|
|
Post by buccaneer on May 12, 2023 23:15:34 GMT
Most fashion designers make and produce their clothing and colognes in-house, France, Italy, Switzerland etc. The end product purchased by the consumer is expensive in comparison to some tat made in China.
Scottish whisky, French/Italian clothing designers, Japanese wagyu beef and many high end products don't rely on the 'cheap is best' mantra. Their end products aren't cheap because there is a market out there who are happy to purchase
expensive products that are considered the best in their field. British beef is in that market.
The UK imports 35% of of its beef for consumers. Australian beef that is imported will compete with Irish imported beef and Australia doesn't have the capacity to 'flood' the market with their beef anyhow. It also give the consumers choice to buy
what they would like rather than keeping them held in a captive market. For those who would prefer a slightly cheaper option of quality beef during the 'cost-of-living-crisis' this supply of imports would be very much welcome.
Not confused. You misunderstand. Opening up the Australian beef market to UK consumers for example isn't "very liberal". No more liberal in the sense that Irish farmers are able to export their beef to the UK.
The UK has a trade deficit. It had a trade deficit while it was in the EU importing Irish beef and everything else that snared British consumers in a deeply protective market. The EU's had a very good run on UK consumer wallets over the decades
it's time UK consumers had slightly more choice in purchasing goods and services at varying prices - especially in this day and age. With that said, there will still be consumers out there as the day is long who will buy high end products, the car
industry, clothing industry, service industry, tech industry, food industry et al are all testament to that.
|
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on May 13, 2023 7:01:12 GMT
But nothing has changed.
The EU made trade with over 80 countries not only possible but easy, offering terms that were advantageous to EU members.
That has not changed.
The problem in the UK was that industry managers didnt take advantage of the potential for resultant competitive costs of imports.
It is true that the UK imported and exported more to non EU countries. That is because the EU is 27 countries which thanks to the EU has trade agreements with nearly 50 non EU countries plus potential through the WTO.
This charge that trade with the EU was reducing is testament to the SUCCESS of the EU in widening its special and advantageous trade relationships across half the world.
The UK already imports beef from Brazil in many forms. It imports lamb from New Zealand. If the consumer wants home grown produce it can make that choice. But once a country opens its markets it has to compete with the ROW on price and quality. Or produce speciality protected goods which will be more expensive due to restricted supply.
The terms and conditions for British trade has not changed. The UK still operates under EU trade agreements. One of the promises made was that the UK would renegotiate them. So far, there hasnt been a whisper of an effort to do that. It is in the same frame as dumping EU laws.
In fact the UK is still deeply immersed in EU law and trade.
The EU merely opened trade with half the world on advantageous terms to members. Whether members chose to take advantage of them was not up to the EU. But it did allow for a far greater availability of goods from climatically different places.
Having stated the obvious, trade deals also include exchange of information such as security, international policing, exchange of technological data, easier access to travel and study and a mutual recognition of qualifications to make movement of labour easier.
One persons importing is another persons exporting. The goal should be to provide goods and services at the best terms of quality and price to the consumer. But that implies global competition. When wages go up in the UK, either prices go up or companies reduce profits by cushioning the extra wage bill. It hits growth because companies are not making the same profits so international investment goes elsewhere OR the companies get taken over.
The Brexit promise of high wage high skilled economy is uber Thatcherism. It does not happen in a globally interconnected trading world. People still have to eat and buy basics.
