Johnson warns EU against any 'Napoleonic' tariffs in no-deal Brexit

[nauseus]

9 hours ago, candide said:

Our arguments are not in opposition (and what you describe is also present to some extent in the article). However, presenting the EU as only an external actor is biased. The UK was part of the EU and voted policies you complain about. Actually, the UK has been one of the most supportive of the integration of Eastern Europe countries. Other countries, such as France, were less supportive.

If had been just integration it might have been fine. 

[Dene16]

16 hours ago, AlexRich said:

Scotland will be more than happy to do one, as will Northern Ireland

Scotland yes, Northern Ireland i don't think so

I got to know quite a few people from Northern Ireland quite a few years ago and was quite shocked at their desire to be part of the UK instead of a united Ireland

Truth is, if it were not for the Irish back stop the deal would of already of been passed in Parliament

Brussels will except nothing more than a hard border of which we cannot have unless we want a return of the IRA (trust me they are still active)

If we leave without a deal there will be no hard border but the EU must then tell Ireland to put one in place, which they will refuse 

So one way or the other there will be no hard border yet still Brussels refuse to budge on this point

It seems to me that Brussels are doing everything they can to twist the knife whilst also giving credence to the fact that, maybe, we do need to be in control of our own decisions

[dick dasterdly]

26 minutes ago, wilcopops said:

They are promising billions to save the fisheries....if Brexit was so good for fishing, why is that needed........?

 

Anyway you look at it from sovereignty, to economics to politics brexit was a lie from the very start. ...

 

 

"They are promising billions to save the fisheries."

 

I think hunt is "promising billions to save the fisheries".  Certainly a bit odd - as the small brit. fisherman were sold out years ago.....

 

 

 

[stephenterry]

19 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

"I would suggest 98% voted to stay under UK sovereignty is conclusive, while 52% is not."

 

I think you are trying to say that 98% of brexit voters did so as their main interest was sovereignty?  But I'm not sure, so please make the point clearer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The post was about the Falkland Islands referendum, when 98% voted to remain under UK rule. The 52% related to the UK referendum. I have no idea what was the motives for leavers, apart frrom unemployed in the north whose main reason was 'it must be better than what we have now'. 

 

Clearly peed off with the UK government not protecting UK jobs by allowing EU immigration doing the 'dirty and menial jobs' that no self respecting bum-sitter would want, anyway. 

[Dene16]

52 minutes ago, wilcopops said:

Try and learn the difference between search and research

My search was regarding a certain statement that was supposed to of been made of which there is no proof whatsoever

It has nothing to do with an article that was never published

 

Try to read a post properly before replying to it with a somewhat sad and sarcastic comment

[SheungWan]

I would not argue against your statement but it could be put in another way
The 7% of EU exports to the UK is far greater than the UK percentage(50%) exports to the EU
In essence the same statement
 
EU exports are country driven and will have a much larger effect upon individual countries within the EU, If we source products from countries outside the EU
 
Suddenly the onus changes on who relies on who
 
Statistical information can always be twisted to support one way or the other
 
Please ! i don't want to get into some mega argument of who is right or wrong as i feel that many people here will only look to the negative side due to the value of the pound
 
Is it in our interest to leave on a deal, yes
Did the UK have to leave the EU, yes ( in order to stop the unsustainable migration/ please note i say migration not immigrants who are needed but can be controlled) 
Idiots in Brussels forced us into this position and now idiots in the House of Parliament(all parties) are escalating the problem for their own agenda, regardless of the cost to the country 
 
 
 
 

"...negative side due to the value of the pound." Well fancy that! [emoji1782]

Sent from my SM-N935F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[dick dasterdly]

1 hour ago, dick dasterdly said:

"They are promising billions to save the fisheries."

 

I think hunt is "promising billions to save the fisheries".  Certainly a bit odd - as the small brit. fisherman were sold out years ago.....

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, stephenterry said:

The post was about the Falkland Islands referendum, when 98% voted to remain under UK rule. The 52% related to the UK referendum. I have no idea what was the motives for leavers, apart frrom unemployed in the north whose main reason was 'it must be better than what we have now'. 

 

Clearly peed off with the UK government not protecting UK jobs by allowing EU immigration doing the 'dirty and menial jobs' that no self respecting bum-sitter would want, anyway. 

Thank you for the explanation re. the "I would suggest 98% voted to stay under UK sovereignty is conclusive, while 52% is not."

