|
|
Post by Pacifico on Mar 10, 2023 17:45:38 GMT
What Trade Deal do we have with the country that is our largest trading partner? The States, you mean? Sorry, that question is futile. There's no need to segment the issue into individual country level. What's the point in comparing the US with Germany when we know full well that with the EU, the trade is carried out with a bloc of 27 countries that trade as one. You are missing the point - to trade with someone whether it be the US or the EU does not require a Trade Agreement. Trade is carried out by businesses not governments. A Trade Agreement may make it easier or cheaper but it certainly is not a requirement for trade |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Mar 10, 2023 23:46:01 GMT
The UK is paying for assets and liabilities towards the EU. It has EVERY moral right ffs. Either you belong to the EU or you dont. The UK is paying only for the pensions of Brits who used to work for the EU or those things they want to pay to be a part of. The trade deals were made by the EU for the EU. The UK doesnt belong to the EU anymore. The country has no moral right to profit by deals made by an organisation it doesnt belong to anymore, especially by choice. The trade deals were made when the UK was a member. The country has every moral right especially if other nations are (which they were) happy to roll over those deals with the UK. You are clutching at straws. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 11, 2023 11:43:32 GMT
This thread and the other is about compromise. Indeed that is the central tenet of good government. But the UK has not yet realised that on a global scale, it is a small uncooperative island which cant even govern itself. Of course, if a resolution is exactly what you want and exactly what others don't, then you can't in all honesty call such a position 'a compromise' If you want the British people to be disempowered and lose all democratic autonomy, then getting your way so this is forced on them, isn't a compromise for you |
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on Mar 11, 2023 18:37:26 GMT
A compromise is where both sides win and lose. Give and take.
It is not where one side wins over another.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 11, 2023 19:27:59 GMT
A compromise is where both sides win and lose. Give and take. It is not where one side wins over another. How are you compromising here? You seem to me to be suggesting that you should just get what you want. |
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on Mar 11, 2023 22:20:30 GMT
No indoviduaal counrtry made the deals although every one had to approve them.
The deals were made through the EU and for the benefit of the EU members.
The UK voted not to be a member yet assumed the deals would still apply to itself.
And THEN suggested it could make its own trade deals.
If the UK relied on its own trade a tomato would cost a weeks wages.
The UK will never be sovereign until it stops relying on the EU for its bread and butter.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Mar 12, 2023 9:03:51 GMT
Remoaners don't want to compromise, they want their cake and eat it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 12, 2023 9:39:14 GMT
The UK will never be sovereign until it stops relying on the EU for its bread and butter. This is not far from my view. Zany argues that being potentially dependant doesn't matter because you can trade elsewhere. My view is that, if you are dealing with friendly powers, it shouldn't matter much. A friendly power will see the advantages of the trade that brings you food as worth more to them than an attempt to stifle your will by exploiting the blocking of such trade. Of course, in reality you can't forge a policy on the assumption that other people will forever be friendly and of good will. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2023 10:20:14 GMT
The States, you mean? Sorry, that question is futile. There's no need to segment the issue into individual country level. What's the point in comparing the US with Germany when we know full well that with the EU, the trade is carried out with a bloc of 27 countries that trade as one. You are missing the point - to trade with someone whether it be the US or the EU does not require a Trade Agreement. Trade is carried out by businesses not governments. A Trade Agreement may make it easier or cheaper but it certainly is not a requirement for trade I am not missing anything. You're just trying to redirect the original point of discussion. Here's the context, for the sake of clarity: Bancroft: "We do not need to trade with the EU, though it would be nice."Me: "On the contrary, we do need to trade with the EU. If we didn't need to trade with the EU, we would have left with no trade deal; no trade relationship whatsoever."Stress is on the need to trade with the EU. Obviously, you got lost somewhere between "no trade deal" and "no trade relationship whatsoever" so, just for you, I'm rephrasing the whole thing: "On the contrary, we do need to trade with the EU. Trade with the EU is crucial to our economy and if, in fact, we didn't need to trade with the EU, we would have left with no trade relationship whatsoever." |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2023 10:27:32 GMT
No indoviduaal counrtry made the deals although every one had to approve them. The deals were made through the EU and for the benefit of the EU members. The UK voted not to be a member yet assumed the deals would still apply to itself. And THEN suggested it could make its own trade deals. If the UK relied on its own trade a tomato would cost a weeks wages. The UK will never be sovereign until it stops relying on the EU for its bread and butter.The question there, IMO, is: does it have to be the EU on which to rely for our bread and butter as well as medicines? I say, Yes. At least, our proximity to the EU counters geographical trade barriers. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Mar 12, 2023 11:43:38 GMT