Just another Brexit lie.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on May 13, 2023 7:10:26 GMT
The UK has a trade deficit. It had a trade deficit while it was in the EU importing Irish beef and everything else that snared British consumers in a deeply protective market. The EU's had a very good run on UK consumer wallets over the decades Indeed - I wonder what happened around 1997 that had such a detrimental effect on our balance of trade...   |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2023 12:47:43 GMT
Most fashion designers make and produce their clothing and colognes in-house, France, Italy, Switzerland etc. The end product purchased by the consumer is expensive in comparison to some tat made in China. Scottish whisky, French/Italian clothing designers, Japanese wagyu beef and many high end products don't rely on the 'cheap is best' mantra. Their end products aren't cheap because there is a market out there who are happy to purchase expensive products that are considered the best in their field. British beef is in that market. The UK imports 35% of of its beef for consumers. Australian beef that is imported will compete with Irish imported beef and Australia doesn't have the capacity to 'flood' the market with their beef anyhow. It also give the consumers choice to buy what they would like rather than keeping them held in a captive market. For those who would prefer a slightly cheaper option of quality beef during the 'cost-of-living-crisis' this supply of imports would be very much welcome. Not confused. You misunderstand. Opening up the Australian beef market to UK consumers for example isn't "very liberal". No more liberal in the sense that Irish farmers are able to export their beef to the UK. The UK has a trade deficit. It had a trade deficit while it was in the EU importing Irish beef and everything else that snared British consumers in a deeply protective market. The EU's had a very good run on UK consumer wallets over the decades it's time UK consumers had slightly more choice in purchasing goods and services at varying prices - especially in this day and age. With that said, there will still be consumers out there as the day is long who will buy high end products, the car industry, clothing industry, service industry, tech industry, food industry et al are all testament to that. All you're saying here is that we should allow more imports from Australia to compete with imports from Ireland but at the same time turn local beef into an expensive, niche market product in order for the industry to survive. Turning British beef into a niche market product to compete against the Wagyus and the Kobes of this world is a bit silly and too "out there", IMO, but it is a fact that increasing our imports would most likely increase our trade deficit. Fine, if that's how you want to run the economy; except that you are also bemoaning our trade deficit. And that ^ is why and how you are confused. On the one hand, you promote the idea of more imports thereby increasing the trade deficit, but on the other hand, you are railing against that same trade deficit. And blame it on the EU and our membership of the EU as well! It's almost like you're saying -- in fact, it is how it comes across -- that you're ready to accept the inevitability of a UK trade deficit. But that is, as long as that trade deficit does originate from the EU Single Market. What I'm arguing is this: Stop blaming the EU. Our trade deficit is not a result of our EU membership. We would have been running on trade deficits year in, year out even if we had not been members of the EU. You can even argue that if it had not been for the EU, our trade deficit would have been higher since we were importing, zero trade barrier, from their Single Market. |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on May 13, 2023 14:15:40 GMT
Most fashion designers make and produce their clothing and colognes in-house, France, Italy, Switzerland etc. The end product purchased by the consumer is expensive in comparison to some tat made in China. Scottish whisky, French/Italian clothing designers, Japanese wagyu beef and many high end products don't rely on the 'cheap is best' mantra. Their end products aren't cheap because there is a market out there who are happy to purchase expensive products that are considered the best in their field. British beef is in that market. The UK imports 35% of of its beef for consumers. Australian beef that is imported will compete with Irish imported beef and Australia doesn't have the capacity to 'flood' the market with their beef anyhow. It also give the consumers choice to buy what they would like rather than keeping them held in a captive market. For those who would prefer a slightly cheaper option of quality beef during the 'cost-of-living-crisis' this supply of imports would be very much welcome. Not confused. You misunderstand. Opening up the Australian beef market to UK consumers for example isn't "very liberal". No more liberal in the sense that Irish farmers are able to export their beef to the UK. The UK has a trade deficit. It had a trade deficit while it was in the EU importing Irish beef and everything else that snared British consumers in a deeply protective market. The EU's had a very good run on UK consumer wallets over the decades it's time UK consumers had slightly more choice in purchasing goods and services at varying prices - especially in this day and age. With that said, there will still be consumers out there as the day is long who will buy high end