at a UK pledge to send an aircraft carrier to the Pacific."

The gist of the article is that the UK wants a quick deal with the Japanese post Brexit essentially wanting to roll over the deal the Japanese have just made with the EU and implies that it is the Japanese who are dragging their feet.
They just need to pick a fight with the Americans now.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 18, 2019, 11:48:20 AM
Found similatr article in Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/18/japan-almost-cancelled-brexit-talks-high-handed-letter-liam-fox-jeremy-hunt
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on February 18, 2019, 01:04:10 PM
The Japanese and Koreans have already said that they will be looking for more favourable terms in any UK trade deal than that which already exists with the EU, with the UK being a much smaller trading area.

Now we seem to be going out of out way to rub them up wrong.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Basil on February 18, 2019, 02:31:30 PM
Honda set to close Swindon car plant

Japanese carmaker Honda set to announce closure of Swindon plant in 2022, putting 3,500 jobs at risk, sources say.
The Japanese carmaker will shut the plant in 2022 but retain its European headquarters in Bracknell, Berkshire.
Sources say Honda will make an announcement on the future of the company on Tuesday morning.
Honda declined to comment on the claims which were first reported by Sky News.
Last month Honda has said it would shut down its Swindon factory for six days in April as part of its preparations for any disruption caused post-Brexit.
The company said the move was to ensure it could adjust to "all possible outcomes caused by logistics and border issues".
The firm said it would help in recovering lost production if shipments of parts were held up at borders.
Last year, the senior vice-president of Honda Europe warned that if the UK left the EU without a deal, it would cost his company tens of millions of pounds.
Ian Howells told the BBC that quitting the bloc without an agreement would affect the carmaker's competitiveness in Europe.
He said the Japanese firm was preparing for a no-deal outcome, but had not discussed relocating its Swindon plant.
The firm builds its Civic model in the UK for the global market.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: madasafish on February 18, 2019, 02:41:08 PM
Honda is not going to close Swindon: it's all lies

"There will not be any large scale movement of business to EU"  said a poster here...
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 18, 2019, 02:50:55 PM
Honda set to close Swindon car plant

Japanese carmaker Honda set to announce closure of Swindon plant in 2022, putting 3,500 jobs at risk, sources say.
The Japanese carmaker will shut the plant in 2022 but retain its European headquarters in Bracknell, Berkshire.
Sources say Honda will make an announcement on the future of the company on Tuesday morning.
Honda declined to comment on the claims which were first reported by Sky News.
Last month Honda has said it would shut down its Swindon factory for six days in April as part of its preparations for any disruption caused post-Brexit.
The company said the move was to ensure it could adjust to "all possible outcomes caused by logistics and border issues".
The firm said it would help in recovering lost production if shipments of parts were held up at borders.
Last year, the senior vice-president of Honda Europe warned that if the UK left the EU without a deal, it would cost his company tens of millions of pounds.
Ian Howells told the BBC that quitting the bloc without an agreement would affect the carmaker's competitiveness in Europe.
He said the Japanese firm was preparing for a no-deal outcome, but had not discussed relocating its Swindon plant.
The firm builds its Civic model in the UK for the global market.

Fake news alert..........
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: peteo48 on February 18, 2019, 02:55:32 PM
Why would they stay is the bigger question.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: zzaj on February 18, 2019, 03:39:08 PM
Reports coming out today that Theresa May is going to prevent no deal happening whatever happens so the already dead prospect of WTO could well just have been a empty threat on UK by UK after all?

WTO option as hoped for by Tories has as most will know already been blocked by WTO members

Correct to a degree...... but (ex Reuters) "the process will not necessarily interfere with the implementation of Brexit, since many WTO members continue to trade under outdated agreements while they agree their new text." not forgetting Article 24 of GATT of course.

How is TM going to prevent no deal happening?
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on February 18, 2019, 03:41:19 PM
How is TM going to prevent no deal happening?
She could rescind Article 50.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 18, 2019, 03:59:06 PM
The government must surely have known about these likely closures for some time.
This is a quote from the Guardian

"Des Quinn, the union’s national officer for the automotive sector, called for an urgent statement from business minister Greg Clark.

“The car industry in the UK over the last two decades has been the jewel in the crown for the manufacturing sector – and now it has been brought low by the chaotic Brexit uncertainty created by the rigid approach adopted by prime minister Theresa May,” he said.

“We are seeking urgent clarification from Honda on the implications of these serious reports. The 3,500-strong workforce do skilled, well paid jobs that the UK can ill-afford to lose.


“If the government had advance warning of this dreadful news and did not alert the unions, this is an appalling and cavalier attitude by ministers.”"

