Discussion:
Quick easy free trade deal with USA - no punitive tariffs!
(too old to reply)
R. Mark Clayton
2017-09-27 09:42:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
A few weeks ago there was one of these jolly Brexit bean feasts when Trump announced: -

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/09/trump-has-confirmed-britain-will-get-free-trade-deal-west-will/

ha they said the rest of the world will be queuing up to trade with us...

the trouble with Trump is he says one thing one minute and does another the next so now we have: -

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/bombardier-ruling-risks-thousands-belfast-231200569.html
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/business/uk-world/bombardier-job-fears-over-crippling-us-tariff-of-21963-in-boeing-row-36172924.html

so the reality [if WTO don't intervene] is 220% tariff and thousands of British aircraft workers queuing up for the dole...


What other tariffs might be imposed?
Dairy products 35.4%
Sugars and confectionery 23.6%
Beverages and tobacco 19.6%
Animal products 15.7%
Cereals and preparations 12.8%
Fish and fish products 12.0%
Fruit, vegetables and plants 10.5%
Textiles 6.5%
Coffee, tea 6.1%



Oops - sorry those would be the tariffs into Europe if we leave the customs union...
James Harris
2017-09-27 13:15:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
A few weeks ago there was one of these jolly Brexit bean feasts when Trump announced: -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/09/trump-has-confirmed-britain-will-get-free-trade-deal-west-will/
ha they said the rest of the world will be queuing up to trade with us...
the trouble with Trump is he says one thing one minute and does another the next so now we have: -
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/bombardier-ruling-risks-thousands-belfast-231200569.html
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/business/uk-world/bombardier-job-fears-over-crippling-us-tariff-of-21963-in-boeing-row-36172924.html
so the reality [if WTO don't intervene] is 220% tariff and thousands of British aircraft workers queuing up for the dole...
AIUI that's a punishment for a trade unfairness, and it's presence was
as a result of a decision by a quasi-judicial body, not by POTUS. If
it's fair and legal then there's no point the British side jumping up
and down complaining. The Brits would not, in that case, be the injured
party.

If it's wrong, on the other hand, then it needs to be corrected.
--
James Harris
pensive hamster
2017-09-27 15:15:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
A few weeks ago there was one of these jolly Brexit bean feasts when Trump announced: -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/09/trump-has-confirmed-britain-will-get-free-trade-deal-west-will/
ha they said the rest of the world will be queuing up to trade with us...
the trouble with Trump is he says one thing one minute and does another the next so now we have: -
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/bombardier-ruling-risks-thousands-belfast-231200569.html
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/business/uk-world/bombardier-job-fears-over-crippling-us-tariff-of-21963-in-boeing-row-36172924.html
so the reality [if WTO don't intervene] is 220% tariff and thousands of British aircraft workers queuing up for the dole...
AIUI that's a punishment for a trade unfairness, and it's presence was
as a result of a decision by a quasi-judicial body, not by POTUS. If
it's fair and legal then there's no point the British side jumping up
and down complaining. The Brits would not, in that case, be the injured
party.
If it's wrong, on the other hand, then it needs to be corrected.
According to:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41407994
26 September 2017

... While it is true that Bombardier has received billions from the
government of Quebec and the state's pension fund, Boeing has
received more, a lot more, from the US military, Nasa and the
State of Washington over many decades.

Boeing would argue these were commercial arrangements, others
would call them padded contracts amounting to subsidies.

It is widely acknowledged that Boeing's arch rival Airbus would not
exist were it not for huge subsidies from European governments
- but is also widely acknowledged by customers that the competition
between the two has driven competitiveness and innovation.

That is why Bombardier's claim that Boeing is trying to strangle a
new competitor at birth has received widespread sympathy in the
financial press.

The Economist - that bastion of free market principles - called
Boeing's case against Bombardier "a flight of hypocrisy".
Altroy1
2017-09-27 18:19:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[...]
Post by pensive hamster
That is why Bombardier's claim that Boeing is trying to strangle a
new competitor at birth has received widespread sympathy in the
financial press.
The Economist - that bastion of free market principles - called
Boeing's case against Bombardier "a flight of hypocrisy".
Apparently Boeing did not even bid for the specific Delta contract, it simply
objected to a rival getting help as it would see it from Government.
tim...
2017-09-27 18:21:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Altroy1
[...]
That is why Bombardier's claim that Boeing is trying to strangle a new
competitor at birth has received widespread sympathy in the financial
press.
The Economist - that bastion of free market principles - called Boeing's
case against Bombardier "a flight of hypocrisy".
Apparently Boeing did not even bid for the specific Delta contract,
It was said today that they don't even make a plane that competes in the
sector

I'm not an expert in this, but I suspect that if Bombardier do ultimately
lose this battle, then the only winner will be Embraer.

tim
R. Mark Clayton
2017-09-27 17:20:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
A few weeks ago there was one of these jolly Brexit bean feasts when Trump announced: -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/09/trump-has-confirmed-britain-will-get-free-trade-deal-west-will/
ha they said the rest of the world will be queuing up to trade with us...
the trouble with Trump is he says one thing one minute and does another the next so now we have: -
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/bombardier-ruling-risks-thousands-belfast-231200569.html
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/business/uk-world/bombardier-job-fears-over-crippling-us-tariff-of-21963-in-boeing-row-36172924.html
so the reality [if WTO don't intervene] is 220% tariff and thousands of British aircraft workers queuing up for the dole...
AIUI that's a punishment for a trade unfairness, and it's presence was
as a result of a decision by a quasi-judicial body, not by POTUS. If
it's fair and legal then there's no point the British side jumping up
and down complaining. The Brits would not, in that case, be the injured
party.
If it's wrong, on the other hand, then it needs to be corrected.
--
James Harris
Bombardier has been bailed out and arguably subsidised.

The point was about the *****cks Brexiteers have spouted about easy trade deals when the reality is damage like this.
tim...
2017-09-27 18:22:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
A few weeks ago there was one of these jolly Brexit bean feasts when
Trump announced: -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/09/trump-has-confirmed-britain-will-get-free-trade-deal-west-will/
ha they said the rest of the world will be queuing up to trade with us...
the trouble with Trump is he says one thing one minute and does another
the next so now we have: -
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/bombardier-ruling-risks-thousands-belfast-231200569.html
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/business/uk-world/bombardier-job-fears-over-crippling-us-tariff-of-21963-in-boeing-row-36172924.html
so the reality [if WTO don't intervene] is 220% tariff and thousands of
British aircraft workers queuing up for the dole...
AIUI that's a punishment for a trade unfairness, and it's presence was
as a result of a decision by a quasi-judicial body, not by POTUS. If
it's fair and legal then there's no point the British side jumping up
and down complaining. The Brits would not, in that case, be the injured
party.
If it's wrong, on the other hand, then it needs to be corrected.
--
James Harris
Bombardier has been bailed out and arguably subsidised.
The point was about the *****cks Brexiteers have spouted about easy trade
deals when the reality is damage like this.
but there really is no connection

tim
James Harris
2017-09-27 19:07:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
A few weeks ago there was one of these jolly Brexit bean feasts when
Trump announced: -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/09/trump-has-confirmed-britain-will-get-free-trade-deal-west-will/
ha they said the rest of the world will be queuing up to trade with us...
the trouble with Trump is he says one thing one minute and does another
the next so now we have: -
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/bombardier-ruling-risks-thousands-belfast-231200569.html
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/business/uk-world/bombardier-job-fears-over-crippling-us-tariff-of-21963-in-boeing-row-36172924.html
so the reality [if WTO don't intervene] is 220% tariff and thousands of
British aircraft workers queuing up for the dole...
AIUI that's a punishment for a trade unfairness, and it's presence was
as a result of a decision by a quasi-judicial body, not by POTUS. If
it's fair and legal then there's no point the British side jumping up
and down complaining. The Brits would not, in that case, be the injured
party.
If it's wrong, on the other hand, then it needs to be corrected.
--
James Harris
Bombardier has been bailed out and arguably subsidised.
The point was about the *****cks Brexiteers have spouted about easy trade
deals when the reality is damage like this.
but there really is no connection
Agreed. Unless Mark is talking about souring the relationship between
potential partners I can't see a connection between a trade dispute and
a new FTA. The two things are entirely separate, I would have thought.
--
James Harris
MM
2017-09-28 10:07:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
but there really is no connection
Except that everyone, especially workers possibly about to lose their
jobs, can see now how ruinous tariffs can be, irrespective of what
caused them.

MM

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Altroy1
2017-09-27 18:15:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
A few weeks ago there was one of these jolly Brexit bean feasts when Trump announced: -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/09/trump-has-confirmed-britain-will-get-free-trade-deal-west-will/
ha they said the rest of the world will be queuing up to trade with us...
the trouble with Trump is he says one thing one minute and does
another the next so now we have: -
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/bombardier-ruling-risks-thousands-belfast-231200569.html
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/business/uk-world/bombardier-job-fears-over-crippling-us-tariff-of-21963-in-boeing-row-36172924.html
so the reality [if WTO don't intervene] is 220% tariff and thousands
of British aircraft workers queuing up for the dole...
AIUI that's a punishment for a trade unfairness, and it's presence was
as a result of a decision by a quasi-judicial body, not by POTUS. If
it's fair and legal then there's no point the British side jumping up
and down complaining. The Brits would not, in that case, be the injured
party.
I see. If the EU proscribes a subsidy to a British business, in the Brexit
psyche that is a vicious and unwarranted interference from Brussels with "our
right to make our own laws". So what are we waiting for? Sign that petition!
Let's get out of the EU right now.

But America? Deep in the Brexit mind is the belief in the essential goodness and
truthiness of the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave. Obviously, then,
Bomardier receieved a wicked subsidy, and the Land of the Free's "independent"
Dept of Commerce regulator had no choice but to step in to deal with such badness.

When negotiating a free trade deal, would the Home of the Brave's negotiators
ever insist on any dispensing of some nasty regulation banning chlorinated
chicken or require Brexit Britain to refrain from "unfair" subsidies to it's
industries? Oh come on. Is the Pope a Catholic? Of course not!
Post by James Harris
If it's wrong, on the other hand, then it needs to be corrected.
James Harris
2017-09-27 19:11:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
A few weeks ago there was one of these jolly Brexit bean feasts when Trump announced: -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/09/trump-has-confirmed-britain-will-get-free-trade-deal-west-will/
ha they said the rest of the world will be queuing up to trade with us...
the trouble with Trump is he says one thing one minute and does
another the next so now we have: -
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/bombardier-ruling-risks-thousands-belfast-231200569.html
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/business/uk-world/bombardier-job-fears-over-crippling-us-tariff-of-21963-in-boeing-row-36172924.html
so the reality [if WTO don't intervene] is 220% tariff and thousands
of British aircraft workers queuing up for the dole...
AIUI that's a punishment for a trade unfairness, and it's presence was
as a result of a decision by a quasi-judicial body, not by POTUS. If
it's fair and legal then there's no point the British side jumping up
and down complaining. The Brits would not, in that case, be the injured
party.
I see. If the EU proscribes a subsidy to a British business, in the Brexit
psyche that is a vicious and unwarranted interference from Brussels with "our
right to make our own laws". So what are we waiting for? Sign that petition!
Let's get out of the EU right now.
But America? Deep in the Brexit mind is the belief in the essential goodness and
truthiness of the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave. Obviously, then,
Bomardier receieved a wicked subsidy, and the Land of the Free's "independent"
Dept of Commerce regulator had no choice but to step in to deal with such badness.
No. This is nothing to do with Brexit or a Brexit psyche. Transatlantic
trade - even under WTO terms - has to conform to agreed standards of
fair competition. If one side is acting unfairly then it needs to
correct that unfairness. Or, if it is acting fairly, then the complaint
of one side needs to be thrown out via arbitration.
Post by Altroy1
When negotiating a free trade deal, would the Home of the Brave's negotiators
ever insist on any dispensing of some nasty regulation banning chlorinated
chicken or require Brexit Britain to refrain from "unfair" subsidies to it's
industries? Oh come on. Is the Pope a Catholic? Of course not!
Those are things for the negotiators to define (not the pope bit; we'll
take that as a given).
--
James Harris
Altroy1
2017-09-28 14:19:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[....]
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
But America? Deep in the Brexit mind is the belief in the essential goodness and
truthiness of the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave. Obviously, then,
Bomardier receieved a wicked subsidy, and the Land of the Free's "independent"
Dept of Commerce regulator had no choice but to step in to deal with such badness.
No. This is nothing to do with Brexit or a Brexit psyche.
You may be right in terms of the motive of Boeing. The Brexit psyche may not
have been uppermost in their minds more likely they are supporting the America
First strategy. Bombardier and other foreign firms can sod off and get lost.

In the terms of this newsgroup and thread, though, discussion relating to the
Brexit promise of out of the EU's hateful shackles and into the arms of a
wonderful new "the world's our [219% import tariff] oyster" free trade deal with
the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave is relevant.


http://www.macleans.ca/economy/bombardier-gets-a-taste-of-america-first-what-comes-next-2/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4927656/Britain-America-brink-trade-war.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4927714/Why-Trump-let-Britain-down.html

http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/27/news/economy/us-canada-trade-war-bombardier/index.html
Post by James Harris
Transatlantic
trade - even under WTO terms - has to conform to agreed standards of
fair competition. If one side is acting unfairly then it needs to
correct that unfairness. Or, if it is acting fairly, then the complaint
of one side needs to be thrown out via arbitration.
You have perhaps inadvertently, hopefully not, just summarised how the EU
impinges on the sovereignty of the UK and it's other member states for that
matter. Trading between states needs to be conducted on a level playing field.
That is why "race to the bottom cheap food" farmers in one EU state cannot crowd
their chickens close in battery cages then chlorinate over the inevitable
problems. That they cannot do this is a restriction on their ability to quote
"make our own laws".
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
When negotiating a free trade deal, would the Home of the Brave's negotiators
ever insist on any dispensing of some nasty regulation banning chlorinated
chicken or require Brexit Britain to refrain from "unfair" subsidies to it's
industries? Oh come on. Is the Pope a Catholic? Of course not!
Those are things for the negotiators to define (not the pope bit; we'll
take that as a given).
James Harris
2017-09-28 13:47:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Altroy1
[....]
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
But America? Deep in the Brexit mind is the belief in the essential goodness and
truthiness of the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave. Obviously, then,
Bomardier receieved a wicked subsidy, and the Land of the Free's "independent"
Dept of Commerce regulator had no choice but to step in to deal with such badness.
No. This is nothing to do with Brexit or a Brexit psyche.
You may be right in terms of the motive of Boeing.
Indeed. That's all I was talking about in this thread.

...
Post by Altroy1
In the terms of this newsgroup and thread, though, discussion relating to the
Brexit promise of out of the EU's hateful shackles and into the arms of a
wonderful new "the world's our [219% import tariff] oyster" free trade deal with
the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave is relevant.
There are other threads for that but as you want to discuss it here I
don't mind.

I agree with the "coming out of the EU's shackles" part - just as I
would argue for getting out of bonds which already restricted my freedom
to move and which were steadily getting tighter. But I don't agree with
the idea of the UK going into the arms of a wonderful new world. What we
as a nation have chosen to do is achieve freedom and then shape our
place in the world. And some of that will, I hope, include influencing
the world we want to live in. It is not sitting waiting for us. We need
to make it. Brexit allows us to do that.
Post by Altroy1
http://www.macleans.ca/economy/bombardier-gets-a-taste-of-america-first-what-comes-next-2/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4927656/Britain-America-brink-trade-war.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4927714/Why-Trump-let-Britain-down.html
http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/27/news/economy/us-canada-trade-war-bombardier/index.html
Post by James Harris
Transatlantic
trade - even under WTO terms - has to conform to agreed standards of
fair competition. If one side is acting unfairly then it needs to
correct that unfairness. Or, if it is acting fairly, then the complaint
of one side needs to be thrown out via arbitration.
You have perhaps inadvertently, hopefully not, just summarised how the EU
impinges on the sovereignty of the UK and it's other member states for that
matter.
Not so. There is a big difference. The EU is not a bilateral agreement
such as exists between trading nations and which suits both sides until
changed by mutual agreement. The EU's lawmaking is not static. New EU
laws, directives and edicts are formed all the time. And they are formed
unilaterally by the EU. While we have input we must eventually accept
that we, in our subordinate role, have no choice but to accept the
choices made on our behalf.

And this is not static. Over the years and decades, the EU has involved
itself in more and more aspects of our lives. It has steadily acquired
more powers and as far as I know has NEVER given any powers back.