products, the car industry, clothing industry, service industry, tech industry, food industry et al are all testament to that. All you're saying here is that we should allow more imports from Australia to compete with imports from Ireland but at the same time turn local beef into an expensive, niche market product in order for the industry to survive. Turning British beef into a niche market product to compete against the Wagyus and the Kobes of this world is a bit silly and too "out there", IMO, but it is a fact that increasing our imports would most likely increase our trade deficit. Fine, if that's how you want to run the economy; except that you are also bemoaning our trade deficit. And that ^ is why and how you are confused. On the one hand, you promote the idea of more imports thereby increasing the trade deficit, but on the other hand, you are railing against that same trade deficit. And blame it on the EU and our membership of the EU as well! It's almost like you're saying -- in fact, it is how it comes across -- that you're ready to accept the inevitability of a UK trade deficit. But that is, as long as that trade deficit does originate from the EU Single Market. What I'm arguing is this: Stop blaming the EU. Our trade deficit is not a result of our EU membership. We would have been running on trade deficits year in, year out even if we had not been members of the EU. You can even argue that if it had not been for the EU, our trade deficit would have been higher since we were importing, zero trade barrier, from their Single Market. Well, at least you've finally understood what I have said in your opening line. Of course you think selling British beef in the high-end market is 'silly and out there', you're firmly hard-wired to the EU's risk-averse unenterprising dogma. I believe trade shouldn't just be conducted for business and industry but for consumers too. British beef will never be cheap. The industry needs to adapt and it should not hold the kind of fearful sway over the rest of the nation because it won't adapt as its been accustomed to EU protectionism. Not only that but the rest of EU's CAP is an absolute joke. The same fear and threat happened with the French clothing industry back in the 90's, and they haven't look back. There is no reason why this cannot happen for British beef as a way to make it amore viable business. And please, stop telling me I am confused. I mentioned a fact that the UK had a trade deficit while it was in the EU. My point is, contrary to your 'wild claims' that being a SM member would turbo-boost the UK economy and save it from inflation and energy price rises and all the other things you falsely blame Brexit on over your numerous topics; being a member of a "trade block" certainly didn't and couldn't help the UK with its trade deficit - it only got worse. I believe the UK has a better chance of bringing that deficit down being outside the EU because the deficit it racked up inside it speaks for itself. I also believe UK consumers should have more affordable choice of products and services from around the world and not just one heavily trade protected region. I also believe our exporters should be able to sell their products and services with less barriers to trade. As an example the UK is now able to export more beef, pork, grain and dairy products to Japan than it did under the EU's umbrella, and has more generous malt quotas than the EU malt quota. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2023 15:31:20 GMT
Thanks, but no thanks. You're not capable of understanding the meaning of even the most basic terms. What surprises me is how many people indulge you on the forum with your pro EU obsession when you dismiss their views in this arrogant way. I don't pay any attention to them. Tax money is wasted on EU trolls. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2023 18:51:45 GMT
All you're saying here is that we should allow more imports from Australia to compete with imports from Ireland but at the same time turn local beef into an expensive, niche market product in order for the industry to survive. Turning British beef into a niche market product to compete against the Wagyus and the Kobes of this world is a bit silly and too "out there", IMO, but it is a fact that increasing our imports would most likely increase our trade deficit. Fine, if that's how you want to run the economy; except that you are also bemoaning our trade deficit. And that ^ is why and how you are confused. On the one hand, you promote the idea of more imports thereby increasing the trade deficit, but on the other hand, you are railing against that same trade deficit. And blame it on the EU and our membership of the EU as well! It's almost like you're saying -- in fact, it is how it comes across -- that you're ready to accept the inevitability of a UK trade deficit. But that is, as long as that trade deficit does originate from the EU Single Market. What I'm arguing is this: Stop blaming the EU. Our trade deficit is not a result of our EU membership. We would have been running on trade deficits year in, year out even if we had not been members of the EU. You can even argue that if it had not been for the EU, our trade deficit would have been higher since we were importing, zero trade barrier, from their Single Market. Well, at least you've finally understood what I have said in your opening line. Of course you think selling British beef in the high-end market is 'silly and out there', you're firmly hard-wired to the EU's risk-averse unenterprising