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/feb/18/carmaker-honda-plans-to-close-swindon-factory-reports


Could I add:
If the government had advance warning of this dreadful news and did not alert the country, this is an appalling and cavalier attitude to the people.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: zzaj on February 18, 2019, 04:10:01 PM
Honda set to close Swindon car plant

Japanese carmaker Honda set to announce closure of Swindon plant in 2022, putting 3,500 jobs at risk, sources say.
The Japanese carmaker will shut the plant in 2022 but retain its European headquarters in Bracknell, Berkshire.
Sources say Honda will make an announcement on the future of the company on Tuesday morning.
Honda declined to comment on the claims which were first reported by Sky News.
Last month Honda has said it would shut down its Swindon factory for six days in April as part of its preparations for any disruption caused post-Brexit.
The company said the move was to ensure it could adjust to "all possible outcomes caused by logistics and border issues".
The firm said it would help in recovering lost production if shipments of parts were held up at borders.
Last year, the senior vice-president of Honda Europe warned that if the UK left the EU without a deal, it would cost his company tens of millions of pounds.
Ian Howells told the BBC that quitting the bloc without an agreement would affect the carmaker's competitiveness in Europe.
He said the Japanese firm was preparing for a no-deal outcome, but had not discussed relocating its Swindon plant.
The firm builds its Civic model in the UK for the global market.

This quite poetic.

If you shut a factory, rather than putting jobs at risk, there are no jobs.

"Ian Howells told the BBC that quitting the bloc without an agreement would affect the carmaker's competitiveness in Europe."

No more than the quality of management or lack of.

Honda in Europe is one of the world's great lost opportunities.

"He said the Japanese firm was preparing for a no-deal outcome, but had not discussed relocating its Swindon plant."

Because they were closing down their European manufacturing?

"The firm builds its Civic model in the UK for the global market."

This indicates this is coming to the end of its model life in 2022.

The plant has run under capacity for years and there have been doubts over its viability even longer.

Perhaps blaming Brexit gives them cover.

Why else make the decision before deal/ no deal has been agreed or not?

Sounds a bit like Airbus threatening to move off one week then following the next with the decision to stop building the A380 anyway!

Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on February 18, 2019, 04:11:34 PM
Fake news alert..........

Looks pretty serious to me.


If the government had advance warning of this dreadful news and did not alert the country, this is an appalling and cavalier attitude to the people.

Seems to be confirmed by a back bench MP on twitter that the Business Secretary knew this was happening.


No surprise that today was chosen to bubble this out to the press, given other events.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on February 18, 2019, 04:47:24 PM
It makes sense for companies to announce closures now and blame Brexit than to wait and have to blame poor management or lack of a suitable product. The wee hairdresser on the corner, near me, is shutting and she is blaming Brexit! And the  contraction of the motor industry worldwide, has been widely reported over the past few years.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: peteo48 on February 18, 2019, 05:05:24 PM
I think it's more complex than that. Brexit is toxic for the UK car industry because of complex supply chains and the fact that many companies invested here precisely to gain tariff free access to the European market. Post Brexit, tariffs and customs checks will be erected where none currently exist. It will make the UK less attractive to these companies.


Now each closure may be multi-faceted. The decision by Nissan not to build the X Trail in the UK was mostly down to a decline in diesel sales but Brexit won't have helped especially when cars made in Japan will have tariff free access to the EU as opposed to cars made here which will have a 10% tariff on them. Japan, of course, has tariff free access to Europe whereas we won't unless we get a deal.


Don't get me wrong, I accept we have to leave but we must do everything we can to support business to trade with the European market on a tariff free basis. All this gung ho talk of No Deal isn't helping and it isn't the likes of Jacob Rees Mogg who will suffer.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on February 18, 2019, 05:13:44 PM
The wee hairdresser on the corner, near me, is shutting and she is blaming Brexit!

To be fair, a lot of smaller businesses are struggling, and any effects from Brexit may just be the straw to break the camel's back.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 18, 2019, 05:20:54 PM
Although Honda never liked Diesel and said emissions wise diesel was a dead end technology they were forced to offer them in Europe by short sighted government policies th st just looked at CO2 and not total emissions.  They are now suffering for their switch to diesel as the bottom has dropped out of the market. Worldwide Honda has suffered a 40% drop in profits, the whole worldwide car industry is in trouble - collapse of Chinese economy is to blame for strife in Germany and also Jaguar.  The Ford engine plant in Wales supplied engines to Jaguar and they don't need them any more as they have their own massive engine plant in Wolverhampton.    But remoaners never let the facts get in the way of blaming Brexit.......

https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-ford-motor-jaguarlandrover-britain/fords-welsh-engine-plant-to-lose-jlr-business-in-2020-idUKKCN1C318X

The latest EU deal with Japan has zero tariffs on imports of cars from Japan so their car makers are consolidating production in Japan

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47282603
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on February 18, 2019, 05:35:08 PM
remoaners never let the facts get in the way of blaming Brexit.......

...and Brexiters seem to be completely blind to what's going on. I don't think anyone is suggesting that Brexit is the sole reason why these decisions are being made, but it's not helping the UK's cause.