So the EU's rules are not at all like a bilateral treaty.
Post by Altroy1
Trading between states needs to be conducted on a level playing field.
That is why "race to the bottom cheap food" farmers in one EU state cannot crowd
their chickens close in battery cages then chlorinate over the inevitable
problems. That they cannot do this is a restriction on their ability to quote
"make our own laws".
From what I've heard the UK under the current government will make
better decisions and fairer, more humane laws than the EU does so your
fears are unfounded.
--
James Harris
R. Mark Clayton
2017-09-28 13:57:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
[....]
SNIP
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
You have perhaps inadvertently, hopefully not, just summarised how the EU
impinges on the sovereignty of the UK and it's other member states for that
matter.
Not so. There is a big difference. The EU is not a bilateral agreement
such as exists between trading nations and which suits both sides until
changed by mutual agreement. The EU's lawmaking is not static. New EU
laws, directives and edicts are formed all the time. And they are formed
unilaterally by the EU. While we have input we must eventually accept
that we, in our subordinate role, have no choice but to accept the
choices made on our behalf.
Treu, but there is another big difference - we have Members of the European Parliament, we do not have any representatives in the US Congress.
Post by James Harris
And this is not static. Over the years and decades, the EU has involved
itself in more and more aspects of our lives. It has steadily acquired
more powers and as far as I know has NEVER given any powers back.
So the EU's rules are not at all like a bilateral treaty.
Post by Altroy1
Trading between states needs to be conducted on a level playing field.
That is why "race to the bottom cheap food" farmers in one EU state cannot crowd
their chickens close in battery cages then chlorinate over the inevitable
problems. That they cannot do this is a restriction on their ability to quote
"make our own laws".
From what I've heard the UK under the current government will make
better decisions and fairer, more humane laws than the EU does so your
fears are unfounded.
dream on.
Post by James Harris
--
James Harris
Altroy1
2017-09-28 23:51:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[...]
Post by James Harris
There are other threads for that but as you want to discuss it here I
don't mind.
I agree with the "coming out of the EU's shackles" part - just as I
would argue for getting out of bonds which already restricted my freedom
to move and which were steadily getting tighter.
But you are familiar with American power? How it can throw its economic weight
around if it perceives a threat to its interests. There was, is, and never will
be any freedom for Canada or the UK to subsidise an important industry and then
expect to free trade with the USA. The 219% tariff is a salutory lesson to those
that think otherwise.
Post by James Harris
But I don't agree with
the idea of the UK going into the arms of a wonderful new world. What we
as a nation have chosen to do is achieve freedom and then shape our
place in the world.
Not we as a nation. Rather the Adam Smith elites that pushed for Brexit and
battlebus-promised a big fat £350 million weekly payout to the NHS they and
their American fellow thinkers despise as baby-killing socialised medicine most
foul.

https://thefederalist.com/2017/07/03/yanking-life-support-uk-baby-demonstrates-dangers-socialized-medicine/

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/07/the_evidence_is_in__the_uk_is_trying_to_kill_baby_charlie_gard.html
Post by James Harris
And some of that will, I hope, include influencing
the world we want to live in. It is not sitting waiting for us. We need
to make it. Brexit allows us to do that.
That was an argument put and rejected in 1975. Its an argument no doubt
considered by Ukraine, Serbia etc who instead are begging the EU to admit them.
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
http://www.macleans.ca/economy/bombardier-gets-a-taste-of-america-first-what-comes-next-2/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4927656/Britain-America-brink-trade-war.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4927714/Why-Trump-let-Britain-down.html
http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/27/news/economy/us-canada-trade-war-bombardier/index.html
Post by James Harris
Transatlantic
trade - even under WTO terms - has to conform to agreed standards of
fair competition. If one side is acting unfairly then it needs to
correct that unfairness. Or, if it is acting fairly, then the complaint
of one side needs to be thrown out via arbitration.
You have perhaps inadvertently, hopefully not, just summarised how the EU
impinges on the sovereignty of the UK and it's other member states for that
matter.
Not so. There is a big difference. The EU is not a bilateral agreement
such as exists between trading nations and which suits both sides until
changed by mutual agreement.
You are rightly advised by Mark Clayton in another reply that the UK is a part
of the EU. It has MEPs, appoints commissioners, has vetoes. The Land of the Free
and Home of the Brave will offer nothing of the sort in any so called free trade
deal. It is America first. If the UK and USA's interests diverge, it will be
always America First. End of. This has already happened in the past as this
informative article shows:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisis
Post by James Harris
The EU's lawmaking is not static. New EU
laws, directives and edicts are formed all the time. And they are formed
unilaterally by the EU. While we have input we must eventually accept
that we, in our subordinate role, have no choice but to accept the
choices made on our behalf.
And would the Land of the Free's negotiators negotiate from weakness? No, the
Home of the Brave's negotiators know rightly who the stronger party will be in
any so called free trade deal. One outworking of this will be that the weaker
party WILL accept chlorinated chicken, WILL accept hormone infused beef and WILL
accept GM altered crops.
Post by James Harris
And this is not static. Over the years and decades, the EU has involved
itself in more and more aspects of our lives. It has steadily acquired
more powers and as far as I know has NEVER given any powers back.
When James O'Brien on LBC tries to get the Brexiters to spit it out what
specific EU laws they hate so much and want to dispense with, he can hardly get
a straight answer from any of them.
Post by James Harris
So the EU's rules are not at all like a bilateral treaty.
But bilateral trade is also not static. Why is the America First lobby now
agitating for changes to trade with China and other countries they blame for
many of America's ills?
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Trading between states needs to be conducted on a level playing field.
That is why "race to the bottom cheap food" farmers in one EU state cannot crowd
their chickens close in battery cages then chlorinate over the inevitable
problems. That they cannot do this is a restriction on their ability to quote
"make our own laws".
From what I've heard the UK under the current government will make
better decisions and fairer, more humane laws than the EU does so your
fears are unfounded.
No they are well founded. Consider what Moggmentum and Adam Smith ilk are planning:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-brexit-sacking-ministerial-code-event-foreign-office-a7972676.html

Boris Johnson is facing calls to be sacked and the prospect of
an official investigation over allegations he abused his
position by using government resources to host a hard Brexit
event at the Foreign Office.


The Institute for Free Trade wants to roll back EU regulations,
including on safety standards and workers' rights, and
unilaterally scrap all import tariffs, even if other countries
do not reciprocate. It also believes that foreign aid should be
slashed and supports allowing chlorine-washed chicken and
hormone-injected beef to be sold in the UK.
James Harris
2017-09-29 07:49:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Altroy1
[...]
Post by James Harris
There are other threads for that but as you want to discuss it here I
don't mind.
I agree with the "coming out of the EU's shackles" part - just as I
would argue for getting out of bonds which already restricted my freedom
to move and which were steadily getting tighter.
But you are familiar with American power? How it can throw its economic weight
around if it perceives a threat to its interests. There was, is, and never will
be any freedom for Canada or the UK to subsidise an important industry and then
expect to free trade with the USA. The 219% tariff is a salutory lesson to those
that think otherwise.
I wouldn't expect any country to unfairly subsidise its industries and
get away with it.
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
But I don't agree with
the idea of the UK going into the arms of a wonderful new world. What we
as a nation have chosen to do is achieve freedom and then shape our
place in the world.
Not we as a nation. Rather the Adam Smith elites that pushed for Brexit and
battlebus-promised a big fat £350 million weekly payout to the NHS they and
their American fellow thinkers despise as baby-killing socialised medicine most
foul.
https://thefederalist.com/2017/07/03/yanking-life-support-uk-baby-demonstrates-dangers-socialized-medicine/
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/07/the_evidence_is_in__the_uk_is_trying_to_kill_baby_charlie_gard.html
Post by James Harris
And some of that will, I hope, include influencing
the world we want to live in. It is not sitting waiting for us. We need
to make it. Brexit allows us to do that.
That was an argument put and rejected in 1975. Its an argument no doubt
considered by Ukraine, Serbia etc who instead are begging the EU to admit them.
What's your evidence of such "begging"?
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
http://www.macleans.ca/economy/bombardier-gets-a-taste-of-america-first-what-comes-next-2/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4927656/Britain-America-brink-trade-war.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4927714/Why-Trump-let-Britain-down.html
http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/27/news/economy/us-canada-trade-war-bombardier/index.html
Post by James Harris
Transatlantic
trade - even under WTO terms - has to conform to agreed standards of
fair competition. If one side is acting unfairly then it needs to
correct that unfairness. Or, if it is acting fairly, then the complaint
of one side needs to be thrown out via arbitration.
You have perhaps inadvertently, hopefully not, just summarised how the EU
impinges on the sovereignty of the UK and it's other member states for that
matter.
Not so. There is a big difference. The EU is not a bilateral agreement
such as exists between trading nations and which suits both sides until
changed by mutual agreement.
You are rightly advised by Mark Clayton in another reply that the UK is a part
of the EU. It has MEPs, appoints commissioners, has vetoes.
None of which prevents majority or QMV decisions from overriding the UK
and even working against its interests.
Post by Altroy1
The Land of the Free
and Home of the Brave will offer nothing of the sort in any so called free trade
deal. It is America first. If the UK and USA's interests diverge, it will be
always America First. End of. This has already happened in the past as this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisis
No problem. I would expect the US to put the US first, and the UK to put
the UK first.
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
The EU's lawmaking is not static. New EU
laws, directives and edicts are formed all the time. And they are formed
unilaterally by the EU. While we have input we must eventually accept
that we, in our subordinate role, have no choice but to accept the
choices made on our behalf.
And would the Land of the Free's negotiators negotiate from weakness? No, the
Home of the Brave's negotiators know rightly who the stronger party will be in
any so called free trade deal. One outworking of this will be that the weaker
party WILL accept chlorinated chicken, WILL accept hormone infused beef and WILL
accept GM altered crops.
Ah, you must be a Remainer. They always know the future!
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
And this is not static. Over the years and decades, the EU has involved
itself in more and more aspects of our lives. It has steadily acquired
more powers and as far as I know has NEVER given any powers back.
When James O'Brien on LBC tries to get the Brexiters to spit it out what
specific EU laws they hate so much and want to dispense with, he can hardly get
a straight answer from any of them.
So they are all happy that the EU has overall control of our use of VAT,
are they? They all like the Common Fisheries Policy? They all agree with
the EU's proposed financial transactions tax?
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
So the EU's rules are not at all like a bilateral treaty.
But bilateral trade is also not static. Why is the America First lobby now
agitating for changes to trade with China and other countries they blame for
many of America's ills?
I think you've missed the point. Bilaterals cannot be changed without
mutual agreement. EU rules can. Once you sign up to the EU there are
things which it can change and you have to simply accept them. Henry
VIII would have loved it.
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Trading between states needs to be conducted on a level playing field.
That is why "race to the bottom cheap food" farmers in one EU state cannot crowd
their chickens close in battery cages then chlorinate over the inevitable
problems. That they cannot do this is a restriction on their ability to quote
"make our own laws".
From what I've heard the UK under the current government will make
better decisions and fairer, more humane laws than the EU does so your
fears are unfounded.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-brexit-sacking-ministerial-code-event-foreign-office-a7972676.html
Boris Johnson is facing calls to be sacked and the prospect of
an official investigation over allegations he abused his
position by using government resources to host a hard Brexit
event at the Foreign Office.
The Institute for Free Trade wants to roll back EU regulations,
including on safety standards and workers' rights, and
unilaterally scrap all import tariffs, even if other countries
do not reciprocate. It also believes that foreign aid should be
slashed and supports allowing chlorine-washed chicken and
hormone-injected beef to be sold in the UK.
What Moggmentum and co are planning is not what the government is
planning. The two are not the same thing.
--
James Harris
Altroy1
2017-09-29 12:40:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[...]
Post by James Harris
I wouldn't expect any country to unfairly subsidise its industries and
get away with it.
Excellent. Then you agree that when two or more nations free trade, they cede
their ability to make their own laws and subsidise their own industries as they
see fit. Thank you so much for admitting this.
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
But I don't agree with
the idea of the UK going into the arms of a wonderful new world. What we
as a nation have chosen to do is achieve freedom and then shape our
place in the world.
Not we as a nation. Rather the Adam Smith elites that pushed for Brexit and
battlebus-promised a big fat £350 million weekly payout to the NHS they and
their American fellow thinkers despise as baby-killing socialised medicine most
foul.
https://thefederalist.com/2017/07/03/yanking-life-support-uk-baby-demonstrates-dangers-socialized-medicine/
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/07/the_evidence_is_in__the_uk_is_trying_to_kill_baby_charlie_gard.html
Post by James Harris
And some of that will, I hope, include influencing
the world we want to live in. It is not sitting waiting for us. We need
to make it. Brexit allows us to do that.
That was an argument put and rejected in 1975. Its an argument no doubt
considered by Ukraine, Serbia etc who instead are begging the EU to admit them.
What's your evidence of such "begging"?
Let me see now, what are Ukraine's politicians coming up with lately? Ah yes.
"blackmail":

http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/451076.html



Ukraine is prepared to take symmetrical retaliatory steps
if Budapest blocks any initiatives to build closer ties
between Ukraine and the European Union, Volodymyr Ariev,
the head of the Ukrainian delegation to the Parliamentary
Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) and a member of
the Petro Poroshenko Bloc in parliament, said on Tuesday.

"If they resort to blackmail rather than calm negotiations
this is an unreliable partnership,"

Ariev said.


Seems like the Ukraine is rather desparate for EU integration. Hungary's threat
to interfere with Ukraine's hankering for EU integration is obviously "blackmail".


"Blackmail" is the perpetual cry of the smaller negotiator
with the weaker hand. #getagrip - Nick Macpherson[1]

[1] https://twitter.com/mims/statuses/903492524999811077


[....]
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
You have perhaps inadvertently, hopefully not, just summarised how the EU
impinges on the sovereignty of the UK and it's other member states for that
matter.
Not so. There is a big difference. The EU is not a bilateral agreement
such as exists between trading nations and which suits both sides until
changed by mutual agreement.
You are rightly advised by Mark Clayton in another reply that the UK is a part
of the EU. It has MEPs, appoints commissioners, has vetoes.
None of which prevents majority or QMV decisions from overriding the UK
and even working against its interests.
But you are not being serious, are you? QMV has been augmented arising from the
EU's expansion. An expansion cheerleaded for years by the likes of BOJO and his
ilk. And despite QMV and the fancies of voteleavetakecontrol, QMV has not harmed
UK's interests too much insofar as the Brexit cheerleaders are saying look how
well we are already doing so will be even better off outside the hated EU.

And you are claiming that it is OK for the USA to harm a section of the UK
economy (N. Ireland) if the UK and Canada "unfairly" subsidise NI's largest
private sector employer. You will deny this interpretation, but it follows
logically from the point you made about one nation having the unilateral right,
as you would see it, when another nation or nations unfairly or unreasonably
subsidise an important sector of their economies.

To the Brexit mindset, when to them the greatest nation on earth defends itself
with a 219% tariff - that is wholly legitimate. But if the wicked EU does it
that would be unbridled evil.
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
The Land of the Free
and Home of the Brave will offer nothing of the sort in any so called free trade
deal. It is America first. If the UK and USA's interests diverge, it will be
always America First. End of. This has already happened in the past as this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisis
No problem. I would expect the US to put the US first, and the UK to put
the UK first.
Thank you so much. Now just one more step. Tell us that sometimes the EU is
right to put its own interest first from time to time. In the Brexit mindset the
interests of the EU and UK diverge from time to time. Such a situation to them
cannot be tolerated. Far better to be in the arms of the greatest nation on
earth who would, er, cough, impose a 219% tariff on one of Northern Ireland and
Quebec's largest private sector employers.
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
The EU's lawmaking is not static. New EU
laws, directives and edicts are formed all the time. And they are formed
unilaterally by the EU. While we have input we must eventually accept
that we, in our subordinate role, have no choice but to accept the
choices made on our behalf.
And would the Land of the Free's negotiators negotiate from weakness? No, the
Home of the Brave's negotiators know rightly who the stronger party will be in
any so called free trade deal. One outworking of this will be that the weaker
party WILL accept chlorinated chicken, WILL accept hormone infused beef and WILL
accept GM altered crops.
Ah, you must be a Remainer. They always know the future!
And the true beLEAVEr? Believes that America is the greatest nation on earth,
can do no wrong. When the Land of the Free imposed that 219% tariff, it was
appropriate, safe and satisfactory.

