Who loves Brexit? Irish distributors ... after their sales jump by a third Figures from tech industry analyst Context show a remarkable jump in server, storage and networking sales in the Republic of Ireland through the last two quarters, pointing to companies continuing to invest in insurance against a hard Brexit. Against a backdrop of falling European sales, UK sales slumped 14 per cent in the …
Yes, welcome to democracy where everyone continues to get a vote throughout their lifetime despite a vote in one particular year. A deal was promised, there was no majority to leave without a deal, yet that is very nearly what transpired. Long may the frustrations continue.
It's not too late to change your opinion, millions already have, reverse Brexit now!
"Yes, welcome to democracy where everyone continues to get a vote throughout their lifetime despite a vote in one particular year."
So your pro voting but anti implementing the vote result?
"A deal was promised"
I didnt see that on the voting slip. It was promised to be implemented though.
"there was no majority to leave without a deal"
There was even less support to remain. In any form.
"yet that is very nearly what transpired"
The legal outcome of implementing the exit procedure.
"Long may the frustrations continue."
With ongoing economic damage from uncertainty? Assuming your in the UK surely that is self inflicting pain?
"It's not too late to change your opinion, millions already have"
Very possibly true but yet support is still to brexit. It is still the majority. It won 3 votes out of 3.
"reverse Brexit now!"
Implement brexit now!
@codejunky - "It was promised to be implemented though."
No it was not - The referendum was not legally binding, as such Parliament is not obliged to follow it through. Likewise 75% of the Leave "facts" have since been disproved, and the circumstances of our departure are not was promised - With all things of significance, there should be sanity-checks before acting - As such, what is the problem with having a confirmation-referendum?
People can bitch all they like, but the corner stone of democracy is the ability to change ones mind. As many people point out, there are people who voted who now regret their vote, but flipside, I know of people who voted remain who now wish to leave!
One of the beautiful things about democracy, is the ability to change ones mind
It was implemented. Article 50 was served.
However, leave are a bunch of incompetents who never had a plan and had no idea how a deal was going to be agreed and no idea about what to do about peace in Northern Ireland. So they failed.
Of course, by the nature of leavers they will blame everyone but themselves. Always someone else’s fault.
@werdsmith
"It was implemented. Article 50 was served."
So you dont even know the question- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2016_EU_Referendum_Ballot_Paper.jpg
"However, leave are a bunch of incompetents who never had a plan and had no idea how a deal was going to be agreed and no idea about what to do about peace in Northern Ireland. So they failed."
Remainers dictating we remain? Leave is a unilateral action which can be implemented full stop.
"Of course, by the nature of leavers they will blame everyone but themselves. Always someone else’s fault."
The fact that your entire comment is incorrect kinda defeats your point. And with some remainers being so incredibly wrong in the face of fact it isnt a shock that leavers may be unhappy when such remain views are at fault.
So you dont even know the question- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2016_EU_Referendum_Ballot_Paper.jpg
Leave or remain. But can you or anyone tell me what "leaving" means beyond "leave means leave", and how we are meant to have that leaving when the Will of the People is against leaving with no deal and against leaving with a deal.
And what the fuck we should do seeing as the Will of the People was also against remaining?
Sure, the main political parties claimed they'd respect the result of the advisory referendum but no one has any clue how it can be respected when there is no majority for any course of action.
But keep on blaming remainers when it's leavers who can't agree on how to leave. Welcome to your nightmare.
@Jason Bloomberg
"Leave or remain. But can you or anyone tell me what "leaving" means beyond "leave means leave""
Amusingly the tautology is actually correct, leave means leave the EU. It doesnt go into detail over what remain means nor what leave means it literally is the binary choice.
"the Will of the People is against leaving with no deal and against leaving with a deal."
So in that case there is no way we can remain. It is a socialist/capitalist, globalist/protectionist, trade block/federalising project, etc. The fact is there is no one harmonious vision of remain as there isnt for leave.
"And what the fuck we should do seeing as the Will of the People was also against remaining?"
Since leave is the result and unnecessarily confirmed 3-0 it means we need to leave the EU.
"Sure, the main political parties claimed they'd respect the result of the advisory referendum but no one has any clue how it can be respected when there is no majority for any course of action."
