On 25/04/2017 10:35, Rod Speed wrote:


"RJH" wrote in message
news
On 24/04/2017 12:46, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
There are no tariffs on stuff we import from the EU.

Of course not. We are still in the EU. It's what the UK government
does
after leaving that is the point.

If the EU slaps a tariff on say Jaguar after we've left, do you
really
think the UK won't on BMW? (Just an example for those who can't think
for themselves)

They might well. But in whose interest would that be?

You tell me. You are one of those who wanted to leave our free trade
area.
And not having a trade agreement inevitably results in tariffs or duty
etc.

No it doesn't.

You know you're being disingenuous/trolling there.

No he isnt.

Hypothetically, you're right

And in the real world he is too.

- an aggressive militarised superpower might not.

And plenty of others dont either.


Interested. Could you give me a couple of relevant examples of free trade?

--
Cheers, Rob

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 25 April 2017 12:54:21 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Sadly, it seems to be a standard Brexiteer response to any points
brought up about us leaving the EU. Basically non of the usual tariffs
and duties etc will apply.

More lies. There are no "usual tariffs and duties". Only the ones we
*choose* to apply.

Go on, then. Give us some real world examples.

What happened with marmite that shot up in price as brexit was announced.

You actually think that was due to a tariff or duty? Would that be because
we'd already left the EU?

--
*I don't have a license to kill, but I do have a learner's permit.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Tuesday, 25 April 2017 16:45:01 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 25 April 2017 12:54:21 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Sadly, it seems to be a standard Brexiteer response to any points
brought up about us leaving the EU. Basically non of the usual tariffs
and duties etc will apply.

More lies. There are no "usual tariffs and duties". Only the ones we
*choose* to apply.

Go on, then. Give us some real world examples.

What happened with marmite that shot up in price as brexit was announced.

You actually think that was due to a tariff or duty? Would that be because
we'd already left the EU?

Why did they increase the cost of marmite at that time ?
What was the reason they stated ?

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 25 April 2017 16:45:01 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 25 April 2017 12:54:21 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , Tim
Streater wrote:
Sadly, it seems to be a standard Brexiteer response to any
points brought up about us leaving the EU. Basically non of the
usual tariffs and duties etc will apply.

More lies. There are no "usual tariffs and duties". Only the ones
we *choose* to apply.

Go on, then. Give us some real world examples.

What happened with marmite that shot up in price as brexit was
announced.

You actually think that was due to a tariff or duty? Would that be
because we'd already left the EU?

Why did they increase the cost of marmite at that time ?

because the pound had fallen inv alue following the Brexit result. The
imported content of many of their products cost more.

What was the reason they stated ?

see above

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

"Capitol" wrote in message
o.uk...
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
RJH wrote:
On 24/04/2017 12:46, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
There are no tariffs on stuff we import from the EU.

Of course not. We are still in the EU. It's what the UK government
does
after leaving that is the point.

If the EU slaps a tariff on say Jaguar after we've left, do you
really
think the UK won't on BMW? (Just an example for those who can't
think
for themselves)

They might well. But in whose interest would that be?

You tell me. You are one of those who wanted to leave our free trade
area.
And not having a trade agreement inevitably results in tariffs or duty
etc.

No it doesn't.


You know you're being disingenuous/trolling there. Hypothetically,
you're right - an aggressive militarised superpower might not. But in
reality it will result in a cost, paid either as a duty, tariff, barter
or subscription.

Sadly, it seems to be a standard Brexiteer response to any points brought
up about us leaving the EU. Basically non of the usual tariffs and duties
etc will apply. Such is their brave new world.

Very few of the consumer goods I buy, do not have tariffs.

None of mine do. No reason why Britain can't end
up with that situation too when outside the EU.

What is going to change?

No tariffs on any consumer goods except
cars and only on imported cars.

I would not be at all surprised if German designed cars were sourced from
China if the EU wants to play hardball.

Trivially easy to apply the tariff to them anyway if they try that.

That will please the German workers no end! The UK is known as treasure
island by the car makers because of it's uncompetitive market.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

Resourcing will become common and exports will be more software than
hardware in many cases. It's called change and will be a good thing IMO.

And you lot will almost certainly end up with no tariffs on
any consumer goods except imported cars, you watch.

Essentially because very few consumer goods apart from cars are
produced in Britain anymore so no point in tariff protection.

whisky-dave wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Tim Streater wrote

Sadly, it seems to be a standard Brexiteer response
to any points brought up about us leaving the EU.
Basically non of the usual tariffs and duties etc will apply.

