Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Webbo]

So if I'm understanding the remainers on here, tariffs on EU goods a disaster, no tariffs on non EU goods a disaster?

[Rogstanley]

3 minutes ago, Webbo said:

So if I'm understanding the remainers on here, tariffs on EU goods a disaster, no tariffs on non EU goods a disaster?

Is that aimed at me? If so, no you've not understood the point at all

 

[Webbo]

Just now, Rogstanley said:

Is that aimed at me? If so, no you've not understood the point at all

 

If we drop tariffs on non EU goods the govt will lose tax revenue? So if why don't we put tariffs on EU goods and we'll be quids in? 

[Rogstanley]

21 minutes ago, Webbo said:

If we drop tariffs on non EU goods the govt will lose tax revenue? So if why don't we put tariffs on EU goods and we'll be quids in? 

Yes a tariff on imports is a tax that is paid to our government. So if we put tariffs on EU goods then the government will potentially (assuming no decrease in consumer spending) take in more tax revenue. However that will obviously come at the cost of higher prices for consumers (that's you and I), so when you say "we" would be quids in, no, the government might be quids in, but you and I would simply be paying more tax.

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, Rogstanley said:

Yes a tariff on imports is a tax that is paid to our government. So if we put tariffs on EU goods then the government will potentially (assuming no decrease in consumer spending) take in more tax revenue. However that will obviously come at the cost of higher prices for consumers (that's you and I), so when you say "we" would be quids in, no, the government might be quids in, but you and I would simply be paying more tax.

So if we drop tariffs on non EU goods well be paying less tax? Make your mind up Moose, are you for or against free trade?

[Rogstanley]

Just now, Webbo said:

So if we drop tariffs on non EU goods well be paying less tax? 

You'd be paying less tax if you bought products from the countries from which tariffs had been dropped yes. I haven't disputed that. What I've disputed is the idea that this is a benefit of brexit, because it is effectively a tax reduction, and the government have always had the power to reduce a myriad of taxes. Does that make sense?

[Strokes]

7 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

You'd be paying less tax if you bought products from the countries from which tariffs had been dropped yes. I haven't disputed that. What I've disputed is the idea that this is a benefit of brexit, because it is effectively a tax reduction, and the government have always had the power to reduce a myriad of taxes. Does that make sense?

Not really no. 

You can dismiss any benefit of anything by claiming there is another way to achieve it, you asked what benifits there are and you got one.

[Rogstanley]

2 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Not really no. 

You can dismiss any benefit of anything by claiming there is another way to achieve it, you asked what benifits there are and you got one.

I'm prepared to agree to the conclusion that there is a benefit here, and the benefit is that it gives us the ability to achieve something we have always been able to achieve but in a slightly different, and arguably less efficient way. Happy?

[Webbo]

17 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

You'd be paying less tax if you bought products from the countries from which tariffs had been dropped yes. I haven't disputed that. What I've disputed is the idea that this is a benefit of brexit, because it is effectively a tax reduction, and the government have always had the power to reduce a myriad of taxes. Does that make sense?

We haven't been able to drop taxes on food before because tariffs are the only taxes on food and we haven't been able to reduce those while we're in the EU.

[Strokes]

2 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

I'm prepared to agree to the conclusion that there is a benefit here, and the benefit is that it gives us the ability to achieve something we have always been able to achieve but in a slightly different, and arguably less efficient way. Happy?

Yeah.

I don’t think any of us are ever going to agree however it turns out, because the alternative not being played out never really gives us the option to compare. I’m just sick of the silly tit for tat arguments, just let them get on with it now. We know the experts are against it, you know we don’t trust the experts.

[Alf Bentley]

23 minutes ago, Webbo said:

So if I'm understanding the remainers on here, tariffs on EU goods a disaster, no tariffs on non EU goods a disaster?

 

16 minutes ago, Webbo said:

If we drop tariffs on non EU goods the govt will lose tax revenue? So if why don't we put tariffs on EU goods and we'll be quids in? 

 

No, tariffs - and, more importantly, non-tariff barriers to trade - impact consumers, producers and the Treasury differently.

 

Higher tariffs and more red tape makes exporting firms less competitive, damaging UK growth, employment, pay and living standards. In theory, reciprocal barriers imposed by the UK could help domestic producers compete against EU imports, but only in sectors where we had the potential (e.g. not oranges, probably not BMWs) - so there could be gains and losses for the consumer there, plus price increases as distributors offset the extra tax they were paying. The Treasury would get more tax per import from higher tariffs, but could get less revenue overall if EU imports declined.