There is the legal default. That is the factual end point if they cannot agree to a course of action. So hard brexit if they cant get their shit together. Brexit is a unilateral action so it can be implemented without permission or agreements.
"But keep on blaming remainers when it's leavers who can't agree on how to leave. Welcome to your nightmare."
Erm, we are still in the EU. The legal default is leave. It takes serious mental gymnastics to think this is the leavers fault, but only if you think about it.
Leave just means leave, eh? You keep forgetting (you've been reminded before):
This is what the leave campaign said at the time, straight from the horses mouths:
Boris Johnson said we'd stay in the single-market: https://www.businessinsider.com/boris-johnson-single-market-brexit-campaign-customs-union-2018-1?r=US&IR=T
As did Farage, and MANY others: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xGt3QmRSZY
As did MEP Dan Hannan: "Nobody is talking about threatening our place in the single market": https://www.voteleavewatch.org.uk/leaving_the_single_market_is_not_an_option
Andrea Leadsom said we will have the same access to the single market http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noK4OJOjmVk
Gerard Batten (UKIP leader) "A trade deal with the EU could be sorted out in an afternoon over a cup of coffee"
Boris Johnson: "There is no plan for no deal because we are going to get a great deal"
And Liam Fox promised that the 40 trade deals we'd lose access to after leaving the EU will all be replicated or improved on immediately after Britain leaves. How many of the 40 has he improved on..... **ZERO** Well, OK, how many has he replicated? **A BIG FAT ZERO** (Update: 22nd July 2019: 12 deals have been made - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47213842)
Liam Fox: "The free trade agreement that we will have to do with the European Union should be one of the easiest in human history"
John Redwood and Rees-Mogg said a second referendum would be a good idea once a deal has been finalised: https://infacts.org/rees-mogg-history-backing-second-eu-referendums/
Dominic Raab: I hadn't quite understood the full extent of this but... we are particularly reliant on the Dover-Calais crossing"
@Jamie Jones
"Leave just means leave, eh? You keep forgetting (you've been reminded before):"
And you obviously dont read, I know. The official campaign lied its arse off. The negotiation period was a farce of anything to remain. Even getting an extension the bloody gov took a holiday!
This does not change the fact that people voted to leave. According to the remain campaign we should have had 2 recessions so far (the result and submitting art50), the end of western civilisation, back of the 'queue' with US trade talks and worse of all the power of the government was threatened to be used against the population if we didnt vote remain (the punishment budget). Cameron promised to remain to negotiate even if we vote leave, promised to implement the result the day after, etc.
So yes leave means leave just as remain means remain. What does remain mean? Further integration? EU army? Federalisation? Adoption of the Euro?
This would be the same US (along with those "longing for a deal" Canada, Australia, India, China, New Zealand etc.) who are now suing us over the brexit damage we're causing them? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/australia-brexit-trade-disruption-eu-wto-news-a9205496.html
As for "leave means leave", you said there were no discussions on any conditions attached to a leave vote. Those links I posted show that there is.
Sigh, there are many fact checking sites out there, and even then, it's easy to research further, and not trust them blindly, and I know you're not a moron, so why are you continuing to push daily mail/express fibbing-points that you know are untrue?
@Jamie Jones
"who are now suing us over the brexit damage we're causing them?"
Yes. I dont see how that link opposes anything I have said. Various countries looking to sue the UK and EU for not getting on with brexit and keep delaying it.
"Federalisation? No - Read our current agreement."
And how much is that agreement worth? Is it as solid as the signed agreement not to use our contribution to bail out Greece because they did it anyway. We cant stop them from federalising (and if they want to why should we?) and we only need another sell out gov to get trapped in that.
"Adoption of the Euro - under our current agreement we have a PERMANENT veto. We can never be made to join the Euro"
Great. So we just need to wait for the next Blair to adopt the Euro and gold plate further sell outs of the country.
