Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Guest]

46 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

But yet it's perfectly logical to actively support a party led by a man who praised Iran's 'acceptance and tolerance' whilst being paid many thousands of pounds to appear on a questionable Iranian state TV channel. Iran being a state where being gay is punishable by death. 

 

Meanwhile, Matt Chorley's column is a good one:

Typical bloody Tories. They never change. This week we found out they’d appointed a new equalities adviser who is a racist, told MPs not to complain about antisemites in the party and taken cash from someone named on a leaflet claiming “coloured immigration threatens your children’s health”.

I have no idea about the anti Semite bit.

 

I have seen the equalities advisor on tv and she is just awful. My heart sank when I saw she'd been appointed. She's the worst kind of liberal leftie. 

 

Re Mosley. Clearly the leaflet through the lens of 2018 is unacceptable (it was at the time too but let's not pretnd those views weren't common) but I don't understand why you have to give back money because you later discover that 40 years ago or whatever somebody did something bad. That goes for either party.

 

Don't recall anything like this though

 

 

 

Edited 3 March 2018 by Guest

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

No definitely interesting words. But of course, we can paint anything as badly as we try if we only consider some downsides and no potential upsides. Just like I could take the ECB's findings of "there is a significant negative effect of the size of government on growth" and "government consumption is consistently detrimental to output growth irrespective of the country sample considered" and conclude that means government consumption should be cut to 0. 

 

In fact we could really just view austerity as Daniel Mitchell's "bad policy begets bad policy". Austerity being a bad policy response to big government. 

You seem to be making the assumption that big government is bad policy. It also wasn't the rationale sold to the public for austerity. 

 

The fact is, the political decision to impose cuts went against expert opinion and had literally led to thousands of deaths and extreme poverty when it wasn't required. It's unforgivable.

 

What are the upsides that are equal to the societal and individual downsides?

Edited 3 March 2018 by Guest

[Guest Kopfkino]

3 minutes ago, toddybad said:

I have no idea about the anti Semite bit.

 

I have seen the equalities advisor on tv and she is just awful. My heart sank when I saw she'd been appointed. She's the worst kind of liberal leftie. 

 

Re Mosley. Clearly the leaflet through the lens of 2018 is unacceptable (it was at the time too but let's not pretnd those views weren't common) but I don't understand why you have to give back money because you later discover that 40 years ago or whatever somebody did something bad. That goes for either party.

 

Don't recall anything like this though

 

 

 

 

Again I was not trying to legitimise one side of the argument or the other.  Not that there even are sides to this discussion. I just agree with Matt Chorley that there has been a distinct lack of criticism from some social warrior folk (he used Lilly Allen as an example) when had it been the Tories, it would no doubt be something about vile Tory scum. 

[Guest Kopfkino]

2 minutes ago, toddybad said:

You seem to be making the assumption that big government is bad policy. It also wasn't the rationale sold to the public for austerity. 

 

The fact is, the political decision to impose cuts went against expert opinion and had literally led to thousands of deaths and extreme poverty when it wasn't required. It's unforgivable.

 

I'm making the assumption based on the ECB's findings. It wasn't the rationale sold, but you don't get austerity without a large government in the first place. 

[Guest]

Just now, Kopfkino said:

 

Again I was not trying to legitimise one side of the argument or the other.  Not that there even are sides to this discussion. I just agree with Matt Chorley that there has been a distinct lack of criticism from some social warrior folk (he used Lilly Allen as an example) when had it been the Tories, it would no doubt be something about vile Tory scum. 

Probably. Tensions run high on the left at times. Ultimately the leftie position is that the aim for society is that nobody should suffer. In a nutshell. The rights position tends to ignore the suffering (or blame those that are) and prioritise individual benefits. So the leftie sees this as ignoring suffering to give more to those that already have some or plenty. Thought about in that way it isn't surprising that the left gets empassioned. I would argue it's a more positive kinf of anger than the sort displayed by the right wingers that angrily blame all manner of ills on 'forunurz'.

 

This all said, I stick to what I said. I'm fed up of the culture of fake apologies, refunding monies because of historic ills etc. If he's done wrong ignore him from now. 