By the way, do you still think Swindon closing is fake news?
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 18, 2019, 05:39:15 PM
remoaners never let the facts get in the way of blaming Brexit.......




...and Brexiters seem to be completely blind to what's going on. I don't think anyone is suggesting that Brexit is the sole reason why these decisions are being made, but it's not helping the UK's cause.

By the way, do you still think Swindon closing is fake news?

It is fake news in relation to Brexit

https://blog.autokartz.com/japan-could-consolidate-to-three-automakers-by-2020/

https://www.expressandstar.com/news/motors/2019/01/02/worlds-biggest-car-makers-suffer-as-profits-plummet-in-2018/
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: peteo48 on February 18, 2019, 05:52:52 PM
remoaners never let the facts get in the way of blaming Brexit.......

...and Brexiters seem to be completely blind to what's going on. I don't think anyone is suggesting that Brexit is the sole reason why these decisions are being made, but it's not helping the UK's cause.

By the way, do you still think Swindon closing is fake news?

We've got a classic case of confirmation bias on both sides. I have seen many remain voters (I voted remain) blaming every bit of bad news on Brexit and I have yet to see a leave voter accept that Brexit has played even the slightest part when production stops or some business closes.


We can't leave a big trading block without consequences. These may be outweighed by other advantages and who knows what the future holds but, come on guys, don't even try to suggest that Brexit wasn't at least one issue in the Honda closure.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 18, 2019, 06:03:21 PM
Honda set to close Swindon car plant

Japanese carmaker Honda set to announce closure of Swindon plant in 2022, putting 3,500 jobs at risk, sources say.
The Japanese carmaker will shut the plant in 2022 but retain its European headquarters in Bracknell, Berkshire.
Sources say Honda will make an announcement on the future of the company on Tuesday morning.
Honda declined to comment on the claims which were first reported by Sky News.
Last month Honda has said it would shut down its Swindon factory for six days in April as part of its preparations for any disruption caused post-Brexit.
The company said the move was to ensure it could adjust to "all possible outcomes caused by logistics and border issues".
The firm said it would help in recovering lost production if shipments of parts were held up at borders.
Last year, the senior vice-president of Honda Europe warned that if the UK left the EU without a deal, it would cost his company tens of millions of pounds.
Ian Howells told the BBC that quitting the bloc without an agreement would affect the carmaker's competitiveness in Europe.
He said the Japanese firm was preparing for a no-deal outcome, but had not discussed relocating its Swindon plant.
The firm builds its Civic model in the UK for the global market.

This quite poetic.

If you shut a factory, rather than putting jobs at risk, there are no jobs.

"Ian Howells told the BBC that quitting the bloc without an agreement would affect the carmaker's competitiveness in Europe."

No more than the quality of management or lack of.

Honda in Europe is one of the world's great lost opportunities.

"He said the Japanese firm was preparing for a no-deal outcome, but had not discussed relocating its Swindon plant."

Because they were closing down their European manufacturing?

"The firm builds its Civic model in the UK for the global market."

This indicates this is coming to the end of its model life in 2022.

The plant has run under capacity for years and there have been doubts over its viability even longer.

Perhaps blaming Brexit gives them cover.

Why else make the decision before deal/ no deal has been agreed or not?

Sounds a bit like Airbus threatening to move off one week then following the next with the decision to stop building the A380 anyway!

A company I used to work for built body sub-assemblies for Honda, they never asked for more than 30% of their 'predicted' volume,  this speaks 'volumes' about Honda operations in UK.

The A380 was always a bit of a white elephant anyway, a vanity project by Airbus. Impressive, but still a white elephant with the best bits made in UK ( wings, engines, landing gear and avionics ).
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on February 18, 2019, 06:13:11 PM
It is fake news in relation to Brexit

https://blog.autokartz.com/japan-could-consolidate-to-three-automakers-by-2020/

Well, that's one opinion of course.

Quote
The smaller automakers like Suzuki, Mazda, and Mitsubishi are challenged to make it on their own...

I'm not sure where they got their information, but this consolidation is certainly nothing new. GM have been involved with Suzuki since 1981, Mitsubishi are now part of the Renault-Nissan-Mitsubishi alliance, having previous shared platforms with other companies including Volvo, Mazda have been long entwined with Ford, and although Toyota now wholly own Daihatsu, they have been a major shareholder since 1967.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on February 18, 2019, 06:14:40 PM
We've got a classic case of confirmation bias on both sides. I have seen many remain voters (I voted remain) blaming every bit of bad news on Brexit and I have yet to see a leave voter accept that Brexit has played even the slightest part when production stops or some business closes.


We can't leave a big trading block without consequences. These may be outweighed by other advantages and who knows what the future holds but, come on guys, don't even try to suggest that Brexit wasn't at least one issue in the Honda closure.