"Eu army? Cheers for mentioning that. Now I know you're either trolling or intentionally lying"
Great straw man. I didnt say anything about conscription or any of the bollox you link to. However I do refer to the desires and attempts by members to create one-
https://www.politico.eu/article/angela-merkel-emmanuel-macron-eu-army-to-complement-nato/
https://www.euractiv.com/topics/eu-army/
https://www.parlement.com/id/vjs2dq3uelz3/nieuws/eu_commission_chief_makes_case_for
Sorry you didnt realise it was the case but the EU project is seriously an attempt at an EUSSR/United States of Europe. Army, federalised and all the trimmings. Bureaucratic and interfering. Determined to try and push its way in with the 'big boys'.
"As for "leave means leave", you said there were no discussions on any conditions attached to a leave vote. Those links I posted show that there is."
Those links you post cant be conditions attached. Amusingly the advisory argument with parliament having a final say neuters any promises, even as PM (the Cameron referendum argument). The leave campaign couldnt guarantee anything because they wernt even in government! The government position was remain and outright refusal to discuss or plan for brexit. Sorry but the leave campaign is as factually constrained as the remain campaign if not less.
"Sigh, there are many fact checking sites out there, and even then, it's easy to research further, and not trust them blindly, and I know you're not a moron, so why are you continuing to push daily mail/express fibbing-points that you know are untrue?"
Since I dont read daily mail or express the points I make are based on the research I conduct plus nobody yet managing to factually refute them. Just like the EU army issue, we can believe we are right until proven wrong. Then we can either continue to repeat the same knowing its a lie or accept that is not as we thought.
Leave is a unilateral action which can be implemented full stop.
True, but - under the UK system, parliament is in charge. In order to implement anything, you need to get parliament to agree on it. If they can't do that, then it doesn't get implemented.
By saying "Just get on with it", you're effectively asking parliament to forget about its own rules - heck, even its own existence - in favour of the outcome you want. You are too impatient to wait for parliament to do its job. Really, you're very close to saying that parliament is not fit for purpose.
But if that's the case, then you're on even shakier ground, because it was parliament that called the referendum in the first place. And if they have no legitimacy to make these decisions, then the referendum itself was illegitimate. You can't have it both ways.
"Democracy" is not magic, it doesn't always make decisions clearly, it doesn't always make them right, and it doesn't force anyone to commit to a bad choice. That's your decision, or rather it's the decision of each individual MP and of parliament collectively. Anyone who hides behind the referendum result, claiming that their hands are tied by it, is debating in the worst kind of bad faith.
@veti
Parliament doesnt appear to be doing its job, thats the issue. I dont take any issue with your comment its pretty good. I do hate that we have to rely on the EU to kick us out because our gov is intentionally refusing.
What I also find disappointing is this GE is being hobbled by brexit. With various parties (Farage included) making deals to reduce choice so as to decide brexit as if that is the only thing. Instead of competing policies on the future of the UK its all about one issue.
>Parliament doesnt appear to be doing its job
Actually parliament is doing its job, just that the Conservative Government (May & Johnson) aren't doing a very good job of taking Parliament with them - both just wanted Parliament to rubber stamp whatever they wanted, without giving Parliament a chance to actually see the meat...
>What I also find disappointing is this GE is being hobbled by brexit...
It was always going to be, just like the 2016 election, both are fundamentally pointless exercises.
As for the future of the UK, it is notable that no one (other than the Libdems) are talking about the EU relationship dimension of that future...
@Roland6
"Actually parliament is doing its job, just that the Conservative Government (May & Johnson) aren't doing a very good job of taking Parliament with them - both just wanted Parliament to rubber stamp whatever they wanted, without giving Parliament a chance to actually see the meat..."
Yup. I dont disagree. So if our gov after the allotted time cant get their act together the legal default it is. Amusingly parliament demonstrated its idiocy by voting out the option of fully leaving even though that is the default they have no say over. I am fine with them rejecting a deal and such but that demonstrated the complete detachment from the situation. I hate that our best hope is the EU kicking us out.
"It was always going to be, just like the 2016 election, both are fundamentally pointless exercises.
As for the future of the UK, it is notable that no one (other than the Libdems) are talking about the EU relationship dimension of that future..."
Yup. I know manifestos are not binding but having parties competing to produce their vision of the future is the point of an election. I disagreed with the 2016 election too. The referendum was about brexit, elections should be about running the country.
@Doctor Syntax
"Given that Brexit makes a huge difference to the economic environment in which the country operates it's impossible to see how it can be ignored in any election."
