Buy British then.

1 hour ago, CanterbrigianBangkoker said:

• Report post
•  
•  
•  
•  #1066

Posted just now

  46 minutes ago, CanterbrigianBangkoker said:

 

I didn't, really want to get in to this in depth right now, but I guess I have made my own bed by ranting? 

 

First off, I wouldn't argue that civic or national pride is the sole preserve of Leave voters by any means, that's very arrogant and I'd agree, totally incorrect. It just seems to me to be obvious that anyone who has some pride in their country and who cares about its sovereignty and it's future - would not want to see it remain in an unholy, undemocratic union such as the EU.

 

A few examples, hmm, ok then. Well, leaving aside the facts that - the British public were never ever consulted about the majority of the legislation and subsequent 'ever closer union' that has occurred in the last 3 decades, (as, similarly, the other constituent nations weren't either), these could qualify:

 

Massive over-regulation in the private sector 

 

'The reality is that the UK is now saddled with far greater amounts of red tape – forcing up energy costs and making industry uncompetitive, for example – than used to be the case, the majority of this has emanated from the EU'

OECD report 2015, quoted in the Telegraph among others.

 

Making our industrial (private) sectors far less competitive and also a less appealing investment opportunity, as well slowing economic growth and job creation overall as a result. Whilst simultaneously making it ever more difficult for small and medium sized businesses to prosper in the UK. As if their task wasn't difficult enough, it has looked more and more like the introduction of industry / sector wide tighter controls / restrictions benefits corporate big boys and ties the smaller and medium sized  businesses' hands. Much of this being health hand safety BS and ever increasing political correctness directives, that any thinking person must be pretty fed up with.

 

This is the EU all over to my knowledge - working in favour of big money / corporate backers and centralising control in the hands of a select few. Not allowing free market capitalism to exist. Its anathema to that system , the EU is a fine example of globalism wreaking havoc on the entrepreneurial man in the street.

 

Not to mention the CFP... or CAP - massive subsidies given to people who need them least so that near useless new energy solutions can erected, marring the landscape and helping to drive the costs of energy ever skyward.

 

Let's not forget the legislation that has been forced upon working people across the continent without any form of elective potential to combat it coming from the public. If it weren't for some extenuation circumstances, split in government opinion and the perceived drop in confidence in the sterling, we might well have joined the Euro - at the EUs suggestion, of course. Then where would we be? 

 

- I won't even begin to touch on the glaring immigration crisis we face in the UK and, (again thanks to the EU) much of continental Europe is now swamped with. If you honestly think we, like the majority of our European neigbours, still govern ourselves, making the real decisions - on some very fundamental aspects of our own countries' prosperity, make-up, social cohesion, economy or existential progression then I think maybe more enquiry is necessary on your part. Contrary to my statements above, I wouldn't opine that the EU is all bad either, it has been responsible for some good things and a few noteworthy developments, but basically, to my knowledge at least, nothing that couldn't equally be accomplished outside a political/customs/military union enforcing the free movement of people - that no one ever voted for.

 

Watch - This Sceptic Isle, by Peter Hitchens and see if that changes your mind about anything. It's one of the better documentaries on the subject -  pre-Brexit. Not totally impartial of course, but then what piece of journalism ever is?!

Cheers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

I think you should have concentrated your efforts rather than presenting so many unfounded assertions.

 

By example, this claim is completely at odds with reality:

 

“This is the EU all over to my knowledge - working in favour of big money / corporate backers and centralising control in the hands of a select few. Not allowing free market capitalism to exist. Its anathema to that system , the EU is a fine example of globalism wreaking havoc on the entrepreneurial man in the street.”

 

The EU has frequently challenged big business and big money in favour of consumers, levying huge fines on International corporations that have been rigging markets.

 

Much of EU regulations directly challenge big business in favour of workers, customers, the general public and the environment.

 

Within the EU, the U.K. has frequently acted to thwart EU regulations that challenge big business and big money. A prime example is the proposals for a Common, Consilidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB), this EU initiative aims to place international corporations on a level playing field with local businesses by removing the ability of international corporations to split transactions and ‘ship them offshore’ to avoid tax. Starbucks paying the same taxes as Dolly’s Cafe.

 

The UK stands alone fighting the CCTB.

 

The defender of Globalist excess, tax dodging and minimising citizen/worker’s rights is resident in No 10.

Ok. So, since I gave you a fair few pertinent and totally founded examples, (despite what you might think) how about you give me a few in return, besides the one debatable one you have above. Possible?

