No one is disputing that wiz. I never have. But what I am advocating, and it is a complete and utter indisputable fact, is that if we leave without a deal and have to trade on WTO terms, we will take a hit. It is not up for debate, it is just plain and simply obvious that if our products become more expensive because of tariffs (and we're talking MUCH more expensive in some areas), we will do less business. Add into the mix that standards will decline because we have less regulation (see USA example above), it's not going to be good at all. Plus the fact that countries will know we are desperate for a trade deal and will be able to take us for a ride.
Again opinions. Tariffs within the EU can keep prices high and uncompetitive. The EU keeps the price of clothing, food and footwear MUCH more expensive. The UK has had its own regulation and industry such as cosmetics had standards higher than the EU.
EU tariffs on clothing are pretty much the same as WTO tariffs. EU tariffs on food are on average far lower than WTO tariffs. The EU has trade deals and can therefore pick and choose tariffs on a deal-by-deal basis. We would have to give the same blanket tariffs to every country we trade with on the planet. That means keeping them very low, too low in fact, in order to maintain trade. If we then have stupidly low tariffs, what incentive does that give the likes of the US, etc to get a free trade deal with us? Absolutely none. This is the irony. In 'taking back control', it actually means that we have to bend backwards to accommodate the countries who want to trade with us, and almost certainly adopt their rules and regulations regarding quality of product. Do you ever envisage a free trade deal with the US where they actually adopt OUR standards? Of course not. I really can't fathom how 90% of experts are dismissed as 'Project Fear' and yet apparently Brexit-voting right-wing Steve from Hartcliffe apparently knows better.
Rob, I tend to agree with most of your ;posts, apart from the Brexit pieces. The above is simply not true, it is/was NATO that has been the foundation of peace, not the EU. The EU were truly pathetic in dealing with the issues in the former Yugoslavia and also in Ukraine.
But conveniently ignoring the other points Cliftonville? If the EU is over regulated and we have lost too much of our democracy, why have we only dissented to 72 of 36,000 pieces of EU legislation? Perhaps you can tell me the pieces you don't like? Fair enough. I won't pretend to be clued up on that, I honestly don't have much of an idea of the history of that so happy to concede that point . Losing the graph to save space but again, a fair argument against the EU that. Totally fair. But it has been signed off every year since 2007. I'm not going to pretend the EU is free from corruption. It probably isn't. But then again I highly doubt our own Government is either. And the US Government certainly is not, and Brexit would almost certainly mean getting into bed with them. Let's not pretend the EU are any more crooked than ourselves because it's not true.
No its is yourself who is conveniently ignoring points. You asked me very similar in a previous thread and I used EU law and renationalisation as an example. The UK as a member of the EU cannot renationalise utilities without violating EU competition rules. The populace of the UK could vote for a party that as part of its manifesto pledges to renationalise former state owned assets and the EU would deny the UK that democratic choice.
Not according to this. https://theconversation.com/fact-ch...it-impossible-to-renationalise-railways-61180 "The new EU regulations promote competition for the market between rail operators irrespective of ownership structure, but not privatisation. As far as renationalisation is concerned the reality is that, unless the rules are interpreted in an extreme way, they do not make it any easier or more difficult than the structure in place at the moment. The only thing that the new system will almost certainly rule out is state monopolies that do not have to compete with rivals to win franchises, renationalised or otherwise." Using railways as an example. Unless you were specifically referring to utilities (i.e. energy, etc), are they subject to different competition laws? There are plenty of nationalised services already within the EU. Why would it be impossible to do so over here?
Yes according to that. Great example. The last line there is a contradiction. Nationalisation is state monopoly - Its in the nations interest and its populace to not have to win or compete for franchises to run its own services. To do so would be to violate EU rules .. That highlights how problematic renationalisation under the EU would be.
If any nationalised business is state monopoly, then how do existing nationalised businesses operate in the EU already? How do existing nationalised businesses operate in our own country already?
????? You have lost me. You are referring to nationalised businesses. My post was about renationalisation. A different topic. So on this new topic to answer your point the EU allows existing state ownership to occur although this ownership and its services are subject to competition rules. In the case of Royal Mail and downstream access its lead to the tax payer subsidising private business, the Royal Mail service declining and workers rights diminishing.
We have renationalised in recent years, albeit temporarily. What part of EU competition law is stopping that happening again? Why is it that renationalisation apparently cannot occur (despite examples of it occurring) while existing nationalisation also occurs?
You are the troll or simply not understanding a difference. What are you referring to in regards renationalised business? If we view rail as a business where the UK runs part of the rail networks it is not nationalised. UK rail runs on a franchise system where business bids for the franchise and on occasions the state has had to step in where the rail franchise operator fails to be able to/does no want to fulfil its service obligations. The state cannot bid to run train services and has returned the running of services to the private sector when they are in profit as is the bequest of the railway act, and EU rules that allow competition to compete for access to run these services. An irony is that the Germans remain in real control of their rail network, but run parts of the UK's, cream of the profit to invest in their state owned network and passengers here help to pay for it.
What might happen next then? The EU could reject May’s latest request to renegotiate the deal. Hot off today’s press.
Fact is, EU will never give us a decent deal as many of the other EU countries will follow suit....No deal will give us so much more to bargain with, it should never be taken off the table....my opinion for what it's worth!!!
