|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
On November 25 2016 22:34 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2016 20:59 bardtown wrote:On November 25 2016 20:52 Velr wrote:
Now its the EU that is acting protectionist because the UK wants to gtfo?
Is it opposite day? No, it's a typical day where you understand next to nothing. Wanting all Euro transactions to be cleared in the Eurozone is protectionist. Not complicated. Don't you see the hypocrisy of pointing out financial protectionism from the EU(on only one point) while the UK leaves the single market and wants to limit the free movement of people? If there's any party here being protectionist it's the UK.
On the contrary, I think suggesting that leaving the single market amounts to protectionism when the single market represents an ever decreasing share of world trade - some of which is a result of its own restrictive protectionism - is absurd.
![[image loading]](https://fullfact.org/media/uploads/2016%20Update%20EU%20GDP%20Share.png)
Tariff free trade with 16.5% of the world economy at the cost of enforced tariffs on the other 83.5%...
Extending the term to refer to people is strange to me. I guess it makes sense if you've abandoned any notion of nationhood beyond GDP, but if one of your aims as a state is to improve conditions for your people then it makes no sense at all.
|
Just heard that on Breaking the News and wanted to share.
In response to Nigel Farage being thrown into the ring to become ambassador for the US in the UK. That job requiring a bit of cultural sensivity...
"The most Nigel Farage had culture was when he ate yoghurt"
|
On November 26 2016 03:04 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2016 22:34 RvB wrote:On November 25 2016 20:59 bardtown wrote:On November 25 2016 20:52 Velr wrote:
Now its the EU that is acting protectionist because the UK wants to gtfo?
Is it opposite day? No, it's a typical day where you understand next to nothing. Wanting all Euro transactions to be cleared in the Eurozone is protectionist. Not complicated. Don't you see the hypocrisy of pointing out financial protectionism from the EU(on only one point) while the UK leaves the single market and wants to limit the free movement of people? If there's any party here being protectionist it's the UK. On the contrary, I think suggesting that leaving the single market amounts to protectionism when the single market represents an ever decreasing share of world trade - some of which is a result of its own restrictive protectionism - is absurd. Tariff free trade with 16.5% of the world economy at the cost of enforced tariffs on the other 83.5%... Extending the term to refer to people is strange to me. I guess it makes sense if you've abandoned any notion of nationhood beyond GDP, but if one of your aims as a state is to improve conditions for your people then it makes no sense at all.
How much of that graph is due to shrinkage/stagnation in the EU economy and how much is due to high growth elsewhere?
Not a loaded question, I'm curious if you have an answer to that.
|
On November 26 2016 03:11 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2016 03:04 bardtown wrote:On November 25 2016 22:34 RvB wrote:On November 25 2016 20:59 bardtown wrote:On November 25 2016 20:52 Velr wrote:
Now its the EU that is acting protectionist because the UK wants to gtfo?
Is it opposite day? No, it's a typical day where you understand next to nothing. Wanting all Euro transactions to be cleared in the Eurozone is protectionist. Not complicated. Don't you see the hypocrisy of pointing out financial protectionism from the EU(on only one point) while the UK leaves the single market and wants to limit the free movement of people? If there's any party here being protectionist it's the UK. On the contrary, I think suggesting that leaving the single market amounts to protectionism when the single market represents an ever decreasing share of world trade - some of which is a result of its own restrictive protectionism - is absurd. Tariff free trade with 16.5% of the world economy at the cost of enforced tariffs on the other 83.5%... Extending the term to refer to people is strange to me. I guess it makes sense if you've abandoned any notion of nationhood beyond GDP, but if one of your aims as a state is to improve conditions for your people then it makes no sense at all. How much of that graph is due to shrinkage/stagnation in the EU economy and how much is due to high growth elsewhere? Not a loaded question, I'm curious if you have an answer to that.
The EU economy has grown in that period of time, so you might say that it is entirely down to high growth in the rest of the world. It's hard to say what growth would have been possible if the EU had run itself differently, though, so you can't rule out stagnation entirely, especially as even the other highly developed economies outgrew the EU.
Even if the EU was run perfectly, though, it wouldn't change the fact that EU protectionism becomes increasingly expensive as their relevance in the world economy diminishes. Also worth noting that the 16.5% figure includes the UK, so the actual figure made available to us through membership is lower.
|
On November 25 2016 22:11 Laurens wrote:If a Eurozone crisis starts in 2017 (which I don't think is likely), the UK will suffer with us for most/all of it  I'll consider that unlikely considering that UK is not part of the Eurozone. To be sure, there will be suffering, but only to the degree that the Eurozone, one of its major trading partners is suffering.
.........