[Buce]

40 minutes ago, toddybad said:

I have no idea about the anti Semite bit.

 

I have seen the equalities advisor on tv and she is just awful. My heart sank when I saw she'd been appointed. She's the worst kind of liberal leftie. 

 

Re Mosley. Clearly the leaflet through the lens of 2018 is unacceptable (it was at the time too but let's not pretnd those views weren't common) but I don't understand why you have to give back money because you later discover that 40 years ago or whatever somebody did something bad. That goes for either party.

 

Don't recall anything like this though

 

 

 

3

 

As recently as the Sixties, the Tories had an election leaflet that said, "If you want a nîgger for a neighbour, vote Labour".

 

Like you say, historical context, but people in glass houses etc...

 

Edited 3 March 2018 by Buce

[Buce]

 

Do the Brexiteers still think we're going to get a favourable deal with the US?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43270388

 

Trump steps up war of words on trade with threat to tax EU cars

 

US President Donald Trump has stepped up his war of words over trade tariffs, threatening to "apply a tax" on imports of cars from the European Union.

Mr Trump said other countries had taken advantage of the US for years because of its "very stupid" trade deals.

The trade wrangle began on Thursday when Mr Trump vowed to impose hefty tariffs on steel and aluminium imports.

That brought a stiff response from trading partners and criticism from the IMF and WTO.

EU trade chiefs have reportedly been considering slapping 25% tariffs on around $3.5bn (£2.5bn) of imports from the US, following Mr Trump's proposal of a 25% tariff on imported steel and 10% on aluminium.

They would target iconic US exports including Levi's jeans, Harley-Davidson motorbikes and Bourbon whisky, European Commission head Jean-Claude Juncker said.

• Five reasons why trade wars aren't easy to win
• Steel tariffs: What impact will they really have?

What has Mr Trump said now?

In a tweet on Saturday, the president said: "If the EU wants to further increase their already massive tariffs and barriers on US companies doing business there, we will simply apply a Tax on their Cars which freely pour into the US.

"They make it impossible for our cars (and more) to sell there. Big trade imbalance!"

A second tweet decried the "$800 Billion Dollar Yearly Trade Deficit because of our 'very stupid' trade deals and policies".

Mr Trump added: "Our jobs and wealth are being given to other countries that have taken advantage of us for years. They laugh at what fools our leaders have been. No more!"

How many EU-made cars go to the US?

The US is the largest export market for EU cars - making up 25% of the €192bn (£171bn; $237bn) worth of motor vehicles the bloc exported in 2016 (China was second with 16%).

Germany is responsible for just over half of the EU's car exports, so new US tariffs would hurt the car industry there. But German carmakers also build hundreds of thousands of cars in the US every year - providing many US jobs that German officials say Mr Trump overlooks.

Do fellow Republicans back Mr Trump's trade threats?

A number have questioned the wisdom of the tariff proposal and have been urging the president to reconsider.

 

Senator Orrin Hatch said: "I'm very surprised, he's had very bad advice from somebody down there. The people who are going to have to pay these tariffs are going to be the American citizens."

Senator Ben Sasse said: "Kooky 18th Century protectionism will jack up prices on American families - and will prompt retaliation."

And industry bodies like the US Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Association have expressed deep concern, saying the benefits from the recent cuts in corporation tax "could all be for naught".

But Mr Trump's Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross stood firmly behind the plans, saying the president was "fed up with the continued over-capacity, he's fed up with the subsidisation of exports to us".

Why does he want to impose tariffs?

It chimes with his "America First" policy and the narrative that the US is getting a raw deal in its trade relations with other countries.

Mr Trump tweeted on Friday that the US was "losing billions of dollars" and would find a trade war "easy to win".

Skip Twitter post by @realDonaldTrump

When a country (USA) is losing many billions of dollars on trade with virtually every country it does business with, trade wars are good, and easy to win. Example, when we are down $100 billion with a certain country and they get cute, don’t trade anymore-we win big. It’s easy!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 2, 2018

Report

End of Twitter post by @realDonaldTrump

The president is using a clause in international trade rules which allows for tariffs for national security reasons.

But his move has not come totally out of the blue.