 

Eliminating tariffs on non-EU imports would probably mean lower consumer prices, but less revenue for the Treasury to spend on public services. It would also give foreign importers a competitive advantage over domestic producers. That would be a bizarre policy as, unless you had some sort of planned shift into other sectors, it would cause British firms to go bust, British jobs to be lost and would place an extra burden on the treasury (lower domestic tax revenue + higher benefits). I suppose some domestic producers who used imports in production might benefit, but that mostly applies to the EU not the wider world (e.g. car firms importing components from the continent) - so that's an argument for a close relationship with the EU, not lower tariffs worldwide.

Reciprocal reductions in export tariffs to non-EU countries would reduce Treasury revenue but might help some exporters to compete - though there are major limits to this. It's hardly going to be practical to export strawberries to Japan or feasible to compete with Japanese car makers to export cars to New Zealand.....and higher wages limits the potential for export growth to poorer countries. There are good reasons why countries still trade disproportionately with their neighbours.

 

In general, well-managed free trade (i.e. minimal barriers for fair trade, support for development, barriers to prevent abuse & sudden shocks) is beneficial. Increasing barriers with your main trading partners, then going cap in hand to more distant nations is a big risk.

 

I find it bizarre how the Brexiteer focus was once on British growth and jobs, but now it's on getting cheap import prices for the consumer, at the expense of British business and British jobs. A bit short-sighted not to realise that consumers also need jobs, but also very unpatriotic!

 

Anyway, why don't you stop the "constant whining", you Brexshit Bory! (I saw that you were among the usual suspects repping Milo for abusing Remoaners, so presume you approve of such banter ).

 

 

[Webbo]

6 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

 

No, tariffs - and, more importantly, non-tariff barriers to trade - impact consumers, producers and the Treasury differently.

 

Higher tariffs and more red tape makes exporting firms less competitive, damaging UK growth, employment, pay and living standards. In theory, reciprocal barriers imposed by the UK could help domestic producers compete against EU imports, but only in sectors where we had the potential (e.g. not oranges, probably not BMWs) - so there could be gains and losses for the consumer there, plus price increases as distributors offset the extra tax they were paying. The Treasury would get more tax per import from higher tariffs, but could get less revenue overall if EU imports declined.

 

Eliminating tariffs on non-EU imports would probably mean lower consumer prices, but less revenue for the Treasury to spend on public services. It would also give foreign importers a competitive advantage over domestic producers. That would be a bizarre policy as, unless you had some sort of planned shift into other sectors, it would cause British firms to go bust, British jobs to be lost and would place an extra burden on the treasury (lower domestic tax revenue + higher benefits). I suppose some domestic producers who used imports in production might benefit, but that mostly applies to the EU not the wider world (e.g. car firms importing components from the continent) - so that's an argument for a close relationship with the EU, not lower tariffs worldwide.

Reciprocal reductions in export tariffs to non-EU countries would reduce Treasury revenue but might help some exporters to compete - though there are major limits to this. It's hardly going to be practical to export strawberries to Japan or feasible to compete with Japanese car makers to export cars to New Zealand.....and higher wages limits the potential for export growth to poorer countries. There are good reasons why countries still trade disproportionately with their neighbours.

 

In general, well-managed free trade (i.e. minimal barriers for fair trade, support for development, barriers to prevent abuse & sudden shocks) is beneficial. Increasing barriers with your main trading partners, then going cap in hand to more distant nations is a big risk.

 

I find it bizarre how the Brexiteer focus was once on British growth and jobs, but now it's on getting cheap import prices for the consumer, at the expense of British business and British jobs. A bit short-sighted not to realise that consumers also need jobs, but also very unpatriotic!

 

Anyway, why don't you stop the "constant whining", you Brexshit Bory! (I saw that you were among the usual suspects repping Milo for abusing Remoaners, so presume you approve of such banter ).

 

 

You're very touchy these days Alf.

 

I would have thought that people on the left would have been in favour of cheaper food and clothing for the poor, seeing as its such a high proportion of their income?

[Alf Bentley]

4 minutes ago, Webbo said:

You're very touchy these days Alf.

 

I would have thought that people on the left would have been in favour of cheaper food and clothing for the poor, seeing as its such a high proportion of their income?

 

Not touchy at all, mate, hence the winking face. Just calmly standing up to anti-democratic Brexiteer attempts to shut up opponents and discourage free speech (which you apparently support).

 

Or is the "Remoaner"/"constant whining" stuff all about not saying anything negative? If so, I'd say that I'm pretty nuanced about the prospects for Brexit - might be fine, but will probably be moderately bad to disastrous. Don't see why I should shut up with that opinion? If negativity is the issue, I look forward to your positive comments about the prospects for a Corbyn government. 