Anyways, in response to financial markets moving away from UK if Brexit occurs, it is not protectionist to expect Euro transactions to be cleared through an eurozone banking system, but expected. It is simply that it would be cheaper to do so. There would be no political actions required to effect this at all, and so cannot be called protectionism as the cause is market dynamics. As usual, bardtown is "misinformed".
|
On November 26 2016 03:57 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2016 22:11 Laurens wrote:If a Eurozone crisis starts in 2017 (which I don't think is likely), the UK will suffer with us for most/all of it I'll consider that unlikely considering that UK is not part of the Eurozone. To be sure, there will be suffering, but only to the degree that the Eurozone, one of its major trading partners is suffering.
Well if we suffer because of Brexit (among other things ofc), how do you think the negotiations between UK and EU will go?
That's the point I was getting at. Someone else already pointed out spite, pride, etc.
|
On November 26 2016 04:11 Laurens wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2016 03:57 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On November 25 2016 22:11 Laurens wrote:If a Eurozone crisis starts in 2017 (which I don't think is likely), the UK will suffer with us for most/all of it I'll consider that unlikely considering that UK is not part of the Eurozone. To be sure, there will be suffering, but only to the degree that the Eurozone, one of its major trading partners is suffering. Well if we suffer because of Brexit (among other things ofc), how do you think the negotiations between UK and EU will go? That's the point I was getting at. Someone else already pointed out spite, pride, etc.
If you suffer because of Brexit it will be because you enforce terms that are mutually damaging. Nobody needs to suffer.
On November 26 2016 03:57 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2016 22:11 Laurens wrote:If a Eurozone crisis starts in 2017 (which I don't think is likely), the UK will suffer with us for most/all of it I'll consider that unlikely considering that UK is not part of the Eurozone. To be sure, there will be suffering, but only to the degree that the Eurozone, one of its major trading partners is suffering. ......... Anyways, in response to financial markets moving away from UK if Brexit occurs, it is not protectionist to expect Euro transactions to be cleared through an eurozone banking system, but expected. It is simply that it would be cheaper to do so. There would be no political actions required to effect this at all, and so cannot be called protectionism as the cause is market dynamics. As usual, bardtown is "misinformed".
As usual you accuse me of being wrong while clearly having no understanding of what you are talking about. If it was 'cheaper' it would already be happening. It is not. Indeed, if you read the article I posted about it, you would know that a) the European courts already ruled against requiring euro transactions to be processed in the Eurozone, and b) S&P cite the reason for not sidestepping this ruling with new regulation as being "the massive extra burden of margin collateral that it could place on market participants". The exact opposite of what you claim.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/nov/17/brexit-unlikely-to-mean-loss-of-citys-role-in-processing-deals-in-euros
Remind me who's misinformed?
|
Losing all is not the same as losing some. The result of the referendum is not the same as the result if Brexit occurs. The article, if rad refers to "the UK referendum vote". If a hard brexit does occur, as you have been intently convinced will occur, then most assuredly UK will lose the euro financing business. What is strange is why you are so adamant that it will not, as before you thought it would be a net gain if these jobs were lost. You regarded The Guardian as the "left wing equivalent of the Daily Mail", but here you are quoting directly from it. I suppose for you, typing anything will do, no matter how inconsistent or contradictory it is, as long as you are happy to argue.
|
On November 26 2016 03:04 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2016 22:34 RvB wrote:On November 25 2016 20:59 bardtown wrote:On November 25 2016 20:52 Velr wrote:
Now its the EU that is acting protectionist because the UK wants to gtfo?
Is it opposite day? No, it's a typical day where you understand next to nothing. Wanting all Euro transactions to be cleared in the Eurozone is protectionist. Not complicated. Don't you see the hypocrisy of pointing out financial protectionism from the EU(on only one point) while the UK leaves the single market and wants to limit the free movement of people? If there's any party here being protectionist it's the UK. On the contrary, I think suggesting that leaving the single market amounts to protectionism when the single market represents an ever decreasing share of world trade - some of which is a result of its own restrictive protectionism - is absurd. Tariff free trade with 16.5% of the world economy at the cost of enforced tariffs on the other 83.5%... Extending the term to refer to people is strange to me. I guess it makes sense if you've abandoned any notion of nationhood beyond GDP, but if one of your aims as a state is to improve conditions for your people then it makes no sense at all.