 

"Clearly peed off with the UK government not protecting UK jobs by allowing EU immigration doing the 'dirty and menial jobs' that no self respecting bum-sitter would want, anyway."

 

Perhaps another explanation (although you are unlikely to understand this) is that brit. workers would take on these jobs, if given a decent wage that allows them to live in the uk without needing to rely on benefits? 

Edited July 2, 2019 by dick dasterdly

[welovesundaysatspace]

9 hours ago, Dene16 said:

I would not argue against your statement but it could be put in another way

The 7% of EU exports to the UK is far greater than the UK percentage(50%) exports to the EU

In essence the same statement

What’s your point? It doesn’t matter whether your put it in percentages or absolute values; it doesn’t change the fact that, in the event of a no-deal Brexit, the UK is about to put at risk half of its market, the EU only about 7% of its market. 

 

9 hours ago, Dene16 said:

 

EU exports are country driven and will have a much larger effect upon individual countries within the EU, If we source products from countries outside the EU

What countries are you referring to? If I’m not mistaken, even the biggest exporters to the UK export only 8-9% to the UK. I.e., there is no country in the EU that relies so heavily on the UK that it would try to convince the other members of anything. 

 

9 hours ago, Dene16 said:

Suddenly the onus changes on who relies on who

 

Statistical information can always be twisted to support one way or the other

Please elaborate. I can’t see how that’s the case. 

 

 

[dick dasterdly]

24 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

What’s your point? It doesn’t matter whether your put it in percentages or absolute values; it doesn’t change the fact that, in the event of a no-deal Brexit, the UK is about to put at risk half of its market, the EU only about 7% of its market. 

 

What countries are you referring to? If I’m not mistaken, even the biggest exporters to the UK export only 8-9% to the UK. I.e., there is no country in the EU that relies so heavily on the UK that it would try to convince the other members of anything. 

 

Please elaborate. I can’t see how that’s the case. 

 

 

How to explain......

 

The individual (exporting) countries and businesses involved will be very worried.

 

The eu as an entity - doesn't work for those exporting to the uk - as they are understandably far more concerned about their own exports.

[stephenterry]

1 hour ago, dick dasterdly said:

 

Thank you for the explanation re. the "I would suggest 98% voted to stay under UK sovereignty is conclusive, while 52% is not."

 

"Clearly peed off with the UK government not protecting UK jobs by allowing EU immigration doing the 'dirty and menial jobs' that no self respecting bum-sitter would want, anyway."

 

Perhaps another explanation (although you are unlikely to understand this) is that brit. workers would take on these jobs, if given a decent wage that allows them to live in the uk without needing to rely on benefits? 

Not today's generation, DD, who  - with benefits provided - have little incentive to work. Back in my day, I would be willing to lend a hand at what was availabe at a minimum wage. Building site gopher, timber yard worker, house cleaner - you name it, I did it while studying for a qualification to allow me to earn a 'decent' wage.

[welovesundaysatspace]

35 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

How to explain......

 

The individual (exporting) countries and businesses involved will be very worried.

 

The eu as an entity - doesn't work for those exporting to the uk - as they are understandably far more concerned about their own exports.

Like I wrote above, even the individual countries do only rely on the UK market for 8-9% of their exports at most if I’m not mistaken. That means, even in case of a complete breakdown of all trade, the EU countries hurt most would still have 90+% of their exports not affected, as compared to half of all U.K. exports. 

 

Then, of course you will find single businesses who rely more on the UK market than others. You might even find businesses that completely rely on the UK market and could be severely affected. But then, again, as such single business only accounts for 0.x% or less of the country’s whole exports, and even less of the whole EU’s exports, how could any such business make a case for a trade deal? On the other hand, since half of the UK’s exports rely on the EU, you’ll have more UK businesses pressing for good future trade relationships. 

 

So, even if you try to find single countries or single businesses that might rely more on the U.K., it doesn’t change that the EU has 93% of its exports safe, whereas 50% of the UK’s exports would be at stake. 

Edited July 2, 2019 by welovesundaysatspace

[Rimmer]

Two troll posts from the same source have been removed also a reply

[Dene16]

1 hour ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

What’s your point? It doesn’t matter whether your put it in percentages or absolute values; it doesn’t change the fact that, in the event of a no-deal Brexit, the UK is about to put at risk half of its market, the EU only about 7% of its market.