The commerce department recommended tariffs in February after conducting a review under rarely invoked national security regulations contained in a 1962 trade law.

Mr Trump had already announced tariffs on solar panels and washing machines in January.

What has the international response been?

The IMF said others could follow the US leader's precedent by claiming tough trade restrictions were needed to defend national security.

 

Canada said tariffs would cause disruption on both sides of the border. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau slammed the tariffs as "absolutely unacceptable".

He told reporters in Ontario he was "confident we're going to continue to be able to defend Canadian industry".

It is one of several countries, including Brazil, Mexico and Japan, that have said they will consider retaliatory steps if the president presses ahead with his plan next week.

• What would China do in a US trade war?
• Where Trump stands on world trade

World Trade Organization Director General Roberto Azevedo said: "A trade war is in no-one's interests."

But Mr Trump tweeted, "Trade wars are good."

   

Are trade wars good?

Analysis by Theo Leggett, business correspondent

If trade wars really were good and easy to win, the World Trade Organization probably wouldn't exist.

Most countries believe that negotiations are best carried out and disputes settled through a rules-based system. Introducing trade barriers on a tit-for-tat basis has the potential to harm companies on both sides.

But that's unlikely to bother Mr Trump. His campaign rhetoric drew heavily on the perceived threat to traditional US industries from foreign interlopers acting unfairly. He's simply continuing in that vein.

And it's unlikely to register much with the steelworkers of Pennsylvania and Indiana. Concerned about their jobs and the future, many will welcome Mr Trump's comments.

 

 

[Buce]

Tories’ Brexit unity fades as Heseltine slams May’s speech

‘Phrases, generalisations and platitudes’ won’t make a deal more likely, warns former deputy PM

 

Tory hopes of uniting the party behind Theresa May’s latest vision for Brexit faded as former deputy prime minister Michael Heseltine dismissed her latest speech as just more “phrases, generalisations and platitudes” which had done nothing to make a deal more likely.

While most Conservative MPs and peers gave the prime minister a period of grace after Friday’s address, Heseltine said all May had done was offer more detail on a set of demands that the European Union had made clear all along it would never agree to.

 

Talking to the Observer, he said: “The speech just moves us further down the cherry-picking road. It set out the cherries that Britain wants to pick but that approach completely ignores the fact that the EU has said, ‘sorry there is no cherry picking’.”

He added: “Why is it that after 18 months since the referendum we have not got any closer with these issues? The answer is simple: because no one has got any answer about how to do it.”

He said the huge gulf between what May was asking for and what the EU would be prepared to give was as wide, if not wider, than ever, leaving UK businesses in despair, and with no option but to consider postponing investment, or placing their money and plans elsewhere.

“While that gap remains industry will continue to make assumptions that will involve moving investment from here to the continent,” he said.

 

A lifelong europhile, Heseltine conceded that the prime minister was in a difficult position, as rightwing Tory MPs held “a knife to her throat”.

But neither the prime minister nor her cabinet had made any progress on the central Brexit problems, including the Irish border, because such issues were essentially not solvable unless the UK stayed in the EU.

The only way forward, he said, was for the issues to be put back to parliament, and then to an election or referendum. “The downsides are becoming more evident as time passes. We have had a serious devaluation of the currency. We have turned ourselves from the fastest growing to the slowest growing economy in Europe and we have made a complete Horlicks of the Irish border. I am totally with the view of Tony Blair and John Major that this matter has got to go back to parliament and possibly to a referendum or a general election.”

May will defend her speech on the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show on Sunday, saying it offered “a vision that was ambitious” but “practically based and therefore credible”. On Monday she is expected to make a statement to parliament on the latest UK approaches to the Brexit negotiations.

But while the speech has bought her time, there is no sign that her troubles are easing either with her own party in parliament or with Brussels. On Tuesday, the EU will publish draft guidelines for a post-Brexit trade deal that are likely to reject many of the positions outlined in May’s speech.

“It is good to hear that the UK wants to stay in regulatory alignment but that doesn’t really solve any problems,” said one diplomat involved in drafting the EU’s position. “It doesn’t take us over the line. We are ships passing each other in the night. We are not connecting.”

