Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Strokes said:

But how does non season ticket holders having to pay high prices negatively affect season ticket holders. As with EU members now having tariffs on imports and exports with us? For instance we are the Holland’s second biggest trading partner, Ireland’s biggest. They lose out too, how does that compare in your example?

I'm not going to join in on the ticket scenario as it isn't quite right.

 

But you're looking at it the wrong way.

 

If we have anything less than what we have now from the agreement both Britain (mainly) and the EU will be worse off. Both sides know that. 

 

For the EU, however, it's better to be worse off in their dealings with the UK than to undermine its worldwide trade deals by giving us special treatment. Were they to give us something they haven't given others, there'd be calls for renegotiations across the board - some countries have already explicitly said this. They'd be much worse off then. 

 

They'd rather we stayed in but if we don't they can't afford to give us a special deal that isn't constructed consistently with other deals.

Edited 4 March 2018 by Guest

[Strokes]

1 minute ago, toddybad said:

I'm not going to join in on the ticket scenario as it isn't quite right.

 

But you're looking at it the wrong way.

 

If we have anything less than what we have now from the agreement both Britain (mainly) and the EU will be worse off. Both sides know that. 

 

For the EU, however, it's better to be worse off in their dealings with the UK than to undermine it's worldwide trade deals by giving it's special treatment. We're they to give us something they haven't given others there'd be calls for renegotiations across the board - some countries have already explicitly said this. They'd be much worse off then. 

 

They'd rather we stayed in but if we don't they can't afford to give us a special deal that isn't constructed consistently with other deals.

And you don’t see that as protectionism?

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, Strokes said:

And you don’t see that as protectionism?

Call it whatever you want. It's irrelevant. We'll be worse off outside. It will damage the lives of ordinary people. That's what matters. I couldn't care less what badge you attach to it. You don't think other countries will want to protect their own interests in the deals they strike?

 

The fact is you have no arguments to debunk any of this beyond pure hope. And that's why you resort to posts like that. That isn't good enough. It certainly isn't good enough when government is relying upon pure hope. 

Edited 4 March 2018 by Guest

[Milo]

16 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Call it whatever you want. It's irrelevant. We'll be worse off outside.

Couldn’t be bothered to quote the previous million posts...

 

...but, with respect, you don’t know for a fact that we’ll be worse off outside the EU. You are guessing that we will be. 

 

Nobody knows - fact. 

[Rogstanley]

17 minutes ago, Milo said:

Couldn’t be bothered to quote the previous million posts...

 

...but, with respect, you don’t know for a fact that we’ll be worse off outside the EU. You are guessing that we will be. 

 

Nobody knows - fact. 

I don’t know for a fact that I’m not going to win the lottery next weekend. Doesn’t mean I’m going to quit my job tomorrow morning.

Edited 4 March 2018 by Rogstanley

[Strokes]

10 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

I don’t know for a fact that I’m not going to win the lottery next weekend. Doesn’t mean I’m going to quit my job tomorrow morning.

That’s a bit negative tbh.

[Strokes]

47 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Call it whatever you want. It's irrelevant. We'll be worse off outside. It will damage the lives of ordinary people. That's what matters. I couldn't care less what badge you attach to it. You don't think other countries will want to protect their own interests in the deals they strike?

 

The fact is you have no arguments to debunk any of this beyond pure hope. And that's why you resort to posts like that. That isn't good enough. It certainly isn't good enough when government is relying upon pure hope. 

Resort to post like this? 

I’ve been saying it’s a protectionist racket and you are arguing with by describing just that. If you want to be apart of that it’s up to you, I don’t. And if asked in something like a referendum I would vote in this way.

[Rogstanley]

13 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Resort to post like this? 

I’ve been saying it’s a protectionist racket and you are arguing with by describing just that. If you want to be apart of that it’s up to you, I don’t. And if asked in something like a referendum I would vote in this way.

You weren't saying it was a protectionist racket. You were deliberately failing to understand the football club analogy to try and trick others into admitting it is protectionist. If you hate the way that the EU confers benefits upon its members that aren't available to non-members then just say so; I suspect few people really care.

[Strokes]

18 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

You weren't saying it was a protectionist racket. You were deliberately failing to understand the football club analogy to try and trick others into admitting it is protectionist. If you hate the way that the EU confers benefits upon its members that aren't available to non-members then just say so; I suspect few people really care.

The football analogy didn’t work, and they had already admitted it was a protectionist racket by the way they had described it.

[Guest]

44 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Resort to post like this? 

I’ve been saying it’s a protectionist racket and you are arguing with by describing just that. If you want to be apart of that it’s up to you, I don’t. And if asked in something like a referendum I would vote in this way.

???

As of the only argument leavers have left is resorting to some bizarre moral code 

???

 

Being part of a club that trades with the world on good terms because of its strength is a benefit to your family and mine.

 

Leaving will harm us all.

 

That's the ethics you should be worrying about. 

[Buce]

 

Thousands of women in London marching for equal rights:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/mar/04/women-march-in-london-gender-equality-international-womens-day

 

I hope they did the hoovering before they went.