Absolutely spot on.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 18, 2019, 07:23:21 PM

I'm not sure where they got their information, but this consolidation is certainly nothing new. GM have been involved with Suzuki since 1981, Mitsubishi are now part of the Renault-Nissan-Mitsubishi alliance, having previous shared platforms with other companies including Volvo, Mazda have been long entwined with Ford, and although Toyota now wholly own Daihatsu, they have been a major shareholder since 1967.

Cooperation in motor industry nothing new, I have been involved in manufacturing in motor industry for decades and they all had their hands in each others pockets with technical and production tie-ups - but they maintained their individual identities.  The odd man out was Honda who have always done their own thing.

The new world order will be different, the R&D is now prohibitively expensive and it needs larger companies to afford it,  the production of cars is a low profit high volume business and is getting more complicated by the day.

The evolution of battery EV has thrown another spanner in the works, people keep expecting the massive breakthrough that the hype merchants have been promising  for years and with demise of diesel people ( except company cars ) will put off buying until something sorts itself out. 

The motor industry is in a state of flux ( especially electric cars LOL ) all over the world and there will be casualties as countries ' look after their own interests first' ..
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Basil on February 18, 2019, 07:36:48 PM

I'm not sure where they got their information, but this consolidation is certainly nothing new. GM have been involved with Suzuki since 1981, Mitsubishi are now part of the Renault-Nissan-Mitsubishi alliance, having previous shared platforms with other companies including Volvo, Mazda have been long entwined with Ford, and although Toyota now wholly own Daihatsu, they have been a major shareholder since 1967.

Cooperation in motor industry nothing new, I have been involved in manufacturing in motor industry for decades and they all had their hands in each others pockets with technical and production tie-ups - but they maintained their individual identities.  The odd man out was Honda who have always done their own thing.

The new world order will be different, the R&D is now prohibitively expensive and it needs larger companies to afford it,  the production of cars is a low profit high volume business and is getting more complicated by the day.

The evolution of battery EV has thrown another spanner in the works, people keep expecting the massive breakthrough that the hype merchants have been promising  for years and with demise of diesel people ( except company cars ) will put off buying until something sorts itself out. 

The motor industry is in a state of flux ( especially electric cars LOL ) all over the world and there will be casualties as countries ' look after their own interests first' ..

Not untrue but not the reason the Japanese companies are starting to move out of the UK, I posted on here a year ago they would.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on February 18, 2019, 08:03:11 PM
The odd man out was Honda who have always done their own thing.

Honda have had some collaboration with other companies, including in China currently, and here in the UK with a 20% stake in Rover Group, until it was sold to BMW.

While some of this was ARG badge engineering Honda products, such as the Triumph Acclaim and Rover 600, there were instances where collaboration worked the other way - such as the R8 Rover 200 / Honda Concerto project, and Rover solving the terrible corkscrewing of the Ballade (SD3 Rover 200) suspension for Honda.

The motor industry is in a state of flux ( especially electric cars LOL ) all over the world and there will be casualties as countries ' look after their own interests first' ..

That's certainly true enough, but as Basil suggests, most decisions are made with regard to cost rather than some sort of patriotism to their home country.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 18, 2019, 09:14:34 PM


We can't leave a big trading block without consequences. These may be outweighed by other advantages and who knows what the future holds but, come on guys, don't even try to suggest that Brexit wasn't at least one issue in the Honda closure.

Agreed. It was irresponsible of the government to invoke Article 50 without thinking through the implications and to press ahead having seen what the consequences might be.
I have yet to see any advantages and it should be obvious that the pie in the sky promises of Farage, Gove, Johnson etc. are not going to come to fruition.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: MartinJG on February 18, 2019, 09:56:30 PM
I personally ignore the 'soft' chatter of hacks and politicians when it comes to grown up matters. In the real world, business runs in cycles. Cast your eye back over time and observe the number of household names which are no longer. Like it or not, it boils down to natural selection and the survival of the fittest and not the furtherance of the survival of the thickest. That way lies ruin. It is a simple matter of adapt or dwindle. The extent to which people will go to avoid confronting the truth never ceases to amaze me. The automotive industry is over supplied and has been for decades. Forget new technology. There are just too many out there and the big name bosses know this better than anyone. So out come the political footballs. As for blaming Brexit, of course they will, and anything else that suits their agenda. The harsh truth is that if the recession had played out back in the financial crisis and the dead wood had been cut away we would had a painful but necessary correction for further sustainable growth. We now have the ludicrous scenario where money markets no longer fulfil their proper function in pricing risk capital at free market levels and instead, are busy peddling paper at fake rates set by central funksters at the expense of the overall economy and future generations. I shudder to think how many so called enterprises would collapse if interest rates even threatened to return to trend levels. The funny thing is that most people instinctively know that you do not get something for nothing. Like it or not, everything has its price.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 18, 2019, 10:26:47 PM


We can't leave a big trading block without consequences. These may be outweighed by other advantages and who knows what the future holds but, come on guys, don't even try to suggest that Brexit wasn't at least one issue in the Honda closure.