dogma. I believe trade shouldn't just be conducted for business and industry but for consumers too. British beef will never be cheap. The industry needs to adapt and it should not hold the kind of fearful sway over the rest of the nation because it won't adapt as its been accustomed to EU protectionism. Not only that but the rest of EU's CAP is an absolute joke. The same fear and threat happened with the French clothing industry back in the 90's, and they haven't look back. There is no reason why this cannot happen for British beef as a way to make it amore viable business. And please, stop telling me I am confused. I mentioned a fact that the UK had a trade deficit while it was in the EU. My point is, contrary to your 'wild claims' that being a SM member would turbo-boost the UK economy and save it from inflation and energy price rises and all the other things you falsely blame Brexit on over your numerous topics; being a member of a "trade block" certainly didn't and couldn't help the UK with its trade deficit - it only got worse. I believe the UK has a better chance of bringing that deficit down being outside the EU because the deficit it racked up inside it speaks for itself. I also believe UK consumers should have more affordable choice of products and services from around the world and not just one heavily trade protected region. I also believe our exporters should be able to sell their products and services with less barriers to trade. As an example the UK is now able to export more beef, pork, grain and dairy products to Japan than it did under the EU's umbrella, and has more generous malt quotas than the EU malt quota. I understood it from the get go. I even invited you to correct me if I was wrong in saying it, didn't I? But wait -- I said turning British beef into an expensive, niche-market product. I said it because if you want to play the luxury market successfully, you need to consider that prestige must precede a product. Do you realise how much marketing effort, time and money is required to rehabilitate a product and elevate it from mass market to niche market? Success is not even guaranteed. It is so much easier to downgrade a product like Bose whose directors, in the end, had to give up competing with Bang and Olufsen. It took years and years and countless posh advertising campaign for Burberry to shed its chav image. Now, think, how do or how can British farmers elevate British beef to compete successfully with Wagyu, Kobe or Argentinian in a very small, limited, import-laden UK market? They're barely surviving as it is! If your idea of enterprising is putting an expensive price tag on British beef and sell them in some specialist butchers in Knightsbridge just like that, then please give me the unenterprising EU business model anytime. I was being diplomatic when I used the word "confused". But fine; do you want me to use a stronger but more precise term next time? So. How did you come to believe that the UK has a better chance of bringing down its trade deficit being outside of the EU when (a) Liz Truss rolled over all our EU-negotiated trade deals, (b) our trade deal with the EU itself has more trade barriers, (c) Truss trade deals with Japan and with Australia in particular are likely to increase imports (d) it's a stalemate between Uncle Sam and Joe Bloggs. You must understand: currently, the UK is an "importing country," whether you like it or not. That's the nature of our economy now. Do not blame the EU for that fact. We would still be importing things and posting a negative trade balance every year, no matter what and no matter with whom. |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on May 13, 2023 21:36:34 GMT
Well, at least you've finally understood what I have said in your opening line. Of course you think selling British beef in the high-end market is 'silly and out there', you're firmly hard-wired to the EU's risk-averse unenterprising dogma. I believe trade shouldn't just be conducted for business and industry but for consumers too. British beef will never be cheap. The industry needs to adapt and it should not hold the kind of fearful sway over the rest of the nation because it won't adapt as its been accustomed to EU protectionism. Not only that but the rest of EU's CAP is an absolute joke. The same fear and threat happened with the French clothing industry back in the 90's, and they haven't look back. There is no reason why this cannot happen for British beef as a way to make it amore viable business. And please, stop telling me I am confused. I mentioned a fact that the UK had a trade deficit while it was in the EU. My point is, contrary to your 'wild claims' that being a SM member would turbo-boost the UK economy and save it from inflation and energy price rises and all the other things you falsely blame Brexit on over your numerous topics; being a member of a "trade block" certainly didn't and couldn't help the UK with its trade deficit - it only got worse. I believe the UK has a better chance of bringing that deficit down being outside the EU because the deficit it racked up inside it speaks for itself. I also believe UK consumers should have more affordable choice of products and services from around the world and not just one heavily trade protected region. I also believe our exporters should be able to sell their products and services with less barriers to trade. As an example the UK is now able to export more beef, pork, grain and dairy products to Japan than it did under the EU's umbrella, and has more generous