And BOJO still assures there is this wonderful new future out there free of the
shackles of the hated EU. So I guess knowing the future lies not just in the
domain of remoaner thinking.
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
And this is not static. Over the years and decades, the EU has involved
itself in more and more aspects of our lives. It has steadily acquired
more powers and as far as I know has NEVER given any powers back.
When James O'Brien on LBC tries to get the Brexiters to spit it out what
specific EU laws they hate so much and want to dispense with, he can hardly get
a straight answer from any of them.
So they are all happy that the EU has overall control of our use of VAT,
are they? They all like the Common Fisheries Policy? They all agree with
the EU's proposed financial transactions tax?
They could make that point. But since the true beLEAVEr supports the Land of the
Free's right to a unilateral imposed 219% tariff, their complaints may lack
credibility a little. Then there are the EU subsidies to farmers that may have
to be reduced post Brexit if all of that £350 million weekly goodness is to be
spent on NHS alone as that lying battlebus suggested.

And how would the fishermen and women feel if the Home of the Brave's fishing
fleet free trade agreement sailed across the Atlantic to gobble up what's left
of the cod stocks now that the hated Brussels Bureaucrat's regulations designed
to prevent extinction of the remaining cod has been done away with?
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
So the EU's rules are not at all like a bilateral treaty.
But bilateral trade is also not static. Why is the America First lobby now
agitating for changes to trade with China and other countries they blame for
many of America's ills?
I think you've missed the point. Bilaterals cannot be changed without
mutual agreement.
I doubt it. Certain Brexiters appear to be ready to accept the Home of the
Brave's authorities legitimate right to unilaterally impose a 219% import tariff
despite the Prime Ministers of two trading partner countries on the phone
pleading with the America First President not to do it. A widespread unilateral
imposition of such a tariff would kill a trading relationship more dead than any
dodo.
Post by James Harris
EU rules can. Once you sign up to the EU there are
things which it can change and you have to simply accept them. Henry
VIII would have loved it.
On leaving the EU the weaker party will use the word "blackmail" then accept any
chlorine infused trade deal the greatest nation on earth will propose on a take
it or leave it basis. Henry VIII would have loved it (NOT!!).
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Trading between states needs to be conducted on a level playing field.
That is why "race to the bottom cheap food" farmers in one EU state cannot crowd
their chickens close in battery cages then chlorinate over the inevitable
problems. That they cannot do this is a restriction on their ability to quote
"make our own laws".
From what I've heard the UK under the current government will make
better decisions and fairer, more humane laws than the EU does so your
fears are unfounded.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-brexit-sacking-ministerial-code-event-foreign-office-a7972676.html
Boris Johnson is facing calls to be sacked and the prospect of
an official investigation over allegations he abused his
position by using government resources to host a hard Brexit
event at the Foreign Office.
The Institute for Free Trade wants to roll back EU regulations,
including on safety standards and workers' rights, and
unilaterally scrap all import tariffs, even if other countries
do not reciprocate. It also believes that foreign aid should be
slashed and supports allowing chlorine-washed chicken and
hormone-injected beef to be sold in the UK.
What Moggmentum and co are planning is not what the government is
planning. The two are not the same thing.
What the bookies favoured future leader of the Conservative Party is planning
could be a matter of some concern.
James Harris
2017-09-29 14:12:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
...
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
And some of that will, I hope, include influencing
the world we want to live in. It is not sitting waiting for us. We need
to make it. Brexit allows us to do that.
That was an argument put and rejected in 1975. Its an argument no doubt
considered by Ukraine, Serbia etc who instead are begging the EU to admit them.
What's your evidence of such "begging"?
Let me see now, what are Ukraine's politicians coming up with lately? Ah yes.
http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/451076.html
Ukraine is prepared to take symmetrical retaliatory steps
if Budapest blocks any initiatives to build closer ties
between Ukraine and the European Union, Volodymyr Ariev,
the head of the Ukrainian delegation to the Parliamentary
Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) and a member of
the Petro Poroshenko Bloc in parliament, said on Tuesday.
"If they resort to blackmail rather than calm negotiations
this is an unreliable partnership,"
Ariev said.
That is not evidence of begging. And seeking closer ties does not prove
a desire for membership.
Post by Altroy1
Seems like the Ukraine is rather desparate for EU integration. Hungary's threat
to interfere with Ukraine's hankering for EU integration is obviously "blackmail".
"Blackmail" is the perpetual cry of the smaller negotiator
with the weaker hand. #getagrip - Nick Macpherson[1]
[1] https://twitter.com/mims/statuses/903492524999811077
[....]
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
You have perhaps inadvertently, hopefully not, just summarised how the EU
impinges on the sovereignty of the UK and it's other member states for that
matter.
Not so. There is a big difference. The EU is not a bilateral agreement
such as exists between trading nations and which suits both sides until
changed by mutual agreement.
You are rightly advised by Mark Clayton in another reply that the UK is a part
of the EU. It has MEPs, appoints commissioners, has vetoes.
None of which prevents majority or QMV decisions from overriding the UK
and even working against its interests.
But you are not being serious, are you? QMV has been augmented arising from the
EU's expansion. An expansion cheerleaded for years by the likes of BOJO and his
ilk.
BoJo's views are his own. Just as Cameron's views were his own and may
not have been yours.
Post by Altroy1
And despite QMV and the fancies of voteleavetakecontrol, QMV has not harmed
UK's interests too much insofar as the Brexit cheerleaders are saying look how
well we are already doing so will be even better off outside the hated EU.
And you are claiming that it is OK for the USA to harm a section of the UK
economy (N. Ireland) if the UK and Canada "unfairly" subsidise NI's largest
private sector employer. You will deny this interpretation, but it follows
logically from the point you made about one nation having the unilateral right,
as you would see it, when another nation or nations unfairly or unreasonably
subsidise an important sector of their economies.
To the Brexit mindset, when to them the greatest nation on earth defends itself
with a 219% tariff - that is wholly legitimate. But if the wicked EU does it
that would be unbridled evil.
You are delusional.
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
The Land of the Free
and Home of the Brave will offer nothing of the sort in any so called free trade
deal. It is America first. If the UK and USA's interests diverge, it will be
always America First. End of. This has already happened in the past as this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisis
No problem. I would expect the US to put the US first, and the UK to put
the UK first.
Thank you so much. Now just one more step. Tell us that sometimes the EU is
right to put its own interest first from time to time. In the Brexit mindset the
interests of the EU and UK diverge from time to time. Such a situation to them
cannot be tolerated. Far better to be in the arms of the greatest nation on
earth who would, er, cough, impose a 219% tariff on one of Northern Ireland and
Quebec's largest private sector employers.
When the EU puts its interests first it means putting the EU
superstructure first. It should, in fact, put the prosperity and safety
of its people first, as I would expect the UK and the US to do. Those
priorities are very different.

The tariff is a trade dispute and will be dealt with via existing systems.
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
The EU's lawmaking is not static. New EU
laws, directives and edicts are formed all the time. And they are formed
unilaterally by the EU. While we have input we must eventually accept
that we, in our subordinate role, have no choice but to accept the
choices made on our behalf.
And would the Land of the Free's negotiators negotiate from weakness? No, the
Home of the Brave's negotiators know rightly who the stronger party will be in
any so called free trade deal. One outworking of this will be that the weaker
party WILL accept chlorinated chicken, WILL accept hormone infused beef and WILL
accept GM altered crops.
Ah, you must be a Remainer. They always know the future!
And the true beLEAVEr? Believes that America is the greatest nation on earth,
You are, again, delusional.
Post by Altroy1
can do no wrong. When the Land of the Free imposed that 219% tariff, it was
appropriate, safe and satisfactory.
And BOJO still assures there is this wonderful new future out there free of the
shackles of the hated EU. So I guess knowing the future lies not just in the
domain of remoaner thinking.
Believing that a country will be better off with independence than being
subject to a larger entity is nothing new. That's different from you
"knowing" that the UK will accept hormone-infused beef.
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
And this is not static. Over the years and decades, the EU has involved
itself in more and more aspects of our lives. It has steadily acquired
more powers and as far as I know has NEVER given any powers back.
When James O'Brien on LBC tries to get the Brexiters to spit it out what
specific EU laws they hate so much and want to dispense with, he can hardly get
a straight answer from any of them.
So they are all happy that the EU has overall control of our use of VAT,
are they? They all like the Common Fisheries Policy? They all agree with
the EU's proposed financial transactions tax?
They could make that point. But since the true beLEAVEr supports the Land of the
Free's right to a unilateral imposed 219% tariff, their complaints may lack
credibility a little. Then there are the EU subsidies to farmers that may have
to be reduced post Brexit if all of that £350 million weekly goodness is to be
spent on NHS alone as that lying battlebus suggested.
And how would the fishermen and women feel if the Home of the Brave's fishing
fleet free trade agreement sailed across the Atlantic to gobble up what's left
of the cod stocks now that the hated Brussels Bureaucrat's regulations designed
to prevent extinction of the remaining cod has been done away with?
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
So the EU's rules are not at all like a bilateral treaty.
But bilateral trade is also not static. Why is the America First lobby now
agitating for changes to trade with China and other countries they blame for
many of America's ills?
I think you've missed the point. Bilaterals cannot be changed without
mutual agreement.
I doubt it. Certain Brexiters appear to be ready to accept the Home of the
Brave's authorities legitimate right to unilaterally impose a 219% import tariff
despite the Prime Ministers of two trading partner countries on the phone
pleading with the America First President not to do it. A widespread unilateral
imposition of such a tariff would kill a trading relationship more dead than any
dodo.
The tariff has been imposed by the US trade body, not by POTUS. IMO May
should address it through normal channels and not pick a row or ask for
special consideration from Trump. Besides, aren't the imports from
Canada rather than from the UK?
--
James Harris
Altroy1
2017-09-30 12:52:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
...
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/451076.html
Ukraine is prepared to take symmetrical retaliatory steps
if Budapest blocks any initiatives to build closer ties
between Ukraine and the European Union, Volodymyr Ariev,
the head of the Ukrainian delegation to the Parliamentary
Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) and a member of
the Petro Poroshenko Bloc in parliament, said on Tuesday.
"If they resort to blackmail rather than calm negotiations
this is an unreliable partnership,"
Ariev said.
That is not evidence of begging. And seeking closer ties does not prove
a desire for membership.
Playing ignorant much? Rightly you figure Ukraine's hope is for full EU
membership as stated many times. As for Serbia I'll call it begging; you call it
what you wish:

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/07/13/serbian-leader-vucic-presses-eu-for-accession-timetable.html

"I'm not expecting an answer any time soon on when we'll join,
but we're asking from a framework," said Vucic, who won
presidential elections in April. "Tell us clearly what is
expected and when it is expected by."


http://serbianmonitor.com/en/politics/35759/vucic-wants-eu-to-give-serbia-accession-date/

"This is the first time I have asked for something like this.
I think that Mogherini understood that very well. I wanted her
to tell me when exactly was Serbia going to become an EU
member. We don't want to wander around in the dark anymore. We
are definitely going down the right road and we want to know
when and how is this road going to end", Vucic went on to say.

http://serbianmonitor.com/en/politics/30896/vucic-eu-clear-message-western-balkan-accession/

He said he urged Merkel to assert more leadership on the issue
of EU membership for Serbia and its neighbours, with an eye to
showing the tangible benefits of future EU membership,
including jobs and Western values.

"We need huge support from the EU. All this messy stuff, it
sends the wrong message to the people," Vucic said.
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
To the Brexit mindset, when to them the greatest nation on earth defends itself
with a 219% tariff - that is wholly legitimate. But if the wicked EU does it
that would be unbridled evil.
You are delusional.
Is this intended to be a rebuttal? An insult? Whatever. A non argument if ever
there was one.

The hardened Brexit mind cannot be persuaded. Other readers might want to head
over to https://twitter.com/DanielJHannan to get an inkling into the mindset of
the true believer in Brexit, Adam Smith, the evils of socialised medicine and
the greatest nation with the greatest (privatised) health system on earth - the
Land of the Free and Home of the Brave.

The first thing to see is the montage of the UK's flag with sections of the
flags of a few more countries superimposed. Those countries appear to be: The
Land of the Free, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

They are ALL mainly white, English speaking and Christian. Absent is the
Commonwealth's by far biggest country, India. It is worth noting that the Home
of the Brave's population is well over double the other countries on that
montage combined. So you will not need an Oxbridge degree in Applied Mathematics
to figure who will have the whip hand.

Joining BOJO et al in the membership of this free trade institute is ex PM Tony
Abbott. Tony has generously set aside time from current referendum campaigning
against the evils of same sex marriage to tweet his support.

Then there is this real gem of a comment

https://twitter.com/DanielJHannan/status/912405931811622912 Sept 25, 2017

The world is moving toward smaller and more democratic countries. The EU
is going in the opposite direction.

And he quotes the following URL

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/why-are-kurdish-catalan-independence-ok-not-british-independence-1640751

I'm puzzled. Apparently legitimising separatism in other countries whilst
telling the Scots that if they take independence then get lost you won't be free
trading with the UK or using sterling? The next thing on the agenda could be Mr
Hannan offering for sale a nice used red lying battlebus. Cheap.

Overall that twitter feed tells the story of the essential difference between
remain and leave. Its not that the EU impinges on the UK's sovereignty. James
O'Brien has dealt with that many times on LBC. The leavers believe that UK's
destiny lies with its mainly white and Christian former colonies, and remain
that the UK is geographically part of Europe and therein lies its destiny.

...
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisis
No problem. I would expect the US to put the US first, and the UK to put
the UK first.
Thank you so much. Now just one more step. Tell us that sometimes the EU is
right to put its own interest first from time to time. In the Brexit mindset the
interests of the EU and UK diverge from time to time. Such a situation to them
cannot be tolerated. Far better to be in the arms of the greatest nation on
earth who would, er, cough, impose a 219% tariff on one of Northern Ireland and
Quebec's largest private sector employers.
When the EU puts its interests first it means putting the EU
superstructure first.
Nice try. When America cites America First it means its jobs, economic and
political coherence comes first. End of. America first not only means jobs it
means a wall to maintain Americas ethnic coherence as well. But of course if the
EU built a wall to keep out the Syrian refugees, in the Brexit mindset that
would be the dictatorial EU at it again.
Post by James Harris
It should, in fact, put the prosperity and safety
of its people first, as I would expect the UK and the US to do. Those
priorities are very different.
Nice try in trying to draw an artificial distinction between the EU and US. The
US fought a very bloody civil war to maintain its political coherence. Welfare
of the believers in slavery in the Deep South was not always the highest
priority on Lincoln and his Generals minds. Fast forward to the present and
still the United States of America will take instructions about free trade from
no-one.

The EU will drive a hard bargain to discourage other separatism. The same kind
of message was at one time driven home to the Scots. Leave the UK on a Monday if
you wish. On Tuesday you will face tariffs, customs queues at the border, no
influence on the bank of England and forget about using our currency. We're not
going to fuel separatism in Wales or other places by trading with you as if
nothing has happened.

I think there is another recent post hereabouts concerning the EU allowing the
UK snowflake type relations and opt outs from obligations other EU members have
accepted. And these opt-outs have, unfortunately, not quelled the chorus of
malcontent from the Eurosceptics who will simply not keep quiet until a full and
final chlorinated trade deal with the Home of the Brave is firmly in force.


...
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
Ah, you must be a Remainer. They always know the future!
And the true beLEAVEr? Believes that America is the greatest nation on earth,
You are, again, delusional.
You are, again, not articulating a better point of view.
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
can do no wrong. When the Land of the Free imposed that 219% tariff, it was
appropriate, safe and satisfactory.
And BOJO still assures there is this wonderful new future out there free of the
shackles of the hated EU. So I guess knowing the future lies not just in the
domain of remoaner thinking.
Believing that a country will be better off with independence than being
subject to a larger entity is nothing new.
No it has been covered many times. The Scots Indyref was a fairly recent example
where these arguments were played out thoroughly. Similar arguments are now
playing out in Catalonia, Rojava and Kurdistan.
Post by James Harris
That's different from you
"knowing" that the UK will accept hormone-infused beef.
My belief that the UK would accept hormone infused beef is well founded when
even Brexit believers in this newsgroup took shots at Michael Gove at the time
Mr Gove indicated that UK would not accept chlorinated chickens. The EU have
been trying to negotiate on this issue, the USA will not budge. The true Brexit
people know that without accepting the chlorine washed chickens, the chances of
the much hankered for free trade deal with the Home of the Brave reduces greatly.