Agreed. It was irresponsible of the government to invoke Article 50 without thinking through the implications and to press ahead having seen what the consequences might be.
I have yet to see any advantages and it should be obvious that the pie in the sky promises of Farage, Gove, Johnson etc. are not going to come to fruition.

498 members of parliament voted to trigger article 50, but remainers will come out with their standard ' but they did not know what they were voting for' .  For any of those 498 to now turn around and oppose leaving on 29 March is just not on.  Any extension of article 50 will be abject surrender to EU bullies and will achieve nothing that could not be achieved in the previous 2 years ( with goodwill of course, which was sadly absent ).
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 18, 2019, 11:02:54 PM

498 members of parliament voted to trigger article 50, but remainers will come out with their standard ' but they did not know what they were voting for' .  For any of those 498 to now turn around and oppose leaving on 29 March is just not on.  Any extension of article 50 will be abject surrender to EU bullies and will achieve nothing that could not be achieved in the previous 2 years ( with goodwill of course, which was sadly absent ).
What has been achieved in the last  2 years?
The UK parliament has frittered it away arguing amongst themselves and are still arguing amongst themselves with about 5 weeks left.
 The people could not be expected to know exactly what they were voting for. Who could have predicted all the possible implications? Even now it appears that even the politicians do not understand and they are charged with making the decisions.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on February 19, 2019, 08:20:38 AM
What has been achieved in the last  2 years?
The UK parliament has frittered it away arguing amongst themselves and are still arguing amongst themselves with about 5 weeks left.
 The people could not be expected to know exactly what they were voting for.  Who could have predicted all the possible implications? Even now it appears that even the politicians do not understand and they are charged with making the decisions.

Even Rees-Mogg advocated the perfectly sensible strategy of two referenda back in 2011, the first to decide in principle to explore leaving the EU, and the second to ratify any subsequent deal and confirm leaving.

It's hard to see where the Government is heading with this now. They have always had to deal with the hard brexiters, but May now has a problem with a significant number of ministers threatening to resign if no-deal is the outcome, which could spell disaster for the Government.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 19, 2019, 08:33:12 AM
I personally ignore the 'soft' chatter of hacks and politicians when it comes to grown up matters. In the real world, business runs in cycles. Cast your eye back over time and observe the number of household names which are no longer. Like it or not, it boils down to natural selection and the survival of the fittest and not the furtherance of the survival of the thickest. That way lies ruin. It is a simple matter of adapt or dwindle. The extent to which people will go to avoid confronting the truth never ceases to amaze me.

Unfortunately your Darwinian theory could be applied to nations as well as businesses and the UK is about to become an isolated small fish in a big pond.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 19, 2019, 08:43:05 AM

It's hard to see where the Government is heading with this now. They have always had to deal with the hard brexiters, but May now has a problem with a significant number of ministers threatening to resign if no-deal is the outcome, which could spell disaster for the Government.

Don't know.
May will probably continue to hang on and let the clock run down until the last minute and try to blackmail MPs into accepting her deal rather than no deal. I don't think there is a sufficient number of MP's willing to put country before party and they're not as ruthless as the ERG and DUP.
We live in interesting times.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on February 19, 2019, 09:12:44 AM
It was irresponsible of the government to invoke Article 50 without thinking through the implications
I must point out that it was Parliament who voted to invoke Article 50, not just the government. All the MPs who are now squirming and wanting to delay Brexit or have a second referendum are the ones that voted Article 50 through.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 19, 2019, 09:46:32 AM
I personally ignore the 'soft' chatter of hacks and politicians when it comes to grown up matters. In the real world, business runs in cycles. Cast your eye back over time and observe the number of household names which are no longer. Like it or not, it boils down to natural selection and the survival of the fittest and not the furtherance of the survival of the thickest. That way lies ruin. It is a simple matter of adapt or dwindle. The extent to which people will go to avoid confronting the truth never ceases to amaze me.

Unfortunately your Darwinian theory could be applied to nations as well as businesses and the UK is about to become an isolated small fish in a big pond.

As the worlds 5th largest economy and a great place to do business,  attracting more inward investment than the rest of Europe put together it is just plain wrong and disingenuous to describe UK as 'a small fish in a big pond'.  EU has had plenty of time to build up its financial system ( it still does not have a coherent one,  its banks are in big trouble and very fragile).

The UK legal system ( not that horrible Napoleonic system that Europe uses ) is a massive plus for UK financial system.  http://www.cityam.com/236942/the-uk-legal-sector-is-vital-to-the-citys-international-success

I have noticed a common theme amongst remainers on various sites,  they seem to be trying to outdo each other on compiling the absolute worst scenarios for the future,  they do not seem to have any optimism at all,  proper chicken lickens - maybe more prozac is called for, still available in UK from GlaxoSmithKline,  good news is they have stocks available for remainers ( only if you are over 18 though)..