Very true. We should have been out already as voted for and agreed to by the gov. Instead we still need to leave and are having an election where the parties dont need to look beyond the next few months.
@CoideJunky,
My comment is incorrect in your opinion solely on the basis that you don't like it.
Kind of stings doesn't it? The truth I mean. Just denying it won't make it go away.
Back to the Wetherspoons debating society for you. Don't forget the obligatory uniform of grey joggers and Tena pants.
@werdsmith
"My comment is incorrect in your opinion solely on the basis that you don't like it."
Which part of your comment is correct then? I explained how your comment was wrong, your claim is I think its wrong because I dont like it. Do you see the asymmetry there? If your comment is correct then point out how I am getting your comment wrong.
Reread my comment where I provide evidence that your 'interpretation' of the referendum is wrong. Where I clearly explain where you are wrong and how.
Now reread your comment of petty attacks against me but nothing of substance. Nothing to do with the topic only lashing out. It looks like you realise you are wrong so instead of refuting the comment you have to cry about the person posting it.
"One of the beautiful things about democracy, is the ability to change ones mind"
Careful...there's an election coming up and the LibDems slogan of "we will turn the 48% into the 12%" might come back to haunt you. I accept that the percentage maybe a tad optimistic.
Or Labours "lets have an election, a negotiation period and another referendum" in which Corbyn don's a David Cameron mask and starts Groundhog day all over again so that we get another 3+ years of waking up to Brexit arguments.
I don't have anything vaguely amusing regarding Brexit and Boris - its all rather depressing.
You're being very optimistic.
It'll be another hung parliament, so we get another 5 years of no party having enough of a majority to do anything.
This will continue until there isn't anyone left living in the UK at all, they will all have left out of despair. (remainers to the EU where they will sit around agreeing about how cosmopolitan they are, and the leavers to the Costa del Sol where they will complain about immigrants.)
@AC
"No it was not - The referendum was not legally binding, as such Parliament is not obliged to follow it through"
But they voted to make it binding. After the result yes but in the end they backed it matching the promise made by government that it would be.
"Likewise 75% of the Leave "facts" have since been disproved"
And 93.4% of statistics are made up. Some leave claims have been disproved (and I freely admit the leave campaign was lies and bull) just as remain claims have been disproved.
"and the circumstances of our departure are not was promised"
And there was no attempt to. The choice on the paper was clear- remain, leave. If thats confusing for some then thats not my problem.
"As such, what is the problem with having a confirmation-referendum?"
How many? The most important issue of our time (so claimed) lost to leave 3-0. Referendum, general election and MEP election. Adding to the vote for the tory party offering a referendum if elected (people wanted change).
"People can bitch all they like, but the corner stone of democracy is the ability to change ones mind."
Actually no. Respecting the result is the cornerstone of democracy or there isnt one. If a vote is called and the losers refuse to yield to the result then we dont have democracy. You can have another vote afterwards but if you dont implement the results because you dont like them (aka lost) then thats not democracy.
"One of the beautiful things about democracy, is the ability to change ones mind"
3-0 to leave from the referendum to the MEP election.
"Referendum, general election and MEP election. "
I voted remain originally. In the GE I voted for a purported leaver. Apart from that, he was standing based on the sort of things I thought best represented me. I'm sure many people voted in both the GE and the EU MEP elections based on overall representation for the next 5 or so years rather than on one single policy.
Anyone claiming the GE was a another referendum is just building strawmen otherwise the tories would have won easily and not lost their majority. Or maybe all the leavers really did vote for leave candidates and that's why no one party won a majority. Because it's a cross party matter
@John Brown (no body)
"I voted remain originally. In the GE I voted for a purported leaver. Apart from that, he was standing based on the sort of things I thought best represented me."
Good. I can respect that. So leave won the referendum job done. However some remainers paint brexit as the most important thing (look at this GE with the politicians now doing it) it counts. It doesnt need to count, the result is in and we should be leaving. Question asked and answered.
"the EU MEP elections based on overall representation for the next 5 or so years rather than on one single policy."
Possibly but since the most voted parties were the brexit party to get us out and the libs to positioned themselves as the remain party it seems people voted for less than 5 years.