....
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
I doubt it. Certain Brexiters appear to be ready to accept the Home of the
Brave's authorities legitimate right to unilaterally impose a 219% import tariff
despite the Prime Ministers of two trading partner countries on the phone
pleading with the America First President not to do it. A widespread unilateral
imposition of such a tariff would kill a trading relationship more dead than any
dodo.
The tariff has been imposed by the US trade body, not by POTUS.
And who do you think influences or even appoints the members of this alleged
trade body? Father Christmas? The ECJ, so hated by the true Brexleavers, has a
better claim to independence by a mile.
Post by James Harris
IMO May
should address it through normal channels and not pick a row or ask for
special consideration from Trump.
In other words, Theresa May should assure Trump "We will be with you, whatever"
then kneel down and offer obeisance.

Thank you so very much for yet again illustrating so loud and so proud that in
UK/US free trade deal negotiations one and ony one side will have the whip hand.
Post by James Harris
Besides, aren't the imports from
Canada rather than from the UK?
No, you know its not that simple. Consider not pretending otherwise. Mrs May has
not just the right but the duty to protect the jobs of her citizens and well you
know it.
James Harris
2017-09-30 15:30:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Altroy1
...
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/451076.html
Ukraine is prepared to take symmetrical retaliatory steps
if Budapest blocks any initiatives to build closer ties
between Ukraine and the European Union, Volodymyr Ariev,
the head of the Ukrainian delegation to the Parliamentary
Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) and a member of
the Petro Poroshenko Bloc in parliament, said on Tuesday.
"If they resort to blackmail rather than calm negotiations
this is an unreliable partnership,"
Ariev said.
That is not evidence of begging. And seeking closer ties does not prove
a desire for membership.
Playing ignorant much? Rightly you figure Ukraine's hope is for full EU
membership as stated many times. As for Serbia I'll call it begging; you call it
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/07/13/serbian-leader-vucic-presses-eu-for-accession-timetable.html
"I'm not expecting an answer any time soon on when we'll join,
but we're asking from a framework," said Vucic, who won
presidential elections in April. "Tell us clearly what is
expected and when it is expected by."
http://serbianmonitor.com/en/politics/35759/vucic-wants-eu-to-give-serbia-accession-date/
"This is the first time I have asked for something like this.
I think that Mogherini understood that very well. I wanted her
to tell me when exactly was Serbia going to become an EU
member. We don't want to wander around in the dark anymore. We
are definitely going down the right road and we want to know
when and how is this road going to end", Vucic went on to say.
http://serbianmonitor.com/en/politics/30896/vucic-eu-clear-message-western-balkan-accession/
He said he urged Merkel to assert more leadership on the issue
of EU membership for Serbia and its neighbours, with an eye to
showing the tangible benefits of future EU membership,
including jobs and Western values.
"We need huge support from the EU. All this messy stuff, it
sends the wrong message to the people," Vucic said.
Given the above I would call it applying and then getting exasperated at
the EU's slow response. They'd better get used to it!
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
To the Brexit mindset, when to them the greatest nation on earth defends itself
with a 219% tariff - that is wholly legitimate. But if the wicked EU does it
that would be unbridled evil.
You are delusional.
Is this intended to be a rebuttal? An insult? Whatever. A non argument if ever
there was one.
Sorry, I wouldn't normally make an accusation without explaining why.
Looks like I missed something.

... checks back ...

Oh, yes. Point was that you are claiming to know the Brexit mindset -
which your comments show is an invalid claim - and you appear to assert
that a Brexiteer would apply different standards to the US and the EU.
Hence, your comments show you are under a delusion. Your next comments
confirm it! (Brexiteers have different opinions and no one of them
speaks for all the others.)
Post by Altroy1
The hardened Brexit mind cannot be persuaded. Other readers might want to head
over to https://twitter.com/DanielJHannan to get an inkling into the mindset of
the true believer in Brexit, Adam Smith, the evils of socialised medicine and
the greatest nation with the greatest (privatised) health system on earth - the
Land of the Free and Home of the Brave.
The first thing to see is the montage of the UK's flag with sections of the
flags of a few more countries superimposed. Those countries appear to be: The
Land of the Free, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
They are ALL mainly white, English speaking and Christian. Absent is the
Commonwealth's by far biggest country, India. It is worth noting that the Home
of the Brave's population is well over double the other countries on that
montage combined. So you will not need an Oxbridge degree in Applied Mathematics
to figure who will have the whip hand.
Joining BOJO et al in the membership of this free trade institute is ex PM Tony
Abbott. Tony has generously set aside time from current referendum campaigning
against the evils of same sex marriage to tweet his support.
Then there is this real gem of a comment
https://twitter.com/DanielJHannan/status/912405931811622912 Sept 25, 2017
The world is moving toward smaller and more democratic countries. The EU
is going in the opposite direction.
And he quotes the following URL
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/why-are-kurdish-catalan-independence-ok-not-british-independence-1640751
I'm puzzled. Apparently legitimising separatism in other countries whilst
telling the Scots that if they take independence then get lost you won't be free
trading with the UK or using sterling? The next thing on the agenda could be Mr
Hannan offering for sale a nice used red lying battlebus. Cheap.
Overall that twitter feed tells the story of the essential difference between
remain and leave. Its not that the EU impinges on the UK's sovereignty. James
O'Brien has dealt with that many times on LBC. The leavers believe that UK's
destiny lies with its mainly white and Christian former colonies, and remain
that the UK is geographically part of Europe and therein lies its destiny.
...
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisis
No problem. I would expect the US to put the US first, and the UK to put
the UK first.
Thank you so much. Now just one more step. Tell us that sometimes the EU is
right to put its own interest first from time to time. In the Brexit mindset the
interests of the EU and UK diverge from time to time. Such a situation to them
cannot be tolerated. Far better to be in the arms of the greatest nation on
earth who would, er, cough, impose a 219% tariff on one of Northern Ireland and
Quebec's largest private sector employers.
When the EU puts its interests first it means putting the EU
superstructure first.
Nice try. When America cites America First it means its jobs, economic and
political coherence comes first. End of. America first not only means jobs it
means a wall to maintain Americas ethnic coherence as well. But of course if the
EU built a wall to keep out the Syrian refugees, in the Brexit mindset that
would be the dictatorial EU at it again.
I don't recognise your description of the Brexit mindset. I suggest you
have developed a prejudice which blinds you to variation in view.
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
It should, in fact, put the prosperity and safety
of its people first, as I would expect the UK and the US to do. Those
priorities are very different.
Nice try in trying to draw an artificial distinction between the EU and US. The
US fought a very bloody civil war to maintain its political coherence. Welfare
of the believers in slavery in the Deep South was not always the highest
priority on Lincoln and his Generals minds. Fast forward to the present and
still the United States of America will take instructions about free trade from
no-one.
The EU will drive a hard bargain to discourage other separatism.
On that we agree. Note the big contrast with the UK aiding and
supporting the devolved administrations to help them be a success. In
complete contrast, the EU fears that seceding states will succeed and
will do what it thinks is necessary to ensure that they are worse off.
Post by Altroy1
The same kind
of message was at one time driven home to the Scots. Leave the UK on a Monday if
you wish. On Tuesday you will face tariffs, customs queues at the border, no
influence on the bank of England and forget about using our currency. We're not
going to fuel separatism in Wales or other places by trading with you as if
nothing has happened.
I think there is another recent post hereabouts concerning the EU allowing the
UK snowflake type relations and opt outs from obligations other EU members have
accepted. And these opt-outs have, unfortunately, not quelled the chorus of
malcontent from the Eurosceptics who will simply not keep quiet until a full and
final chlorinated trade deal with the Home of the Brave is firmly in force.
...
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
Ah, you must be a Remainer. They always know the future!
And the true beLEAVEr? Believes that America is the greatest nation on earth,
You are, again, delusional.
You are, again, not articulating a better point of view.
Your claim that Leavers put America above all others is a delusion.
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
can do no wrong. When the Land of the Free imposed that 219% tariff, it was
appropriate, safe and satisfactory.
And BOJO still assures there is this wonderful new future out there free of the
shackles of the hated EU. So I guess knowing the future lies not just in the
domain of remoaner thinking.
Believing that a country will be better off with independence than being
subject to a larger entity is nothing new.
No it has been covered many times. The Scots Indyref was a fairly recent example
where these arguments were played out thoroughly. Similar arguments are now
playing out in Catalonia, Rojava and Kurdistan.
Post by James Harris
That's different from you
"knowing" that the UK will accept hormone-infused beef.
My belief that the UK would accept hormone infused beef is well founded when
even Brexit believers in this newsgroup took shots at Michael Gove at the time
Mr Gove indicated that UK would not accept chlorinated chickens. The EU have
been trying to negotiate on this issue, the USA will not budge. The true Brexit
people know that without accepting the chlorine washed chickens, the chances of
the much hankered for free trade deal with the Home of the Brave reduces greatly.
Well, you think you know. I don't know yet what choice the British
government will make.
Post by Altroy1
....
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
I doubt it. Certain Brexiters appear to be ready to accept the Home of the
Brave's authorities legitimate right to unilaterally impose a 219% import tariff
despite the Prime Ministers of two trading partner countries on the phone
pleading with the America First President not to do it. A widespread unilateral
imposition of such a tariff would kill a trading relationship more dead than any
dodo.
The tariff has been imposed by the US trade body, not by POTUS.
And who do you think influences or even appoints the members of this alleged
trade body? Father Christmas? The ECJ, so hated by the true Brexleavers, has a
better claim to independence by a mile.
Post by James Harris
IMO May
should address it through normal channels and not pick a row or ask for
special consideration from Trump.
In other words, Theresa May should assure Trump "We will be with you, whatever"
then kneel down and offer obeisance.
No.

You know, it would help to discuss things with you if you responded to
what people say rather than what you assume they think.
Post by Altroy1
Thank you so very much for yet again illustrating so loud and so proud that in
UK/US free trade deal negotiations one and ony one side will have the whip hand.
Post by James Harris
Besides, aren't the imports from
Canada rather than from the UK?
No, you know its not that simple. Consider not pretending otherwise. Mrs May has
not just the right but the duty to protect the jobs of her citizens and well you
know it.
You think you can tell what I know and what I don't know. You are wrong.
You have no idea what my thoughts are other than what I've written -
which you seem keen to ignore so that you can give preference to your
own assumptions rather than reality.
--
James Harris
Altroy1
2017-10-01 13:20:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[....]
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
"We need huge support from the EU. All this messy stuff, it
sends the wrong message to the people," Vucic said.
Given the above I would call it applying and then getting exasperated at
the EU's slow response. They'd better get used to it!
I'd call it begging to be let in rather than join the Brexit dream
of trade with the rest of the world (which just happens to be the
5 eyes countries and little else). Ukraine will have the greatest
problem getting in. It overthrew a democratically elected
president in a dubious coup and elements of its government are so
right-wing they make the Alternativ fuer Deutchland party look
like a bunch of namby-pamby liberal leftie refugee-loving tree
huggers.
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
To the Brexit mindset, when to them the greatest nation on earth defends itself
with a 219% tariff - that is wholly legitimate. But if the wicked EU does it
that would be unbridled evil.
You are delusional.
Is this intended to be a rebuttal? An insult? Whatever. A non argument if ever
there was one.
Sorry, I wouldn't normally make an accusation without explaining why.
Looks like I missed something.
... checks back ...
Oh, yes. Point was that you are claiming to know the Brexit mindset -
which your comments show is an invalid claim - and you appear to assert
that a Brexiteer would apply different standards to the US and the EU.
I should qualify that I should not claim to have either
represented nor misrepresented the vast majority of the Brexit
vote. Some voted for the NHS to get more money. Some blamed the
CFP and CAP for ills on their community. Some were libertarians
that blamed the EU for interefering in peoples lives & so on.

Certain views count for little, though. Such as those on talk
shows lamenting this proposed transition period and cant
understand why when they voted to get out of the EU on a
Thursday, the UK hadn't left by Friday morning. Such are not
compos mentis enough to run a referendum campaign never mind run a
country.

The views that do count are the elites, on both sides, who are
skilled enough both to run a country and run a political campaign.
If they are clever enough to be in a position to run a country
their views count. Even if their views are dangerous. Nicky Morgan
knew arch Americanophile Hannan quite well from University days.
She was also a government cabinet minister and saw how these
people worked close at hand at the higest level of power. Here is
some of her view:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/tory-party-conference-boris-johnson-brexiteers-florence-speech-nicky-morgan-undermining-a7975806.html

The UK Government should be focusing on getting the UK out of
the EU in the least damaging way, not debating arbitrary red
lines set down to try to curry favour with those who want a
utopian ultra free trade, low tax, minimal regulation state.
Those who are pushing this agenda have no place in a responsible
government - it is a dereliction of their duty to act in the
national interest. And it has to stop.
Post by James Harris
Hence, your comments show you are under a delusion. Your next comments
confirm it! (Brexiteers have different opinions and no one of them
speaks for all the others.)
No. Permit me to point out it's the opinions of the powerful elite
who despise the NHS with a passion but went around with that lying
battlebus are the ones that count.

Among the most important are the views of this Free Trade
Institute and its leading lights: BOJO, Liam Fox, Moggmentum,
Daniel Hannan.

Let's look at Daniel Hannan's views about his greatest nation on
earth. A few years back he gave a speech in the US to CPAC and in
it articulated his deep deep love for America and its privatised
health system:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2846097/posts

HANNAN: Let me end with a heartfelt imprecation from a British
conservative who loves his country, to American conservatives who
still believe in theirs. Honor the vision of your founders, cleave
to the most sublime Constitution devised by human intelligence.
Don't be the generation that cuts itself off from the wisdom of
your fathers and disinherits your children.

And he wasn't done. There's more:

Never be afraid to speak to and for the soul of this nation, of
which by good fortune and God's grace you are privileged to be a
part. God bless you, my friends, God bless America, and God
bless the alliance of the free English speaking nations. Thank
you.

Oh, my. This from him and is ilk that scuppered House of
Lords reform to preserve the world's second largest unelected
parliamentary chamber ever. I wonder what part of that "most
sublime Constitution devised by human intelligence" gave the
scupperers of HoL reform the inspiration.

And yes the Brexit case is significantly about the rejection of
the non native English speaking immigrant and the intereference of
the non member of the 5-eyes English speaking countries bureaucrat
in the lives of the free Alliance of English Speaking peoples. The
problem is that such an alliance with the 5-eyes nations means the
UK rejects frictionless borders with it's closest neighbours in
favour of this 5-Eyes surveillance alliance where the nearest
borders (if you could even call them borders) thousands of miles
away so that such matters as border checks can be glossed over and
dispensed with more succinctly.

[....]
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Nice try. When America cites America First it means its jobs, economic and
political coherence comes first. End of. America first not only means jobs it
means a wall to maintain Americas ethnic coherence as well. But of course if the
EU built a wall to keep out the Syrian refugees, in the Brexit mindset that
would be the dictatorial EU at it again.
I don't recognise your description of the Brexit mindset. I suggest you
have developed a prejudice which blinds you to variation in view.
Prejudice!? Like going around on a £350 million more to the NHS
per week lying battlebus whilst simultaneously rejecting the NHS
as the obvious construction of Karl Marx, Engels, Lenin, Jeremy
Corbyn and Satan himself?

I guess that's not what you're thinking. Never mind. Here is the
mindset anyway:

http://www.delawarepolitics.net/brilliant-mep-daniel-hannan-explains-socialisms-failure/

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/brad-wilmouth/2009/08/10/fnc-interviews-brit-who-warns-america-against-national-health-care

http://www.floppingaces.net/2009/04/08/daniel-hannan-on-the-disaster-known-as-socialized-health-care/

Some of the believers in the American Revolution want Hannan as
their president certainly rather than that foreign born, dark
skinned interloper, Obama:

http://wizbangblog.com/content/2009/03/30/mep-daniel-hannan-on-morning-joe-1.php

Hannan should get a Certificate of Live Birth from Hawaii so he
could run for President here!

8. Posted by P. Bunyan | March 31, 2009 2:45 PM

...

True P. Bunyan, just like Obama should get a certificate of live
birth from Afghanistan or wherever He was born and resign
immediately.

10. Posted by 419 | March 31, 2009 5:08 PM
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
It should, in fact, put the prosperity and safety
of its people first, as I would expect the UK and the US to do. Those
priorities are very different.
Nice try in trying to draw an artificial distinction between the EU and US. The
US fought a very bloody civil war to maintain its political coherence. Welfare
of the believers in slavery in the Deep South was not always the highest
priority on Lincoln and his Generals minds. Fast forward to the present and
still the United States of America will take instructions about free trade from
no-one.
The EU will drive a hard bargain to discourage other separatism.
On that we agree.
The Brexit mindset cried "blackmail" as the EU refused to discuss
future trading relationships until the exit bill, the Irish
border and the role, if any, of the ECJ is sorted out. Blackmail
the cry of the weaker party.
Post by James Harris
Note the big contrast with the UK aiding and
supporting the devolved administrations to help them be a success. In
complete contrast, the EU fears that seceding states will succeed and
will do what it thinks is necessary to ensure that they are worse off.
Irrelevant badmouthing of the EU. What is more relevant was the
attitude of the UK to the Scots if they went down the path of
separatism:-

* No say in the running of the Bank of England.
* No automatic entry of Scotland into the EU.
* Customs checks aplenty. Ultra high tariffs.
* Piss off Jocks, forget about using our Sterling.