More lies. There are no "usual tariffs and duties".
Only the ones we *choose* to apply.

He's right. And most dont bother anymore except with cars.

Main exception is the EU. No reason why Britain has to do that.

Go on, then. Give us some real world examples.

What happened with marmite that shot up in price as brexit was announced.

Nothing to do with tariffs because they didnt change.

Just another example of opportunistic gouging.

Two developed countries with no trade agreement at all produce a
similar thing. Lets say wheat. And it can be freely traded either way.

I'm not really interested in your theoretical 'we don't
have to apply a tariff' arguments, since protecting
home grown industry etc by tariffs is as old as the hills

Yes it was what the EU was doing so France didn't loose out
agriculturally.

More to prop up their very high cost tiny ag operations.

The CAP has always been a hybrid agricultural/welfare system
with the welfare system being funded by what the consumer
pays for what they produce, instead of funded by taxation.

Interesting approach, but no reason why
Britain has to go that route when out of the EU.

Makes a lot more sense for Britain to import food
and wine from the lowest cost most efficient producers
in the world, like it used to before joining the EEC.

Its obvious why it might choose not to do that
with some grog like scotch, gin even beer etc,
but it makes no sense with wine and most food.

I'm interested in how Brexit will apply in practice.

It will be intresting but we've always assumjed whastever deal
German negoitaotors have done has always been best for the EU.

I'm not sure whther the EU has to contribut
to the UN nuclear program or not.

Corse it does.

On 23/04/2017 07:34, harry wrote:
On Saturday, 22 April 2017 14:58:14 UTC+1, TimW wrote:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C9-A5RRXcAA0ea9.jpg

Are you implying that foreign cars weren't as bad?


Fiats are still as bad.

--
Adam

RJH wrote
Rod Speed wrote
RJH wrote
Tim Streater wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Tim Streater wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Tim Streater wrote

There are no tariffs on stuff we import from the EU.

Of course not. We are still in the EU. It's what the UK government
does after leaving that is the point.

If the EU slaps a tariff on say Jaguar after we've left, do you
really think the UK won't on BMW? (Just an example for those who
can't think for themselves)

They might well. But in whose interest would that be?

You tell me. You are one of those who wanted to leave our free trade
area.

And not having a trade agreement inevitably results in tariffs or duty
etc.

No it doesn't.

You know you're being disingenuous/trolling there.

No he isnt.

Hypothetically, you're right

And in the real world he is too.

- an aggressive militarised superpower might not.

And plenty of others dont either.

Interested. Could you give me a couple of relevant examples of free trade?

What happens within the EU is one obvious example.

And there is free trade between Australia and New Zealand too.

In fact hardly anyone has much in the way of tariffs and dutys
on consumer goods now except the EU with imports. Most still
do have with cars, but thats to protect the local car industry.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 25 April 2017 16:45:01 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 25 April 2017 12:54:21 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Sadly, it seems to be a standard Brexiteer response to any points
brought up about us leaving the EU. Basically non of the usual
tariffs
and duties etc will apply.

More lies. There are no "usual tariffs and duties". Only the ones
we
*choose* to apply.

Go on, then. Give us some real world examples.

What happened with marmite that shot up in price as brexit was
announced.

You actually think that was due to a tariff or duty? Would that be
because
we'd already left the EU?

Why did they increase the cost of marmite at that time ?

What was the reason they stated ?

What they state is completely irrelevant.

On 25/04/2017 05:29, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 25/04/17 05:13, Bill Wright wrote:
On 22/04/2017 14:58, TimW wrote:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C9-A5RRXcAA0ea9.jpg

What ****ing rubbish that is.

Bill

Of course, but it is an insight into the Remoaner mind, such as it is.

They fully believe that ARM chips that power every mobile phone in the
world almost without exception, were designed in Germany.

don't they bilong to Yapan now?

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
Perish the notion
that I don't want this country to go bankrupt
I think that means you do.
--
bert

On 24/04/2017 07:23, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artículo , Max
Demian escribió:

I didn't think they had electric kettles of any sort in the US due to
their shortage of volts.

They do, but take forever and a day to boil on 110v outlets.

When I lived there, I took a UK kettle out with me and fitted a 220v
plug so I could use the socket provided for the range (cooker).

If you want to see what a mess American high-voltage, high current plug
and socket configurations are, have a giggle at this.

http://www.nooutage.com/nema_configurations.htm


So the US can get a man to land on the Moon but cannot not do basic safe
electrics.