malt quotas than the EU malt quota. I understood it from the get go. I even invited you to correct me if I was wrong in saying it, didn't I? But wait -- I said turning British beef into an expensive, niche-market product. I said it because if you want to play the luxury market successfully, you need to consider that prestige must precede a product. Do you realise how much marketing effort, time and money is required to rehabilitate a product and elevate it from mass market to niche market? Success is not even guaranteed. It is so much easier to downgrade a product like Bose whose directors, in the end, had to give up competing with Bang and Olufsen. It took years and years and countless posh advertising campaign for Burberry to shed its chav image. Now, think, how do or how can British farmers elevate British beef to compete successfully with Wagyu, Kobe or Argentinian in a very small, limited, import-laden UK market? They're barely surviving as it is! If your idea of enterprising is putting an expensive price tag on British beef and sell them in some specialist butchers in Knightsbridge just like that, then please give me the unenterprising EU business model anytime. I was being diplomatic when I used the word "confused". But fine; do you want me to use a stronger but more precise term next time? So. How did you come to believe that the UK has a better chance of bringing down its trade deficit being outside of the EU when (a) Liz Truss rolled over all our EU-negotiated trade deals, (b) our trade deal with the EU itself has more trade barriers, (c) Truss trade deals with Japan and with Australia in particular are likely to increase imports (d) it's a stalemate between Uncle Sam and Joe Bloggs. You must understand: currently, the UK is an "importing country," whether you like it or not. That's the nature of our economy now. Do not blame the EU for that fact. We would still be importing things and posting a negative trade balance every year, no matter what and no matter with whom. The sale of British beef isn't restricted to British shores. I thought that was evident when I said the deeper trade deal with Japan allows British farmers to export more beef, pork, grain and dairy to Japan. British farmers are barely surviving, and that's the same for EU farmers who also have dependence on large quantities of European tax paid subsidies. Something isn't right with this very unproductive industry. Unlike other nations around the world who are much more efficient in producing agri-food. No doubt, all the money and food wastage, helping the rich get richer like the late QEII whom used to get paid half a million Euros in land-gentry; then on top of that expense - subsidising landowners and farmers, Europeans pay more for their food because prices have been artificially raised. The UK was ingrained in this terrible wastage and its clear farming is unproductive and now low on confidence to leave this almost corrupt system and stand on its own two feet like many other industries have to. You say, don't blame the EU for the UK's trade deficit. Then on the other hand you say being a member of the SM is is the beating heart of the UK's economy and it would prevent inflation, cost of living crisis and what not - but it strangely cannot help the UK boost its exports anymore than it can now and only grow the deficit. It's clear you have a disingenuous argument, so it's you who needs to stop claiming that being in the SM will solve all the UK's economic issues you repeatedly and falsely claim. Until then, it's only right to counter that dishonest opinion with the fact that the UK's deficit while being a member of the EU only grew. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2023 23:18:25 GMT
I understood it from the get go. I even invited you to correct me if I was wrong in saying it, didn't I? But wait -- I said turning British beef into an expensive, niche-market product. I said it because if you want to play the luxury market successfully, you need to consider that prestige must precede a product. Do you realise how much marketing effort, time and money is required to rehabilitate a product and elevate it from mass market to niche market? Success is not even guaranteed. It is so much easier to downgrade a product like Bose whose directors, in the end, had to give up competing with Bang and Olufsen. It took years and years and countless posh advertising campaign for Burberry to shed its chav image. Now, think, how do or how can British farmers elevate British beef to compete successfully with Wagyu, Kobe or Argentinian in a very small, limited, import-laden UK market? They're barely surviving as it is! If your idea of enterprising is putting an expensive price tag on British beef and sell them in some specialist butchers in Knightsbridge just like that, then please give me the unenterprising EU business model anytime. I was being diplomatic when I used the word "confused". But fine; do you want me to use a stronger but more precise term next time? So. How did you come to believe that the UK has a better chance of bringing down its trade deficit being outside of the EU when (a) Liz Truss rolled over all our EU-negotiated trade deals, (b) our trade deal with the EU itself has more trade barriers, (c) Truss trade deals with Japan and with Australia in particular are likely to increase imports (d) it's a stalemate between Uncle Sam and Joe Bloggs. You must understand: currently, the UK is an "importing country," whether you like it or not. That's the nature of our economy now. Do