 

It sounds more and more like you're a pathological anti-Tory. Not that I identify as Tory or Labour myself, so I've no dog in that race, so to speak, but it just sounds more and more like you're reserving your ire and disdain for May and not realising what a menace the EU is to so many and will continue to grow into, by all accounts.

 

Seriously - the EU, anti-big business! anti-Globalist! Pro-democracy! Ppppfff, pull the other one, it's got bells on. ?

All over UK places such as UK and Cornwall have received funding for projects that are designed to benefit the local economies and local businesses as wella as social benefits for people in these sorts of regions.

Cornwall is already demanding that government replaces EU funding they will losebe.

1 hour ago, vogie said:

Juncker.?????

Ah, the famous reductio ad Junckerum strikes again. 

 

He can always be voted out, though. His main problem is that he is prone to 'flights of fancy' (possibly trying to justify his salary) such as the European Army, which (almost) everyone knows is never going to happen. Of course, that hasn't prevented the Express, Mail and Sun reporting it as a done deal. Perhaps the major benefit of Brexit, and the rise of right-wing parties elsewhere, is that Juncker seems to have reined in some of his more outlandish ideas.

1 hour ago, candide said:

I asked this question several times but never got any answer, so maybe this time I will be more lucky.

How a post-Brexit UK relying on worldwide free trade agreements will be less subject to globalism?

Relatedly: how a smaller economic entity (UK) will be better able to resist the pressures of powerfull transnational corporations or states (i.e. if you don't do that, I won't invest in your country)?

I would be enlighted to know your arguments on these specific questions.

A very good question IMO as the uk is even more keen on 'globalism' than the eu IMO!  At least the eu prefers to keep the 'globalism' largely confined to the eu as far as I can see.

 

The uk is a very large economy and so can (if those in charge prefer to do so...) to a large extent, "resist the pressures of powerful transnational corporations or states."

 

But we all know that the uk govt. (and bureaucracy) has no intention of doing so as they enjoy the money/ power/extremely well-paid jobs and consultancy positions that they gain from supporting the eu/globalist corporations etc. etc.

 

One only has to look at the Kinnocks and Blair to see the truth of this ☹️.

10 minutes ago, kwilco said:

If we were to leave the European Union and trade on WTO rules, his supermarket is working on the basis that tariffs will be levied on goods being imported to the UK from the EU. So, for example, cheese will attract a 44 per cent tariff, beef a 40 per cent tariff, lamb a 40 per cent tariff, chicken a 22 per cent tariff, apples a 15 per cent tariff and grapes a 20 per cent tariff, and so on.

What you failed to quote from the article you linked to is that the CEO who said this went on to say that in this scenario an increase of about 10% would be passed on to the consumer. You also failed to say that later on in the article it was agreed that the UK would be in control of  its own import tariffs, and that we could set the tariff at 0% if we chose to.

 

And this CEO was just talking about importing from the EU. But of course we would be free to import from other countries without EU bureaucracy and without EU non-tariff barriers.

 

But thanks anyway, a useful read. We shouldn't be complacent about the scale of the potential short-term disruption.

4 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

What you failed to quote from the article you linked to is that the CEO who said this went on to say that in this scenario an increase of about 10% would be passed on to the consumer. You also failed to say that later on in the article it was agreed that the UK would be in control of  its own import tariffs, and that we could set the tariff at 0% if we chose to.

 

And this CEO was just talking about importing from the EU. But of course we would be free to import from other countries without EU bureaucracy and without EU non-tariff barriers.

 

But thanks anyway, a useful read. We shouldn't be complacent about the scale of the potential short-term disruption.

No we are talking international WTO tarriffs

12 minutes ago, Stupooey said:

Ah, the famous reductio ad Junckerum strikes again. 

 

He can always be voted out, though. His main problem is that he is prone to 'flights of fancy' (possibly trying to justify his salary) such as the European Army, which (almost) everyone knows is never going to happen. Of course, that hasn't prevented the Express, Mail and Sun reporting it as a done deal. Perhaps the major benefit of Brexit, and the rise of right-wing parties elsewhere, is that Juncker seems to have reined in some of his more outlandish ideas.

Excuse after excuse, "he can always be voted out" well why wasn't he voted out, more to the point , why was he even voted in. 

In all honesty do you think the UK would be leaving at all if Juncker had not been given that prestigious position. Cameron said at the time "I've told EU leaders they could live to regret the new process for choosing the commission president. I'll always stand up for UK interests."

remainers just seem to very blase about Juncker and never appoint any damage that man has caused.