 

Meanwhile, there are no signs that rebel Tory MPs will back off or stop working with Labour colleagues on amendments to the withdrawal bill. Talks have continued between Labour MPs and Conservatives about how to push forward amendments on the customs union, single market, and the date of Brexit, on which May could well be defeated.

There are also signs that worries about Brexit could hit the Tories in May’s local elections. Tory council leaders across the UK are among those who believe Brexit will damage their local economies, putting them under greater pressure to push up council taxes and cut yet more services, according to a new survey of local authority leaders and chief executives.

This found 61% believed Brexit would have a negative or very negative impact on their regions.

The survey by the New Local Government Network (NLGN) showed only 12% of 185 respondents believed it would have a positive effect on their economies, while 26% felt the impact of leaving the EU would be neutral.

It is also uncovered profound dissatisfaction with the level of support and engagement that councils are receiving from central government over Brexit. Only 4% said they were receiving adequate support, while 68% thought it was insufficient.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/mar/03/tories-brexit-michael-heseltine-theresa-may

[Strokes]

30 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Do the Brexiteers still think we're going to get a favourable deal with the US?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43270388

 

Trump steps up war of words on trade with threat to tax EU cars

 

US President Donald Trump has stepped up his war of words over trade tariffs, threatening to "apply a tax" on imports of cars from the European Union.

Mr Trump said other countries had taken advantage of the US for years because of its "very stupid" trade deals.

The trade wrangle began on Thursday when Mr Trump vowed to impose hefty tariffs on steel and aluminium imports.

That brought a stiff response from trading partners and criticism from the IMF and WTO.

EU trade chiefs have reportedly been considering slapping 25% tariffs on around $3.5bn (£2.5bn) of imports from the US, following Mr Trump's proposal of a 25% tariff on imported steel and 10% on aluminium.

They would target iconic US exports including Levi's jeans, Harley-Davidson motorbikes and Bourbon whisky, European Commission head Jean-Claude Juncker said.

• Five reasons why trade wars aren't easy to win
• Steel tariffs: What impact will they really have?

What has Mr Trump said now?

In a tweet on Saturday, the president said: "If the EU wants to further increase their already massive tariffs and barriers on US companies doing business there, we will simply apply a Tax on their Cars which freely pour into the US.

"They make it impossible for our cars (and more) to sell there. Big trade imbalance!"

A second tweet decried the "$800 Billion Dollar Yearly Trade Deficit because of our 'very stupid' trade deals and policies".

Mr Trump added: "Our jobs and wealth are being given to other countries that have taken advantage of us for years. They laugh at what fools our leaders have been. No more!"

How many EU-made cars go to the US?

The US is the largest export market for EU cars - making up 25% of the €192bn (£171bn; $237bn) worth of motor vehicles the bloc exported in 2016 (China was second with 16%).

Germany is responsible for just over half of the EU's car exports, so new US tariffs would hurt the car industry there. But German carmakers also build hundreds of thousands of cars in the US every year - providing many US jobs that German officials say Mr Trump overlooks.

Do fellow Republicans back Mr Trump's trade threats?

A number have questioned the wisdom of the tariff proposal and have been urging the president to reconsider.

 

Senator Orrin Hatch said: "I'm very surprised, he's had very bad advice from somebody down there. The people who are going to have to pay these tariffs are going to be the American citizens."

Senator Ben Sasse said: "Kooky 18th Century protectionism will jack up prices on American families - and will prompt retaliation."

And industry bodies like the US Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Association have expressed deep concern, saying the benefits from the recent cuts in corporation tax "could all be for naught".

But Mr Trump's Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross stood firmly behind the plans, saying the president was "fed up with the continued over-capacity, he's fed up with the subsidisation of exports to us".

Why does he want to impose tariffs?

It chimes with his "America First" policy and the narrative that the US is getting a raw deal in its trade relations with other countries.

Mr Trump tweeted on Friday that the US was "losing billions of dollars" and would find a trade war "easy to win".

Skip Twitter post by @realDonaldTrump

When a country (USA) is losing many billions of dollars on trade with virtually every country it does business with, trade wars are good, and easy to win. Example, when we are down $100 billion with a certain country and they get cute, don’t trade anymore-we win big. It’s easy!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 2, 2018

Report

End of Twitter post by @realDonaldTrump

The president is using a clause in international trade rules which allows for tariffs for national security reasons.

