|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 10, 2022 14:16:45 GMT
Well in earlier times there was that argument about the EU's straight banana............ Yep, of course it was nonsense. The EU was trying to introduce common standards in fruit and veg so that they would be easier to trade between EU member states, thus making everyone richer. Of course, you lot didn't like that. Well, now the UK has low productivity and won't be standardising its laws. Two things that make UK goods much more expensive in the world's biggest market (which just happens to be right on its doorstep). Pure genius! |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 10, 2022 14:23:46 GMT
So, you're saying that the UK would face fewer trading obstacles with the EU if it traded with it on WTO terms? They want to slow everything down to punish us for leaving. I think it's just more proof we were right to leave. What obstacles have the EU put in the way of the UK trading with it that don't apply to other third-country states? Will you please list them? Is it your contention that the EU is punishing the UK by treating it as a third-country? If it is, I have news for you - the UK is a third-country now. Of course, if you can magic up such a list, there will always be the fact that NI is given a very special status through the protocol, thus demonstrating that the UK actually has fewer obstacles to trade with the EU than every other third country. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Nov 10, 2022 14:30:29 GMT
So, you're saying that the UK would face fewer trading obstacles with the EU if it traded with it on WTO terms? No. I'm saying that original reason for joining the EU (or Common Market as it was then) was to avoid costly tariffs. Over the years tariffs have gone down, our EU contributions have gone up, and the proportion of trade we do with the EU has gone down - and continues to go down. What had been a cost effective agreement had turned into a liability - both financially and in terms of the legislation we have had forced on us for no gain. Yet nobody seems to understand this. I never said that there would be fewer obstacles to trade. The nature of the EU Commission is that it puts obstacles in the way of "Third party nations". We've been subjected to the most ridiculous bureaucracy where the EU refuses to move into the digital era and demands paper documents for every lorry. And these documents have to be ln the language of each country that the lorry has to travel through. And if anything is wrong the lorry is turned back. (e.g. one example is where the multi-language documents were numbered sequentially rather than beginning at 1 for each language). It's just bad faith on the part of the EU. They want to slow everything down to punish us for leaving. I think it's just more proof we were right to leave. Exactly, you don't need to be in the EU to avoid tariff or non tariff barriers. It's easy enough to meet EU standards without being a member. Loads of countries around the world do. Elon Musk's Teslas are made in the USA yet they're able to meet EU and British Standards, some are made Right Hand Drive.
Back in the 1960's, long before the UK had joined the EEC, nevermind the EU, there were large numbers of British cars sold in the USA. An Austin Healey 3000 appears in Bullitt. Clint Eastwood drove a Jaguar XK150 in Play Misty For Me. And in real life he owns a Mini.  Back before we joined the EEC, nevermind the EU we were an outward looking internationalist nation with trading partners around the globe. Limiting our horizons to the little EU damaged us. |
|
|
|
Post by totheleft3 on Nov 10, 2022 15:32:32 GMT
Were a outward looking nation with trading partners all over the Glodeb.
Weve been out of the Eu for 6yrs .
And in that time were trading with 70 odd partners and most of them we had while EU members.
So much for the promises we could trade with the rest of the world and other countries was eager to trade with us.
Even America refuse to trade with us.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 10, 2022 17:26:25 GMT
Well in earlier times there was that argument about the EU's straight banana............ Yep, of course it was nonsense. The EU was trying to introduce common standards in fruit and veg so that they would be easier to trade between EU member states, thus making everyone richer. Of course, you lot didn't like that. Well, now the UK has low productivity and won't be standardising its laws. Two things that make UK goods much more expensive in the world's biggest market (which just happens to be right on its doorstep). Pure genius! Sorry but that is incorrect. Whether we standardise our laws has no bearing on exports to the EU - exports to the EU have to comply with their local regulations in the same way as exports to any other market in the world. As for the low productivity - that is the result of 4 decades of EU membership. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 10, 2022 17:40:50 GMT
Yep, of course it was nonsense. The EU was trying to introduce common standards in fruit and veg so that they would be easier to trade between EU member states, thus making everyone richer. Of course, you lot didn't like that. Well, now the UK has low productivity and won't be standardising its laws. Two things that make UK goods much more expensive in the world's biggest market (which just happens to be right on its doorstep). Pure genius! Sorry but that is incorrect. Whether we standardise our laws has no bearing on exports to the EU - exports to the EU have to comply with their local regulations in the same way as exports to any other market in the world. As for the low productivity - that is the result of 4 decades of EU membership. Erm, the EU standardises laws because irregular laws and standards are an obstacle to trade. You and Nigel objected to this, seeing standardised laws as an attack on sovereignty. Everyone else saw these laws as the removal of obstacles standing in the way of increased national wealth. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 10, 2022 18:02:35 GMT