not blame the EU for that fact. We would still be importing things and posting a negative trade balance every year, no matter what and no matter with whom. The sale of British beef isn't restricted to British shores. I thought that was evident when I said the deeper trade deal with Japan allows British farmers to export more beef, pork, grain and dairy to Japan. British farmers are barely surviving, and that's the same for EU farmers who also have dependence on large quantities of European tax paid subsidies. Something isn't right with this very unproductive industry. Unlike other nations around the world who are much more efficient in producing agri-food. No doubt, all the money and food wastage, helping the rich get richer like the late QEII whom used to get paid half a million Euros in land-gentry; then on top of that expense - subsidising landowners and farmers, Europeans pay more for their food because prices have been artificially raised. The UK was ingrained in this terrible wastage and its clear farming is unproductive and now low on confidence to leave this almost corrupt system and stand on its own two feet like many other industries have to. You say, don't blame the EU for the UK's trade deficit. Then on the other hand you say being a member of the SM is is the beating heart of the UK's economy and it w ould prevent inflation, cost of living crisis and what not - but it strangely cannot help the UK boost its exports anymore than it can now and only grow the deficit. It's clear you have a disingenuous argument, so it's you who needs to stop claiming that being in the SM will solve all the UK's economic issues you repeatedly and falsely claim. Until then, it's only right to counter that dishonest opinion with the fact that the UK's deficit while being a member of the EU only grew. Obviously, the sale of British beef isn't limited to the British market. It's a non-issue. Why do you even raise it? The issue you should address is the inconsistency of your position: you want the trade deficit reduced but at the same time, you also espouse an economic model that would increase imports and consequently, increase that same, exact trade deficit you so want reduced. Being in the SM was central to the UK economy. It's a fact. I'm just stating it. Can you refute it? No. The SM was and is so central, crucial even, to our economy that even Sunak killed one of your beloved unicorns and agreed for NI to remain (if partially) in the Single Market. It is what it is and it's something that is not subject to argument or debate. However, let's be clear here: I have never claimed that it "would prevent inflation, cost of living crisis and what not." I have never claimed that the SM will solve all the UK's economic issues. I will never, ever make such a claim. You just invented all this in your head. You made assumptions, put two and two together and got 16! Blaming the EU will not improve our balance of trade and bring down our overall trade deficit. So, stop it. Already. |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on May 14, 2023 0:05:19 GMT
The sale of British beef isn't restricted to British shores. I thought that was evident when I said the deeper trade deal with Japan allows British farmers to export more beef, pork, grain and dairy to Japan. British farmers are barely surviving, and that's the same for EU farmers who also have dependence on large quantities of European tax paid subsidies. Something isn't right with this very unproductive industry. Unlike other nations around the world who are much more efficient in producing agri-food. No doubt, all the money and food wastage, helping the rich get richer like the late QEII whom used to get paid half a million Euros in land-gentry; then on top of that expense - subsidising landowners and farmers, Europeans pay more for their food because prices have been artificially raised. The UK was ingrained in this terrible wastage and its clear farming is unproductive and now low on confidence to leave this almost corrupt system and stand on its own two feet like many other industries have to. You say, don't blame the EU for the UK's trade deficit. Then on the other hand you say being a member of the SM is is the beating heart of the UK's economy and it w ould prevent inflation, cost of living crisis and what not - but it strangely cannot help the UK boost its exports anymore than it can now and only grow the deficit. It's clear you have a disingenuous argument, so it's you who needs to stop claiming that being in the SM will solve all the UK's economic issues you repeatedly and falsely claim. Until then, it's only right to counter that dishonest opinion with the fact that the UK's deficit while being a member of the EU only grew. Obviously, the sale of British beef isn't limited to the British market. It's a non-issue. Why do you even raise it? The issue you should address is the inconsistency of your position: you want the trade deficit reduced but at the same time, you also espouse an economic model that would increase imports and consequently, increase that same, exact trade deficit you so want reduced. Being in the SM was central to the UK economy. It's a fact. I'm just stating it. Can you refute it? No. The SM was and is so central, crucial even, to our economy that even Sunak killed one of your beloved unicorns and agreed for NI to remain (if partially) in the Single Market. It is what it is and it's something that is not subject to argument or debate. However, let's be clear here: I have never claimed that it "would