Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

Do you think there will be a Deal or No Deal?


  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .

4bars

Full Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2016
Messages
4,655
Supports
Barcelona
That's as a result of Western protectionism. Western countries ensure that selectively chosen raw materials have zero tariffs, but as soon as those raw materials are processed to any minor degree into more profitable products they incur huge import tariffs (ensuring that Western companies are able to profiteer without fair competition). Effectively poor non-white people can harvest raw materials but those same people aren't able to process them into more profitable produce for a living wage. It's literally designed to keep the poor, poor.

Historically it's gone one step further... White Western countries buy raw goods at tariff free prices and EU programs are designed to subsidise over-production. This means EU companies can as a false economy "dump" excess overproduced goods (subsidised by EU taxpayers) back to poor countries who were exploited for cheap produce in the first place. We literally exploited their vulnerable position, blocked their ability to make a good living and dumped government subsidised produce back into their market, making their farms non-viable.

My point isn't that we should exploit poor countries via low tariffs. It's that we should allow poor Asian/African countries the same opportunities as poor European nations had over the last few decades. If the EU/European dream is a great one why don't we allow every poor country in the world the opportunity to enjoy it by extending the zero tariff zone to every country with a lower GDP per capita than the average EU citizen?

Or... as a hilarious comedian once said... is it only "all right if it's all white"?
Why not allow that countries that employes kids for pennies, with lower standards, lower quality and salubrity concerns, not concern of poor environmental manufacture procedures and so many others to compete with european standards and regulations?

Why do you think?
 

finneh

Full Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Messages
7,318
Why not allow that countries that employes kids for pennies, with lower standards, lower quality and salubrity concerns, not concern of poor environmental manufacture procedures and so many others to compete with european standards and regulations?

Why do you think?
How did European companies manufacture goods a few decades ago? Have they always been compliant with current standards? Of course not.

My question would be why should the EU be able to bolt the door behind themselves after they've had all the benefits of decades of colonialism and exploitation at the expense of the countries we're now further plundering with protectionist policies?

How about the UK and EU put something back into these countries by reducing all tariffs to zero and committing a few dozen billion (at least) to assisting these countries in meeting the "important standards" we've suddenly and specifically made simply to stifle competition from these poor countries that fueled our wealth?
 

Abizzz

Full Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
7,614
How did European companies manufacture goods a few decades ago? Have they always been compliant with current standards? Of course not.

My question would be why should the EU be able to bolt the door behind themselves after they've had all the benefits of decades of colonialism and exploitation at the expense of the countries we're now further plundering with protectionist policies?

How about the UK and EU put something back into these countries by reducing all tariffs to zero and committing a few dozen billion (at least) to assisting these countries in meeting the "important standards" we've suddenly and specifically made simply to stifle competition from these poor countries that fueled our wealth?
How many of the 27 does that actually apply to? I can't remember Czech, Greek, Irish, Finnish or Swedish colonies...
 

Berbasbullet

Too Boring For A Funny Tagline
Joined
Nov 3, 2011
Messages
20,031
How did European companies manufacture goods a few decades ago? Have they always been compliant with current standards? Of course not.

My question would be why should the EU be able to bolt the door behind themselves after they've had all the benefits of decades of colonialism and exploitation at the expense of the countries we're now further plundering with protectionist policies?

How about the UK and EU put something back into these countries by reducing all tariffs to zero and committing a few dozen billion (at least) to assisting these countries in meeting the "important standards" we've suddenly and specifically made simply to stifle competition from these poor countries that fueled our wealth?
There is the ‘everything but arms’ agreement where all the poorest countries imports are duty free. So they do that to be fair.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everything_but_Arms
 

finneh

Full Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Messages
7,318
How many of the 27 does that actually apply to? I can't remember Czech, Greek, Irish, Finnish or Swedish colonies...
They've had the benefits of free trade with those other countries, so maybe just a second hand beneficiary?
There is the ‘everything but arms’ agreement where all the poorest countries imports are duty free. So they do that to be fair.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everything_but_Arms
It's gotten better from the awful policies of the 20th century, but does nothing to right historical wrongs (which is kind of by design as European countries now have the efficiencies having invested on the back of unfair historic trade) and is of course still very much imperfect.
 