Michel Barnier is no fool. Michel Barnier is delivering
the same message to the UK as Moggmentum and the rest of
them once delivered to the Scots.

Catalonia is being dealt with in a similar manner. Iraq is
imposing a no fly zone into and out of Kurdistan. Sterner
measures to follow. The UK is not going to be allowed to
walk out of the EU on a Monday to a cosy free trade deal
on a Tuesday. Failure to get a grip with that is a delusion.

[....]
Post by James Harris
No.
You know, it would help to discuss things with you if you responded to
what people say rather than what you assume they think.
Not always. Sometimes absence of evidence is evidence of
absence.

The absence of strong criticism of the Land of the Free's 219%
tariff by the usual Brexiters here is telling. Particularly
telling is by contrasting the same posters spew about the EU day
and daily. The Brexit mindset holds the EU's defence of its
structural and economic integrity as the traitorous inclinations
of the Brussels bureaucrat. The Brexit mindset holds, at worst,
the Land of Hope and Glory's 219% tariff as a possible mistake
that may well be corrected at some future point. The Brexit
mindset holds that at worst, the Land of the Free's naughty,
tariff-imposing wrist may need to be lightly slapped by a tiny
sliver of wet lettuce.

And the Brexit posters here are rather more articulate and gifted
with words than most of the general population. If they wanted to
they could aim a diatribe or two against the tariff-loving Land of
the Free even with its most sublime Constitution ever devised by
human intelligence.
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Thank you so very much for yet again illustrating so loud and so proud that in
UK/US free trade deal negotiations one and ony one side will have the whip hand.
Post by James Harris
Besides, aren't the imports from
Canada rather than from the UK?
No, you know its not that simple. Consider not pretending otherwise. Mrs May has
not just the right but the duty to protect the jobs of her citizens and well you
know it.
You think you can tell what I know and what I don't know. You are wrong.
You have no idea what my thoughts are other than what I've written -
which you seem keen to ignore so that you can give preference to your
own assumptions rather than reality.
No I don't but then I also less posted allegations of a personal
nature.

As to the Brexit mindset, that is the mindset of those that
count, it is wishy washy delusional thinking. Delusional thinking
about the joys of Brexit. Delusional thinking about the beauty of
the Land of the Free's "wonderful" privatised health service, one
of the most expensive health systems in the world with its flaws
so brutally demonstrated in Michael Moores film "sicko".

Nicky Morgan has actually worked with these people and their 5
eyes utopian dream of the English Speaking alliance of Adam Smith
wealth-of-nations capitalism and their rejection of the satanic
NHS and all its works. I don't doubt her judgement for a minute.
Post by James Harris
--
James Harris
James Harris
2017-10-01 13:28:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Altroy1
[....]
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
"We need huge support from the EU. All this messy stuff, it
sends the wrong message to the people," Vucic said.
Given the above I would call it applying and then getting exasperated at
the EU's slow response. They'd better get used to it!
I'd call it begging to be let in rather than join the Brexit dream
of trade with the rest of the world
Asking is not begging. When you go and ask a girl if you can buy her a
drink do you beg?

The EU is in danger of letting in too many taker nations. It needs more
givers. Or it will run out of funds to send to the takers.
Post by Altroy1
(which just happens to be the
5 eyes countries and little else).
If you mean trade, the five-eyes countries would be a _very_ good start.
Of the five, the EU has failed to get an FTA with three of them.

Besides, you are missing some of the key global growth markets where
trade is opening up and they are looking for suppliers. Having said
that, don't feel too bad. The EU has been missing them for years: :-)
Post by Altroy1
Ukraine will have the greatest
problem getting in. It overthrew a democratically elected
president in a dubious coup and elements of its government are so
right-wing they make the Alternativ fuer Deutchland party look
like a bunch of namby-pamby liberal leftie refugee-loving tree
huggers.
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
To the Brexit mindset, when to them the greatest nation on earth
defends itself
with a 219% tariff - that is wholly legitimate. But if the wicked EU does it
that would be unbridled evil.
You are delusional.
Is this intended to be a rebuttal? An insult? Whatever. A non argument if ever
there was one.
Sorry, I wouldn't normally make an accusation without explaining why.
Looks like I missed something.
... checks back ...
Oh, yes. Point was that you are claiming to know the Brexit mindset -
which your comments show is an invalid claim - and you appear to assert
that a Brexiteer would apply different standards to the US and the EU.
I should qualify that I should not claim to have either
represented nor misrepresented the vast majority of the Brexit
vote. Some voted for the NHS to get more money. Some blamed the
CFP and CAP for ills on their community. Some were libertarians
that blamed the EU for interefering in peoples lives & so on.
Agreed.

I would add that some of us voted to leave the EU in order for the UK to
become more prosperous - a motivation that surprises some Remainers
largely because of how poorly the Remain and Leave campaigns were run.
Post by Altroy1
Certain views count for little, though. Such as those on talk
shows lamenting this proposed transition period and cant
understand why when they voted to get out of the EU on a
Thursday, the UK hadn't left by Friday morning. Such are not
compos mentis enough to run a referendum campaign never mind run a
country.
True, though there are those on the Remain side who are clueless about
what the referendum was about.
Post by Altroy1
The views that do count are the elites, on both sides, who are
skilled enough both to run a country and run a political campaign.
No, absolutely not. In the referendum, every person had one vote, and
only one. The elites, rightly, had decided to hand the decision to the
people. And the people made their choice. The job of the elites you
mention is now to obey.
Post by Altroy1
If they are clever enough to be in a position to run a country
their views count. Even if their views are dangerous. Nicky Morgan
knew arch Americanophile Hannan quite well from University days.
She was also a government cabinet minister and saw how these
people worked close at hand at the higest level of power. Here is
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/tory-party-conference-boris-johnson-brexiteers-florence-speech-nicky-morgan-undermining-a7975806.html
The UK Government should be focusing on getting the UK out of
the EU in the least damaging way, not debating arbitrary red
lines set down to try to curry favour with those who want a
utopian ultra free trade, low tax, minimal regulation state.
Those who are pushing this agenda have no place in a responsible
government - it is a dereliction of their duty to act in the
national interest. And it has to stop.
Am happy to debate the /issues/ they bring up but none of these people
has any concrete insight into what the future holds. In fact, when we
look back at a lot of the people - the elites, if you like - who
espoused Remain we find that they also said the UK should join the euro.
They were wrong then. Completely wrong. They would have plunged the UK
into dire conditions.
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
Hence, your comments show you are under a delusion. Your next comments
confirm it! (Brexiteers have different opinions and no one of them
speaks for all the others.)
No. Permit me to point out it's the opinions of the powerful elite
who despise the NHS with a passion but went around with that lying
battlebus are the ones that count.
We'll have to disagree about whether their views count or not. As
mentioned above, such people do not have the power of prognostication,
whether they campaigned for Leave or Remain.
Post by Altroy1
Among the most important are the views of this Free Trade
Institute and its leading lights: BOJO, Liam Fox, Moggmentum,
Daniel Hannan.
Let's look at Daniel Hannan's views about his greatest nation on
earth. A few years back he gave a speech in the US to CPAC and in
it articulated his deep deep love for America and its privatised
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2846097/posts
HANNAN: Let me end with a heartfelt imprecation from a British
conservative who loves his country, to American conservatives who
still believe in theirs. Honor the vision of your founders, cleave
to the most sublime Constitution devised by human intelligence.
Don't be the generation that cuts itself off from the wisdom of
your fathers and disinherits your children.
Never be afraid to speak to and for the soul of this nation, of
which by good fortune and God's grace you are privileged to be a
part. God bless you, my friends, God bless America, and God
bless the alliance of the free English speaking nations. Thank
you.
Oh, my. This from him and is ilk that scuppered House of
Lords reform to preserve the world's second largest unelected
parliamentary chamber ever. I wonder what part of that "most
sublime Constitution devised by human intelligence" gave the
scupperers of HoL reform the inspiration.
I listened to what Dan Hannan said, just as I listend to what Nick Clegg
said. But I made up my own mind, as we all should do. Hannan and Clegg
and their friends were only there to advise. Brexit was our decision,
not theirs.
Post by Altroy1
And yes the Brexit case is significantly about the rejection of
the non native English speaking immigrant and the intereference of
the non member of the 5-eyes English speaking countries bureaucrat
in the lives of the free Alliance of English Speaking peoples. The
problem is that such an alliance with the 5-eyes nations means the
UK rejects frictionless borders with it's closest neighbours in
favour of this 5-Eyes surveillance alliance where the nearest
borders (if you could even call them borders) thousands of miles
away so that such matters as border checks can be glossed over and
dispensed with more succinctly.
I would say No. For example, Brexit was not about stopping immigration.
People will still come and go post Brexit. But it was about who sets UK
immigration policy. Should it be set in the UK by people who are
accountable to the public? Or should part of it be set in Europe by
people who are unaccountable and who are not in fear of the ballot box?
Post by Altroy1
[....]
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Nice try. When America cites America First it means its jobs, economic and
political coherence comes first. End of. America first not only means jobs it
means a wall to maintain Americas ethnic coherence as well. But of course if the
EU built a wall to keep out the Syrian refugees, in the Brexit mindset that
would be the dictatorial EU at it again.
I don't recognise your description of the Brexit mindset. I suggest you
have developed a prejudice which blinds you to variation in view.
Prejudice!? Like going around on a £350 million more to the NHS
per week lying battlebus whilst simultaneously rejecting the NHS
as the obvious construction of Karl Marx, Engels, Lenin, Jeremy
Corbyn and Satan himself?
Coo! I'd heard of Godwin's Law but you're taking it to another level. ;-)
Post by Altroy1
I guess that's not what you're thinking. Never mind. Here is the
http://www.delawarepolitics.net/brilliant-mep-daniel-hannan-explains-socialisms-failure/
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/brad-wilmouth/2009/08/10/fnc-interviews-brit-who-warns-america-against-national-health-care
http://www.floppingaces.net/2009/04/08/daniel-hannan-on-the-disaster-known-as-socialized-health-care/
Some of the believers in the American Revolution want Hannan as
their president certainly rather than that foreign born, dark
http://wizbangblog.com/content/2009/03/30/mep-daniel-hannan-on-morning-joe-1.php
Hannan should get a Certificate of Live Birth from Hawaii so he
could run for President here!
8. Posted by P. Bunyan | March 31, 2009 2:45 PM
...
True P. Bunyan, just like Obama should get a certificate of live
birth from Afghanistan or wherever He was born and resign
immediately.
10. Posted by 419 | March 31, 2009 5:08 PM
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
It should, in fact, put the prosperity and safety
of its people first, as I would expect the UK and the US to do. Those
priorities are very different.
Nice try in trying to draw an artificial distinction between the EU and US. The
US fought a very bloody civil war to maintain its political coherence. Welfare
of the believers in slavery in the Deep South was not always the highest
priority on Lincoln and his Generals minds. Fast forward to the present and
still the United States of America will take instructions about free trade from
no-one.
The EU will drive a hard bargain to discourage other separatism.
On that we agree.
The Brexit mindset cried "blackmail" as the EU refused to discuss
future trading relationships until the exit bill, the Irish
border and the role, if any, of the ECJ is sorted out. Blackmail
the cry of the weaker party.
I don't remember cries of blackmail but I would point out that the UK is
trying to get a good outcome for everyone while the EU wants/needs
things to be worse. That makes the UK's position very difficult. It
doesn't matter to the EU how the 27 members suffer as long as the 1
which is leaving suffers. Nice organisation, isn't it!
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Harris
Note the big contrast with the UK aiding and
supporting the devolved administrations to help them be a success. In
complete contrast, the EU fears that seceding states will succeed and
will do what it thinks is necessary to ensure that they are worse off.
Irrelevant badmouthing of the EU.
Not at all. They have said so themselves!
--
James Harris
pamela
2017-10-01 13:49:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
{BIG SNIP]
For example, Brexit was not about stopping immigration.
I think millions of pro-Brexit voters most probably thought Brexit
was exactly about stopping immigration.

This expectation, however unrealistic, was heavily promoted by Nigel
Farage and others in the referendum campaign.
James Harris
2017-10-01 14:00:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
{BIG SNIP]
For example, Brexit was not about stopping immigration.
I think millions of pro-Brexit voters most probably thought Brexit
was exactly about stopping immigration.
This expectation, however unrealistic, was heavily promoted by Nigel
Farage and others in the referendum campaign.
Well, I accept that one motivation was because people had long been fed
up with the numbers of people who had come in to their communities in a
short space of time. But I think most people understand the difference
between stopping something and regaining control of it.

There are xenophobes in all societies - and they make good copy - but
IMO the /average/ Brit is very welcoming as long as it is to a few at a
time and as long as the new people integrate. But when you get rapid
changes which threaten to continue _with_no_end_in_sight_ then it's
surely only natural that people want to have a brake applied before it's
too late, no? How can that possibly be seen as unreasonable?
--
James Harris
pamela
2017-10-01 20:21:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
{BIG SNIP]
For example, Brexit was not about stopping immigration.
I think millions of pro-Brexit voters most probably thought
Brexit was exactly about stopping immigration.
This expectation, however unrealistic, was heavily promoted by
Nigel Farage and others in the referendum campaign.
Well, I accept that one motivation was because people had long
been fed up with the numbers of people who had come in to their
communities in a short space of time. But I think most people
understand the difference between stopping something and
regaining control of it.
There are xenophobes in all societies - and they make good copy
- but IMO the /average/ Brit is very welcoming as long as it is
to a few at a time and as long as the new people integrate. But
when you get rapid changes which threaten to continue
_with_no_end_in_sight_ then it's surely only natural that people
want to have a brake applied before it's too late, no? How can
that possibly be seen as unreasonable?
I suspect you reasoned observation about the realities of the
situation is not the same as what millions of Leave voters were
expecting when they voted.