prevent inflation, cost of living crisis and what not." I have never claimed that the SM will solve all the UK's economic issues. I will never, ever make such a claim. You just invented all this in your head. You made assumptions, put two and two together and got 16! Blaming the EU will not improve our balance of trade and bring down our overall trade deficit. So, stop it. Already. My position is clear and coherent, I need not address anything merely because you cannot grasp what I have said. I have clarified my position through my posts and you need to read back as you clearly need this clarifying. It was also a fact the UK ran a huge trade deficit being in the SM. One you're only too quick not to distance the EU from. Yet, on the other hand you talk as though the UK's economy only runs and operates because of the SM. This clearly is not the case and is overexaggerated bollocks. The UK's economy doesn't need the SM to make it tick, it is one big fallacy. The UK has proved this by moving on from that and left it behind to take a more globally economic model on. All your other disingenuous threads have that Brexit-phobe tendency to blame a global pandemic, war in Ukraine, cost of living crisis, energy crisis and supply chain disruptions on Brexit in most of your OPs, but when that is pointed out you blame me for your bollocks, while simultaneously saying its nothing to do with the EU that the UK had a whopping great deficit whilst it was a member of the EU. lol In other words your dogma restricts you to this MO which is why nobody takes you seriously: Everything good is because of the EU, everything bad is because of Britain & Brexit. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2023 8:07:30 GMT
Obviously, the sale of British beef isn't limited to the British market. It's a non-issue. Why do you even raise it? The issue you should address is the inconsistency of your position: you want the trade deficit reduced but at the same time, you also espouse an economic model that would increase imports and consequently, increase that same, exact trade deficit you so want reduced. Being in the SM was central to the UK economy. It's a fact. I'm just stating it. Can you refute it? No. The SM was and is so central, crucial even, to our economy that even Sunak killed one of your beloved unicorns and agreed for NI to remain (if partially) in the Single Market. It is what it is and it's something that is not subject to argument or debate. However, let's be clear here: I have never claimed that it "would prevent inflation, cost of living crisis and what not." I have never claimed that the SM will solve all the UK's economic issues. I will never, ever make such a claim. You just invented all this in your head. You made assumptions, put two and two together and got 16! Blaming the EU will not improve our balance of trade and bring down our overall trade deficit. So, stop it. Already. My position is clear and coherent, I need not address anything merely because you cannot grasp what I have said. I have clarified my position through my posts and you need to read back as you clearly need this clarifying. It was also a fact the UK ran a huge trade deficit being in the SM. One you're only too quick not to distance the EU from. Yet, on the other hand you talk as though the UK's economy only runs and operates because of the SM. This clearly is not the case and is overexaggerated bollocks. The UK's economy doesn't need the SM to make it tick, it is one big fallacy. The UK has proved this by moving on from that and left it behind to take a more globally economic model on. All your other disingenuous threads have that Brexit-phobe tendency to blame a global pandemic, war in Ukraine, cost of living crisis, energy crisis and supply chain disruptions on Brexit in most of your OPs, but when that is pointed out you blame me for your bollocks, while simultaneously saying its nothing to do with the EU that the UK had a whopping great deficit whilst it was a member of the EU. lol In other words your dogma restricts you to this MO which is why nobody takes you seriously: Everything good is because of the EU, everything bad is because of Britain & Brexit. Your position is to complain about the UK trade deficit but at the same time agree and endorse policies that will further increase that trade deficit. That position is neither clear nor coherent nor consistent. It's all tangled up. You need to address it. Sort it out. Your claim blames it all on being in the EU but while it's true that the UK mostly ran a trade deficit when it was in the EU; the UK still runs a trade deficit now that it has left the EU. The UK trade with the EU had been falling while it was still a member. Yet its trade deficit was not falling consistently with the fall in trade. Why is that? -- Enlighten me. The UK has not moved on from the Single Market. It can't. The UK needs the bloody thing. It is far too lucrative to leave behind. Don't you get it? Even Sunak agreed to leave NI tethered to the EU in order to retain a tariff-free, quota-free access to the Single Market. I'm sorry that it hurts your fundamentalist pride. But that's the way things are. You have to grow up, grit your teeth and suck some European air. Nobody blames global events on Brexit -- that's just the fundamentalist's idiotic ammo to deflect from his beloved Brexit's failures to deliver. And I only blame you for your own bollocks. Your Brexit fundamentalism and your need to justify your beloved Brexit lead you to invent things in your head and come up with crap arguments. |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on May 14, 2023 8:28:43 GMT