"Anyone claiming the GE was a another referendum is just building strawmen"
Thats fine, about as valid as the idiots claiming we need another referendum because they cant count or dont understand that the result.
"Because it's a cross party matter"
That is very true. Which makes it difficult when we have the result and the damn stubborn anti-democratic members of the parties stop the result from being implemented.
@K
"I've got this blank contract here, once written it might say I owe you £1m pounds - would you mind signing it please?"
You might want to explain this a little more. I think I know where you are going but before torching the argument (assuming it is what I think it is) I want to be sure of your meaning
@Doctor Syntax
"Respecting reality is the cornerstone of good government."
We left that behind with homoeopathy on the NHS, a marxist and communist running the primary opposition party, Brown/Blair spending spree and the idea that we have to remain in the EU because we cant get out.
yet that is very nearly what transpired.
But it didn't. The possibility of no deal was used to bring the EU back to the negotiating table. And guess what, it worked. Despite saying that they would not renegotiate, they did, and Boris got his deal. Parliament then, for party-political reasons, refused to support it. The LibDems out of principle, and fair play to them, but the Corbynites refused just because they wanted to obstruct the government and make it look bad. Instead they just made themselves look bad. Now they've got an election, and the lowest approval ratings in decades for an opposition leader. We shall what those millions want in a little over 3 weeks.
The possibility of No Deal did not "bring the EU to the table".
Asking them to tweak the deal got them to the table. May didn't ask because she had her deal, but she couldn't get it approved in Parliament. Johnson took that as a sign it needed to be changed.
The fact that it couldn't get through Parliament is what got the deal changed, not the ravings of the ERG.
Oh, and the "new" deal is just the old deal, but worse.
When someone says "we will not renegotiate", they mean they won't make a deal "worse" for them than the one already made.
If someone comes along and gets a worse deal than that already agreed, you can't call it a renegotiation!
Seller: Ok, ok, £500 less. You can have it for £3,499. NO RENEGOTIATIONS.
Buyer: Errrm, I want to renegotiate that I'll give you £3,800 for it.
Seller: Errrm, ok!
This "majority vote" - would that the the 2016 Referendum that saw the largest electoral crimes this century? The one where Vote Leave purposefully funnelled $675,000 to other campaigns in order to bypass spending limits?
That's almost a 10% overspend, which is pretty unheard of in our democracy. And it was done in the final three days, used to fund millions of Facebook ads - so it's not like we can say "Well, it had no effect".
The referendum result shouldn't be respected. Not unless you approve of electoral crime.
And it would be very odd to be going around wanting a democracy for which electoral crime is a cornerstone.
If it weren't advisory, the referendum would have been re-run - just as a council or constituency election would be if such crimes had been found. But it was advisory. So we have a simple choice - approve of electoral crime and "respect the result", or not approve of electoral crime and reject the result.
"By the same logic we shouldn't bother having a general election, because the people have already had their say, and it's not like anyone ever changes their mind right?"
According to remain. Think about it. We vote in a general election and the winning party gets in to implement its policies. Then after time to implement policies we have another election. So far we joined the predecessor of the EU which morphed into the EU. We voted to leave and yet before policy is implemented, before the result is acted upon the losing side are crying 'no I want another vote so people can change their mind'.
We would never have a new government if we did that because the situation you said would be.
@Wellyboot
If this doesnt wake them up nothing will (the Irish gov). By now businesses are surely waking up to the fact that the EU is not on their side, but that wet dream of Ireland being under Irish rule has been kicked hard. One thing I had hoped for brexit was that the EU and UK could come to an agreement of treating Ireland as a middle ground (it already is anyway). If they could continue trade and have the 2 different regimes they would be a thriving country both in and out of the EU, part of the EU project and part of the global community.
"If they could continue trade and have the 2 different regimes they would be a thriving country both in and out of the EU, part of the EU project and part of the global community."
Real Brexit thinking - have cake and eat it.
You can only have one regime. They're sticking with the in EU regime and prospering.
Read the article. Business is moving from the UK to Ireland because Ireland stays in the EU and the UK is leaving.
@Doctor Syntax
"Real Brexit thinking - have cake and eat it."
