Morning, sweetheart! Like I say, I don't want to risk missing gems like you accidentally posting your porn history. Just have a look at that file bar.
Last edited:
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Politics] Brexit
- Thread starter KingstonSeagull
- Start date
Morning, sweetheart! Like I say, I don't want to risk missing gems like you accidentally posting your porn history. Just have a look at that file bar.
Garry Nelson's teacher
Well-known member
I'm getting to the point where I 'respect' the referendum result about as much as I respect the decision of someone who is pissed getting into his car. Sorry but a national act of self-harm possibly stretching across generations is nothing noble, brave or sensible.
ManOfSussex
We wunt be druv
So it seems - https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/966756237156192256
[tweet]966756237156192256[/tweet]
Surely, you can't be as thick as you appear... but as you keep repeating this nonsense, it would seem that you might just be.
ManOfSussex
We wunt be druv
Surely, you can't be as thick as you appear... but as you keep repeating this nonsense, it would seem that you might just be.
Would you rather he make reference to the drowned migrants 'joke' of yesterday instead then?
Surely, you can't be as thick as you appear... but as you keep repeating this nonsense, it would seem that you might just be.
Oh you mean when the Fairy Godfathers claimed it was fake. Yeah I've heard it before mate.
Strange, I was listening to R4 this morning and they had Chuka Umunna initially claiming Labour now supported staying in the customs union. When challenged by the presenter he changed his tune to say he and Emily Thornberry supported staying in not Labour as a whole. In fact he came across as aggressive and patronising. The cherry on the top was when he dismissed the views on leaving the EU of the people in the north in Labour strongholds. The implication was that he and his like needed to protect them from their decision. Compared to the calm and collected JRM on the same show Chuka came across as a complete idiot which is a pity because I've always thought he was a level headed politician. JRM also suggested that when we leave the EU we should immediately drop tariffs on goods we don't produce ourselves - a completely sensible idea which would lower prices to UK consumers.
Are you turning in to Clamp ? Usually you put up good arguments for/against.
Garry Nelson's teacher
Well-known member
I missed this news item but I am deeply suspicious of just about anything JRM says and this sounds worryingly simplistic. It could be that there would be some consumer gains from crashing out on WTO rules but I'm rather more inclined to listen to the view of the British Retail Consortium (from late 2016 and cited in the Telegraph) who probably know more about retail prices than me - and JRM:
If the UK fell back on to World Trade Organisation rules, the average duty on meat imports could be as high as 27pc, while clothing and footwear would attract tariffs of 11pc to 16pc, the BRC says while sourcing womens clothing from Bangladesh would also be 12pc higher.
Retailers are already threatened with higher importing costs due to the slump in sterling which is expected to hurt major retailers’ profitability next year, when currency hedges wind up.
Baldseagull
Well-known member
To be fair about half of what he posts is utter bullcrap, so it has a 50% chance at least of being fake.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,303
unless we dont apply the tariffs, in which case they are 0. why is this never taken into account?
D
Deleted member 22389
Guest
Some people voted labour because they said they would respect the vote, they have fooled a lot of people. None of them can be trusted.
Garry Nelson's teacher
Well-known member
Here is an excerpt from the WTO rules (source. WTO itself). It shows (I think) that the prevailing arrangements for trade are complex. Of course these rule start from the position/assumption that most countries want to protect their domestic industries against foreign competition. Rees Mogg seems to think that we can cherry pick our way through the rules and drop the tariffs against stuff we don't produce and thereby get the benefits of free trade (cheaper imports) whilst not incurring the disadvantages - destruction of domestic industries.
I'm not an expert, but I just don't think that international trade is conducted on this basis notwithstanding a certain superficial attractiveness of the proposition:
Most-favoured-nation (MFN): treating other people equally Under the WTO agreements, countries cannot normally discriminate between their trading partners. Grant someone a special favour (such as a lower customs duty rate for one of their products) and you have to do the same for all other WTO members.