But his move has not come totally out of the blue.

The commerce department recommended tariffs in February after conducting a review under rarely invoked national security regulations contained in a 1962 trade law.

Mr Trump had already announced tariffs on solar panels and washing machines in January.

What has the international response been?

The IMF said others could follow the US leader's precedent by claiming tough trade restrictions were needed to defend national security.

 

Canada said tariffs would cause disruption on both sides of the border. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau slammed the tariffs as "absolutely unacceptable".

He told reporters in Ontario he was "confident we're going to continue to be able to defend Canadian industry".

It is one of several countries, including Brazil, Mexico and Japan, that have said they will consider retaliatory steps if the president presses ahead with his plan next week.

• What would China do in a US trade war?
• Where Trump stands on world trade

World Trade Organization Director General Roberto Azevedo said: "A trade war is in no-one's interests."

But Mr Trump tweeted, "Trade wars are good."

   

Are trade wars good?

Analysis by Theo Leggett, business correspondent

If trade wars really were good and easy to win, the World Trade Organization probably wouldn't exist.

Most countries believe that negotiations are best carried out and disputes settled through a rules-based system. Introducing trade barriers on a tit-for-tat basis has the potential to harm companies on both sides.

But that's unlikely to bother Mr Trump. His campaign rhetoric drew heavily on the perceived threat to traditional US industries from foreign interlopers acting unfairly. He's simply continuing in that vein.

And it's unlikely to register much with the steelworkers of Pennsylvania and Indiana. Concerned about their jobs and the future, many will welcome Mr Trump's comments.

 

 

Who cares, this is great news for our brexit negotiations...

[Buce]

1 minute ago, Strokes said:

Who cares, this is great news for our brexit negotiations...

 

Of course it isn’t. Do you seriously think he will treat the UK any differently to the rest of the world?

[Strokes]

Just now, Buce said:

 

Of course it isn’t. Do you seriously think he will treat the UK any differently to the rest of the world?

Who knows with that maniac but if the EU face losing a large portion of their car sales to the yanks are they really going to chuck our business away?

[Buce]

Just now, Strokes said:

Who knows with that maniac but if the EU face losing a large portion of their car sales to the yanks are they really going to chuck our business away?

 

I think maybe you should read it again. 

[Strokes]

4 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

I think maybe you should read it again. 

What part do you think I am missing?

[Vardinio'sCat]

1 hour ago, Strokes said:

Who knows with that maniac but if the EU face losing a large portion of their car sales to the yanks are they really going to chuck our business away?

 

If I was a Brexiteer I wouldn't regard issues surrounding the car industry as fertile ground, but each to their own. Trump says some really stupid things which often differ from actual policy, so I'm not sure those prospective tariff make logical sense. He is getting an absolute roasting in the states for his flight of fantasy but who knows with that idiot in charge. He makes George Bush jr look like an intellectual titan, and Bush himself got into big problems by imposing steel tariffs not so long ago.

 

I saw a quote from GKN saying that some of their parts cross the channel 5 times. Honda UK said they receive 350 trucks of parts a day, with about 1 hour's worth of stock on site. Toyota are famous for their just-in time production, and apparently only 40% of the parts in British built cars are domestically sourced, although the manufacturers are trying to improve that. I could go on.

 

I think that ultimately the German manufacturers (and politicians) are probably more frightened by the prospect of the break up of the EU and the single market, than they are by the prospect of tariffs into the UK.

 

Hopefully we will get a tariff-free arrangement anyway. The renaissance of the British based (but not owned) car industry has been a massive success in recent times, so the warnings from them should be taken seriously, imho.

[Guest]

59 minutes ago, Vardinio'sCat said:

 

If I was a Brexiteer I wouldn't regard issues surrounding the car industry as fertile ground, but each to their own. Trump says some really stupid things which often differ from actual policy, so I'm not sure those prospective tariff make logical sense. He is getting an absolute roasting in the states for his flight of fantasy but who knows with that idiot in charge. He makes George Bush jr look like an intellectual titan, and Bush himself got into big problems by imposing steel tariffs not so long ago.