You are missing the point - to trade with someone whether it be the US or the EU does not require a Trade Agreement. Trade is carried out by businesses not governments. A Trade Agreement may make it easier or cheaper but it certainly is not a requirement for trade I am not missing anything. You're just trying to redirect the original point of discussion. Here's the context, for the sake of clarity: Bancroft: "We do not need to trade with the EU, though it would be nice."Me: "On the contrary, we do need to trade with the EU. If we didn't need to trade with the EU, we would have left with no trade deal; no trade relationship whatsoever."Stress is on the need to trade with the EU. Obviously, you got lost somewhere between "no trade deal" and "no trade relationship whatsoever" so, just for you, I'm rephrasing the whole thing: "On the contrary, we do need to trade with the EU. Trade with the EU is crucial to our economy and if, in fact, we didn't need to trade with the EU, we would have left with no trade relationship whatsoever." We don't need to trade with anyone - it might be easier or cheaper to trade with the EU but there is nothing they produce that you couldn't get elsewhere. |
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on Mar 12, 2023 12:18:24 GMT
I am not missing anything. You're just trying to redirect the original point of discussion. Here's the context, for the sake of clarity: Bancroft: "We do not need to trade with the EU, though it would be nice."Me: "On the contrary, we do need to trade with the EU. If we didn't need to trade with the EU, we would have left with no trade deal; no trade relationship whatsoever."Stress is on the need to trade with the EU. Obviously, you got lost somewhere between "no trade deal" and "no trade relationship whatsoever" so, just for you, I'm rephrasing the whole thing: "On the contrary, we do need to trade with the EU. Trade with the EU is crucial to our economy and if, in fact, we didn't need to trade with the EU, we would have left with no trade relationship whatsoever." We don't need to trade with anyone - it might be easier or cheaper to trade with the EU but there is nothing they produce that you couldn't get elsewhere. At a much higher cost. Particularly noq the cost of energy is not going to fall. And BTW almost all important British companies are not British anymore. They are owned by foreign and/or European companies. To be self sufficient the government would have to build more oil refineries, turn far more land over to cereal crops and orchards and hope for good weather, build more steel plants and brick factories, build plastics and glue factories, quarry more stone, create a whole new transport system, build nuclear power plants, car and airline production plants, Meanwhile the country doesnt have the money to complete HS2 for at least another 30 years. If the UK wants to import and export from as far away as possible, it will throw as much pollution into the air as not only will the trade partner produce more but the UK will increase the production of CO2 via transport . I think you had better think it out again. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2023 13:53:23 GMT
I am not missing anything. You're just trying to redirect the original point of discussion. Here's the context, for the sake of clarity: Bancroft: "We do not need to trade with the EU, though it would be nice."Me: "On the contrary, we do need to trade with the EU. If we didn't need to trade with the EU, we would have left with no trade deal; no trade relationship whatsoever."Stress is on the need to trade with the EU. Obviously, you got lost somewhere between "no trade deal" and "no trade relationship whatsoever" so, just for you, I'm rephrasing the whole thing: "On the contrary, we do need to trade with the EU. Trade with the EU is crucial to our economy and if, in fact, we didn't need to trade with the EU, we would have left with no trade relationship whatsoever." We don't need to trade with anyone - it might be easier or cheaper to trade with the EU but there is nothing they produce that you couldn't get elsewhere. This is what you are saying: We don't need to trade with anyone. But we could import what the EU's producing from somewhere else. So, according to you: it is not necessary for the UK to trade with anyone -- i.e., import and export -- but at the same time, the UK can import from someone other than the EU. I mean, seriously .......  |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Mar 12, 2023 14:51:55 GMT
Either you belong to the EU or you dont. The UK is paying only for the pensions of Brits who used to work for the EU or those things they want to pay to be a part of. The trade deals were made by the EU for the EU. The UK doesnt belong to the EU anymore. The country has no moral right to profit by deals made by an organisation it doesnt belong to anymore, especially by choice. The trade deals were made when the UK was a member. The country has every moral right especially if other nations are (which they were) happy to roll over those deals with the UK. You are clutching at straws. That's another of Kim's arguments from the old board. She didn't want us duplicating trade agreements we'd had when we were in the EU. |
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on Mar 12, 2023 17:13:05 GMT
The deals were made between the 28 countries represented by the EU, and approved by each of the 28 members.
Thw UK is not a member of the EU anymore.
Its approval is therefore nul and void.
It is SOVEREIGN and yet depends hugely on EU trade deals.
So be sovereign. Go make your own deals like leavers said would happen.
Except it wont happen because it was yet another lie.
Instead the UK will be left with agreements made before Brexit as the EU improves its own deals. The UK will have to improve its own deals...at the cost of time and money it could have saved if it were still in the EU.
As well as the cost of any divergence from the hugely influential and huge market/ trading block called the EU.
|
|