FFS:-)



--
Adam

On 25/04/2017 12:53, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Go on, then. Give us some real world examples.

Two developed countries with no trade agreement at all produce a similar
thing. Lets say wheat. And it can be freely traded either way.

Since without an agreement there are WTO limited tariffs you have
carefully excluded all possibilities. It's like asking for dry water.

The Remoaner view is that there can be no agreement, and so trade will
be impossible; the Brexiteer that there will be no tariffs. I suggest
the final result will be somewhere in between.

Andy

On 25/04/2017 05:29, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 25/04/17 05:13, Bill Wright wrote:
On 22/04/2017 14:58, TimW wrote:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C9-A5RRXcAA0ea9.jpg

What ****ing rubbish that is.

Bill

Of course, but it is an insight into the Remoaner mind, such as it is.

They fully believe that ARM chips that power every mobile phone in the
world almost without exception, were designed in Germany.


Where do you think they are designed?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39204744

In article ,
Vir Campestris wrote:
On 25/04/2017 12:53, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Go on, then. Give us some real world examples.

Two developed countries with no trade agreement at all produce a similar
thing. Lets say wheat. And it can be freely traded either way.

Since without an agreement there are WTO limited tariffs you have
carefully excluded all possibilities. It's like asking for dry water.

I'm trying to get some sense from the likes of TS

The Remoaner view is that there can be no agreement,

Where on earth did you get that idea from? Of course there can be an
agreement. But not the one sided one the Brexiteers seem to demand.

and so trade will
be impossible; the Brexiteer that there will be no tariffs. I suggest
the final result will be somewhere in between.

Unless those with a death wish get their way.

--
*The more I learn about women, the more I love my car

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Vir
Campestris wrote:

On 25/04/2017 12:53, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Go on, then. Give us some real world examples.

Two developed countries with no trade agreement at all produce a similar
thing. Lets say wheat. And it can be freely traded either way.

Since without an agreement there are WTO limited tariffs you have
carefully excluded all possibilities. It's like asking for dry water.

The Remoaner view is that there can be no agreement, and so trade will
be impossible; the Brexiteer that there will be no tariffs. I suggest
the final result will be somewhere in between.

That there will be no tariffs is not my view. I'm just pointing out
that no tariffs is a possibility.

Most possibilities have an example somewhere. Otherwise become just a
dream. Like perpetual motion.

Still, I'm glad to see that both Den and Our Dave have finally realised
that too.

This seems to be the main problem with you Brexiteers. Full of airy fairy
theories and hopes. And then complain others aren't putting them into
practice.

--
*Can fat people go skinny-dipping?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 25/04/2017 20:07, Rod Speed wrote:
RJH wrote
snip

Interested. Could you give me a couple of relevant examples of free
trade?

What happens within the EU is one obvious example.


It's pretty difficult to comment on such an example. The whole point of
this discussion relates to when the UK leaves the EU. The UK won't be in
the EU (hence ''exit') - I'm not sure how many times that needs to be
repeated.


And there is free trade between Australia and New Zealand too.


You'd need to know some of the background to their relationship - it's
deep-seated, to say the least. Yes, they do have a liberal (not free)
trade relationship, but that's arisen over many years and following huge
trading change (ironically, particularly since diminishing ties with
Britain in the mid-70s). It also has many aspects of reciprocity, so is
bespoke, and unless you can construct rough equivalence I can't see how
that example applies. if the UK manages such an arrangement in the
mid-2060s, you may well have a point. As it stands, not relevant.

In fact hardly anyone has much in the way of tariffs and dutys
on consumer goods now except the EU with imports.

:-) see above.

Most still
do have with cars, but thats to protect the local car industry.

Ostensibly, the local economy/community, and the image of the government
of the day. There's no such thing as a 'local car industry'.

You've suggested elsewhere that no deal with Nissan was ever made -
looking a little silly right now.

Now, a *relevant* example? A nation state that has left a cartel, and
experienced free trade?

I'm not saying it's not possible - just, as things stand, unlikely.

--
Cheers, Rob

On 25/04/2017 12:31, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
RJH wrote:
On 24/04/2017 12:46, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
There are no tariffs on stuff we import from the EU.

Of course not. We are still in the EU. It's what the UK
government does
after leaving that is the point.

If the EU slaps a tariff on say Jaguar after we've left, do you
really
think the UK won't on BMW? (Just an example for those who can't
think
for themselves)

They might well. But in whose interest would that be?

You tell me. You are one of those who wanted to leave our free trade
area. And not having a trade agreement inevitably results in tariffs
or duty etc.