For Ireland (the whole Island) and since they currently have 2 regimes as I already pointed out it wouldnt be hard.
"You can only have one regime. They're sticking with the in EU regime and prospering."
Who is? You mean the buggered by the EU proper Ireland who required bailing out because of the Euro booming their economy then shafting it? Oh the prosperity. And the Apple case with the tax issue shows loss of sovereignty under the EU. Losing so much but you go ahead and call it a win. Say the same for Greece while your at it.
"Business is moving from the UK to Ireland because Ireland stays in the EU and the UK is leaving."
Did it say moving? The article is pretty clear- Gurvan said sales over the next two quarters, and of course the transition period, would show if the growth was solely Brexit-related. But ok lets say they are brass plating or meeting the minimum EU requirements.... you think such isolationism is a good thing? How does that work out?
For Ireland (the whole Island) and since they currently have 2 regimes as I already pointed out it wouldnt be hard.
Two different countries. Two different legal systems.
"You can only have one regime. They're sticking with the in EU regime and prospering."
Who is? You mean the buggered by the EU proper Ireland who required bailing out because of the Euro booming their economy then shafting it? Oh the prosperity. And the Apple case with the tax issue shows loss of sovereignty under the EU. Losing so much but you go ahead and call it a win. Say the same for Greece while your at it.
Ireland, Greece, Portugal and Italy all made the same mistake - borrowing on the bond market to fund short-term political game. It came back to bite them. If they had their own currency, they could have devalued, just like Britain did in the 1960s but because they didn't, their political malfeasance got brought into the light that much more clearly.
"Business is moving from the UK to Ireland because Ireland stays in the EU and the UK is leaving."
Did it say moving? The article is pretty clear- Gurvan said sales over the next two quarters, and of course the transition period, would show if the growth was solely Brexit-related. But ok lets say they are brass plating or meeting the minimum EU requirements.... you think such isolationism is a good thing? How does that work out?
What is Brexit if it isn't a form of isolationism, creating artificial trade barriers between the UK and its biggest trading partner? Given that UK businesses already meet EU requirements, what with the UK being in the EU, moving to Ireland (that accursed freedom of movement!) means they get to stay in the EU.
Business will move where the money is. It would appear that Brexit, in their opinion, means the money isn't in Britain right now.
@Zippy´s Sausage Factory
"Two different countries. Two different legal systems."
I know. Even now. That is why the 'huge problem' isnt really as big as its made out to be. Not the reason I voted leave but I did hope that a deal could be arranged between the two sides to keep the two sides easily trading legally and efficiently. The entirety of Ireland would benefit then.
"Ireland, Greece, Portugal and Italy all made the same mistake - borrowing on the bond market to fund short-term political game."
True. But look at our labour gov, we could easily have been in such a position if we had access to abundant cheap money to bribe votes. Look at our two main parties now trying to bribe votes with more spending. The difference being that our currency moves in relation to our countries capability while the Euro doesnt work as it is. Too many business cycles at different stages. Spend thrifts and tight-wads all tied together financially. This is where I think they either need to federalise or retreat to a trading block, and I have no issues with remaining in just a trading block.
"What is Brexit if it isn't a form of isolationism, creating artificial trade barriers between the UK and its biggest trading partner?"
But is it? That depends on the actions taken. For example the EU is a huge isolationist block of high tariffs and refusal to accept outside products. Then the requirement to even just survive is achieved by trade deals which must satisfy the protectionism of 28 countries! Obviously it is possible for the UK to enact terrible policies of the same type, but that is highly moronic. It also goes against being a trading nation. So for brexit to be isolationism the UK must at least do things as badly as the EU or worse.
"Given that UK businesses already meet EU requirements, what with the UK being in the EU, moving to Ireland (that accursed freedom of movement!) means they get to stay in the EU."
Yes. They get to be stuck in a balled up economy which is failing badly (EU proper that is). Or they brass plate (which pissed off Junker who thought they would move) to meet EU isolationist requirements and keep outside as well. What is worth more? The growing world economy or the shrinking EU one?
I like your comment, you have identified and honestly stated some of the issues at play here, but I do disagree with the opinion at the end of brexit being isolationist. Remaining is isolationist, by leaving it becomes our choice.