[Rogstanley]

21 minutes ago, Strokes said:

The football analogy didn’t work, and they had already admitted it was a protectionist racket by the way they had described it.

It does work. I don't think anybody is denying that being an EU member confers some benefits that you wouldn't get as a non-member. You have a problem with that, other people don't.

[Countryfox]

2 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Thousands of women in London marching for equal rights:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/mar/04/women-march-in-london-gender-equality-international-womens-day

 

I hope they did the hoovering before they went.

 

Ok ..  they can have March ..   and we can have the other eleven ...   

[Milo]

1 hour ago, toddybad said:

As of the only argument leavers have left is resorting to some bizarre moral code

Nope, it’s not. 

[Alf Bentley]

2 hours ago, Strokes said:

But how does non season ticket holders having to pay high prices negatively affect season ticket holders. As with EU members now having tariffs on imports and exports with us? For instance we are the Holland’s second biggest trading partner, Ireland’s biggest. They lose out too, how does that compare in your example?

 

LCFC = EU

Season ticket holders = EU member states

General sale ticket buyers = Post-Brexit UK

 

Your analogy doesn't work. Whereas the UK trades with other EU members and will continue to do so post-Brexit, LCFC season ticket holders do not trade with general sale ticket buyers or have to pay more for their season tickets if general sale prices are increased. Only the perceived comparative value of season tickets will be affected if general sale prices rise or fall. 

 

My analogy does work because I'm talking about the perceived comparative value of the service that members and non-members buy from the club (be that LCFC or the EU). Both season ticket holders and general sale ticket buyers have a trading relationship with their club - LCFC. Any trade deal that the post-Brexit UK ("general sale ticket buyer") has will be negotiated with the EU ("the club"), not with Holland or Ireland ("season ticket holders")....but as "season ticket holders" of the EU "club", Holland and Ireland will question the value of their season tickets if they see a "general sale ticket buyer" (post-Brexit UK) getting the same or similar deal from the club without having to accept agreed club rules and payments. It's clearly not in the club's interests to alienate committed members in this way, even if the UK ("general sale  ticket buyer") feels that this would benefit both it as buyer and the club as seller. 

[Strokes]

54 minutes ago, toddybad said:

???

As of the only argument leavers have left is resorting to some bizarre moral code 

???

 

Being part of a club that trades with the world on good terms because of its strength is a benefit to your family and mine.

 

Leaving will harm us all.

 

That's the ethics you should be worrying about. 

What nonsense.

Trade with the EU is 45% of our external trade, it counts for just 5% of overall trade/business. Only 8% of uk companies buy or sell into the EU but all have to endure it’s legislation. We have a large amount of trade with countries already of which there is no deal, you act like there will be Armageddon when we leave there won’t be. Even with no deal we can and will still trade with the EU and import taxes are our choice which will go to the treasury from which we can do as we please as an independent nation. I’m positive because there is plenty to be positive about, the only concern to me is the Irish border to which I hope we can find a practical solution.

Im sorry I treat your hysterical, overreacting posting with contempt but maybe if you weren’t such a patronising arse all the time I’d respond in a less mocking way.

[Strokes]

10 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

LCFC = EU

Season ticket holders = EU member states

General sale ticket buyers = Post-Brexit UK

 

Your analogy doesn't work. Whereas the UK trades with other EU members and will continue to do so post-Brexit, LCFC season ticket holders do not trade with general sale ticket buyers or have to pay more for their season tickets if general sale prices are increased. Only the perceived comparative value of season tickets will be affected if general sale prices rise or fall. 

 

My analogy does work because I'm talking about the perceived comparative value of the service that members and non-members buy from the club (be that LCFC or the EU). Both season ticket holders and general sale ticket buyers have a trading relationship with their club - LCFC. Any trade deal that the post-Brexit UK ("general sale ticket buyer") has will be negotiated with the EU ("the club"), not with Holland or Ireland ("season ticket holders")....but as "season ticket holders" of the EU "club", Holland and Ireland will question the value of their season tickets if they see a "general sale ticket buyer" (post-Brexit UK) getting the same or similar deal from the club without having to accept agreed club rules and payments. It's clearly not in the club's interests to alienate committed members in this way, even if the UK ("general sale  ticket buyer") feels that this would benefit both it as buyer and the club as seller. 

But in your analogy season ticket holders and non members aren’t trading with each other, so they aren’t negatively affected by a clubs decision to penalise non members.

[Alf Bentley]

4 minutes ago, Strokes said:

But in your analogy season ticket holders and non members aren’t trading with each other, so they aren’t negatively affected by a clubs decision to penalise non members.

 

I've made my point and responded to yours. Time to move on.

But what would be the point in anyone ever joining any club if the club did not "penalise non-members" (i.e. offer better conditions to members than to non-members)?

[Strokes]

7 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I've made my point and responded to yours. Time to move on.

But what would be the point in anyone ever joining any club if the club did not "penalise non-members" (i.e. offer better conditions to members than to non-members)?

I don’t know but if i suffered penalties because of poor decision by that clubs inability to retain members after said members were requesting reform. I’d probably consider my own membership.