Sorry but that is incorrect. Whether we standardise our laws has no bearing on exports to the EU - exports to the EU have to comply with their local regulations in the same way as exports to any other market in the world. As for the low productivity - that is the result of 4 decades of EU membership. Erm, the EU standardises laws because irregular laws and standards are an obstacle to trade. You and Nigel objected to this, seeing standardised laws as an attack on sovereignty. Everyone else saw these laws as the removal of obstacles standing in the way of increased national wealth. No you are wrong. Any exporter has to comply with the local regulations of the destination - whether that is the EU, the USA, Japan or Timbukto. We dont need to align domestic regulations to be able to export anywhere. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 10, 2022 18:07:10 GMT
Erm, the EU standardises laws because irregular laws and standards are an obstacle to trade. You and Nigel objected to this, seeing standardised laws as an attack on sovereignty. Everyone else saw these laws as the removal of obstacles standing in the way of increased national wealth. No you are wrong. Any exporter has to comply with the local regulations of the destination - whether that is the EU, the USA, Japan or Timbukto. We dont need to align domestic regulations to be able to export anywhere. Regulations have to be aligned to 'freely' export without checks, which are themselves an obstacle to trade. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 10, 2022 18:24:21 GMT
No you are wrong. Any exporter has to comply with the local regulations of the destination - whether that is the EU, the USA, Japan or Timbukto. We dont need to align domestic regulations to be able to export anywhere. Regulations have to be aligned to 'freely' export without checks, which are themselves an obstacle to trade. When did we align our regulations to 'freely' export to our largest export destination country the USA?. When we were in the EU and were aligned our exports to the EU fell whilst our exports to countries where we were not aligned rose... |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 10, 2022 18:27:15 GMT
Regulations have to be aligned to 'freely' export without checks, which are themselves an obstacle to trade. When did we align our regulations to 'freely' export to our largest export destination country the USA?. When we were in the EU and were aligned our exports to the EU fell whilst our exports to countries where we were not aligned rose... The EU is by far the UK's biggest export destination. Rank Country Exports from UK - European Union (Total) 273,978 - United States 112,217 |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 10, 2022 18:34:02 GMT
When did we align our regulations to 'freely' export to our largest export destination country the USA?. When we were in the EU and were aligned our exports to the EU fell whilst our exports to countries where we were not aligned rose... The EU is by far the UK's biggest export destination. Rank Country Exports from UK - European Union (Total) 273,978 - United States 112,217 The EU is not a country - the US is the largest destination country. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 10, 2022 18:41:14 GMT
The EU is by far the UK's biggest export destination. Rank Country Exports from UK - European Union (Total) 273,978 - United States 112,217 The EU is not a country - the US is the largest destination country. That's just semantics. Substitute the word market for country and you get the real picture. |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Nov 10, 2022 20:15:27 GMT
No good deed goes unpunished, as they say. The EU allows tariff-free imports of unprocessed farm produce from Africa into its market, and then face criticism for not allowing processed produce in. The EU discourages genetically modified crops, and is chastised for it. It's not easy being saintly these days. I think you're confusing neo-colonialism with being saintly. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 10, 2022 20:31:36 GMT
No good deed goes unpunished, as they say. The EU allows tariff-free imports of unprocessed farm produce from Africa into its market, and then face criticism for not allowing processed produce in. The EU discourages genetically modified crops, and is chastised for it. It's not easy being saintly these days. I think you're confusing neo-colonialism with being saintly. I think you're a typical populist - you are entirely cynical and you don't believe there are any politicians who are capable of doing any deed unless it profits themselves. Fine. But it's a fact that the EU does not impose tariffs on developing African countries. That is philanthropy, not neo-colonialism. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Nov 11, 2022 8:11:22 GMT
Erm, the EU standardises laws because irregular laws and standards are an obstacle to trade. You and Nigel objected to this, seeing standardised laws as an attack on sovereignty. Everyone else saw these laws as the removal of obstacles standing in the way of increased national wealth. You don't understand about trade. As Pacifico says it's completely normal for an exporting company to make sure its products conform to the standards of the destination country. What's NOT normal is for the exporting country to make sure that ALL its products comply with the destination country's standards. That's what the EU demands of member countries. How often do you have to be told this. And it even applies to British companies that don't trade with the EU - and 90% of British companies do NOT trade with the EU. There was an example on the Farming program (IIRC) a few days ago. The head of a small company that sells tinned smoked salmon was complaining that, due to EU rules, he has had to disrupt its operation to change the tins. The problem? They've had to put a warning on the tins "this product contains fish". That's a fact believe it or not. And still we haven't torn up the EU rules, so they're still hitting all our companies with stupid nonsensical red tape. This company doesn't even sell its salmon to the EU. |
|