The voters had been fed misleading information on an industrial scale
and many were voting purely on intuition. Some Leavers were voting
out of spite (shades of the pro-Trump vote here) as a sort of protest
at the larger political, economic and industrial forces that had
shaped their lives into something less than they had hoped for.
Yellow
2017-10-01 22:22:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@81.171.118.178>, ***@nospam.com
says...
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
{BIG SNIP]
For example, Brexit was not about stopping immigration.
I think millions of pro-Brexit voters most probably thought
Brexit was exactly about stopping immigration.
This expectation, however unrealistic, was heavily promoted by
Nigel Farage and others in the referendum campaign.
Well, I accept that one motivation was because people had long
been fed up with the numbers of people who had come in to their
communities in a short space of time. But I think most people
understand the difference between stopping something and
regaining control of it.
There are xenophobes in all societies - and they make good copy
- but IMO the /average/ Brit is very welcoming as long as it is
to a few at a time and as long as the new people integrate. But
when you get rapid changes which threaten to continue
_with_no_end_in_sight_ then it's surely only natural that people
want to have a brake applied before it's too late, no? How can
that possibly be seen as unreasonable?
I suspect you reasoned observation about the realities of the
situation is not the same as what millions of Leave voters were
expecting when they voted.
If that is your view, do you also believe the same of Remain voters? How
many of those do you think are all clued up on the direction of
direction travel of the EU? How many knew what the Single Market was?
How many understood the Customs Union?
Post by pamela
The voters had been fed misleading information on an industrial scale
and many were voting purely on intuition.
Again, just the Leave voters? Or do you think Remain voters to be
equally as mislead and as equally ignorant, given they were fed exactly
the same information.
Post by pamela
Some Leavers were voting
out of spite (shades of the pro-Trump vote here) as a sort of protest
at the larger political, economic and industrial forces that had
shaped their lives into something less than they had hoped for.
What about the people who took the easy route and voted Remain out of
complete and utter laziness, to save the bother of finding out anything
about the issues? That is of course one of the reasons why the status
quo generally wins this sort of vote.
James Harris
2017-10-02 07:00:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
{BIG SNIP]
For example, Brexit was not about stopping immigration.
I think millions of pro-Brexit voters most probably thought
Brexit was exactly about stopping immigration.
This expectation, however unrealistic, was heavily promoted by
Nigel Farage and others in the referendum campaign.
Well, I accept that one motivation was because people had long
been fed up with the numbers of people who had come in to their
communities in a short space of time. But I think most people
understand the difference between stopping something and
regaining control of it.
There are xenophobes in all societies - and they make good copy
- but IMO the /average/ Brit is very welcoming as long as it is
to a few at a time and as long as the new people integrate. But
when you get rapid changes which threaten to continue
_with_no_end_in_sight_ then it's surely only natural that people
want to have a brake applied before it's too late, no? How can
that possibly be seen as unreasonable?
I suspect you reasoned observation about the realities of the
situation is not the same as what millions of Leave voters were
expecting when they voted.
If that is your view, do you also believe the same of Remain voters? How
many of those do you think are all clued up on the direction of
direction travel of the EU? How many knew what the Single Market was?
How many understood the Customs Union?
Post by pamela
The voters had been fed misleading information on an industrial scale
and many were voting purely on intuition.
Again, just the Leave voters? Or do you think Remain voters to be
equally as mislead and as equally ignorant, given they were fed exactly
the same information.
Post by pamela
Some Leavers were voting
out of spite (shades of the pro-Trump vote here) as a sort of protest
at the larger political, economic and industrial forces that had
shaped their lives into something less than they had hoped for.
What about the people who took the easy route and voted Remain out of
complete and utter laziness, to save the bother of finding out anything
about the issues? That is of course one of the reasons why the status
quo generally wins this sort of vote.
All very good questions.
--
James Harris
tim...
2017-10-02 07:53:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
What about the people who took the easy route and voted Remain out of
complete and utter laziness, to save the bother of finding out anything
about the issues?
or because their boss told them that their job was at risk if they didn't

most corporates told their employers that they MUST vote remain to ensure
the future success of the company

when all that was really at risk was the bonus/salary of the chief
exec/other directors.

tim
James Harris
2017-10-02 06:59:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
{BIG SNIP]
For example, Brexit was not about stopping immigration.
I think millions of pro-Brexit voters most probably thought
Brexit was exactly about stopping immigration.
This expectation, however unrealistic, was heavily promoted by
Nigel Farage and others in the referendum campaign.
Well, I accept that one motivation was because people had long
been fed up with the numbers of people who had come in to their
communities in a short space of time. But I think most people
understand the difference between stopping something and
regaining control of it.
There are xenophobes in all societies - and they make good copy
- but IMO the /average/ Brit is very welcoming as long as it is
to a few at a time and as long as the new people integrate. But
when you get rapid changes which threaten to continue
_with_no_end_in_sight_ then it's surely only natural that people
want to have a brake applied before it's too late, no? How can
that possibly be seen as unreasonable?
I suspect you reasoned observation about the realities of the
situation is not the same as what millions of Leave voters were
expecting when they voted.
I would think that all of us who post to this newsgroup are more engaged
in politics than the average voter. So surely the converse of your point
is also true: you are more aware of what the EU is and does than many
who voted Remain.
Post by pamela
The voters had been fed misleading information on an industrial scale
and many were voting purely on intuition.
You mean on both sides or just pro Brexit?
Post by pamela
Some Leavers were voting
out of spite (shades of the pro-Trump vote here) as a sort of protest
at the larger political, economic and industrial forces that had
shaped their lives into something less than they had hoped for.
Agreed, though I would put it differently. AISI the country had long
been dividing into the haves and have nots. For whatever reason
(capitalism, globalisation, EU protectionism, British policy etc) some
of the population were doing well out of the system while others felt
left behind. And I agree that those left behind predominantly wanted
change. But that is too simplistic a way to dismiss the Brexit vote.
Evidentially, rather than anecdotally, a lot of people knew enough to
know they didn't like the EU and what it had done to Britain. A lot
didn't like the direction the EU was heading in (and let's not pretend
that the EU is static; it is heading for ever-closer integration).

And I would say it's likely that that those who didn't know much about
the issues predominantly voted Remain, because the status quo - as they
might have seen it - would always seem safer than a big change.

Therefore, I would say that those who voted for Brexit were, on average,
more informed than those who voted remain.

So, again, to dismiss the Brexit vote as a protest is, I think, missing
a large part of what motivated the majority.
--
James Harris
Ian Jackson
2017-10-02 16:07:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
And I would say it's likely that that those who didn't know much about
the issues predominantly voted Remain, because the status quo - as they
might have seen it - would always seem safer than a big change.
On the other hand, most Remainers were probably not unaware that the EU
is far from perfect - but having weighed up the pros and cons, decided
that being 'in' was the lesser of the two evils.

Unlike some of the Brexiteers' "We want out at any cost", I don't know
of any Remainers who are desperate to "stay in at any cost".
--
Ian
Yellow
2017-10-02 16:22:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by James Harris
And I would say it's likely that that those who didn't know much about
the issues predominantly voted Remain, because the status quo - as they
might have seen it - would always seem safer than a big change.
On the other hand, most Remainers were probably not unaware that the EU
is far from perfect - but having weighed up the pros and cons, decided
that being 'in' was the lesser of the two evils.
You have no idea whatsoever, what proportion of people vote Remain for
what reason.

Some will have wished to stay at any cost because they agree with its
political ideas, some because they get some person benefit, some will
simply have been happy with the status-quo, some will have weighed the
odds even though they are not that keen on the EU - but how many of
each, you have no idea and I am sure there are other reasons too.
Post by Ian Jackson
Unlike some of the Brexiteers' "We want out at any cost", I don't know
of any Remainers who are desperate to "stay in at any cost".
You once posted here that you wished to stay in the EU at any cost and I
suspect there are a couple of other posters here who would agree with
the sentiment.
pamela
2017-10-02 18:33:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by James Harris
And I would say it's likely that that those who didn't know
much about the issues predominantly voted Remain, because the
status quo - as they might have seen it - would always seem
safer than a big change.
On the other hand, most Remainers were probably not unaware
that the EU is far from perfect - but having weighed up the
pros and cons, decided that being 'in' was the lesser of the
two evils.
You have no idea whatsoever, what proportion of people vote
Remain for what reason.
Why don't you read what Ian wrote? He didn't say anything like
what you are alleging. Ian was careful to properly caveat his
points. What is the matter with you that makes you unable to
understand this?
Post by Yellow
Some will have wished to stay at any cost because they agree
with its political ideas, some because they get some person
benefit, some will simply have been happy with the status-quo,
some will have weighed the odds even though they are not that
keen on the EU - but how many of each, you have no idea and I am
sure there are other reasons too.
I think he has covered all those aspects. Exactly what is your
problem?
Post by Yellow
Post by Ian Jackson
Unlike some of the Brexiteers' "We want out at any cost", I
don't know of any Remainers who are desperate to "stay in at
any cost".
You once posted here that you wished to stay in the EU at any
cost and I suspect there are a couple of other posters here who
would agree with the sentiment.
Can you provide a reference to where Ian said that please.
Yellow
2017-10-02 18:41:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@81.171.92.183>, ***@nospam.com
says...
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by James Harris
And I would say it's likely that that those who didn't know
much about the issues predominantly voted Remain, because the
status quo - as they might have seen it - would always seem
safer than a big change.
On the other hand, most Remainers were probably not unaware
that the EU is far from perfect - but having weighed up the
pros and cons, decided that being 'in' was the lesser of the
two evils.
You have no idea whatsoever, what proportion of people vote
Remain for what reason.
Why don't you read what Ian wrote?
Are you his mother (or is that father)?
pamela
2017-10-02 18:44:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by James Harris
And I would say it's likely that that those who didn't know
much about the issues predominantly voted Remain, because
the status quo - as they might have seen it - would always
seem safer than a big change.
On the other hand, most Remainers were probably not unaware
that the EU is far from perfect - but having weighed up the
pros and cons, decided that being 'in' was the lesser of the
two evils.
You have no idea whatsoever, what proportion of people vote
Remain for what reason.
Why don't you read what Ian wrote?
Are you his mother (or is that father)?
You are a child.
Ian Jackson
2017-10-02 18:46:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by James Harris
And I would say
it's likely that that those who didn't know much about
the issues predominantly voted Remain, because the status quo - as they
might have seen it - would always seem safer than a big change.
On the other hand, most Remainers were probably not unaware that the EU
is far from perfect - but having weighed up the pros and cons, decided
that being 'in' was the lesser of the two evils.
You have no idea whatsoever, what proportion of people vote Remain for
what reason.
I'm probably a lot closer to the truth than believing "it's likely that
that those who didn't know much about the issues predominantly voted
Remain". There seemed to be quite a lot of those who voted to leave who
had absolutely no idea about what leaving would entail, and what the
consequences might be.
Post by Yellow
Some will have wished to stay at any cost because they agree with its
political ideas, some because they get some person benefit, some will
simply have been happy with the status-quo, some will have weighed the
odds even though they are not that keen on the EU - but how many of
each, you have no idea and I am sure there are other reasons too.
Sorry for knowing nothing.
Post by Yellow
Post by Ian Jackson
Unlike some of the Brexiteers' "We want out at any cost", I don't know
of any Remainers who are desperate to "stay in at any cost".
You once posted here that you wished to stay in the EU at any cost and I
suspect there are a couple of other posters here who would agree with
the sentiment.
Total rubbish!
--
Ian
pamela
2017-10-02 18:52:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Yellow
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by James Harris
And I would say
it's likely that that those who didn't know much about
the issues predominantly voted Remain, because the status quo
- as they might have seen it - would always seem safer than a
big change.
On the other hand, most Remainers were probably not unaware
that the EU is far from perfect - but having weighed up the
pros and cons, decided that being 'in' was the lesser of the
two evils.
You have no idea whatsoever, what proportion of people vote
Remain for what reason.
I'm probably a lot closer to the truth than believing "it's
likely that that those who didn't know much about the issues
predominantly voted Remain". There seemed to be quite a lot of
those who voted to leave who had absolutely no idea about what
leaving would entail, and what the consequences might be.
Post by Yellow
Some will have wished to stay at any cost because they agree
with its political ideas, some because they get some person
benefit, some will simply have been happy with the status-quo,
some will have weighed the odds even though they are not that
keen on the EU - but how many of each, you have no idea and I am
sure there are other reasons too.
Sorry for knowing nothing.
Post by Yellow
Post by Ian Jackson
Unlike some of the Brexiteers' "We want out at any cost", I
don't know of any Remainers who are desperate to "stay in at
any cost".
You once posted here that you wished to stay in the EU at any
cost and I suspect there are a couple of other posters here who
would agree with the sentiment.
Total rubbish!
Ian, after reading some of Yellow's bizarre assertions today I
have asked her a couple of times if she is intoxicated because her
facts and her behaviour are not, well, exactly normal. She can't
stick to the topic, no matter how simple, or she exaggerates and
hugely magnifies some irrelevant detail into a matter of great
distress to herself.

Maybe she will feel better tomorrow.
James Harris
2017-10-02 20:13:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Yellow
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by James Harris
And I would say
it's likely that that those who didn't know much about
the issues predominantly voted Remain, because the status quo - as they
might have seen it - would always seem safer than a big change.
On the other hand, most Remainers were probably not unaware that the EU
is far from perfect - but having weighed up the pros and cons, decided
that being 'in' was the lesser of the two evils.
You have no idea whatsoever, what proportion of people vote Remain for
what reason.
I'm probably a lot closer to the truth than believing "it's likely that
that those who didn't know much about the issues predominantly voted
Remain".
I remember a report that Google had said the most popular question
British people had typed into its search engine just before the vote was
"what is the EU". LOL! If so many people were unsure, Remain would
always have looked the safer option.
Post by Ian Jackson
There seemed to be quite a lot of those who voted to leave who
had absolutely no idea about what leaving would entail, and what the
consequences might be.
Of course! If the EU had been a friend it /could/ have worked with the
UK government to come up with suitable Brexit terms, and then that could
have been put to the vote. But they EU is not like that. Not at all.
Hence, we the public had no choice but to vote blind.

Given the terms under which we had to vote and the weight of the
establishment behind Project Fear, I am amazed and somewhat in awe of
the courage of the British people that they chose the harder course. I
thought before then that the British spirit was likely dead. The British
people proved me wrong. I couldn't have been prouder of the country. It
was a remarkable piece of self determination, of the people choosing to
take power back from the elites.
--
James Harris
James Harris
2017-10-02 18:38:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by James Harris
And I would say it's likely that that those who didn't know much about
the issues predominantly voted Remain, because the status quo - as they
might have seen it - would always seem safer than a big change.
On the other hand, most Remainers were probably not unaware that the EU
is far from perfect - but having weighed up the pros and cons, decided
that being 'in' was the lesser of the two evils.
In reality, most of us can only guess at why people voted as they did.
The (apparently) best data I've seen was an Ashcroft survey. He found
that the main reason people voted Remain was that the risks of leaving
seemed too great. Maybe that matches your assessment?
Post by Ian Jackson
Unlike some of the Brexiteers' "We want out at any cost", I don't know
of any Remainers who are desperate to "stay in at any cost".
I guess you mean that as a pejorative. But perhaps it speaks to the
passion of those on the Brexit side. Strong emotions were involved in
the desire to Leave.
--
James Harris
Ian Jackson
2017-10-02 19:17:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by James Harris
And I would say it's likely that that those who didn't know much about
the issues predominantly voted Remain, because the status quo - as they
might have seen it - would always seem safer than a big change.
On the other hand, most Remainers were probably not unaware that the EU
is far from perfect - but having weighed up the pros and cons, decided
that being 'in' was the lesser of the two evils.
In reality, most of us can only guess at why people voted as they did.
The (apparently) best data I've seen was an Ashcroft survey. He found
that the main reason people voted Remain was that the risks of leaving
seemed too great. Maybe that matches your assessment?
Indeed. I'm sure there were Remainers who wanted to leave, but didn't
like the risks. I guess that counts as a partial 'con'.
Post by James Harris
Post by Ian Jackson
Unlike some of the Brexiteers' "We want out at any cost", I don't know
of any Remainers who are desperate to "stay in at any cost".
I guess you mean that as a pejorative.
Against Brexiteers? Not really - but it's a strange attitude for lots of
people to have - except maybe by someone who knows that they really have
been personally severely adversely affected by being in the EU - or
knows someone who has.

For example, I can understand it in someone who has definitely lost
their job or been unable to obtain employment. What I certainly don't
understand is some people declaring that they don't care if leaving
means they will LOSE their job. From some of the phone-ins I've heard,
this seems to be an attempt prove how loyal they are to Queen and
Country - but I suppose it could simply be bravado.
Post by James Harris
But perhaps it speaks to the passion of those on the Brexit side.
Strong emotions were involved in the desire to Leave.
Yes, I'm sure that the Brexiteers (many of whom seem to be driven by
emotions, and are still cock-a-hoop that their team won) are more
passionate than the Remainers (many of whom are still stunned by an
inexplicable result!). But as I said, you don't really get Remainers who
say that they want to stay in "at any cost".
--
\\\\isn
James Harris
2017-10-02 19:30:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by James Harris
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by James Harris
And I would say it's likely that that those who didn't know much about
the issues predominantly voted Remain, because the status quo - as they
might have seen it - would always seem safer than a big change.
On the other hand, most Remainers were probably not unaware that the EU
is far from perfect - but having weighed up the pros and cons, decided
that being 'in' was the lesser of the two evils.
In reality, most of us can only guess at why people voted as they did.
The (apparently) best data I've seen was an Ashcroft survey. He found
that the main reason people voted Remain was that the risks of leaving
seemed too great. Maybe that matches your assessment?
Indeed. I'm sure there were Remainers who wanted to leave, but didn't
like the risks. I guess that counts as a partial 'con'.
Post by James Harris
Post by Ian Jackson
Unlike some of the Brexiteers' "We want out at any cost", I don't know
of any Remainers who are desperate to "stay in at any cost".
I guess you mean that as a pejorative.
Against Brexiteers? Not really - but it's a strange attitude for lots of
people to have - except maybe by someone who knows that they really have
been personally severely adversely affected by being in the EU - or
knows someone who has.
For example, I can understand it in someone who has definitely lost
their job or been unable to obtain employment. What I certainly don't
understand is some people declaring that they don't care if leaving
means they will LOSE their job. From some of the phone-ins I've heard,
this seems to be an attempt prove how loyal they are to Queen and
Country - but I suppose it could simply be bravado.
I expect it is in many cases.
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by James Harris
But perhaps it speaks to the passion of those on the Brexit side.
Strong emotions were involved in the desire to Leave.
Yes, I'm sure that the Brexiteers (many of whom seem to be driven by
emotions, and are still cock-a-hoop that their team won) are more
passionate than the Remainers (many of whom are still stunned by an
inexplicable result!). But as I said, you don't really get Remainers who
say that they want to stay in "at any cost".
What do you make of those on pro-EU marches? Aren't they extremely keen
to stay in?
--
James Harris
Ian Jackson
2017-10-02 19:39:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
What do you make of those on pro-EU marches? Aren't they extremely keen
to stay in?
Of course - but is it "at any cost"?
--
Ian
kat
2017-10-02 20:04:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by James Harris
What do you make of those on pro-EU marches? Aren't they extremely
keen to stay in?
Of course - but is it "at any cost"?
Why is is less likely for them to wish to stay in "at any cost" than for
leavers to want to leave "at any cost"?
--
kat
Post by Ian Jackson
^..^<
Ian Jackson
2017-10-02 20:10:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kat
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by James Harris
What do you make of those on pro-EU marches? Aren't they extremely
keen to stay in?
Of course - but is it "at any cost"?
Why is is less likely for them to wish to stay in "at any cost" than
for leavers to want to leave "at any cost"?
All I said was that I've never heard any Remainers say that they wanted
to stay at any cost. On the other hand, I HAVE heard phone-in Brexiteers
saying that they want to leave at any cost.