 

I saw a quote from GKN saying that some of their parts cross the channel 5 times. Honda UK said they receive 350 trucks of parts a day, with about 1 hour's worth of stock on site. Toyota are famous for their just-in time production, and apparently only 40% of the parts in British built cars are domestically sourced, although the manufacturers are trying to improve that. I could go on.

 

I think that ultimately the German manufacturers (and politicians) are probably more frightened by the prospect of the break up of the EU and the single market, than they are by the prospect of tariffs into the UK.

 

Hopefully we will get a tariff-free arrangement anyway. The renaissance of the British based (but not owned) car industry has been a massive success in recent times, so the warnings from them should be taken seriously, imho.

Unfortunately Brexiters are unable to believe anything that isn't glowing about our chances outside of the EU. Quite how we allowed 52% of the population to turn into zombies of this type I've no idea.

Edited 4 March 2018 by Guest

[Strokes]

1 hour ago, Vardinio'sCat said:

 

If I was a Brexiteer I wouldn't regard issues surrounding the car industry as fertile ground, but each to their own. Trump says some really stupid things which often differ from actual policy, so I'm not sure those prospective tariff make logical sense. He is getting an absolute roasting in the states for his flight of fantasy but who knows with that idiot in charge. He makes George Bush jr look like an intellectual titan, and Bush himself got into big problems by imposing steel tariffs not so long ago.

 

I saw a quote from GKN saying that some of their parts cross the channel 5 times. Honda UK said they receive 350 trucks of parts a day, with about 1 hour's worth of stock on site. Toyota are famous for their just-in time production, and apparently only 40% of the parts in British built cars are domestically sourced, although the manufacturers are trying to improve that. I could go on.

 

I think that ultimately the German manufacturers (and politicians) are probably more frightened by the prospect of the break up of the EU and the single market, than they are by the prospect of tariffs into the UK.

 

Hopefully we will get a tariff-free arrangement anyway. The renaissance of the British based (but not owned) car industry has been a massive success in recent times, so the warnings from them should be taken seriously, imho.

My point was that if Trump starts a trade war with the EU over the motor industry this weakens them, even if it’s just threats. Brexit may not be enough of an impact on its own but combined it could do significant damage, with this new threat maybe the EU will soften slightly to avoid the effects of both simultaneously hitting them. We all want a free trade deal in reality, as it’s what is best for both sides. 

[Rogstanley]

5 hours ago, Strokes said:

My point was that if Trump starts a trade war with the EU over the motor industry this weakens them, even if it’s just threats. Brexit may not be enough of an impact on its own but combined it could do significant damage, with this new threat maybe the EU will soften slightly to avoid the effects of both simultaneously hitting them. We all want a free trade deal in reality, as it’s what is best for both sides. 

It does show that this “doing trade deals with the world” fantasy brexiters have isn’t going to be quite as easy as they imagine. But at least you do now recognise that a good trade deal with the EU is actually far more important than silly fantasies about African farmers and so on.

[Buce]

9 hours ago, Strokes said:

What part do you think I am missing?

 

Sorry, mate, I got sidetracked.

 

I meant that if Trump is true to his word (tbf, who knows on that one, he appears to speak without thinking most of the time) then the myth that we will be striking up free trade deals all over the world will be further exposed. I don't think any potential softening of the EU negotiating stance (highly speculative anyway - if you look at the article, they don't sell as many cars to us that you might think - China is the second biggest market after the US, and that is only 16% of sales) would make up for the loss of such deals that the Brexit fantasy relies on so much.

[Webbo]

Trump is putting tariffs on stuff to protect jobs, just the same as the EU does. Trump is gambling that the American economy is so big that there won't be any retaliation, which might be true, just the same as the EU does. You can't reject free trade deals with the rest of the world and at the same time criticise Trump.

[breadandcheese]

Tariffs are the wrong way to go. 

 

I'm hoping this is more a case of Trump's over the top rhetoric, followed up by actions that do not live up to the bluster.

[Foxxed]

Trade wars!

 

Trump threatens a 25% tax on steel imports. The EU threatens an tax on motorcycles, bourbon and Levis. Trump then threatens a tax on car imports. On hearing this, the Dow Jones plummets in value.

