| Sephiroth |
26-07-2020 20:12 |
Re: Brexit-Transitional Period Ends 31/12/20
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1
(Post 36044714)
When the UK has exerted the most power politically, it has been as part of a coalition or alliance. In these alliances, compromises are made but the end justifies the means and overall, greater power is gained. Membership of the UN, NATO etc all reduce the UK's sovereignty but the end is seen to justify the means.
If a country like the UK is going to have any power economically then against a backdrop of China and the USA, it needs to be part of a larger trading bloc. No country apart from North Korea trades on WTO trade terms and so is not an option. Accepting a level playing field is not an onerous condition to me as we do not have high state intervention in industry and we have a high minimum wage. Canada is thousands of miles away so of course is not such a competitive threat as the UK is. Distance does matter in trade, as has oft been noted on this thread.
This is a small price to pay for the long-term drop in the wealth of the country no deal or a bad deal brings - wealth that could be put to good use - our nursing homes are crying out for more money, local councils' services in many parts of the country have been severely cut back since the Global Financial Crisis, a big question mark hangs over UK high streets and we are entering a big economic downturn that should not be worsened.
The EU replaced the Commonwealth as the UK's main trading partner and like the Commonwealth, the larger market helped create wealth. The difference with the EU was that it was a more competitive market. The UK could no longer force compliant nations to take ships full of Austin Allegros with square steering wheels made by people on strike every month. It had to raise its game and productivity and finally compete with its peers. It has stepped up to this challenge and many British services, products and companies are now once again world class.
There is no pipeline of deals that will replace the EU and the deals it has brought us. If such deals existed, the EU would have signed them already. And the basic rule of trade is that most trade is done with your neighbouring countries.
It's unrealistic to blame a larger organisation for having more negotiating clout than a smaller one. I think if you read the threads from 2016, there are warnings a plenty on this. I believe we even suggested that the Government would be rushing to blame the EU for not giving them what they promised the British electorate, although this was unlikely as the German car companies would force the EU to concede to our demands! Instead, you need to put this to those who knowingly or unknowingly mislead the country when they said "easiest trade deal ever."
|
Quote:
When the UK has exerted the most power politically, it has been as part of a coalition or alliance. In these alliances, compromises are made but the end justifies the means and overall, greater power is gained. Membership of the UN, NATO etc all reduce the UK's sovereignty but the end is seen to justify the means.
|
I think that's an answer for convenience to set up the remainder of your arguments. As a member of NATO, the UK yielded no sovereignty; it merely participated in a mutual defence pact with no such matters as fishing rights, judicial superiority etc.
Quote:
If a country like the UK is going to have any power economically then against a backdrop of China and the USA, it needs to be part of a larger trading bloc. No country apart from North Korea trades on WTO trade terms and so is not an option. Accepting a level playing field is not an onerous condition to me as we do not have high state intervention in industry and we have a high minimum wage. Canada is thousands of miles away so of course is not such a competitive threat as the UK is. Distance does matter in trade, as has oft been noted on this thread.
|
If we do a deal with the EU, and they drop their bullying approach, then we will be able to roll over agreements the EU made with other countries. But my real point here is that had the EEC remained as a pure trading bloc without all this federalisation crap, I'd have been perfectly happy. Your point is not entirely without merit.
Quote:
This is a small price to pay for the long-term drop in the wealth of the country no deal or a bad deal brings - wealth that could be put to good use - our nursing homes are crying out for more money, local councils' services in many parts of the country have been severely cut back since the Global Financial Crisis, a big question mark hangs over UK high streets and we are entering a big economic downturn that should not be worsened.
|
That's where Remainers and Leavers differ. It is not a small price to pay if, by remaining, we remain under the Brussels heel and the ECJ.
If we can't forge our own path, then all we could have done in the EU is to hang onto their coat tails. There is nothing the EU can do about their High Street and they'd be no help in dealing with ours had we remained. Yours is highly spurious argument, I'm sorry to say.
Quote:
The EU replaced the Commonwealth as the UK's main trading partner and like the Commonwealth, the larger market helped create wealth. The difference with the EU was that it was a more competitive market. The UK could no longer force compliant nations to take ships full of Austin Allegros with square steering wheels made by people on strike every month. It had to raise its game and productivity and finally compete with its peers. It has stepped up to this challenge and many British services, products and companies are now once again world class.
|
I really do despair of the plummet in the quality of your argument in the above paragraph. "Force compliant nations"? Utter rubbish and tosh. Very disappointing.
Quote:
There is no pipeline of deals that will replace the EU and the deals it has brought us. If such deals existed, the EU would have signed them already. And the basic rule of trade is that most trade is done with your neighbouring countries.
|
I wasn't aware of that. Isn't that the problem with the EU?
Artificially high internal process because they're a tariff laden bloc with a few trade deals?
Quote:
It's unrealistic to blame a larger organisation for having more negotiating clout than a smaller one. I think if you read the threads from 2016, there are warnings a plenty on this. I believe we even suggested that the Government would be rushing to blame the EU for not giving them what they promised the British electorate, although this was unlikely as the German car companies would force the EU to concede to our demands! Instead, you need to put this to those who knowingly or unknowingly mislead the country when they said "easiest trade deal ever."
|
That's what Barnier said - we had to be realistic. The EU are bullies, plain and simple. They accused us of wanting our cake and eating it; now, as exemplified by the fishing rights and level playing field, they want exactly the same. We really must shed ourself of the EU yoke. If we caved in with extensions and giving way on our sovereignty, they'll be pssing all over us laughing their heads off for years to come.
---------- Post added at 20:12 ---------- Previous post was at 20:09 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carth
(Post 36044755)
Don't look at me . . . I couldn't even name twelvty labour people on the fingers of both hands :D
|
I can name (but won't) eleventyeight rabid Remainers, and defo most of them lefties.
Anyway, it's all hotting up. Yesterday's Torygraph surmises that Merkel, President of the European something, will ride to the rescue and broker something sensible. I do hope so but am not holding my breath and I want to be shot of the EU yoke.
|