Paul the Wolf

Full Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
17,569
Location
France - can't win anything with Swedish turnips
We went through all this two or three years ago. Ignored.

The 'Evil White Man' was replaced by the Evil Man from China' about forty years ago exploiting Africa and South America.

Now the Brexiteers are the useful idiots for China and the final nail in their coffin will be when they sign up for the CPTPP and go from leading country in the EU as a lawmaker to being China's little bitch in the West as a lawtaker

Australia does a lot of trade with China when it suits China. Difference is Australia have natural resources to offer; The UK doesn't. It's just a market place and eventually if all goes well cheap labour.
 

Wibble

In Gadus Speramus
Staff
Joined
Jun 15, 2000
Messages
88,609
Location
Centreback
That’s a valid opinion but I’m not sure that is the reason 52% voted leave. I don’t remember the rights of developing nations featuring heavily in the campaign literature.
Push that agenda and we may have had a different result ;)
 

4bars

Full Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2016
Messages
4,655
Supports
Barcelona
How did European companies manufacture goods a few decades ago? Have they always been compliant with current standards? Of course not.

My question would be why should the EU be able to bolt the door behind themselves after they've had all the benefits of decades of colonialism and exploitation at the expense of the countries we're now further plundering with protectionist policies?

How about the UK and EU put something back into these countries by reducing all tariffs to zero and committing a few dozen billion (at least) to assisting these countries in meeting the "important standards" we've suddenly and specifically made simply to stifle competition from these poor countries that fueled our wealth?
First superfarms, then invest enough tiny tiny billions to reach standards in....how many years? 20-30? you know what you are asking?
 

finneh

Full Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Messages
7,318
First superfarms, then invest enough tiny tiny billions to reach standards in....how many years? 20-30? you know what you are asking?
A lack of political will is by far the biggest barrier. Given that most of these "standards" are specifically designed to prejudice poorer countries in favour of the bloc.
 
Joined
Jul 31, 2015
Messages
22,548
Location
Somewhere out there
A lack of political will is by far the biggest barrier. Given that most of these "standards" are specifically designed to prejudice poorer countries in favour of the bloc.
For someone so arsed about poorer countries, you must’ve really enjoyed how leaving the EU gave the UK government a fecking great excuse to reduce foreign aid like.
Stinks of someone who been utterly shown up in the debate and what has transpired since Brexit and is now trying to claim it aint about British superfarms after all, it’s about working conditions in Somalia and opportunities in Indonesia.
 

Berbasbullet

Too Boring For A Funny Tagline
Joined
Nov 3, 2011
Messages
20,031
A lack of political will is by far the biggest barrier. Given that most of these "standards" are specifically designed to prejudice poorer countries in favour of the bloc.
I was under the impression that “standards” are there to give citizens good standards. But maybe I’m just being crazy?
 

finneh

Full Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Messages
7,318
For someone so arsed about poorer countries, you must’ve really enjoyed how leaving the EU gave the UK government a fecking great excuse to reduce foreign aid like.
Stinks of someone who been utterly shown up in the debate and what has transpired since Brexit and is now trying to claim it aint about British superfarms after all, it’s about working conditions in Somalia and opportunities in Indonesia.
The UK government are an absolute clusterfeck at the moment I completely agree?

The point about farms was competing on efficiency given the inherent advantages farmers 50 miles away have on farmers several thousand miles away. I literally stated that I didn't think British farmers would have a problem competing due to this advantage, but if they did they should invest to compete. If after all that they still can't invest then their business is clearly non-viable. I don't see the difference between a London farmer having to compete with a Scottish farmer (land being far, far cheaper and more readily available) and a Scottish farmer having to compete with an Aussie farmer.

If you think the EU over the last 50 years hasn't totally screwed over the poorest in favour of their own then I'd urge you to read more into the subject.
I was under the impression that “standards” are there to give citizens good standards. But maybe I’m just being crazy?
Given the quality of your posts in general I struggle to accept that you believe that completely.
 