My position is clear and coherent, I need not address anything merely because you cannot grasp what I have said. I have clarified my position through my posts and you need to read back as you clearly need this clarifying. It was also a fact the UK ran a huge trade deficit being in the SM. One you're only too quick not to distance the EU from. Yet, on the other hand you talk as though the UK's economy only runs and operates because of the SM. This clearly is not the case and is overexaggerated bollocks. The UK's economy doesn't need the SM to make it tick, it is one big fallacy. The UK has proved this by moving on from that and left it behind to take a more globally economic model on. All your other disingenuous threads have that Brexit-phobe tendency to blame a global pandemic, war in Ukraine, cost of living crisis, energy crisis and supply chain disruptions on Brexit in most of your OPs, but when that is pointed out you blame me for your bollocks, while simultaneously saying its nothing to do with the EU that the UK had a whopping great deficit whilst it was a member of the EU. lol In other words your dogma restricts you to this MO which is why nobody takes you seriously: Everything good is because of the EU, everything bad is because of Britain & Brexit. Your position is to complain about the UK trade deficit but at the same time agree and endorse policies that will further increase that trade deficit. That position is neither clear nor coherent nor consistent. It's all tangled up. You need to address it. Sort it out. Your claim blames it all on being in the EU but while it's true that the UK mostly ran a trade deficit when it was in the EU; the UK still runs a trade deficit now that it has left the EU. The UK trade with the EU had been falling while it was still a member. Yet its trade deficit was not falling consistently with the fall in trade. Why is that? -- Enlighten me. The UK has not moved on from the Single Market. It can't. The UK needs the bloody thing. It is far too lucrative to leave behind. Don't you get it? Even Sunak agreed to leave NI tethered to the EU in order to retain a tariff-free, quota-free access to the Single Market. I'm sorry that it hurts your fundamentalist pride. But that's the way things are. You have to grow up, grit your teeth and suck some European air. Nobody blames global events on Brexit -- that's just the fundamentalist's idiotic ammo to deflect from his beloved Brexit's failures to deliver. And I only blame you for your own bollocks. Your Brexit fundamentalism and your need to justify your beloved Brexit lead you to invent things in your head and come up with crap arguments. The UK, or Britain rather is no longer in the SM. Fact. It doesn't need the SM to act as life-support for the UK's economy. Fact. We have left the EU. Fact. Sorry that hurts your fundamentalist pride, but that's the way things are. You had your chance and you blew it. You need to grow-up and stop living in the past. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2023 9:02:38 GMT
Your position is to complain about the UK trade deficit but at the same time agree and endorse policies that will further increase that trade deficit. That position is neither clear nor coherent nor consistent. It's all tangled up. You need to address it. Sort it out. Your claim blames it all on being in the EU but while it's true that the UK mostly ran a trade deficit when it was in the EU; the UK still runs a trade deficit now that it has left the EU. The UK trade with the EU had been falling while it was still a member. Yet its trade deficit was not falling consistently with the fall in trade. Why is that? -- Enlighten me. The UK has not moved on from the Single Market. It can't. The UK needs the bloody thing. It is far too lucrative to leave behind. Don't you get it? Even Sunak agreed to leave NI tethered to the EU in order to retain a tariff-free, quota-free access to the Single Market. I'm sorry that it hurts your fundamentalist pride. But that's the way things are. You have to grow up, grit your teeth and suck some European air. Nobody blames global events on Brexit -- that's just the fundamentalist's idiotic ammo to deflect from his beloved Brexit's failures to deliver. And I only blame you for your own bollocks. Your Brexit fundamentalism and your need to justify your beloved Brexit lead you to invent things in your head and come up with crap arguments. The UK, or Britain rather is no longer in the SM. Fact. It doesn't need the SM to act as life-support for the UK's economy. Fact. We have left the EU. Fact. Sorry that hurts your fundamentalist pride, but that's the way things are. You had your chance and you blew it. You need to grow-up and stop living in the past.  ^ I'm sorry, but it's only you -- only you -- who can invent this idea that the UK needs the Single Market as a life-support for the UK economy. And then argue against it as well! |
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on May 14, 2023 17:15:51 GMT
I am still waiting for the comotose UK economy to stir. It has all the EU trade deals plus three more.
So when is it going to start to compete with the countries still in the SM?
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on May 14, 2023 17:47:49 GMT
I am still waiting for the comotose UK economy to stir. It has all the EU trade deals plus three more. So when is it going to start to compete with the countries still in the SM? How do you mean?  |
|
^