2 minutes ago, kwilco said:

No we are talking international WTO tarriffs

You need to re-read the article. Either you are reading it selectively or you are misrepesenting it deliberately.

1 minute ago, My Thai Life said:

You need to re-read the article. Either you are reading it selectively or you are misrepesenting it deliberately.

No you, just like so many Brexiteers lack comprehension skills.

13 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

What you failed to quote from the article you linked to is that the CEO who said this went on to say that in this scenario an increase of about 10% would be passed on to the consumer. You also failed to say that later on in the article it was agreed that the UK would be in control of  its own import tariffs, and that we could set the tariff at 0% if we chose to.

 

And this CEO was just talking about importing from the EU. But of course we would be free to import from other countries without EU bureaucracy and without EU non-tariff barriers.

 

But thanks anyway, a useful read. We shouldn't be complacent about the scale of the potential short-term disruption.

Why short term?

34 minutes ago, Sir Dude said:

Buy British then.

Like this?

30 minutes ago, kwilco said:

It seeme that Brexiteers don't like food either.....

 

"If we were to leave the European Union and trade on WTO rules, his supermarket is working on the basis that tariffs will be levied on goods being imported to the UK from the EU. So, for example, cheese will attract a 44 per cent tariff, beef a 40 per cent tariff, lamb a 40 per cent tariff, chicken a 22 per cent tariff, apples a 15 per cent tariff and grapes a 20 per cent tariff, and so on. "

WTO tariffs via supermarkets and the Independant.

Apart from grapes, you really should have used better examples ?

21 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

A very good question IMO as the uk is even more keen on 'globalism' than the eu IMO!  At least the eu prefers to keep the 'globalism' largely confined to the eu as far as I can see.

 

The uk is a very large economy and so can (if those in charge prefer to do so...) can to a large extent, "resist the pressures of powerful transnational corporations or states.

 

But we all know that the uk govt. (and bureaucracy) has no intention of doing so as they enjoy the money/ power/extremely well-paid jobs and consultancy positions that they gain from supporting the eu/globalist corporations etc. etc.

 

One only has to look at the Kinnocks and Blair to see the truth of this ☹️.

  At least the eu prefers to keep the 'globalism' largely confined to the eu as far as I can see.

 

 

Ellie the treaties with Canada and Japana?

 

4 minutes ago, vogie said:

In all honesty do you think the UK would be leaving at all if Juncker had not been given that prestigious position.

It's hard to believe that a Luxembourgish politician (Luxembourg population 582,972) could have achieved such lofty office, based on such limited experience. My favourite Juncker clip was of him walking along with the Trump crew, too drunk to walk unassisted - shades of Boris Yeltsin, but at least Boris could sing.

 

But Juncker did have a nice job for his protege Martin Selmayr. All above board and transparent in the best of EU traditions ?

 

6 minutes ago, vogie said:

Excuse after excuse, "he can always be voted out" well why wasn't he voted out, more to the point , why was he even voted in. 

In all honesty do you think the UK would be leaving at all if Juncker had not been given that prestigious position. Cameron said at the time "I've told EU leaders they could live to regret the new process for choosing the commission president. I'll always stand up for UK interests."

remainers just seem to very blase about Juncker and never appoint any damage that man has caused.

The point I was making was that the damage relates more to what he has said than what he has done. Some of his personal opinions were seized on by the anti-EU press as if they were official policy, which of course did untold damage to the Remain cause. I am not a great Juncker supporter, but I think his individual power is over estimated and that if he oversteps the line he will be voted out. He was Prime Minister of his country for 18 years though, and as Abraham Lincoln said........

1 minute ago, My Thai Life said:

 

It's hard to believe that a Luxembourgish politician (Luxembourg population 582,972) could have achieved such lofty office, based on such limited experience. My favourite Juncker clip was of him walking along with the Trump crew, too drunk to walk unassisted - shades of Boris Yeltsin, but at least Boris could sing.

 

But Juncker did have a nice job for his protege Martin Selmayr. All above board and transparent in the best of EU traditions ?

 

Remainers put his inability to stand down to sciatica. ???

4 minutes ago, vogie said:

Remainers put his inability to stand down to sciatica. ???

Yeah...he's a gin drinking drunk...everyone knows.

2 hours ago, My Thai Life said:

The issue that the remain camp keep on ducking, and not just on this thread is "what does 'ever closer union' mean?". As this has never been defined, there can only be speculative answers. I suspect that most remain voters have never even thought about it.