You can make the same graph about the UK so is the EU not protectionist either then? I'm struggling to see your point. Leaving the single market is protectionist regardless of how big the EU economy is. You're also conveniently not responding to the free movement of people part. Restricting that is protectionist as well.
|
On November 26 2016 04:50 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Losing all is not the same as losing some. The result of the referendum is not the same as the result if Brexit occurs. The article, if rad refers to "the UK referendum vote". If a hard brexit does occur, as you have been intently convinced will occur, then most assuredly UK will lose the euro financing business. What is strange is why you are so adamant that it will not, as before you thought it would be a net gain if these jobs were lost. You regarded The Guardian as the "left wing equivalent of the Daily Mail", but here you are quoting directly from it. I suppose for you, typing anything will do, no matter how inconsistent or contradictory it is, as long as you are happy to argue.
I especially like to cite The Guardian because I know that almost everyone in this thread who argues with me is a left winger that will dismiss anything except The Guardian. Also because they were the most pro-Remain of all the mainstream media outlets, the only time they say anything positive about Brexit is when they are forced into it. In other words, they're likely to be reliable when reporting a positive Brexit story because if there was any doubt then they wouldn't write it up at all.
What does this have to do with you being completely wrong while calling me misinformed? Now I'm 'inconsistent' and 'contradictory' for having moderate views. I never claimed there would be no job losses. Quite the opposite. I am responding to the extreme suggestion that London's financial sector is going to be crippled. You're not obliged to disagree with me constantly, you know? When you argue with common sense you just make yourself look silly.
On November 26 2016 05:07 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2016 03:04 bardtown wrote:On November 25 2016 22:34 RvB wrote:On November 25 2016 20:59 bardtown wrote:On November 25 2016 20:52 Velr wrote:
Now its the EU that is acting protectionist because the UK wants to gtfo?
Is it opposite day? No, it's a typical day where you understand next to nothing. Wanting all Euro transactions to be cleared in the Eurozone is protectionist. Not complicated. Don't you see the hypocrisy of pointing out financial protectionism from the EU(on only one point) while the UK leaves the single market and wants to limit the free movement of people? If there's any party here being protectionist it's the UK. On the contrary, I think suggesting that leaving the single market amounts to protectionism when the single market represents an ever decreasing share of world trade - some of which is a result of its own restrictive protectionism - is absurd. Tariff free trade with 16.5% of the world economy at the cost of enforced tariffs on the other 83.5%... Extending the term to refer to people is strange to me. I guess it makes sense if you've abandoned any notion of nationhood beyond GDP, but if one of your aims as a state is to improve conditions for your people then it makes no sense at all. You can make the same graph about the UK so is the EU not protectionist either then? I'm struggling to see your point. Leaving the single market is protectionist regardless of how big the EU economy is. You're also conveniently not responding to the free movement of people part. Restricting that is protectionist as well.
The EU imposes tariffs on the vast majority of the world. That is protectionist. Leaving the single market removes many of these tariffs and allows for the removal of all of them as desired. I responded to your free movement of people point; why are you saying I didn't? If you don't distinguish between your own people and others then you're not a nation state at all, you're a business. Not interested, thank you.
Please try to appreciate that almost every post I make gets criticised by multiple people and I don't have the patience to respond to all of you when you completely ignore or misrepresent everything I say.
Edit:
![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CyI8vh5WEAA5BX8.jpg:large)
Nice front page for Times Business tomorrow. Even the Remain papers are noticing, now.
|
The EU imposes tariffs on the vast majority of the world. That is protectionist. Leaving the single market removes many of these tariffs and allows for the removal of all of them as desired. I responded to your free movement of people point; why are you saying I didn't? If you don't distinguish between your own people and others then you're not a nation state at all, you're a business. Not interested, thank you.
Yes you responded. My bad.
Of course the EU imposes trade restrictions on most of the world as does any other country. You think the UK won't when they leave the EU? The EU actually has a lot of FTA's compared to other countries.
The EU therefore has already in place trade agreements with some 50 partners.
For comparison the US has 20 and the country with the most FTA's in Asia is Singapore with 33.
The EU is also negotiating with the US, China, India and Japan among others for FTA's. Sadly TTIP with the US seems to be dead from both sides (although Merkel said it would probably get back on track later).
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2012/november/tradoc_150129.pdf
https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements
https://aric.adb.org/fta-country
Extending the term to refer to people is strange to me. I guess it makes sense if you've abandoned any notion of nationhood beyond GDP, but if one of your aims as a state is to improve conditions for your people then it makes no sense at all.