 

Btw. I made a serious response to your points on trade, but see you've ignored that and just replied with a bit of classic "whataboutery" and goalpost-shifting, you roguish old troll. 

 

Must work now (translation re. a commercial transaction in Mozambique, ironically, though it's for a domestic client so I won't be levying any tariffs.

 

 

 

[Guest]

[Webbo]

9 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Not touchy at all, mate, hence the winking face. Just calmly standing up to anti-democratic Brexiteer attempts to shut up opponents and discourage free speech (which you apparently support).

 

Or is the "Remoaner"/"constant whining" stuff all about not saying anything negative? If so, I'd say that I'm pretty nuanced about the prospects for Brexit - might be fine, but will probably be moderately bad to disastrous. Don't see why I should shut up with that opinion? If negativity is the issue, I look forward to your positive comments about the prospects for a Corbyn government. 

 

Btw. I made a serious response to your points on trade, but see you've ignored that and just replied with a bit of classic "whataboutery" and goalpost-shifting, you roguish old troll. 

 

Must work now (translation re. a commercial transaction in Mozambique, ironically, though it's for a domestic client so I won't be levying any tariffs.

 

 

 

Nobody has explained to me why British firms facing competition from low wage countries like Bangladesh is a bad thing but facing competition from Romania is a good thing?

 

If people want Trump style protectionism there's an argument they can make ,but to be for it and against it at the same time makes no sense to me.

[Strokes]

22 minutes ago, toddybad said:

They’ve photoshopped that headscarf to make her seem more Russian haven’t they? 

[Buce]

4 minutes ago, Strokes said:

They’ve photoshopped that headscarf to make her seem more Russian haven’t they? 

 

She's certainly russian into an attack on Syria...

[Strokes]

Just now, Buce said:

 

She's certainly russian into an attack on Syria...

Izzy is that you? 

[Carl the Llama]

..

Edited 12 April 2018 by Carl the Llama

[Carl the Llama]

@Alf Bentley you do know that Webbo has no interest in nuanced debate and just wants to make sweeping generalisations where he ascribes thoughts to people who have claimed nothing like what he's saying then sit back and clap his hands like a toddler every time somebody takes the time to treat him like an adult and give a reasoned response to yet another of his shitposts? 

 

Plus I'm pretty sure the man's a racist.  *Sarcasm Webs, don't get your knickers in a bunch*

Edited 12 April 2018 by Carl the Llama

[Beechey]

YouGov reporting that 43% oppose missile strikes, but 60% support a no-fly-zone? Do people not understand the order of magnitude of difference between these two options? NFZ's are a significant step above missile strikes when Russia has a significant presence in the skies above Syria. Shows how much opinion polling means when the people being polled are clueless as to what they're be asked.

 

Bloody idiots, the lot of them.

[Buce]

1 hour ago, Beechey said:

YouGov reporting that 43% oppose missile strikes, but 60% support a no-fly-zone? Do people not understand the order of magnitude of difference between these two options? NFZ's are a significant step above missile strikes when Russia has a significant presence in the skies above Syria. Shows how much opinion polling means when the people being polled are clueless as to what they're be asked.

 

Bloody idiots, the lot of them.

 

I agree.

 

Yet when we apply the same criteria to the Brexit vote, we're told that's different.

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Beechey said:

YouGov reporting that 43% oppose missile strikes, but 60% support a no-fly-zone? Do people not understand the order of magnitude of difference between these two options? NFZ's are a significant step above missile strikes when Russia has a significant presence in the skies above Syria. Shows how much opinion polling means when the people being polled are clueless as to what they're be asked.

 

Bloody idiots, the lot of them.

That's a classic public perception issue, right there. Missiles hitting the ground and exploding (and possibly/probably killing a few folks) looks much more spectacular and killy than a few planes/SAM sites making sure airspace is clean - even though as you say that's probably a fair bit higher up the escalation ladder overall.

 

Welcome to the world of having to explain scientific policy to the layman.

[Beechey]

6 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

I agree.

 

Yet when we apply the same criteria to the Brexit vote, we're told that's different.

Well thankfully the government didn't announce it would follow the results of YouGov's poll. It did however for the EU referendum.

[Webbo]

3 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

@Alf Bentley you do know that Webbo has no interest in nuanced debate and just wants to make sweeping generalisations where he ascribes thoughts to people who have claimed nothing like what he's saying then sit back and clap his hands like a toddler every time somebody takes the time to treat him like an adult and give a reasoned response to yet another of his shitposts? 

 

Plus I'm pretty sure the man's a racist.  *Sarcasm Webs, don't get your knickers in a bunch*

Please give me your nuanced argument. Why is free trade with Europe good and free trade with the rest of the world bad?