There's many things in your comment that I think are wrong, but I'll focus on just one:
"For example the EU is a huge isolationist block of high tariffs and refusal to accept outside products."
To help me understand, can you give me three examples of goods with high tariffs? Also, please prove that the tariffs are high by showing the comparative tariffs of the following countries for those same goods: USA, Japan, Russia, South Africa, India, China, Australia.
(Please quote your sources.)
I'm genuinely curious. I hear this said a lot, but I never see any proof. Yes, the EU is protectionist. So are almost all countries and trading blocks in the world.
So I'm unsure what the point of leaving such protections behind is. These figures would help me greatly. Thanks!
Tariff schedules are big and complex things. But as examples
Unicycles - US 0%, EU 15%, Aus 0%
Apples - US 0, EU 125Euro/100kg, Aus 0
Coffee, roasted, not-decaf - US 0%, EU 7.5%, Aus 0%
Australian Border Force Current Tariff
'Yes, the EU is protectionist. So are almost all countries and trading blocks in the world.
So I'm unsure what the point of leaving such protections behind is.'
The only thing that unites us all is that we are consumers. Therefore every decision should prioritise consumers over producers. So less tariffs are always better than more, and no tariffs are best of all.
The only thing that unites us all is that we are consumers. Therefore every decision should prioritise consumers over producers. So less tariffs are always better than more, and no tariffs are best of all.
Say that to consumers out of a job.
Thank you for your reply. And Japan?
Because I genuinely hadn't looked up anything before then. I couldn't, because I didn't know which goods would be picked.
Let's ignore unicycles, because you must be joking there. Hardly a huge benefit for our society.
Apples and coffee - I googled "Japan tariff <product>", and it looks like Japan has tariffs for both. (The first hit for apples was a news article on a trade deal with the US, lowering tariffs. The one on coffee showed a table with a 20% import tariff on the type of coffee you'd picked.)
I did the same for Russia, and found that it's banned the import of apples due to counter-sanctions. So I apologise for including them on the list - I'd forgotten they were under sanctions.
But the fact that I asked for MULTIPLE countries and you're only quoting the ones that you found a 0% tariff - and ignoring issues of sanctions - suggests that you're not arguing in good faith. You're cherry picking your data to try to support your predetermined conclusion.
We are not, as you say, all consumers. We are also all participants in our own economy. Would British orchard owners be able to survive a 0% import tariff on apples? I certainly have no wish to sell them out. I don't know any orchard owners, but that won't stop me from asking if a 0% tariff is bad for them. That's called being a decent citizen.
You have not convinced me. You cherry picked data, and therefore have lost all credibility on this issue.
You cherry picked data, and therefore have lost all credibility on this issue.
You're the person who said "can you give me three examples of goods with high tariffs?", if that isn't a request for cherry-picking, what is?!
'Let's ignore unicycles'
I thought that too. Then I remembered that tariffs don't just appear. We're paying bureaucrats salaries so that they can decide how much more expensive becoming a clown should be.
You're happy with a tariff on Apples to protect Orchard owners and workers? Fine, but what about cider makers? What about bakers? What about green grocers? What about super market workers? You've made all of those industries more expensive and therefore harmed their workers. Why is that fair?
If orchards don't pay well enough then perhaps there should be fewer orchards? Or they should be more efficient. Or they should concentrate on premium products.
The US and Aus were two countries I picked as being culturally similar to the UK and English speaking so I had a chance of finding and understanding their tariffs. And frankly it was enough hassle traipsing through those three that I couldn't be bothered to look for any others.
"If orchards don't pay well enough then perhaps there should be fewer orchards? Or they should be more efficient. Or they should concentrate on premium products."
At some point you have to start thinking about just what we produce in the EU or the UK or wherever you're thinking about. You could very easily end up creating an employment desert. Pretty well everything we make or grow can be done by someone else somewhere in the world cheaper, especially if a little dumping allows them to destroy the UK capacity to produce it.
@Doctor Syntax
"At some point you have to start thinking about just what we produce in the EU or the UK or wherever you're thinking about."
Plenty. We have full employment, growth, bounced out of the recent great recession and handled it considerably better than the Euro area. With a 2 year negotiating period and extensions we have had years of uncertainty yet still are chugging along without the doom and destruction some remainers hope for.