Joined
Jul 31, 2015
Messages
22,548
Location
Somewhere out there
If you think the EU over the last 50 years hasn't totally screwed over the poorest in favour of their own then I'd urge you to read more into the subject.

I’d say we British have “screwed over the poorest” probably worse that another other nation in history for a start, with the US not too far behind.

Leaving that aside though, European countries flood the top 20 for foreign aid contributions per GDP. Here’s the top 10.

So yes, rich countries have always exploited the poor, and still do. Let’s not try making out it’s an EU issue that can somehow be remedied by Brexit, but as far as I know, Australia, the US, and a shit load of other rich countries, including the UK pre-EU are not exactly rays of light are they?

Are we also gonna pretend that as far as “rich nations” go, that some EU countries didn’t dominate once again when it came to granting asylum during the 2015 refugee crisis?

Certainly feels like whataboutism after a clusterfeck of a Brexit.



I don’t think you’re naive, so ask yourself the question, is post-EU Britain more likely to help poorer countries prosper, or like with the case of reducing foreign aid at the first opportunity, are they more likely in fact to exploit them?
 
Last edited:

UweBein

Creator of the Worst Analogy on the Internet.
Joined
Sep 20, 2014
Messages
3,729
Location
Köln
Supports
Chelsea
Please stop. It's getting even more stupid than before. Completely barking up the wrong tree.

If people look back to September 2019 in this thread you will find the same discussion.

It's scary time for the UK
Not really.. the changes are rather marginal. That's why the government is doing so well right now.
Significant changes will take maybe 3-5 years to manifest themselves.
 

Paul the Wolf

Full Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
17,569
Location
France - can't win anything with Swedish turnips
Not really.. the changes are rather marginal. That's why the government is doing so well right now.
Significant changes will take maybe 3-5 years to manifest themselves.
The Australian deal is a minor thing but once the UK start buying it then the checks from the EU will increase and apart from the UK farmers not being able to compete they won't be able to sell either.

Saw Ian Blackford (SNP) in the UK parliament saying the UK need 200 such deals to make up for the EU. He's wrong , 200 more deals like this and the UK are finished. They need one less deal like this.

The worry is what will Liz Truss do next. Like Finneh she seems to think that granting tariff free access to the UK is a good thing, although not for the same reasons. Couldn't be more wrong.

You're right it will take time but if they carry on doing similar deals it will be (even more of) a disaster.

Best thing for the UK would be to lock Truss in a cupboard and find Johnson's shady links to China.
 

Balljy

Full Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2016
Messages
3,303
The Australian deal is a minor thing but once the UK start buying it then the checks from the EU will increase and apart from the UK farmers not being able to compete they won't be able to sell either.

Saw Ian Blackford (SNP) in the UK parliament saying the UK need 200 such deals to make up for the EU. He's wrong , 200 more deals like this and the UK are finished. They need one less deal like this.

The worry is what will Liz Truss do next. Like Finneh she seems to think that granting tariff free access to the UK is a good thing, although not for the same reasons. Couldn't be more wrong.

You're right it will take time but if they carry on doing similar deals it will be (even more of) a disaster.

Best thing for the UK would be to lock Truss in a cupboard and find Johnson's shady links to China.
It was always going to be based on the US, India and China to get trade volume back. There are huge concerns there as we will probably have to reduce standards pretty significantly in comparison to what they are now and move away from the legacy EU standards we've currently got in place.
 

UweBein

Creator of the Worst Analogy on the Internet.
Joined
Sep 20, 2014
Messages
3,729
Location
Köln
Supports
Chelsea
There might be a positive spin if some tech or finance savvy guys from HK take the offer and relocate to UK. I do think that it could be a really positive spin. (However, they could have done that without Brexit as well.)
 

Paul the Wolf

Full Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
17,569
Location
France - can't win anything with Swedish turnips
It was always going to be based on the US, India and China to get trade volume back. There are huge concerns there as we will probably have to reduce standards pretty significantly in comparison to what they are now and move away from the legacy EU standards we've currently got in place.
The US are already the UK's biggest individual country trade partner plus they are not that interested in a trade deal. The main thing is both Biden and Trump are/were wary of China. Don't see Uk gaining much there even with a deal.