Using the Darwinian theme you could look on the Brexit vote as an important mutation in our nations DNA,  and it is mutations that drive evolution,  it is the EU that needs to evolve too or Darwins laws will be proven in a bad way..

Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on February 19, 2019, 10:09:15 AM
It was irresponsible of the government to invoke Article 50 without thinking through the implications
I must point out that it was Parliament who voted to invoke Article 50, not just the government. All the MPs who are now squirming and wanting to delay Brexit or have a second referendum are the ones that voted Article 50 through.

To be fair, it was a whipped vote on both sides of the House, so means little at a personal level.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 19, 2019, 10:21:16 AM
tweet of the day...

 https://twitter.com/wallaceme/status/1097443893749170176

'its good that Chuka ( amoaner ) now knows that if an organisation cannot be reformed from within it is best to leave'.

Maybe these proponents of a 'peoples vote' should now have the honesty to submit to a peoples vote ( By-election)  rather than just leaving the party they were elected as an MP for and form another party,  just carrying on as if nothing had changed - but I doubt that will happen,  they want to have their cake and eat it..  Maybe Soubry and Clarke will be joining their 'we just threw our teddy out of the pram' party..

Maybe the 'we will respect the result of referendum and leave the EU' on Labour 2017 manifesto was not clear enough and the electors did not know what they were voting for.

Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 19, 2019, 10:50:05 AM
It was irresponsible of the government to invoke Article 50 without thinking through the implications
I must point out that it was Parliament who voted to invoke Article 50, not just the government. All the MPs who are now squirming and wanting to delay Brexit or have a second referendum are the ones that voted Article 50 through.

To be fair, it was a whipped vote on both sides of the House, so means little at a personal level.

There are cases where MP's with strong views defy their party whip ( some of them are happy not to respect the way their constituency voted ), and Labour party has always ( except new labour under B Liar which was to the Right of Tories) had strong anti-EU leanings.  Maybe a lot of the MPs have been taught in school not to be confrontational because there may be people who will be offended,  or are they just sheep..
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: sparky Paul on February 19, 2019, 11:07:06 AM
There are cases where MP's with strong views defy their party whip ( some of them are happy not to respect the way their constituency voted ), and Labour party has always ( except new labour under B Liar which was to the Right of Tories) had strong anti-EU leanings.  Maybe a lot of the MPs have been taught in school not to be confrontational because there may be people who will be offended,  or are they just sheep..

Some MPs also defied the party whip in order to respect the way their constituents voted.

In normal times, defying party whip would certainly mean the end of any ministerial post, and the significant risk of being thrown out of the party... but these are not normal times.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: richardfrost on February 19, 2019, 11:12:13 AM
Just coming back to Swindon for a moment, can I just point out the bleeding obvious...

Japan has (or will soon have) tariff free car sales into the EU.

The UK currently has no deal on the cards for car sales into the EU post Brexit.

What business in it's right mind would make any other choice than to return manufacturing to Japan in this scenario?

In my mind, we have two years to fix this and make Honda change its mind.

Timing is everything.

EDIT: This is neither an argument for or against Brexit. Just for common sense.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: peteo48 on February 19, 2019, 11:20:36 AM
Quite right Richard. We need a deal.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Barky on February 19, 2019, 04:03:15 PM

As the worlds 5th largest economy and a great place to do business,  attracting more inward investment than the rest of Europe put together it is just plain wrong and disingenuous to describe UK as 'a small fish in a big pond'.  EU has had plenty of time to build up its financial system ( it still does not have a coherent one,  its banks are in big trouble and very fragile).

Now 7th largest & slipping
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on February 19, 2019, 04:38:25 PM
Not according to Focus Economics
https://www.focus-economics.com/blog/the-largest-economies-in-the-world (https://www.focus-economics.com/blog/the-largest-economies-in-the-world)
or Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_economy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_economy)
or Investopedia.
https://www.investopedia.com/insights/worlds-top-economies/ (https://www.investopedia.com/insights/worlds-top-economies/)

I didn't check any other sites, but if you care to post your reference I will happily read it.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on February 19, 2019, 04:47:07 PM
According to Reuters it RISKS slipping to 7th after Brexit. A difference between risks and is!
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: peteo48 on February 19, 2019, 04:56:53 PM
You can't do much about India - it's so big and will probably get in the top 3 in time so that would push us down to 6th. I did read a forecast that saw France overhauling us after Brexit but the same forecast said the UK might bounce back above France after a few years.

The truth is we don't know what will happen. I do expect the car industry to contract because of Brexit but other sectors, like fishing and agriculture might benefit.

Even the worst forecasts see some growth albeit anaemic. I voted remain but I don't expect mass starvation to ensue as a result of Brexit.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on February 19, 2019, 05:01:34 PM
I voted remain but I don't expect mass starvation to ensue as a result of Brexit.
Me neither, but I did read a report that some EU countries are preparing to send food aid to the UK after Brexit!