No it does not change the fact that the UK is about to risk half of its market although that is a matter of opinion but in certain aspects i could concur

 

The point is, which also incorporates all your points is that you are using the EU as a collective. Separately countries within the EU even if only losing 8% of their export market, will have a devastating effect on their economy

Germany exports 14- 18% of its cars to the UK as an example. It does not matter that it may only constitute 0.5 % of its exports, its the damage to the German car industry

 

Therefore quoting statistical figures can sometimes (sometimes) be misleading or give a false opinion

I understand your trying to impress a point but we can source their products from elsewhere they cannot sell their product to anyone else, thus they rely on us more than them

You could say it goes both ways but not on the present strength of the pound, exports cheaper. Why would they not want to buy from us?

 

I don't say whether you are right or wrong as only time can tell. Speak to 10 economist/politicians and they will all have a different opinion as we have all seen

 

The argument is and always has been will those countries wish/have to trade with us. 

 

It is going to take many many years to recover if we ever fully do and i believe if possible we should leave with a deal . However it is my belief, the repercussions of staying in, over the long term, will be a lot worse for reasons i have mentioned in another post

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

52 minutes ago, Dene16 said:

No it does not change the fact that the UK is about to risk half of its market although that is a matter of opinion but in certain aspects i could concur

 

The point is, which also incorporates all your points is that you are using the EU as a collective. Separately countries within the EU even if only losing 8% of their export market, will have a devastating effect on their economy

Germany exports 14- 18% of its cars to the UK as an example. It does not matter that it may only constitute 0.5 % of its exports, its the damage to the German car industry

 

Therefore quoting statistical figures can sometimes (sometimes) be misleading or give a false opinion

I understand your trying to impress a point but we can source their products from elsewhere they cannot sell their product to anyone else, thus they rely on us more than them

You could say it goes both ways but not on the present strength of the pound, exports cheaper. Why would they not want to buy from us?

 

I don't say whether you are right or wrong as only time can tell. Speak to 10 economist/politicians and they will all have a different opinion as we have all seen

 

The argument is and always has been will those countries wish/have to trade with us. 

 

It is going to take many many years to recover if we ever fully do and i believe if possible we should leave with a deal . However it is my belief, the repercussions of staying in, over the long term, will be a lot worse for reasons i have mentioned in another post

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The point is we still run a large trade-deficit with the EU to the tune of 45b GBP and we remain their largest and most stable market globally - by far the most important market for some of the largest and most influential industries western Europe as you have mentioned - such as the automotive giants. There's no reason we can't strike an FTA with the EU (which in reality would be best for both parties), the EU has been cagey about this from the start however and our side have negotiated abominably. The ability to walk away without a deal and return to WTO terms was always the best bargaining chip, even though it won't be the negotiators preference, it should have been clear that the government weren't afraid to do so to keep their best form of leverage, but this obviously never happened - the opposite did, with May and her cronies coming across as especially desperate, pathetically pandering to Juncker/Barnier's every whim. 

 

Any tariffs levied to access the SM/CU could and obviously would be reciprocated by the UK against the EU in retaliation - this would harm the EU more as net-exporters, rather than the UK as importers - the tariffs levied for many goods would have been and remain negated by the drop in the value of Sterling anyway. WTO scheduling means that outside the CU we could source alternatives for much (but of course not everything) that we import from around the EU from elsewhere, which would make the pricing for many everyday goods more competitive and would increase tax revenues collected for the exchequer in the process. FTAs would come - down the line, but aren't essential to start with. There are plenty of goods and services that the UK exports to the wider world (well over 55% of all exports) and the point is outside the protectionist CU/SM this could grow as we could once again become competitive by setting our own tariff schedules to the wider world and OF COURSE seek new deals with the Commonwealth / Anglosphere and beyond - on our own terms - that can ONLY happen outside of the EU, however.

 

But of course certain business would falter and some would fail during this difficult time for the country, the difficulty in / time-frame for striking new bilateral trade deals shouldn't be trivialised or downplayed - it would need experienced and shrewd business people / captains of industry to it head up, replacing quangos and bureaucrats with such people in the top jobs would be a great start, but it could and I'm sure would be done. There has been interest expressed by major nations in doing ongoing business with the UK - of course - despite the naysaying of the doom-monger federalist-globalist contingent and their ubiquitous crystal-balls. Plenty of far smaller nations have thrived outside protectionist blocs and this is indeed how the majority of the world does business every single day. The internal market/CU border back stop issue is a red herring IMO - and has been from the start for obvious reasons. The biggest issue facing the UK may be the ability to reinvent itself and diversify it's export market in the future, in order to rely less heavily on IT/tech/specialisation/arms/insurance and financial services - this WILL be a challenge, but it is not insuperable for a nation such as ours with sufficient entrepreneurial spirit and know-how, which would again - be incentivised and cultivated better outside of a protectionist / globalist trade bloc. 