India is a minor market for the UK. Belgium sell more to India than the UK, it's peanuts like Australia. Don't see what UK have to offer to China, they can't compete with China.
China would probably like to use Johnson's freeports as a gateway to Europe. Fortunately the EU are not daft.
 

Balljy

Full Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2016
Messages
3,303
The US are already the UK's biggest individual country trade partner plus they are not that interested in a trade deal. The main thing is both Biden and Trump are/were wary of China. Don't see Uk gaining much there even with a deal.

India is a minor market for the UK. Belgium sell more to India than the UK, it's peanuts like Australia. Don't see what UK have to offer to China, they can't compete with China.
China would probably like to use Johnson's freeports as a gateway to Europe. Fortunately the EU are not daft.
That doesn't mean they can't get a lot bigger though. The US in particular is an issue with EU standards on food stopping increasing trade volumes. I'm totally against reducing standards, but we will have to if we want to open new doors unfortunately. India is a huge economy so could be a lot bigger.

I obviously agree with you that we have done ourselves in with Brexit, but it's not as simple as comparing against now as the UK will have to change regulations to create distance from the EU and potentially open up new routes. Personally, I think it won't work as well but part of the reason for the existing volumes is the lack of alignment with those countries in terms of regulations.
 

Paul the Wolf

Full Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
17,569
Location
France - can't win anything with Swedish turnips
That doesn't mean they can't get a lot bigger though. The US in particular is an issue with EU standards on food stopping increasing trade volumes. I'm totally against reducing standards, but we will have to if we want to open new doors unfortunately. India is a huge economy so could be a lot bigger.

I obviously agree with you that we have done ourselves in with Brexit, but it's not as simple as comparing against now as the UK will have to change regulations to create distance from the EU and potentially open up new routes. Personally, I think it won't work as well but part of the reason for the existing volumes is the lack of alignment with those countries in terms of regulations.
But the UK want to sell. The UK can lower their standards to be able to buy more from those countries but that doesn't really help.
EU standards are higher but the UK couldn't sell beef to the USA because of BSE for example; Geography will always play a major part. Whichever country you look at the major part of the trade will be with their closest neighbours.
What does India want from the UK that they can't buy from their nearer neighbours, this is the question,with cheaper transport and production costs.
 

Balljy

Full Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2016
Messages
3,303
But the UK want to sell. The UK can lower their standards to be able to buy more from those countries but that doesn't really help.
EU standards are higher but the UK couldn't sell beef to the USA because of BSE for example; Geography will always play a major part. Whichever country you look at the major part of the trade will be with their closest neighbours.
What does India want from the UK that they can't buy from their nearer neighbours, this is the question,with cheaper transport and production costs.
If you lower standards you can potentially compete better as your product is cheaper allowing you to get into new markets.

I agree with you by the way, I'm just saying that existing trading volumes is not necessarily a good way to look at what could happen. We have closed a trading relationship with a huge market with which we were aligned and are having to scrape around looking for things we could potentially sell to other countries by changing our own standards. It's a rubbish and self inflicted position to be in.
 

Paul the Wolf

Full Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
17,569
Location
France - can't win anything with Swedish turnips
If you lower standards you can potentially compete better as your product is cheaper allowing you to get into new markets.

I agree with you by the way, I'm just saying that existing trading volumes is not necessarily a good way to look at what could happen. We have closed a trading relationship with a huge market with which we were aligned and are having to scrape around looking for things we could potentially sell to other countries by changing our own standards. It's a rubbish and self inflicted position to be in.
Yes I see what you're saying. It's thoroughly depressing and I don't even live there.
 

MikeUpNorth

Wobbles like a massive pair of tits
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
19,938
But the UK want to sell. The UK can lower their standards to be able to buy more from those countries but that doesn't really help.
EU standards are higher but the UK couldn't sell beef to the USA because of BSE for example; Geography will always play a major part. Whichever country you look at the major part of the trade will be with their closest neighbours.
What does India want from the UK that they can't buy from their nearer neighbours, this is the question,with cheaper transport and production costs.
While I agree with a lot of what you say Paul, the UK will live or die by its services rather than goods trade.
 