 

In the short-term, while the UK is adjusting to whatever new relationships, processes and systems we will be working with post leave, there will inevitably be an economic hit. The long term is simply not predictable.

 

In the long-term there may not even be an EU, or it may be in a very different shape from today. There are many fault lines within the EU, and any one could lead to its downfall. The overriding dependency on Germany is a major risk to the EU; if for whatever reason Germany goes into recession, the EU will be finished. The UK's departure could trigger positive change and reform within the EU, but I doubt it. 

 

If the EU had kept to the original expectation of being a common market, I suspect the UK would never have even raised the idea of a referendum.

OK, I'll stop ducking, it's something I've been meaning to bring up. Whenever I, or a fellow Remain supporter, has tried to present a logical, cogent argument for staying, the usual response has been to take a phrase or sentence out of context, sometimes twisting the meaning, and by refuting it claim to invalidate the whole argument (if you don't believe me, go back over the 74 pages of the thread, if you've a few weeks to spare!). The most common example of selective quoting is the phrase 'ever closer union'. The full version is as follows: 

'...ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen'.

The important word is 'peoples'. Not Governments, not a political union as even David Cameron misquoted it (probably deliberately, to try to justify the UK opting out of it). Of course, ideally, in democracies the politicians are the servants of the people, so closer union of the people should naturally lead to closer political union, but it is driven by the people and not the politicians.

No worries there then. Next question?

10 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Agreed an utter waste.

 

Why not fix it rather than wrecking the UK economy.

What political party do I vote for to fix it?

16 hours ago, My Thai Life said:

....

 

There's been a lot of criticism of May in all of this, only to be expected of course, but I've never seen any leader in such a difficult position in my life. Ivan Rogers says she would have been better off triggering A50 after some degree of consensus had been reached, but I honestly don't believe any meaningful level of consensus would have been reached, after all, it still hasn't.

 

......

 

 

But planning to make a major constitutional change which will affect the lives of everyone in the country for a generation or more, when there is no consensus is simply asking  for a descent into chaos - possibly even a breakdown of the entire political system in the UK.

 

Making such a change when there is and external deadline over which the UK has no control is beyond reckless - I believe history will take a very dim view of Mrs May.  

 

Two years and no plan? we are not going to get one that any majority of any faction can agree to in the remaining couple of months.

 

The choice is going to be facing the abyss of a hard no deal Brexit and jumping off into the unknown or turning round and abandoning the whole thing. 

not sure that I can see the tory cab arranging for a 2nd vote

turning around and calling off the leave should be possible, possible - but likely?

 

just skimmed an interview with Raab, he was hopeful of landing a deal by October

he also said that people should be prepared for a no deal in case talks fail

 

in my experience, it is not uncommon that in tricky negotiations things start falling into place in the 11th hour

(I said that - not Raab)

What political party do I vote for to fix it?

Both Labour and Green Party had it as specific manifesto pledges to campaign for it. Nothing specific on the Conservative manifesto but theirs is a more general pledge to ‘reduce costs’.


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

1 hour ago, tebee said:

But planning to make a major constitutional change which will affect the lives of everyone in the country for a generation or more, when there is no consensus is simply asking  for a descent into chaos - possibly even a breakdown of the entire political system in the UK.

 

Making such a change when there is and external deadline over which the UK has no control is beyond reckless - I believe history will take a very dim view of Mrs May.  

 

Two years and no plan? we are not going to get one that any majority of any faction can agree to in the remaining couple of months.

 

The choice is going to be facing the abyss of a hard no deal Brexit and jumping off into the unknown or turning round and abandoning the whole thing. 

 

I just think people are sadly mistaken to think Brexit will be called off, even if it makes good sense- that quality being sadly lacking in politics, as well as TV forums.  

 

There isn't much opposition to Brexit considering the enormity of the omni-shambles; it's possible to conclude that the majority for leave still exists, and I'm beginning to wonder if there are a fair few 'passive leavers too'.

 

 

1 hour ago, tebee said:

But planning to make a major constitutional change which will affect the lives of everyone in the country for a generation or more, when there is no consensus is simply asking  for a descent into chaos - possibly even a breakdown of the entire political system in the UK.

 

Making such a change when there is and external deadline over which the UK has no control is beyond reckless - I believe history will take a very dim view of Mrs May.  

 

Two years and no plan? we are not going to get one that any majority of any faction can agree to in the remaining couple of months.

 

The choice is going to be facing the abyss of a hard no deal Brexit and jumping off into the unknown or turning round and abandoning the whole thing. 