Any other problems?
--
Ian
pamela
2017-10-02 21:50:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by kat
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by James Harris
What do you make of those on pro-EU marches? Aren't they
extremely
keen to stay in?
Of course - but is it "at any cost"?
Why is is less likely for them to wish to stay in "at any cost"
than for leavers to want to leave "at any cost"?
All I said was that I've never heard any Remainers say that they
wanted to stay at any cost. On the other hand, I HAVE heard
phone-in Brexiteers saying that they want to leave at any cost.
Any other problems?
"At any cost" leaves open the possibility of massive cost.

Someone said they wanted to leave "at any cost". I hope that was
just loose talk and what they really meant was they wanted to leave
even if there was a "bit of a cost".
James Harris
2017-10-02 20:18:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by James Harris
What do you make of those on pro-EU marches? Aren't they extremely keen
to stay in?
Of course - but is it "at any cost"?
I don't know. The phrase means different things to different people. And
it's not taken literally. No one would be prepared to sacrifice their
firstborn, for example!

So I am not sure you can say that Brexiteers are any more rational or
irrational than Remainers. Maybe you can. Maybe not. Hard to be sure,
isn't it!

One thing I have noticed about the pro-EU marches: they are getting
smaller. :-)
--
James Harris
Yellow
2017-10-02 19:19:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <oqu12t$qcj$***@dont-email.me>, ***@gmail.com
says...
Post by James Harris
Post by Ian Jackson
Unlike some of the Brexiteers' "We want out at any cost", I don't know
of any Remainers who are desperate to "stay in at any cost".
I guess you mean that as a pejorative. But perhaps it speaks to the
passion of those on the Brexit side. Strong emotions were involved in
the desire to Leave.
Having discussed this before, I think Ian is actually misrepresenting
leavers, perhaps like me, when he says they say "we want out at any
cost".

A reason I, and the others who might share this particular view, want
out is because we do not want to share in the EU's direction of travel -
ever closer union. We therefore want to leave "at any cost".

But the thing is we have differing ideas about what is meant by the word
"cost".

I see the non-financial cost of staying in to be far higher than any
financial cost of leaving, if there is indeed a financial cost, so that
is simply a price that has to be paid. If we do not get out now, there
will be no getting out, ever.

Meanwhile Ian, and he is not alone, I think sees the cost of staying in
the EU or leaving it, only in term of GDP, for which the "ever closer
union" is the non-financial cost he is prepared to pay.

Leave or remain, it is equal and it is opposite.

Not trying to put words in anyone's mouth by the way, just trying to
figure it all out.
pamela
2017-10-02 19:37:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by James Harris
Post by Ian Jackson
Unlike some of the Brexiteers' "We want out at any cost", I
don't know of any Remainers who are desperate to "stay in at
any cost".
I guess you mean that as a pejorative. But perhaps it speaks to
the passion of those on the Brexit side. Strong emotions were
involved in the desire to Leave.
Having discussed this before, I think Ian is actually
misrepresenting leavers, perhaps like me, when he says they say
"we want out at any cost".
A reason I, and the others who might share this particular view,
want out is because we do not want to share in the EU's
direction of travel - ever closer union. We therefore want to
leave "at any cost".
But the thing is we have differing ideas about what is meant by
the word "cost".
I see the non-financial cost of staying in to be far higher than
any financial cost of leaving, if there is indeed a financial
cost, so that is simply a price that has to be paid. If we do
not get out now, there will be no getting out, ever.
Meanwhile Ian, and he is not alone, I think sees the cost of
staying in the EU or leaving it, only in term of GDP, for which
the "ever closer union" is the non-financial cost he is prepared
to pay.
Leave or remain, it is equal and it is opposite.
Not trying to put words in anyone's mouth by the way, just
trying to figure it all out.
"If we do not get out now, there will be no getting out, ever."
Ever? Have you actually thought that statement through?
Ian Jackson
2017-10-02 19:48:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by James Harris
Post by Ian Jackson
Unlike some of the Brexiteers' "We want out at any cost", I don't know
of any Remainers who are desperate to "stay in at any cost".
I guess you mean that as a pejorative. But perhaps it speaks to the
passion of those on the Brexit side. Strong emotions were involved in
the desire to Leave.
Having discussed this before, I think Ian is actually misrepresenting
leavers, perhaps like me, when he says they say "we want out at any
cost".
Nonsense. Some leavers - like reminders - have weighed up the pros and
cons, and decided that leaving is better. It's possibly only the lunatic
fringe who want to "leave at any cost".
Post by Yellow
A reason I, and the others who might share this particular view, want
out is because we do not want to share in the EU's direction of travel -
ever closer union. We therefore want to leave "at any cost".
I really don't believe you (and most of your ilk).
Post by Yellow
But the thing is we have differing ideas about what is meant by the word
"cost".
I think most people have a fair idea what "at any cost" means.
Post by Yellow
I see the non-financial cost of staying in to be far higher than any
financial cost of leaving, if there is indeed a financial cost, so that
is simply a price that has to be paid. If we do not get out now, there
will be no getting out, ever.
Meanwhile Ian, and he is not alone, I think sees the cost of staying in
the EU or leaving it, only in term of GDP, for which the "ever closer
union" is the non-financial cost he is prepared to pay.
Leave or remain, it is equal and it is opposite.
Not trying to put words in anyone's mouth by the way
Thank heaven for that!
Post by Yellow
, just trying to
figure it all out.
Practice makes perfect.
--
Ian
Yellow
2017-10-01 14:16:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@81.171.92.183>, ***@nospam.com
says...
Post by pamela
{BIG SNIP]
For example, Brexit was not about stopping immigration.
I think millions of pro-Brexit voters most probably thought Brexit
was exactly about stopping immigration.
Then you are wrong. It is clearly about controlling immigration.
Post by pamela
This expectation, however unrealistic, was heavily promoted by Nigel
Farage and others in the referendum campaign.
No it wasn't.
pamela
2017-10-01 13:51:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[[[SNIP]]]
I don't remember cries of blackmail but I would point out that
the UK is trying to get a good outcome for everyone while the EU
wants/needs things to be worse. That makes the UK's position
very difficult. It doesn't matter to the EU how the 27 members
suffer as long as the 1 which is leaving suffers. Nice
organisation, isn't it!
If I was an EU negotiator I would do exactly the same. I would do
all I could to ensure Britain gets such a pasting that no nation
would forget for decades how Britain was made to suffer.

Why, you should ask, would an EU negotiator do anything to help the
UK?
Yellow
2017-10-01 14:19:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@81.171.92.183>, ***@nospam.com
says...
Post by pamela
[[[SNIP]]]
I don't remember cries of blackmail but I would point out that
the UK is trying to get a good outcome for everyone while the EU
wants/needs things to be worse. That makes the UK's position
very difficult. It doesn't matter to the EU how the 27 members
suffer as long as the 1 which is leaving suffers. Nice
organisation, isn't it!
If I was an EU negotiator I would do exactly the same. I would do
all I could to ensure Britain gets such a pasting that no nation
would forget for decades how Britain was made to suffer.
Which is why it is such a shit organisation that so many of us no longer
want to be a part of.
Post by pamela
Why, you should ask, would an EU negotiator do anything to help the
UK?
With my view on the EU, I had no other expectation as fairness is not
high on its list of working practices, if on there at all.
pamela
2017-10-01 20:17:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
[[[SNIP]]]
I don't remember cries of blackmail but I would point out
that the UK is trying to get a good outcome for everyone
while the EU wants/needs things to be worse. That makes the
UK's position very difficult. It doesn't matter to the EU how
the 27 members suffer as long as the 1 which is leaving
suffers. Nice organisation, isn't it!
If I was an EU negotiator I would do exactly the same. I would
do all I could to ensure Britain gets such a pasting that no
nation would forget for decades how Britain was made to suffer.
Which is why it is such a shit organisation that so many of us
no longer want to be a part of.
Post by pamela
Why, you should ask, would an EU negotiator do anything to help
the UK?
With my view on the EU, I had no other expectation as fairness
is not high on its list of working practices, if on there at
all.
The EU may not have been particularly fair (depending on how you
define it) but we are better off inside the EU than outside. We are
about to find out how big the difference actually is.
Yellow
2017-10-01 22:13:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@81.171.118.178>, ***@nospam.com
says...
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
If I was an EU negotiator I would do exactly the same. I would
do all I could to ensure Britain gets such a pasting that no
nation would forget for decades how Britain was made to suffer.
Which is why it is such a shit organisation that so many of us
no longer want to be a part of.
Post by pamela
Why, you should ask, would an EU negotiator do anything to help
the UK?
With my view on the EU, I had no other expectation as fairness
is not high on its list of working practices, if on there at
all.
The EU may not have been particularly fair (depending on how you
define it) but we are better off inside the EU than outside.
First you need to define "we" and then you need to define "better off".
Post by pamela
We are
about to find out how big the difference actually is.
Until you have defined it, how can you measure it?
pamela
2017-10-02 13:01:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
If I was an EU negotiator I would do exactly the same. I
would do all I could to ensure Britain gets such a pasting
that no nation would forget for decades how Britain was made
to suffer.
Which is why it is such a shit organisation that so many of
us no longer want to be a part of.
Post by pamela
Why, you should ask, would an EU negotiator do anything to
help the UK?
With my view on the EU, I had no other expectation as
fairness is not high on its list of working practices, if on
there at all.
The EU may not have been particularly fair (depending on how
you define it) but we are better off inside the EU than
outside.
First you need to define "we" and then you need to define
"better off".
We = UK citizens.

Better off = more money.
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
We are
about to find out how big the difference actually is.
Until you have defined it, how can you measure it?
Yellow
2017-10-02 14:10:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@81.171.118.178>, ***@nospam.com
says...
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
The EU may not have been particularly fair (depending on how
you define it) but we are better off inside the EU than
outside.
First you need to define "we" and then you need to define
"better off".
We = UK citizens.
Better off = more money.
So on what basis are you declaring that *every* UK citizen is better off
because we are members of the EU?

Hmmmm?
pamela
2017-10-02 15:08:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
The EU may not have been particularly fair (depending on how
you define it) but we are better off inside the EU than
outside.
First you need to define "we" and then you need to define
"better off".
We = UK citizens.
Better off = more money.
So on what basis are you declaring that *every* UK citizen is
better off because we are members of the EU?
Hmmmm?
I wrote "we are better off inside the EU than outside". Your wild
extrapolations to prop up your losing argument do you no credit.

I am beginning to wonder about how well you grasp reality because you
have developed a technique of twisting words around into a pretzel of
their former self and then wildly extrapolating from there until you
make accusatory comments based on your new interpretation.

Perhaps you have some personality disorder which would help explain
such a method of interaction?
Yellow
2017-10-02 16:06:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@81.171.92.183>, ***@nospam.com
says...
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
The EU may not have been particularly fair (depending on how
you define it) but we are better off inside the EU than
outside.
First you need to define "we" and then you need to define
"better off".
We = UK citizens.
Better off = more money.
So on what basis are you declaring that *every* UK citizen is
better off because we are members of the EU?
Hmmmm?
I wrote "we are better off inside the EU than outside".
You did - and the answer to my question is?
Post by pamela
Your wild
extrapolations to prop up your losing argument do you no credit.
I am beginning to wonder about how well you grasp reality because you
have developed a technique of twisting words around into a pretzel of
their former self and then wildly extrapolating from there until you
make accusatory comments based on your new interpretation.
Perhaps you have some personality disorder which would help explain
such a method of interaction?
But my question... you do not seem to have answered it.
pamela
2017-10-02 18:36:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
The EU may not have been particularly fair (depending on
how you define it) but we are better off inside the EU
than outside.
First you need to define "we" and then you need to define "better off".
We = UK citizens.
Better off = more money.
So on what basis are you declaring that *every* UK citizen is
better off because we are members of the EU?
Hmmmm?
I wrote "we are better off inside the EU than outside".
You did - and the answer to my question is?
Your question is irrelevant to what I wrote. You made a stupid
jibe in the form of a question. If you don't understand something
then why not try Google before making yourself look foolish here.
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Your wild extrapolations to prop up your losing argument do you
no credit.
I am beginning to wonder about how well you grasp reality
because you have developed a technique of twisting words around
into a pretzel of their former self and then wildly
extrapolating from there until you make accusatory comments
based on your new interpretation.
Perhaps you have some personality disorder which would help
explain such a method of interaction?
But my question... you do not seem to have answered it.
You have not answered my prvious question about specific and
general relativity. What is your answer?
kat
2017-10-02 20:01:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
The EU may not have been particularly fair (depending on
how you define it) but we are better off inside the EU
than outside.
First you need to define "we" and then you need to define
"better off".
We = UK citizens.
Better off = more money.
So on what basis are you declaring that *every* UK citizen is
better off because we are members of the EU?
Hmmmm?
I wrote "we are better off inside the EU than outside".
You did - and the answer to my question is?
Your question is irrelevant to what I wrote. You made a stupid
jibe in the form of a question. If you don't understand something
then why not try Google before making yourself look foolish here.
Why is it irrelevant? Why would I be better off in than out?
--
kat
Post by pamela
^..^<
pamela
2017-10-02 21:58:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kat
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
The EU may not have been particularly fair (depending on
how you define it) but we are better off inside the EU
than outside.
First you need to define "we" and then you need to define "better off".
We = UK citizens.
Better off = more money.
So on what basis are you declaring that *every* UK citizen
is better off because we are members of the EU?
Hmmmm?
I wrote "we are better off inside the EU than outside".
You did - and the answer to my question is?
Your question is irrelevant to what I wrote. You made a stupid
jibe in the form of a question. If you don't understand
something then why not try Google before making yourself look
foolish here.
Why is it irrelevant? Why would I be better off in than out?
I posted a list off hte top of my head of things I liked about the
EU to James a couple of weeks ago including.... conformity of
goods, the ability to travel without permits or visas, the
consumer protection which large British companies would have
prevented, the cheaper goods, the modern outlook which
stick-in-mud Britain would never have developed, exchange studies,
trans-national environmental protection, the effect on quality of
food, the mobile phone roaming charges, sustained peace in Europe,
general world influence, ease of inporting/exporting, grey pricing
from goods cheaper elsewhere, better designed consumer products,
foreign tv stations, more competition to make our manufacturers up
their game, and so on.

James Harris
2017-10-02 07:10:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
...
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
With my view on the EU, I had no other expectation as fairness
is not high on its list of working practices, if on there at
all.
The EU may not have been particularly fair (depending on how you
define it) but we are better off inside the EU than outside.
In the short term, yes.

But definitely not in the long term. IMO many people are unaware of how
much poorer we are /now/ because we are in the EU. It is a matter of
record that the global economy has grown while the EU has fallen behind.
And its clear that the EU has failed badly in opening up new trade with
the crucial growth areas.
Post by pamela
We are
about to find out how big the difference actually is.
I'm ongoingly amazed at how Remainers maintain confidence in their fear
without evidence to substantiate it. :-(
--
James Harris
tim...
2017-10-01 14:41:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
[[[SNIP]]]
I don't remember cries of blackmail but I would point out that
the UK is trying to get a good outcome for everyone while the EU
wants/needs things to be worse. That makes the UK's position
very difficult. It doesn't matter to the EU how the 27 members
suffer as long as the 1 which is leaving suffers. Nice
organisation, isn't it!
If I was an EU negotiator I would do exactly the same. I would do
all I could to ensure Britain gets such a pasting that no nation
would forget for decades how Britain was made to suffer.
at the expense of stuffing your own trade with that country

what a great strategy that is!

tim
Yellow
2017-10-01 13:58:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <oqqqhg$7bp$***@dont-email.me>, ***@gmail.com
says...
Post by James Harris
Post by Altroy1
I should qualify that I should not claim to have either
represented nor misrepresented the vast majority of the Brexit
vote. Some voted for the NHS to get more money. Some blamed the
CFP and CAP for ills on their community. Some were libertarians
that blamed the EU for interefering in peoples lives & so on.
Agreed.
I would add that some of us voted to leave the EU in order for the UK to
become more prosperous - a motivation that surprises some Remainers
largely because of how poorly the Remain and Leave campaigns were run.
Both these paragraphs miss out a big group of people who voted to leave
and that is those who simple do not want what the EU wants - political
and financial union, as well as the physical union of trade and freedom
of movement that we already have.