Paul the Wolf

Full Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
17,569
Location
France - can't win anything with Swedish turnips
While I agree with a lot of what you say Paul, the UK will live or die by its services rather than goods trade.
Yes, in a way, exports of services are 45% of total exports and 55% are goods. Not prioritising a services agreement with the EU in the trade discussions is surely a little worrying.
No idea where the UK are heading. Getting more suspicious of Johnson, if that is possible, as time goes on and he's surrounded himself with idiots.
 

Green_Red

New Member
Joined
May 29, 2013
Messages
10,296
The Australian deal is a minor thing but once the UK start buying it then the checks from the EU will increase and apart from the UK farmers not being able to compete they won't be able to sell either.

Saw Ian Blackford (SNP) in the UK parliament saying the UK need 200 such deals to make up for the EU. He's wrong , 200 more deals like this and the UK are finished. They need one less deal like this.

The worry is what will Liz Truss do next. Like Finneh she seems to think that granting tariff free access to the UK is a good thing, although not for the same reasons. Couldn't be more wrong.

You're right it will take time but if they carry on doing similar deals it will be (even more of) a disaster.

Best thing for the UK would be to lock Truss in a cupboard and find Johnson's shady links to China.
Agriculture industry in the UK employs only 1.5% of the total workforce and represents 0.61% of the economy. You are debating mice nuts.

In the agri sector the big 5 items are Dairy, Wheat, Poultry, Beef and Pork. These are not largely the agri items that will be imported from Australia. They'll represent some of it but it will be fruit, wine, fisheries and grains that will be had. And there'll be plenty going back the other way.

Guaranteeing a cheap source of food for the UK isn't a massively bad move. Tariff free is a fair argument.

It's Aussie businesses that will suffer more than UK based ones once goods and services start to move the other way. They'll lap up cheaper Toorak tractors (Range Rovers), Jags and Aston Martins. Match your cheap wine to those industries.
 

UweBein

Creator of the Worst Analogy on the Internet.
Joined
Sep 20, 2014
Messages
3,729
Location
Köln
Supports
Chelsea
feck me, it's like the book of Job. They'll still vote Brexit even if you destroy their farm and smite their kids.
if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.

That's the spirit, I guess.
 

Krakenzero

Full Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2018
Messages
700
Supports
Santiago Wanderers
Hello everyone! I've been reading this post for about 2 years and recently I got access to post in this forum.

I would like to thank the posters that have been willing to have the same discussions over and over again with the same posters with varying lines of argument, in order to expose the very discernible fact (not only now, but 5 years ago as well) that this was a very bad idea and that people in the UK (and some colaterals like Ireland) will suffer the huge consequences as well.

I'm not from the UK (or the EU for that matter), but I have found myself absorbed (for the lack of a better word) witnessing this extremely slow motion car crash for the last couple of years, and I still haven't processed very well how a country made a decission that is the sociopolitical/economic equivalent of deciding that, in a race against other countries, the best way to win is to keep hitting yourself in the crotch with a baseball bat while running. I understand that it's a mixture of a bunch of very ambitious people with no scruples, an increasingly corrupt and coward governing party, an increasingly inept and out of touch (while also coward) opposition party, an immensely misinformed electorate and a very vague (and also misinformed) feeling of pride and nostalgia for "the good old days" across the population. Anyway, this will be one for the ages and will probably be studied for generations to come, so we better get into it.

Maybe I sound the wrong way while writing this: obviously, the situation is terrible and the -usually poor- people is already facing the consequences. I'm sorry if that's the case, English isn't my native language and, as I said before, this is one of these situations when you just can't look away even when you want to. Anyway, the first step to recovery should be to admit the problem, and if the government isn't willing to do so then the job falls in the hands of the electorate. Will they be up to the task? How to make it work?

Sorry for the long post, I've been here a lot of time reading and learning from all of you and just wanted to say hello and thanks. I'll try to participate if I can.