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1088265/Brexit-latest-news-eu-food-aid-no-deal-brexit-eu-news (https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1088265/Brexit-latest-news-eu-food-aid-no-deal-brexit-eu-news)
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: zzaj on February 19, 2019, 05:36:50 PM
We did go through a trial period of 5 years of not importing anything from Europe and that turned out fine.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 19, 2019, 06:03:20 PM
I voted remain but I don't expect mass starvation to ensue as a result of Brexit.
Me neither, but I did read a report that some EU countries are preparing to send food aid to the UK after Brexit!

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1088265/Brexit-latest-news-eu-food-aid-no-deal-brexit-eu-news (https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1088265/Brexit-latest-news-eu-food-aid-no-deal-brexit-eu-news)

Well rationing was kept in UK into the 1950's so that we could send food to Europe, its payback time....
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: madasafish on February 19, 2019, 06:56:00 PM
RR moves Discovery production out of UK
Ford engine plant on way to total closure
Nissan not building new model in UK.
Honda closing.
Hitachi not building nuclear plant

Dyson moving R&D to Singapore.*
Ratcliffe relocating out of UK. (UK's richest man)*


* both Leave supporters.

Now a reasonable man would say there must be some successes to offset the above. Mr Fox told us people would be queuing to invest in the UK.. 

So where are these successes to prove Remainers are wrong  ?

Let's have  a list. (confirmed investments only over £1b to keep it short . I am sure there are lots.)

And no sensible list is obviously self explanatory.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 19, 2019, 07:32:50 PM
In exchange for free trade deal with EU Japan has to allow EU citizens freedom to travel to Japan and stay as long as they like, even buy homes and businesses there, the EU citizens will also be able to freely use Japanese healthcare and their benefits system.  The Japanese will be subject to the jurisdiction of the ECJ, and implement any new directives and laws that the EU tells them to.  Within a few years Japan will have to join the Eurozone and ditch the Yen, they will also have to supply soldiers and equipment for new EU army.  Japan will also have to stay in a customs union with EU and cannot negotiate or sign any free trade agreements with any other countries.  I wonder if the Japs know what they have signed up for.. The EU has yet to announce the amount of money that Japan will be expected to contribute to EU budget - all this just for a free trade agreement with EU.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on February 19, 2019, 07:49:59 PM
http://www.cityam.com/270147/uk-foreign-investment-hits-record-high-investors-shun (http://www.cityam.com/270147/uk-foreign-investment-hits-record-high-investors-shun)
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 19, 2019, 08:43:23 PM
http://www.cityam.com/270147/uk-foreign-investment-hits-record-high-investors-shun (http://www.cityam.com/270147/uk-foreign-investment-hits-record-high-investors-shun)

That's right I have seen similar articles,  investors are more worried about the problems in Eurozone and EU in general, which make remainers brexit doom-mongering fade into insignificance.  The EU and Euro currency have deep rooted structural problems that will bring the whole thing down around their ears, and the European banks are in a fragile state, as are Eurozone economies including Germany and France in addition to the well known problems of southern Eurozone, who have 50 to 60% unemployment for under 25's - many of them will probably never have a job, all down to the Euro which suits Germany but condemns other users to poverty and austerity.

I see UK unemployment is down to 4% - and wages rising at 3.5% - eat you hearts out Eurozone members......
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 19, 2019, 08:48:44 PM
We did go through a trial period of 5 years of not importing anything from Europe and that turned out fine.

Was that in the early 1940's when we were exporting far more explosive devices to Germany than they were exporting to us, one of the few times we have had a surplus with them, and they still haven't paid us for any of them despite the fact we arranged free delivery by air.......
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: zzaj on February 19, 2019, 10:24:53 PM
RR moves Discovery production out of UK
Ford engine plant on way to total closure
Nissan not building new model in UK.
Honda closing.
Hitachi not building nuclear plant

Dyson moving R&D to Singapore.*
Ratcliffe relocating out of UK. (UK's richest man)*


* both Leave supporters.

Now a reasonable man would say there must be some successes to offset the above. Mr Fox told us people would be queuing to invest in the UK.. 

So where are these successes to prove Remainers are wrong  ?

Let's have  a list. (confirmed investments only over £1b to keep it short . I am sure there are lots.)

And no sensible list is obviously self explanatory.

None of these are Britex related!

This is joining up dots and creating unicorns. The media, these days, are excellent at creating "fake" sensationalist news.