This principle is known as most-favoured-nation (MFN) treatment (see box). It is so important that it is the first article of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which governs trade in goods. MFN is also a priority in the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) (Article 2) and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) (Article 4), although in each agreement the principle is handled slightly differently. Together, those three agreements cover all three main areas of trade handled by the WTO.
Some exceptions are allowed. For example, countries can set up a free trade agreement that applies only to goods traded within the group — discriminating against goods from outside. Or they can give developing countries special access to their markets. Or a country can raise barriers against products that are considered to be traded unfairly from specific countries. And in services, countries are allowed, in limited circumstances, to discriminate. But the agreements only permit these exceptions under strict conditions. In general, MFN means that every time a country lowers a trade barrier or opens up a market, it has to do so for the same goods or services from all its trading partners — whether rich or poor, weak or strong
Baldseagull
Well-known member
How about we keep tariff for fully assembled items not made here, but eliminated them for products whose parts are shipped in and assembled here?
How about we keep tariff for items produced in countries with poor human rights?
How about we keep tariff for items produced in environmentally damaging ways?
How about we keep tariff for items produced in countries that place tariff on all our exports?
Tariffs are not just employed to protect established domestic industries.
If we have a tariff on foreign made TV's, but zero tariff on TV parts, it could create assembly jobs in the uk.
If we have tariff on country produce that has poor human rights, we can offer to reduce if they improve, likewise for a country with poor environmental protection.
If we unilaterally drop our tariffs, what incentive is there to do a trade deal for anyone else?
JRM's idea is not so sensible, in an ideal world, it would be fine and it should be where the world is headed, no tariffs for anything, anywhere, but there has to be some commonly agreed standards.
Baldseagull
Well-known member
Because if we zero tariff on all imports, who would want to do a trade deal with us and why?
- Jul 10, 2003
- 25,809
Corrected for you
As the long grass where everything has been kicked gets closer and closer, so the suggested solutions get more and more desperate
I felt a bit guilty pointing out all the problems and inconsistencies in a very badly thought out solution to Ireland/NI by [MENTION=599]beorhthelm[/MENTION] yesterday, but to be fair to him, it had far more detail than anything the government have suggested so far.
Last edited:
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,303
tariffs are applied uniformly across countries, not by product type (group).
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,303
Corrected for you
As the long grass where everything has been kicked gets closer and closer, so the suggested solutions get more and more desperate
I felt a bit guilty pointing out all the problems and inconsistencies in a very badly thought out solution to Ireland/NI by [MENTION=599]beorhthelm[/MENTION] yesterday, but to be fair to him, it had far more detail than anything the government have suggested so far.
yes, i got rather muddled over seamless border vs no border. of course there would be a border, the question is how you control/manage it. Ireland is being used as an acid test, but in a way to stifle any possible agreement. discussions go round in a circle until someone says "will this work for NI/Ireland?". the default from remainers is "no". however the Irish want a seamless border, the UK want seamless border and the EU say they want there to be a seamless border. normally, you'd expect 3 parties concern being in agreement to work out a solution, instead we have a wall thrown up that its inconceivable that any workable solution can be achieved.
Garry Nelson's teacher
Well-known member
Quite: please forward to William Rees Mogg.
Lincoln Imp
Well-known member
- Feb 2, 2009
- 5,964
I can't actually recall where I first came across these views of Minford. Perhaps it was a news report on TV; perhaps a press report. Maybe I read an article he wrote for the Grantham Chronicle. I do confess that I haven't spent an evening with him.
But let's look at your position on what you call hand-me-downs. It's ludicrous.
You are saying that no one should comment on anything anyone says unless they read the full text of the original article or listen to an entire speech. Unless they do they are, according to you, relying on context-free third party hand-me-downs. Oh well, that's the work of the world's most respected journalists and commentators in the bin then. What are they if not third parties? Obviously you should take care not to rely on misleading extracts from anything but what you say is absolutist rubbish. Stop being so endlessly aggressive.