I did not vote for UK as a whole to become richer or for it to become
poorer, I instead voted for it to be different - and there is no
guarantee where leaving the EU is going to take us.
tim...
2017-09-29 17:02:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Altroy1
[...]
Post by James Harris
I wouldn't expect any country to unfairly subsidise its industries and
get away with it.
Excellent. Then you agree that when two or more nations free trade, they
cede their ability to make their own laws and subsidise their own
industries as they see fit. Thank you so much for admitting this.
yep, that's inherent in membership of the WTO

having an FTA agreement on top of that changes nothing

It's the latter part that people are wrongly claiming makes a difference -
it doesn't

tim
Altroy1
2017-09-30 12:54:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by Altroy1
[...]
Post by James Harris
I wouldn't expect any country to unfairly subsidise its industries
and get away with it.
Excellent. Then you agree that when two or more nations free trade,
they cede their ability to make their own laws and subsidise their own
industries as they see fit. Thank you so much for admitting this.
yep, that's inherent in membership of the WTO
having an FTA agreement on top of that changes nothing
It's the latter part that people are wrongly claiming makes a difference
- it doesn't
I see. Its not voteleavetakecontrol. Its voteleaveandWTOtakecontrol.
Post by tim...
tim
tim...
2017-09-29 08:59:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Altroy1
[...]
Post by James Harris
There are other threads for that but as you want to discuss it here I
don't mind.
I agree with the "coming out of the EU's shackles" part - just as I would
argue for getting out of bonds which already restricted my freedom to
move and which were steadily getting tighter.
But you are familiar with American power? How it can throw its economic
weight around if it perceives a threat to its interests. There was, is,
and never will be any freedom for Canada or the UK to subsidise an
important industry and then expect to free trade with the USA. The 219%
tariff is a salutory lesson to those that think otherwise.
I'm sorry, there really is no connection

If a country abuses its position in a market there are WTO procedures in
place whereby that abuse can be "punished"

All the US is doing is initiating that process wrt one particular product,
as it is perfectly entitled to do. (I believe that it has overstated it
case, but that's another matter. A matter which will be resolved further
down the process)

It has absolutely no bearing on any other part of your trading with that
country.

None at all

The connection is completely spurious

tim
Altroy1
2017-09-29 12:44:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by Altroy1
[...]
Post by James Harris
There are other threads for that but as you want to discuss it here I
don't mind.
I agree with the "coming out of the EU's shackles" part - just as I
would argue for getting out of bonds which already restricted my
freedom to move and which were steadily getting tighter.
But you are familiar with American power? How it can throw its
economic weight around if it perceives a threat to its interests.
There was, is, and never will be any freedom for Canada or the UK to
subsidise an important industry and then expect to free trade with the
USA. The 219% tariff is a salutory lesson to those that think otherwise.
I'm sorry, there really is no connection
If a country abuses its position in a market there are WTO procedures in
place whereby that abuse can be "punished"
All the US is doing is initiating that process wrt one particular
product, as it is perfectly entitled to do. (I believe that it has
overstated it case, but that's another matter. A matter which will be
resolved further down the process)
It has absolutely no bearing on any other part of your trading with that
country.
None at all
The connection is completely spurious
The unilateral effective alteration of a trading agreement by a powerful though
private sector engineering employer in the USA (who did not even bid for the
alleged subsidised contract) is the issue. And the Brexit belief that America
First will grant a rosy free trade agreement no strings attached. Pigs can fly
high and mighty.
Post by tim...
tim
tim...
2017-09-29 17:10:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Altroy1
The unilateral effective alteration of a trading agreement by a powerful
though private sector engineering employer in the USA (who did not even
bid for the alleged subsidised contract) is the issue.
As they are entitled to do, provided that their case is sound. It is yet to
be determined that it is.
Post by Altroy1
And the Brexit belief that America First will grant a rosy free trade
agreement no strings attached.
But it's nothing to do with "America first". It's because Trump has a
stated policy of avoiding multilateral agreements and seeking bilateral
agreements, thus putting us above the EU in the negotiating queue.

(Though quite why Obama got unchallenged with his "back of the queue" line,
I have no idea. If I was in the room at the time my response would have
been "this is the America that the largest trading country in the world and
its only superpower?" (wait for "Yes" response) "and you can't do two things
at once!?")

tim
Fredxxx
2017-09-29 18:08:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Altroy1
The unilateral effective alteration of a trading agreement by a
powerful though private sector engineering employer in the USA (who
did not even bid for the alleged subsidised contract) is the issue.
As they are entitled to do, provided that their case is sound.  It is
yet to be determined that it is.
Post by Altroy1
And the Brexit belief that America First will grant a rosy free trade
agreement no strings attached.
But it's nothing to do with "America first".   It's because Trump has a
stated policy of avoiding multilateral agreements and seeking bilateral
agreements, thus putting us above the EU in the negotiating queue.
(Though quite why Obama got unchallenged with his "back of the queue"
line, I have no idea.
I don't know why he said it, I guess from pressure from Camoron and
other EU interests. My experience from what politicians say, is that it
was in the USA's interest of the UK staying in the EU.
If I was in the room at the time my response
would have been "this is the America that the largest trading country in
the world and its only superpower?" (wait for "Yes" response) "and you
can't do two things at once!?")
There is a bigger picture to why Obama made this claim. Perhaps he
thought T-TIP was still a goer if he supported the Remoaners.
tim...
2017-09-30 09:59:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by Altroy1
The unilateral effective alteration of a trading agreement by a powerful
though private sector engineering employer in the USA (who did not even
bid for the alleged subsidised contract) is the issue.
As they are entitled to do, provided that their case is sound. It is yet
to be determined that it is.
Post by Altroy1
And the Brexit belief that America First will grant a rosy free trade
agreement no strings attached.
But it's nothing to do with "America first". It's because Trump has a
stated policy of avoiding multilateral agreements and seeking bilateral
agreements, thus putting us above the EU in the negotiating queue.
(Though quite why Obama got unchallenged with his "back of the queue"
line, I have no idea.
I don't know why he said it, I guess from pressure from Camoron and other
EU interests. My experience from what politicians say, is that it was in
the USA's interest of the UK staying in the EU.
as they thought it was

but they were very badly advised if they thought that butting into an
argument that really had nothing to do with them, was going to be helpful in
a good way

tim
Altroy1
2017-09-30 13:03:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
But it's nothing to do with "America first". It's because Trump has a
stated policy of avoiding multilateral agreements and seeking bilateral
agreements, thus putting us above the EU in the negotiating queue.
Thanks. America First's bilateral agreements will put America firmly in the font
at all times. Its chlorinated chickens. First. Growth hormone beef. First. GM
altered corn and other crops. First. America's wall to maintain ethnic and
political coherence. First.

Countries that agree to all of it without quibbling welcome to an America First
FTA. Other nations can go suck a lemon.
Post by tim...
(Though quite why Obama got unchallenged with his "back of the queue"
line, I have no idea. If I was in the room at the time my response
would have been "this is the America that the largest trading country in
the world and its only superpower?" (wait for "Yes" response) "and you
can't do two things at once!?")
tim
tim...
2017-09-30 12:57:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Altroy1
Post by tim...
But it's nothing to do with "America first". It's because Trump has a
stated policy of avoiding multilateral agreements and seeking bilateral
agreements, thus putting us above the EU in the negotiating queue.
Thanks. America First's bilateral agreements will put America firmly in
the font at all times. Its chlorinated chickens. First. Growth hormone
beef. First. GM altered corn and other crops. First. America's wall to
maintain ethnic and political coherence. First.
No

don't be silly

It just means that they only have to make a deal that satisfies only one
country, not one that satisfies every one of a dozen

With a bilateral deal, for every "thing" that the US wants out of the deal
it will have to offer something in return

but with a multilateral deal, for every one "thing that it wants it might
have to offer a dozen different things in return

But that doesn't extrapolate to "The US wants all of this and in return we
give you nothing"
Post by Altroy1
Countries that agree to all of it without quibbling welcome to an America
First FTA.
Nonsense
Post by Altroy1
Other nations can go suck a lemon.
Other countries already trade with the US on WTO terms

In order to increase trade with those countries by the use of an FTA you
have to make an equitable agreement - otherwise the other party walks

tim
Ian Jackson
2017-09-28 15:43:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Altroy1
In the terms of this newsgroup and thread, though, discussion relating
to the Brexit promise of out of the EU's hateful shackles and into the
arms of a wonderful new "the world's our [219% import tariff] oyster"
free trade deal with the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave is
relevant.
We've been had. I believe the 'Strines might refer to the situation as
"someone has been coming the raw prawn".
--
Ian
tim...
2017-09-27 18:18:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
A few weeks ago there was one of these jolly Brexit bean feasts when Trump announced: -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/09/trump-has-confirmed-britain-will-get-free-trade-deal-west-will/
ha they said the rest of the world will be queuing up to trade with us...
the trouble with Trump is he says one thing one minute and does another
the next so now we have: -
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/bombardier-ruling-risks-thousands-belfast-231200569.html
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/business/uk-world/bombardier-job-fears-over-crippling-us-tariff-of-21963-in-boeing-row-36172924.html
so the reality [if WTO don't intervene] is 220% tariff and thousands of
British aircraft workers queuing up for the dole...
Anti dumpling rules apply trade deal or not

the issue here is whether the US can substantiate its claim of dumping at a
disinterested tribunal

getting a tribunal formed of members of the interested country to agree, is
not a surprise

That the US is strong on anti-dumping does not mean that it is a bad country
to make a deal with.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
What other tariffs might be imposed?
the same a set of external tariffs that the US already "imposes" on us

we have to pay them as member of the EU, we will have to pay exactly the
same ones once outside the EU.

they cannot discriminate, they cannot make them higher for us outside of the
EU than they are now

Of course, if we negotiate a trade deal we can negotiate them down, in
return for whatever the US wants from us.

(just as the EU could negotiate them down in their trade deal, but that
seems to have floundered)
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Dairy products 35.4%
Sugars and confectionery 23.6%
Beverages and tobacco 19.6%
Animal products 15.7%
Cereals and preparations 12.8%
Fish and fish products 12.0%
Fruit, vegetables and plants 10.5%
Textiles 6.5%
Coffee, tea 6.1%
Oops - sorry those would be the tariffs into Europe if we leave the customs union...
why should we be worried about that list

we are not self sufficient in food.

Our agricultural exports are a minimal amount of our GDP (the largest single
item of agriculture exports is Scotch whiskey at 30% of the total!)

Our textile industry was decimated by the far east 2 decades ago

last time I looked we didn't actually grow tea or coffee in the UK

tim
pensive hamster
2017-09-27 19:05:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, 27 September 2017 19:19:21 UTC+1, tim... wrote:
[...]
Post by tim...
last time I looked we didn't actually grow tea or coffee in the UK
At the risk of wandering slightly off-topic:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/17/storm-in-a-teacup-as-gardeners-realise-uk-climate-is-perfect-for/
17 May 2016

Tea lovers are no longer relying on China for supplies and are
increasingly opting to grow plants in their own back gardens as
they realise the British climate is perfect for it, experts have said.

With the "grow your own" movement still in full swing, sales of
Camellia sinensis - the common tea plant - are rocketing as
gardeners realise it thrives in the UK's climate.

Contrary to popular belief, tea plants don't require heat and
humidity to grow, rather preferring temperate regions with
plenty of moisture.

The UK already boasts two tea plantations - one in Cornwall,
which is experiencing its biggest ever yield due to a warm winter,
and the other in the Scottish Highlands - with a third planned for
Northern Ireland.
------------------------------------------

https://tregothnan.co.uk/

Buy British Tea - our silken pyramid bags contain our luxury
loose tea for the most perfectly brewed cup of English tea.

------------------------------------------

British Tea for British Workers, I say!
James Harris
2017-09-27 19:19:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by tim...
last time I looked we didn't actually grow tea or coffee in the UK
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/17/storm-in-a-teacup-as-gardeners-realise-uk-climate-is-perfect-for/
17 May 2016
Tea lovers are no longer relying on China
I don't know about the reputed sources of China and India but according
to a TV programme I saw recently much of our tea comes from African
countries such as Kenya.
Post by pensive hamster
for supplies and are
increasingly opting to grow plants in their own back gardens as
they realise the British climate is perfect for it, experts have said.
With the "grow your own" movement still in full swing, sales of
Camellia sinensis - the common tea plant - are rocketing as
gardeners realise it thrives in the UK's climate.
Well, that _is_ a surprise!
Post by pensive hamster
Contrary to popular belief, tea plants don't require heat and
humidity to grow, rather preferring temperate regions with
plenty of moisture.
The UK already boasts two tea plantations - one in Cornwall,
which is experiencing its biggest ever yield due to a warm winter,
and the other in the Scottish Highlands - with a third planned for
Northern Ireland.
------------------------------------------
https://tregothnan.co.uk/
Buy British Tea - our silken pyramid bags contain our luxury
loose tea for the most perfectly brewed cup of English tea.
------------------------------------------
British Tea for British Workers, I say!
Indeed - we could grow it here all along...!
--
James Harris
Yellow
2017-09-27 20:15:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by tim...
last time I looked we didn't actually grow tea or coffee in the UK
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/17/storm-in-a-teacup-as-gardeners-realise-uk-climate-is-perfect-for/
17 May 2016
Tea lovers are no longer relying on China for supplies and are
increasingly opting to grow plants in their own back gardens as
they realise the British climate is perfect for it, experts have said.
With the "grow your own" movement still in full swing, sales of
Camellia sinensis - the common tea plant - are rocketing as
gardeners realise it thrives in the UK's climate.
Contrary to popular belief, tea plants don't require heat and
humidity to grow, rather preferring temperate regions with
plenty of moisture.
The UK already boasts two tea plantations - one in Cornwall,
which is experiencing its biggest ever yield due to a warm winter,
and the other in the Scottish Highlands - with a third planned for
Northern Ireland.
------------------------------------------
https://tregothnan.co.uk/
Buy British Tea - our silken pyramid bags contain our luxury
loose tea for the most perfectly brewed cup of English tea.
------------------------------------------
British Tea for British Workers, I say!
Well that is something I have learned. Who'd have thought it?
James Harris
2017-09-27 19:13:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
...
Post by tim...
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Coffee, tea 6.1%
...
Post by tim...
last time I looked we didn't actually grow tea or coffee in the UK
There! And some Remoaners were looking forward to the decimation of our
tea plantations.
--
James Harris
R. Mark Clayton
2017-09-28 10:25:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
...
Post by tim...
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Coffee, tea 6.1%
...
Post by tim...
last time I looked we didn't actually grow tea or coffee in the UK
There! And some Remoaners were looking forward to the decimation of our
tea plantations.
--
James Harris
I think there is one in Cornwall - <0.5% of UK consumption - decimation would mean a loss of <0.05% of consumption, almost literally a drop in the bucket.
Fredxxx
2017-09-30 12:50:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
A few weeks ago there was one of these jolly Brexit bean feasts when Trump announced: -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/09/trump-has-confirmed-britain-will-get-free-trade-deal-west-will/
ha they said the rest of the world will be queuing up to trade with us...
the trouble with Trump is he says one thing one minute and does another the next so now we have: -
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/bombardier-ruling-risks-thousands-belfast-231200569.html
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/business/uk-world/bombardier-job-fears-over-crippling-us-tariff-of-21963-in-boeing-row-36172924.html
so the reality [if WTO don't intervene] is 220% tariff and thousands of British aircraft workers queuing up for the dole...
I thought this was a dispute between a Canadian company and Boeing. One
reason Boeing succeeded was that Bombardier wasn't co-operative in the
court's eyes.

Furthermore Boeing support a lot more jobs in the UK than Bombardier
aircraft division.

The fact that Brazil have also referred this to a WTO tribunal says
there might be an awful lot of truth in the original complaint, and
certainly more than meets your eye if you think this is a dispute
between the UK and USA.
Loading...