Tebee, I agree with many of the things you say as usual. I am a Brit, I didn't vote, wasn't offered a vote, and didn't want a vote. Had I voted, I would have voted Leave for political reasons, and Remain for national economic self interest. But to respond to your points.

 

> Asking for consensus when there is none is just wishful thinking and not going to help.

> If anything is going to cause a breakdown of the political system, it would be a 2nd referendum.

> History has taken a dim view of most PMs, depending on whose version of history you read. I am by no means a supporter of May, but really I can't see how any politician could have done much better in the circumstances. The country and the parties are genuinely split, fragmented, over this issue. And I don't want to be drawn into a discussion about the minutiae.

> "Two years and no plan?" That's right, because there is no consensus (and there never will be, even years after the deed is done). You know this as well as I or anyone else.

> Re your last point. I don't think the choice is going to be that stark. I feel that the discussion around the UK budget is going to take us in a direction acceptable to most people other than hard leavers.

 

I think we are both mature enough to know that no-one is going to get exactly what they want out of this mess. And a degree of compromise and acceptance is going to be required of all of us. I see precious little of that on this forum.

 

13 hours ago, kwilco said:

 

Cornwall is already demanding that government replaces EU funding they will losebe.

The pigs have been refuelled, BF'd and ready to fly.

13 hours ago, My Thai Life said:

What you failed to quote from the article you linked to is that the CEO who said this went on to say that in this scenario an increase of about 10% would be passed on to the consumer. You also failed to say that later on in the article it was agreed that the UK would be in control of  its own import tariffs, and that we could set the tariff at 0% if we chose to.

 

And this CEO was just talking about importing from the EU. But of course we would be free to import from other countries without EU bureaucracy and without EU non-tariff barriers.

 

But thanks anyway, a useful read. We shouldn't be complacent about the scale of the potential short-term disruption.

And what you failed to note from that article is that this same CEO said the price increase would fall particularly hard on the low income people who expend a disproportionately large share of their income on food items. 

And you are  claiming that the EU would put up non-tariff barriers to a country wanting to buy their goods. Really? Because they want to decrease their income? Is that how it works? Non-tariff barriers such as they, except in the case of boycotts,  typically come from the country or trading bloc doing the importing.  

15 hours ago, CanterbrigianBangkoker said:

 

What's your point? We're better off in the EU and none of this would have ever happened on their watch?  

Of course every country in Europe was facing similar economic and industrial strife during that period and there is no doubt you can show a similar protracted period of government failures since 1972, nothing like a bit of selective memory.

Yes we have been better off in the EU but leavers can only ever see the failings on the surface,never the underlying benefits.

12 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

And you are  claiming that the EU would put up non-tariff barriers to a country wanting to buy their goods.

@bboy Obviously I'm not. 

 

I'm suggesting that for a 3rd country trading outside the EU without EU non-tariff barriers is going to be much easier.

3 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

@bboy Obviously I'm not. 

 

I'm suggesting that a 3rd country, trading outside the EU without EU non-tariff barriers is going to be much easier.

Not obvious at all from what you wrote. In fact, I don't see how what you wrote could be construed in any other way. Once again, here's what you wrote 

"But of course we would be free to import from other countries without EU bureaucracy and without EU non-tariff barriers."

13 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Of course every country in Europe was facing similar economic and industrial strife during that period and there is no doubt you can show a similar protracted period of government failures since 1972, nothing like a bit of selective memory.

Yes we have been better off in the EU but leavers can only ever see the failings on the surface,never the underlying benefits.

I would disagree, there are of course some underlying benefits, but they are outweighed by the net loss we incur from having to pay extortionate amounts to remain part of the EU and of course the reams of legislation that have been pushed down our throats since 1975. Again, I reiterate that its about loss of sovereignty, having to ask permission from Brussels/Strasbourg and having our own parliament have to go to the EP/EC and ECHR to have our own legislature ratified. If we had taken the advice of the EU supremos and joined the Eurozone, I think we would be as screwed as Spain/Portugal/Ireland/Italy or France's economy is now. The fiscal, customs and political union between industrially developed and populous countries (particularly in the north of Europe) and smaller less economically / industrially developed ones in the south was never going to work. If you think nations like Greece (now a debt colony), Portugal, Spain and Italy are enjoying all the benefits and glories of the EU and have prospered in recent years then you really do have that selective memory you mentioned. Without even touching on the so called 'refugee crisis' being enjoyed across the contintent, again, thanks EU / Ms. Merkel. Our own recent history has not been dictated solely by the EU either, both the benefits and the detriments, I would admit.