 

Edited July 2, 2019 by CanterbrigianBangkoker

[3NUMBAS]

you need someone hard and devious like bojo to get rid of this 4th reich in brussels as theyre really bad ass like hitler again ..so bring him on to get rid of this filth and smell the air of freedom come november ..they have tried everything to stall UK leaving so far

[damascase]

58 minutes ago, 3NUMBAS said:

you need someone hard and devious like bojo to get rid of this 4th reich in brussels as theyre really bad ass like hitler again ..so bring him on to get rid of this filth and smell the air of freedom come november ..they have tried everything to stall UK leaving so far

You must have smoked some extremely heavy stuff to compare the EU with Hitler, or are you really that ignorant?

[stephenterry]

1 hour ago, CanterbrigianBangkoker said:

The point is we still run a large trade-deficit with the EU to the tune of 45b GBP and we remain their largest and most stable market globally - by far the most important market for some of the largest and most influential industries western Europe as you have mentioned - such as the automotive giants. There's no reason we can't strike an FTA with the EU (which in reality would be best for both parties), the EU has been cagey about this from the start however and our side have negotiated abominably. The ability to walk away without a deal and return to WTO terms was always the best bargaining chip, even though it won't be the negotiators preference, it should have been clear that the government weren't afraid to do so to keep their best form of leverage, but this obviously never happened - the opposite did, with May and her cronies coming across as especially desperate, pathetically pandering to Juncker/Barnier's every whim. 

 

Any tariffs levied to access the SM/CU could and obviously would be reciprocated by the UK against the EU in retaliation - this would harm the EU more as net-exporters, rather than the UK as importers - the tariffs levied for many goods would have been and remain negated by the drop in the value of Sterling anyway. WTO scheduling means that outside the CU we could source alternatives for much (but of course not everything) that we import from around the EU from elsewhere, which would make the pricing for many everyday goods more competitive and would increase tax revenues collected for the exchequer in the process. FTAs would come - down the line, but aren't essential to start with. There are plenty of goods and services that the UK exports to the wider world (well over 55% of all exports) and the point is outside the protectionist CU/SM this could grow as we could once again become competitive by setting our own tariff schedules to the wider world and OF COURSE seek new deals with the Commonwealth / Anglosphere and beyond - on our own terms - that can ONLY happen outside of the EU, however.

 

But of course certain business would falter and some would fail during this difficult time for the country, the difficulty in / time-frame for striking new bilateral trade deals shouldn't be trivialised or downplayed - it would need experienced and shrewd business people / captains of industry to it head up, replacing quangos and bureaucrats with such people in the top jobs would be a great start, but it could and I'm sure would be done. There has been interest expressed by major nations in doing ongoing business with the UK - of course - despite the naysaying of the doom-monger federalist-globalist contingent and their ubiquitous crystal-balls. Plenty of far smaller nations have thrived outside protectionist blocs and this is indeed how the majority of the world does business every single day. The internal market/CU border back stop issue is a red herring IMO - and has been from the start for obvious reasons. The biggest issue facing the UK may be the ability to reinvent itself and diversify it's export market in the future, in order to rely less heavily on IT/tech/specialisation/arms/insurance and financial services - this WILL be a challenge, but it is not insuperable for a nation such as ours with sufficient entrepreneurial spirit and know-how, which would again - be incentivised and cultivated better outside of a protectionist / globalist trade bloc. 

 

The major issue I have with your optimistic ideological appraisal is that the Tory government is not prepared for managing Brexit - no plan in place - let alone managing a no-deal scenario with a crashed economy and sterling devaluation.

 

Their trust remains in the proposed transitional period when trading arrangement are to be negotiated. Since it took three years for a WAG to be agreed, I have no faith that this transitional period would resolve your assertations or even get close - particularly with the current dismal party leaders, e.g. imagine Johnson with a nuclear button in his hand - this non-gravitas person is the contender who the Tories would trust to be thheir leader - God help us all. 