"Pretty well everything we make or grow can be done by someone else somewhere in the world cheaper, especially if a little dumping allows them to destroy the UK capacity to produce it."
Ok, so why isnt it? The bollox answer of the EU doesnt fly since they have plenty places of similar criteria that you mention. Also if things can be much cheaper (not mentioning quality, capacity or productivity) then why dont we want that? Do you want to pay premium prices for something we can get cheaper? It would be a pay rise to have lower expenses and as demonstrated with China dumping steel and the US tariffs, the tariffs were far more damaging to the economy.
In growing, no. Which is why importing unprocessed coffee is tariff free.
In processing, packaging and retailing, yes. Which is why importing processed coffee is not free.
(in fairness, there have been moves to reduce/remove the tariff for processed coffee from poorer countries, helping their growth)
@Philip Storry
I dont think I could do much better than maffski for examples. While coffee is an obvious one I was going to mention oranges and umbrellas having a telescopic shaft.
What I find interesting is the selection of countries you have chosen and how you want to compare such different countries with such different resources when their import requirements are so different. The staple diets being wildly different as is their other economic interests.
"Yes, the EU is protectionist. So are almost all countries and trading blocks in the world."
The EU is protectionist for 28 members. What that means is protectionism in favour of one member is potentially detrimental to the others. Why do we want to pay more for oranges for example because Spain lobbied to make them more expensive to import?
"So I'm unsure what the point of leaving such protections behind is."
Protections is a bad way to look at it as its a benefit for the few to the detriment of the many. You could go get your groceries from aldi, but instead you get forced to go to waitrose or harrods. Of course you could argue on quality grounds (the nose in the air response) but people are poorer because their expenses are higher. This is an interesting example because food prices are claimed to be more expensive after brexit but always with the qualifier *from the EU. Factually the costs are expected to fall.
I know. Even now. That is why the 'huge problem' isnt really as big as its made out to be. Not the reason I voted leave but I did hope that a deal could be arranged between the two sides to keep the two sides easily trading legally and efficiently. The entirety of Ireland would benefit then.
It requires that both Ireland and NI are in the EU, or if not then at the very least in the single market and customs union.
For the same reason both the UK and the Ireland entered the EFTA at the same time in 1960 and they both moved to the EU at the same time in 1973.
It is not a) easy thing to handwave away and b) over 90% of the population of Ireland want to play a full part in the EU. As much as some Leavers think it would be easy if Ireland just did what it was told, it's not going to, it's its own country and there's no particular need for it to make compromises to placate another country's folly. That would be an attack on its sovereignty and all that.
@Dan 55
"It requires that both Ireland and NI are in the EU, or if not then at the very least in the single market and customs union."
Why? That is the same as saying it requires both Ireland and Ni to be in the UK. Simply it comes down to NI is in the UK and Ireland is in the EU. If the UK leaves the EU (which is our sovereign right) then either Ireland in its entirety stops crying about the GFA or a trade deal for Ireland is negotiated. And it can be done. Right now they have different regimes resulting in smuggling etc but its considered ok. When we leave the same will continue but is suddenly bad?
"As much as some Leavers think it would be easy if Ireland just did what it was told, it's not going to, it's its own country and there's no particular need for it to make compromises to placate another country's folly. That would be an attack on its sovereignty and all that."
Are you claiming NI is not in the UK? The UK voted leave. However that entire argument very validly supports the UK leaving the EU.
> By the way, you STILL haven't told us why you think brexit is a good idea.
Because people voted for! Putin approved, so nothing shady there, bloody remaoners.
"The Tory party donors ... include Alexander Temerko, who has worked for the Kremlin defence ministry and gifted more than £1.2m to the Tories over seven years."
https://metro.co.uk/2019/11/10/russian-tory-donors-named-in-secret-report-which-was-blocked-by-government-11074537/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_Brexit_referendum
With the cloud it could just be a matter of migrating data to a region that will remain within the EU. But then UK and EU27 data would have to be split between databases in two different regions.
It's then possible to imagine a crazy situation in which amalgamating query results from the two databases might be illegal, depending on where it was being done.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