Yes it seems I have stretched the term. Anyway I think that immigration is a way to improve conditions for people in the long term (short term as well but not always). I don't think it's useful to further argue this point though since it'll be a neverending debate but if you want I can elaborate.
|
On November 26 2016 21:38 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +The EU imposes tariffs on the vast majority of the world. That is protectionist. Leaving the single market removes many of these tariffs and allows for the removal of all of them as desired. I responded to your free movement of people point; why are you saying I didn't? If you don't distinguish between your own people and others then you're not a nation state at all, you're a business. Not interested, thank you. Yes you responded. My bad. Of course the EU imposes trade restrictions on most of the world as does any other country. You think the UK won't when they leave the EU? The EU actually has a lot of FTA's compared to other countries. Show nested quote +The EU therefore has already in place trade agreements with some 50 partners. For comparison the US has 20 and the country with the most FTA's in Asia is Singapore with 33. The EU is also negotiating with the US, China, India and Japan among others for FTA's. Sadly TTIP with the US seems to be dead from both sides (although Merkel said it would probably get back on track later). http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2012/november/tradoc_150129.pdfhttps://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreementshttps://aric.adb.org/fta-countryShow nested quote +Extending the term to refer to people is strange to me. I guess it makes sense if you've abandoned any notion of nationhood beyond GDP, but if one of your aims as a state is to improve conditions for your people then it makes no sense at all. Yes it seems I have stretched the term. Anyway I think that immigration is a way to improve conditions for people in the long term (short term as well but not always). I don't think it's useful to further argue this point though since it'll be a neverending debate but if you want I can elaborate.
The number of FTAs is not really the relevant factor. The biggest FTA the EU has is with South Korea, and the UK is a huge market for SK. It is likely that SK and the UK will simply agree to continue trading with the same terms. Then a bunch of those 50 are with British territories like Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man. Others are with miniature economies like the Faroe Islands, Moldova and Montenegro. There are some relevant FTAs there with countries like Egypt, Turkey and South Africa, but again there's no real reason to believe that those countries won't bilaterally agree to continue trading under the same conditions with the UK.
There is already talk of an FTA between the US and the UK which would be about as valuable as those 50 combined. Our trade with the US has been increasing for years while our trade with the EU has declined. Australia are also very keen, and India and China are real possibilities. The reason the EU doesn't have a deal with China is because their protectionist interests are too diverse. Switzerland has one.
In short: no, I don't think that the UK will remove tariffs with the entire world, but I do think we will forge trading relationships with emerging economies more effectively than the EU does.
Also, I agree that immigration can be a good thing, when the numbers are manageable and integration properly facilitated. But immigration that undercuts the native population and/or feeds the growth of segregated communities is bad for people, even if it is good for GDP/big business. As usual, there's a balance to be struck, but that can't happen without control of your borders; it's out of your hands.
|
Why do you think an FTA with the US is possible with a Trump president?
|
If he's serious about Britain being at the "front of the queue" maybe it really is possible.
Obviously the FP folk who actually head up Trump's team will bring him back down to earth, but that's probably where it comes from.
|
|
|
On November 27 2016 01:21 RvB wrote:
Why do you think an FTA with the US is possible with a Trump president?
Trump is pulling out of TPP and favours bilateral trade agreements. He also wants to develop the "special relationship", and has said the UK wouldn't be at the back of the queue as threatened by Obama.
What he has said to date suggests he is entirely willing to enter into bilateral trade agreements with countries, and that the UK would be up there in the list to negotiate with.
Is there something that makes you think a FTA with the US wouldn't be possible with a Trump president?
|
I mentioned Trump can potentially benefit UK because he would let UK skip to the front of the queue. But then, really? UK needs to rely on US or Trump now? Where is the pride again?
On November 18 2016 08:20 BurningSera wrote:
And Trump can potentially be good for brexit, like he was saying UK can skip the queue etc; but then this is Trump we are talking about, will UK really go so low to rely on someone like Trump. More so Trump is like an uncertain time bomb, today he says Yes, tomorrow he says No, kind reminder that english hates that kind of attitude so much.
|
The U.K. has been shamefully closely tied to the US policy for a long time now. I don't see how this is anything out of the ordinary.
|
On November 27 2016 09:32 LegalLord wrote:
The U.K. has been shamefully closely tied to the US policy for a long time now. I don't see how this is anything out of the ordinary.
It seems like most of the world. Either with the US or with Russia. If you can be independent, that's great. Otherwise, never with the Russians. Eastern Europe made that mistake a few decades ago.
|
On November 27 2016 05:53 Lonyo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2016 01:21 RvB wrote:
Why do you think an FTA with the US is possible with a Trump president? Trump is pulling out of TPP and favours bilateral trade agreements. He also wants to develop the "special relationship", and has said the UK wouldn't be at the back of the queue as threatened by Obama. What he has said to date suggests he is entirely willing to enter into bilateral trade agreements with countries, and that the UK would be up there in the list to negotiate with. Is there something that makes you think a FTA with the US wouldn't be possible with a Trump president?
His anti free trade position during the election. He lies about everything though so I don't really know. Was just curious why Bardtown thought it would be possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