For a more rational and balanced view on inward investment (from Ernst & Young and which uses the latest available figures - 2017):

"UK remains top destination for inward investment, but Germany and France are closing the gap as Brexit bites
(11 June 2018)"

https://www.ey.com/uk/en/newsroom/news-releases/18-06-11-uk-remains-top-destination-for-inward-investment

It would be reasonable to expect the trend to continue until the dust settles.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: Jocko on February 20, 2019, 09:12:45 AM
Ford is closing a truck making plant, after 50 years, in Brazil. I suppose this is Brexit related too.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47300317 (https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47300317)
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 20, 2019, 10:20:27 AM
Ford is closing a truck making plant, after 50 years, in Brazil. I suppose this is Brexit related too.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47300317 (https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47300317)

Yup,  anything that happens in the world now is somehow related to Brexit.  Even the Chinese economy tanking and
affecting JLR sales is Brexit related,  the demise of Diesel is Brexit related - just shows that we can still make band-wagons in the UK ( or will the band-wagon factory also be moved abroad soon ).

I love the Junckers quote a couple of days ago 'the final withdrawal agreement  is in the hands of God' - typical modesty from Jean Claude Drunkers -

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/02/18/brexit-breakthrough-gods-hands-says-juncker/

question - What is the difference between an EU commissioner and God ? 
answer - God does not think he is an EU commissioner.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: peteo48 on February 20, 2019, 10:30:27 AM
In exchange for free trade deal with EU Japan has to allow EU citizens freedom to travel to Japan and stay as long as they like, even buy homes and businesses there, the EU citizens will also be able to freely use Japanese healthcare and their benefits system.  The Japanese will be subject to the jurisdiction of the ECJ, and implement any new directives and laws that the EU tells them to.  Within a few years Japan will have to join the Eurozone and ditch the Yen, they will also have to supply soldiers and equipment for new EU army.  Japan will also have to stay in a customs union with EU and cannot negotiate or sign any free trade agreements with any other countries.  I wonder if the Japs know what they have signed up for.. The EU has yet to announce the amount of money that Japan will be expected to contribute to EU budget - all this just for a free trade agreement with EU.

Evidence for this please.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 20, 2019, 11:17:45 AM
In exchange for free trade deal with EU Japan has to allow EU citizens freedom to travel to Japan and stay as long as they like, even buy homes and businesses there, the EU citizens will also be able to freely use Japanese healthcare and their benefits system.  The Japanese will be subject to the jurisdiction of the ECJ, and implement any new directives and laws that the EU tells them to.  Within a few years Japan will have to join the Eurozone and ditch the Yen, they will also have to supply soldiers and equipment for new EU army.  Japan will also have to stay in a customs union with EU and cannot negotiate or sign any free trade agreements with any other countries.  I wonder if the Japs know what they have signed up for.. The EU has yet to announce the amount of money that Japan will be expected to contribute to EU budget - all this just for a free trade agreement with EU.

Evidence for this please.

LOL  ;D
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: peteo48 on February 20, 2019, 12:08:37 PM
Will Sushi meet EU food standards?
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 20, 2019, 01:28:29 PM
How dare MPs think they can quit the party they were voted to represent, and were elected under that parties manifesto.  These remainer MPs should have the integrity to allow a peoples vote on the new changed circumstances of their tenure, they were quick enough to call for another referendum or the more catchy 'peoples vote' because people may have changed their minds since 2016, but people who voted for a Labour or conservative candidate in 2017 who stood for that party and their manifesto surely deserve another vote on these turncoats now their position has changed so much. Come on chuka and company, show some respect and integrity and stand again at a by election.
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: culzean on February 20, 2019, 01:31:42 PM
Will Sushi meet EU food standards?

Only if there are red herrings being served.

Still waiting for EU to change their 'tuna'..
Title: Re: WTO rules?
Post by: JimSh on February 20, 2019, 01:51:08 PM
How dare MPs think they can quit the party they were voted to represent, and were elected under that parties manifesto.  These remainer MPs should have the integrity to allow a peoples vote on the new changed circumstances of their tenure, they were quick enough to call for another referendum or the more catchy 'peoples vote' because people may have changed their minds since 2016, but people who voted for a Labour or conservative candidate in 2017 who stood for that party and their manifesto surely deserve another vote on these turncoats now their position has changed so much. Come on chuka and company, show some respect and integrity and stand again at a by election.

Here's why:-  ( Excerpt from letter from  Anna Soubry, Sarah Wollaston and Heidi Allen)

"The final straw for us has been this Government’s disastrous handling of Brexit.

Following the EU referendum of 2016, no genuine effort was made to build a cross party, let alone a national consensus to deliver Brexit. Instead of seeking to heal the divisions or to tackle the underlying causes of Brexit, the priority was to draw up “red lines”. The 48% were not only sidelined, they were alienated.

We find it unconscionable that a Party once trusted on the economy, more than any other, is now recklessly marching the country to the cliff edge of no deal. No responsible government should knowingly and deliberately inflict the dire consequences of such a destructive exit on individuals, communities and businesses and put at risk the prospect of ending austerity.

We also reject the false binary choice that you have presented to Parliament between a bad deal and no deal. Running down the clock to March 20 amounts to a policy of no deal and we are not prepared to wait until our toes are at the edge of the cliff. "