[leicsmac]

Was thinking about giving this a thread of its own but instead put it in here.

 

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/the-role-of-luck-in-life-success-is-far-greater-than-we-realized/

 

Been saying this for a long time, it's good to see it at least partially empirically confirmed. Luck, and the decisions of other people, have at least as much contribution towards success as an individuals response to them IMO.

[Alf Bentley]

3 hours ago, Strokes said:

And you don’t see that as protectionism?

 

Every nation or trading bloc protects its domestic economy to varying degrees and in different ways. If they have any sense they then try to mutually reduce their protection vis-à-vis other nations/blocs through free trade agreements as they know that free or freer trade will be mutually beneficial, through competition and comparative advantage, if done the right way. But they'll do this in a carefully calibrated way that won't damage their respective economies by allowing change to be too rapid and harmful or by exposing important but vulnerable sectors to a competitive free market in which they cannot yet hope to thrive unsupported.

 

Some regimes are much more protectionist: Trump seems to be a case in point, yet we're pinning our future free trade hopes on the likes of him, China and a few other distant major trading nations. Most national economies are not big enough for us to achieve trade growth sufficient to replace significant trade loss in our main market - the EU. Other nations might be big enough to make a difference in 20, 50 or 100 years time, but we don't possess a tardis.

 

Of course, if you're opposed to any domestic protection, we could unilaterally eliminate all our tariffs in the hope that Trump or China would allow easy access to their markets for our exporters. Good luck with that! The obvious risk is that cheap imports would undercut domestic suppliers, put many domestic firms out of business and cause a domestic economic crisis..... Seeking free trade is good, but not on any terms regardless.

 

13 minutes ago, Strokes said:

What nonsense.

Trade with the EU is 45% of our external trade, it counts for just 5% of overall trade/business. Only 8% of uk companies buy or sell into the EU but all have to endure it’s legislation. We have a large amount of trade with countries already of which there is no deal, you act like there will be Armageddon when we leave there won’t be. Even with no deal we can and will still trade with the EU and import taxes are our choice which will go to the treasury from which we can do as we please as an independent nation. I’m positive because there is plenty to be positive about, the only concern to me is the Irish border to which I hope we can find a practical solution.

Im sorry I treat your hysterical, overreacting posting with contempt but maybe if you weren’t such a patronising arse all the time I’d respond in a less mocking way.

 

Our trade with many non-EU countries already comes under EU-negotiated trade deals by which we'll no longer be covered once we leave - until such time as we negotiate replacement deals:

http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/negotiations-and-agreements/#_in-place (see also the other tabs re. deals partly in place, pending and under negotiation - though some of the latter are stalled)

So, at least in the short-term, all that trade will become more expensive and our firms in those markets will become less competitive overnight in March 2019 or whenever.

 

If you want to claim that the EU is poor at negotiating trade deals and we could do much better on our own, have a look at the list of US and Chinese trade agreements. Both lists are much shorter:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free-trade_agreements

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bilateral_free-trade_agreements#China,_People's_Republic_of

 

Citing the low percentage of firms trading with the EU ignores the "multiplier" effect and how many purely domestic businesses depend wholly or partially on export firms (often quite large firms).

Just imagine a hypothetical scenario where the Sunderland Nissan works became uncompetitive in EU export markets and closed down. What impact would that have on the following:

- Domestic suppliers of machinery/components for the Nissan plant?

- A local supplier of agency labour?

- A local firm of accountants with contracts to do the books of local components suppliers?

- Local builders/tradesmen hired to build, renovate or decorate the homes of Nissan employees?

- Everything from furniture stores to travel agents dependent on trade from the workforce?

- Pubs, cafes, restaurants, hairdressers or toy shops local to the plant or in the city centre?

[Alf Bentley]

37 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I don’t know but if i suffered penalties because of poor decision by that clubs inability to retain members after said members were requesting reform. I’d probably consider my own membership.

 

Maybe other EU nations will take that view, but none have done so thus far. Maybe they will if/when they have to pay larger contributions to the EU, post-Brexit, we'll see.

It certainly makes life harder for the EU. But it also gives the EU an additional motive not to offer the UK a generous deal. If other EU nations are asked for extra contributions and see the UK getting a generous deal, they won't be impressed.

[Alf Bentley]

I'm now banning myself from Foxes Talk for a fortnight.

 

I've spent far too much time on here recently. 

[Sharpe's Fox]

Best thing about Brexit will be the Atlanticist’s faces when they realise they have enabled JC and McDonnell to make Stalin look like a ****ing anarchist.

Edited 4 March 2018 by Sharpe's Fox

[Rogstanley]

58 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I don’t know but if i suffered penalties because of poor decision by that clubs inability to retain members after said members were requesting reform. I’d probably consider my own membership.

Yet that isn't how EU countries or citizens appear to view the matter. Quite the opposite, in fact.

 

https://www.ft.com/content/931c512e-be33-11e7-b8a3-38a6e068f464

 

"A close look at public opinion around Europe... reveals rising popular support for the EU [and] support for a tough EU line towards the UK... there is next to no pressure on EU27 governments to be gentle with the British."