 

And Britian stands alone. Historically - and especially in the Tory party - we were always pro free trade. But now Britain stands alone. No longer a voice at the EU table. No longer a voice in an American ear.

 

But perhaps this is a marvellous opportunity. Perhaps if the EU does tax motorcycles we could not! Obviously our friends in the EU won't in turn tax our services and use their market weight to twist other countries' trade deals with us. And vise versa with the US.

 

Ah, trade wars. Where market and population size matters. Where alliances matter. Trade wars, spreading hate and distrust. The ideal time for Brexit to force us to leave the world's largest trading block...

Edited 4 March 2018 by Foxxed

[Innovindil]

Surely if trump does go full retard and start slapping tariffs everywhere our offer of free trade (to a degree) will resonate a bit more loudly? Granted, we're not the biggest fish in the sea, but we aren't exactly a minnow are we. 

[Strokes]

29 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Surely if trump does go full retard and start slapping tariffs everywhere our offer of free trade (to a degree) will resonate a bit more loudly? Granted, we're not the biggest fish in the sea, but we aren't exactly a minnow are we. 

That’s what I would’ve thought, the EU trade deal is the first one we are negotiating because right now it’s the only one we can negotiate. It surely strengthens our position even if it turns out to be empty threats. The timing couldn’t be better for us, although obviously we are part of the EU he is threatening to hit us with tariffs too.

Edited 4 March 2018 by Strokes

[Guest]

31 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Surely if trump does go full retard and start slapping tariffs everywhere our offer of free trade (to a degree) will resonate a bit more loudly? Granted, we're not the biggest fish in the sea, but we aren't exactly a minnow are we. 

I think the real issue isn't whether free trade with Britain would be good for the EU - of course it would - its whether it adheres to single market rules.

 

At the end of the day it's a club with rules. Like any other club, it absolutely is not unrealistic for its members to expect they nobody outside the club would receive treatment as good as the members themselves. Otherwise there's no point in a club.

 

If you look at it with neutrality, there's no way they could give in to us on the hard Brexiteers version of the all the benefits, none of the responsibilities access to their market. And they won't. The government has finally admitted that. 

 

In terms of access to things like eurotom, if you were in the club you would want a huge fee for an outsider to use something meant for privileged members. 

 

If you are part of a free trade club that is the largest, most important and most successful in the world, you would absolutely expect those wanting access to the club to be the ones bending over backwards. This is obvious.

 

If they don't get free trade with the UK, every other country in the world wants to access the EU market and they will bend over backwards. They cant afford to give us cushty mates rates as it affects their relationships elsewhere.

 

What we're doing is stupid. We're leaving the world's most powerful trading bloc, which due to its power gets the best deals around the world. We will not ever be able to match the deals it gets. It's a national catastrophe.

Edited 4 March 2018 by Guest

[Strokes]

7 minutes ago, toddybad said:

I think the real issue isn't whether free trade with Britain would be good for the EU - of course it would - its whether it adheres to single market rules.

 

At the end of the day it's a club with rules. Like any other club, it absolutely is not unrealistic for its members to expect they nobody outside the club would receive treatment as good as the members themselves. Otherwise there's no point in a club.

 

If you look at it with neutrality, there's no way they could give in to us on the hard Brexiteers version of the all the benefits, none of the responsibilities access to their market. And they won't. The government has finally admitted that. 

 

In terms of access to things like eurotom, if you were in the club you would want a huge fee for an outsider to use something meant for privileged members. 

 

If you are part of a free trade club that is the largest, most important and most successful in the world, you would absolutely expect those wanting access to the club to be the ones bending over backwards. This is obvious.

 

If they don't get free trade with the UK, every other country in the world wants to access the EU market and they will bend over backwards. They cant afford to give us cushty mates rates as it affects their relationships elsewhere.

 

What we're doing is stupid. We're leaving the world's most powerful trading bloc, which due to its power gets the best deals around the world. We will not ever be able to match the deals it gets. It's a national catastrophe.

So you’re finally admitting that the EU not giving us a trade deal would be a detrimental punishment to us and itself in order to keep the other 27 in line?