woody2 Posted July 23, 2018 Share Posted July 23, 2018 2 hours ago, Freggyragh said: Dear EU, We know the EU has no HQ. We know the EU has a Commission and a Council based in Brussels, a Court of Justice in Kirchberg, and a Parliament in Strasbourg. How can we explain this best to a spud-cock on manxforums who thinks the Parliament of the EU’s main building in Brussels is the EU’s ‘HQ’? (We’ve explained that the Parliament of the EU is not the ‘HQ’ of the EU, and we’ve explained that the Parliament is, in any case, seated at Strasbourg. He still doesn’t understand.) Kind regards, The fantaboys. tell tusk...... he's the one who also referred to the altiero spinelli building as the hq....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody2 Posted July 23, 2018 Share Posted July 23, 2018 2 hours ago, Freggyragh said: The US and Australia have an FTA for goods. They have quite similar economies and standards when it comes to agriculture and fisheries, I’m sure it works well for them. The U.K. has a large and competitive services sector, but much weaker and far less competitive goods sector. There’s a Trade in Services Agreement between Australia, East Asia, the US and EU in the pipeline - but the U.K.’s leaving and will have to negotiate its way into the TiSA market on its own at a later date. that's deader than a dead thing...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted July 23, 2018 Share Posted July 23, 2018 28 minutes ago, woody2 said: just look at the tariffs the eu applies to meat imports...... The current EU external tariff on food stuffs are, according to the UK Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (12 October 2016 publication) Beef 65-87% Pork 43-50% Lamb 45-51% (there are however substantial tariff free quotas for NZ/Australian lamb) Chicken 27-41% Cheese 42-68% Milk and cream 50-74% Butter 63% Vegetables 10-15% Wheat and barley 53% Jams etc 24% Processed ham 27% Processed chicken 88% With the arguable exception of New Zealand lamb, why would we want to import any of these from outside of the EU at non tariff rates? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted July 23, 2018 Share Posted July 23, 2018 (edited) Alternatively, if quitting the Single Market, then why not go for completely unilateral free trade - leading by example and abolishing tariffs and artificial labour market (immigration) restrictions completely? Maybe even quit the WTO. Certainly allow London to split from the UK and go for a Singapore model (from many perspectives the rest of the country is really a drain on the London / offshore economy). Genuinely surprised that the tariffs on jam are so high. Quite a revelation. Edited July 23, 2018 by pongo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody2 Posted July 23, 2018 Share Posted July 23, 2018 3 hours ago, pongo said: With the arguable exception of New Zealand lamb, why would we want to import any of these from outside of the EU at non tariff rates? massive savings..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freggyragh Posted July 23, 2018 Share Posted July 23, 2018 The tariffs you quote don’t include the TRQs (you only mention that for lamb), FTAs, and GSP that gives developing countries tariff-free access to the EU. New Zealand agriculture eventually did alright after subsidies were dropped, but it was a very painful process. Farming in the U.K. would eventually find a way to continue, but dropping all tariffs in March 2019 would kill the industry off for the foreseeable future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody2 Posted July 23, 2018 Share Posted July 23, 2018 nz has done excellent with dropping most of its subs, at the other end of the scale switzerland has done terrible with upping subs....... tariffs are only part of the issue, the uk needs control of the amounts coming in..... the eu policy of anything german imports been dirt cheap and anything the uk imports been taxed to hell is just another part of the disastrous eu...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody2 Posted July 23, 2018 Share Posted July 23, 2018 interesting the eu want services included in any deal...... time to walk...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody2 Posted July 23, 2018 Share Posted July 23, 2018 6 hours ago, pongo said: Alternatively, if quitting the Single Market, then why not go for completely unilateral free trade - leading by example and abolishing tariffs and artificial labour market (immigration) restrictions completely? Maybe even quit the WTO. Certainly allow London to split from the UK and go for a Singapore model (from many perspectives the rest of the country is really a drain on the London / offshore economy). Genuinely surprised that the tariffs on jam are so high. Quite a revelation. sounds like libya.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted July 23, 2018 Share Posted July 23, 2018 1 minute ago, woody2 said: sounds like libya.... Now we know what W2 aspires to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody2 Posted July 23, 2018 Share Posted July 23, 2018 13 minutes ago, John Wright said: Now we know what W2 aspires to. learn to read-that's pingo's plan......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted July 23, 2018 Share Posted July 23, 2018 (edited) 39 minutes ago, woody2 said: learn to read-that's pingo's plan......... Pingo believes in doing a thing properly or else why bother? So as part of the Single Market we should have been properly on the inside and pushing for better market outcomes. Personally I believe that Britain should stay in the Single Market - or more or less. But if leaving the Single Market (we had the sweet-spot deal but nevermind ) then we should be going properly for a fully free trade outcome. That means abolishing tariffs and artificial restrictions to the market - including properly freeing up migrant labour etc. And in many ways it should mean London being able to ditch the dead weight which is much of the rest of the British economy - or at least having a more favourable deal. Why should London continue to pay for the rest of the country - and especially the parts which voted to leave the EU? It would also be great to see Scotland being able to properly compete with London and the offshores. And the best solution to the Irish border issue is to end the partition. Edited July 23, 2018 by pongo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freggyragh Posted July 23, 2018 Share Posted July 23, 2018 10 hours ago, pongo said: With the arguable exception of New Zealand lamb, why would we want to import any of these from outside of the EU at non tariff rates? The opposite of free and competitive trade is central planning, quotas, subsidies, inefficiencies, poor value for the consumer and a stagnant market. The CAP has been successful in its goal of maintaining employment in rural areas and maintaining food supplies, but it distorts the world market and makes competing tougher for producers in poorer countries, it doesn’t encourage farmers to improve quality and seems to encourage intensive grain and barn farming, rather than pastoral farming. It would be great to see the U.K. ditch payments to wealthy landowners and farmers to focus on really high-quality product, and consumers to buy cheap imported stuff if they want it. Can’t happen without trade agreements though, and they would have to include services - so that’s not going to happen. I think British fishing and agriculture could do better out of the EU if there were other trade deals, and I’d support joining the Cairns group. It’s almost completely irrelevant to the Brexit debate though. Agriculture and fishing combined only represent 0.2% of the UKs GDP. It’s ludicrous to think any improvements (nothing guaranteed anyway) in that 0.2% of the economy is worth jeopardising the other 99.8% - and any improvements in these industries would only be possible with the continued access to migrant labour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody2 Posted July 24, 2018 Share Posted July 24, 2018 11 hours ago, pongo said: Pingo believes in doing a thing properly or else why bother? So as part of the Single Market we should have been properly on the inside and pushing for better market outcomes. Personally I believe that Britain should stay in the Single Market - or more or less. But if leaving the Single Market (we had the sweet-spot deal but nevermind ) then we should be going properly for a fully free trade outcome. That means abolishing tariffs and artificial restrictions to the market - including properly freeing up migrant labour etc. And in many ways it should mean London being able to ditch the dead weight which is much of the rest of the British economy - or at least having a more favourable deal. Why should London continue to pay for the rest of the country - and especially the parts which voted to leave the EU? It would also be great to see Scotland being able to properly compete with London and the offshores. And the best solution to the Irish border issue is to end the partition. don't worry they'll be coming to take you away soon...... immigration hasn't paid since 1999....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody2 Posted July 24, 2018 Share Posted July 24, 2018 raab didn't last long...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.