 

In the medium term, Brexit would be a disaster, given the abbove, no question. In the long term, of course Britain would recover, but the populous would pay for it through higher taxes, more austerity, loss of industry and jobs, and higher costs of consumable goods. All in all, a miserable decade or two, in my estimation. 

 

My optimistic take on it would be a GE when the Tories get buried and either the Lib Dems or Labour form a government, and would possibly seek to rejoin the EU at a future date. That should come with a health warning, though. The inadequacies of the EU, as realised by many, must be addressed by the new government if the bloc is to be a centre of excellence - because it falls far short of it, currently. 

 

To be honest, I do not think that Britain has the necessary to go it alone as a Global power - at best we'll be always on the fringe of influence.    

 

 

[stephenterry]

1 hour ago, 3NUMBAS said:

you need someone hard and devious like bojo to get rid of this 4th reich in brussels as theyre really bad ass like hitler again ..so bring him on to get rid of this filth and smell the air of freedom come november ..they have tried everything to stall UK leaving so far

????

[nontabury]

10 hours ago, tebee said:

Boris Johnson, 1999.-

 

“I’m a raving Euro-federalist...a pro-European of the most violent, dyspeptic, and incurable disposition.”

 

 

Truly a man for all seasons....
-

 

 

O.K. He was slow to wake up to reality, but then he started to realise, that the E.u. Is not what the Bureaucrats in Brussels promised. 

As we were told pre the 1975 EEC referendum that we would only be joining a trading block. How easily we were deceived. Similar to how some remainers are now being deceived by the political elite.

[stephenterry]

5 minutes ago, nontabury said:

 

 

O.K. He was slow to wake up to reality, but then he started to realise, that the E.u. Is not what the Bureaucrats in Brussels promised. 

As we were told pre the 1975 EEC referendum that we would only be joining a trading block. How easily we were deceived. Similar to how some remainers are now being deceived by the political elite.

Boris wants to be all things to all men. He's out for his own advancement only, and will say and do anything that gets him the PM post. 

 

I agree that the EU could do with a massive shake-up, and our new government  - either Labour or Lib Dems should have it on their agenda to address that, before rejoining. 

Edited July 2, 2019 by stephenterry
correction

[wilcopops]

Brexiteers turning their backs? .... Oh no, this is the Nazis....if it walks, looks and quacks..........

 

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, stephenterry said:

Boris wants to be all things to all men. He's out for his own advancement only, and will say and do anything that gets him the PM post. 

 

I agree that the EU could do with a massive shake-up, and our new government  - either Labour or Lib Dems should have it on their agenda to address that, before rejoining. 

You seem to be confident that either Labour or the Lib Dems (or both) will have the option of rejoining?  

[nauseus]

45 minutes ago, wilcopops said:

Brexiteers turning their backs? .... Oh no, this is the Nazis....if it walks, looks and quacks..........

 

As blatant baiting as there ever was. 

[petemoss]

27 minutes ago, nauseus said:

As blatant baiting as there ever was. 

And you bit....like a fish in a barrel! 

[malagateddy]

Whatever turns you on

And you bit....like a fish in a barrel! 

Sent from my SM-G7102 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[evadgib]

1 hour ago, wilcopops said:

Brexiteers turning their backs? .... Oh no, this is the Nazis....if it walks, looks and quacks..........

Here's one in colour taken today:

 

Edited July 2, 2019 by evadgib

[petemoss]

18 minutes ago, evadgib said:

Here's one in colour taken today:

 

Children playing at politics. Boris would fit in well with them.

[vogie]

23 minutes ago, petemoss said:

Children playing at politics. Boris would fit in well with them.

The EU might think it's a country with it's own anthem, they need reminding, they are not.

Edited July 2, 2019 by vogie

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, petemoss said:

And you bit....like a fish in a barrel! 

I'm not baiting...........

[3NUMBAS]

In the race to replace Juncker, the EU's sleight of hand reminds us why we voted Leave

• The Remainers say “we didn’t know what we were voting for!” and, fair enough, lots of Brexiteers didn’t. But neither did Remainers. Back in 2016, they couldn’t say who their MEPs were or what the EU Council is or name any of the commissioners – and that’s a problem because democracy only works when you understand how it works and who is working it. The EU is a sham democracy. That’s the real reason Britain voted to leave, and the row over the next President of the EU Commission suggests that we’re getting out just in time. Tim Stanley

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/07/01/race-replace-juncker-eus-sleight-hand-reminds-us-voted-leave/