No it doesn't.

Because there's nothing *inevitable* about it.


Highly likely, unless you'd like to share the mysterious set of
variables that makes it unlikely. Breath not held :-)

You know you're being disingenuous/trolling there. Hypothetically,
you're right - an aggressive militarised superpower might not. But in
reality it will result in a cost, paid either as a duty, tariff,
barter or subscription.

What *are* you talking about? No, it's OK, don't bother.


OK.

Sadly, it seems to be a standard Brexiteer response to any points brought
up about us leaving the EU. Basically non of the usual tariffs and duties
etc will apply.

More lies. There are no "usual tariffs and duties". Only the ones we
*choose* to apply.


Choice? Of course there will be choice, but with regard to opportunities
and constraints. Both of which will shift markedly post-exit.


--
Cheers, Rob

On 25/04/2017 22:45, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Vir
Campestris wrote:

On 25/04/2017 12:53, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Go on, then. Give us some real world examples.

Two developed countries with no trade agreement at all produce a similar
thing. Lets say wheat. And it can be freely traded either way.

Since without an agreement there are WTO limited tariffs you have
carefully excluded all possibilities. It's like asking for dry water.

The Remoaner view is that there can be no agreement, and so trade will
be impossible; the Brexiteer that there will be no tariffs. I suggest
the final result will be somewhere in between.

That there will be no tariffs is not my view. I'm just pointing out
that no tariffs is a possibility.


No, you said they're a possibility the UK might choose. You're just
creating vacuous arguments to set out a fundamental position, then
backtracking on the detail. Just say you don't know and stick to your
principles. Others may or may not join the dots for you.

--
Cheers, Rob

RJH wrote
Rod Speed wrote
RJH wrote

Interested. Could you give me a couple of relevant examples of free
trade?

What happens within the EU is one obvious example.

It's pretty difficult to comment on such an example.

Nope, its one example of a group of countrys
that have chosen to have free trade.

The whole point of this discussion relates to when the UK leaves the EU.
The UK won't be in the EU (hence ''exit')

Pity about all of these that arent in the EU either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...ade_agreements

I'm not sure how many times that needs to be repeated.

You're free to repeat it until you are blue in the face, pity about all
these.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...ade_agreements

And there is free trade between Australia and New Zealand too.

You'd need to know some of the background to their relationship

I know that thanks.

- it's deep-seated, to say the least. Yes, they do have a liberal (not
free) trade relationship,

It is in fact a free trade relationship.

but that's arisen over many years and following huge trading change

It has in fact continued THRU huge trading change.

(ironically, particularly since diminishing ties with Britain in the
mid-70s).

Its been around for a hell of a lot longer than that and has nothing to do
with that.

It also has many aspects of reciprocity, so is bespoke,

All free trade agreements are.

and unless you can construct rough equivalence I can't see how that
example applies.

You asked for EXAMPLES of free trade. And got those.

if the UK manages such an arrangement in the mid-2060s, you may well have
a point. As it stands, not relevant.

Corse its an example of free trade. There are plenty of others too.

In fact hardly anyone has much in the way of tariffs and dutys on
consumer goods now except the EU with imports.

:-) see above.

Completely useless.

Most still do have with cars, but thats to protect the local car
industry.

Ostensibly, the local economy/community, and the image of the government
of the day. There's no such thing as a 'local car industry'.

There is in the sense of lots employed doing stuff with car manufacture.

You've suggested elsewhere that no deal with Nissan was ever made -

I never ever said anything of the sort. You're confusing me with someone
else.

looking a little silly right now.

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

Now, a *relevant* example? A nation state that has left a cartel,

The EU isnt a cartel.

and experienced free trade?

There are plenty of examples of countrys or groups of countrys
that have broken up and free trade continues. Like with
Czechoslovakia, Malaysia/Singapore, Iceland/Denmark etc.

I'm not saying it's not possible

Corse its possible, with plenty of examples of it.

- just, as things stand, unlikely.

Even sillier than you usually manage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...ade_agreements

"RJH" wrote in message
news
On 25/04/2017 12:31, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
RJH wrote:
On 24/04/2017 12:46, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
There are no tariffs on stuff we import from the EU.

Of course not. We are still in the EU. It's what the UK
government does
after leaving that is the point.

If the EU slaps a tariff on say Jaguar after we've left, do you
really
think the UK won't on BMW? (Just an example for those who can't
think
for themselves)

They might well. But in whose interest would that be?

You tell me. You are one of those who wanted to leave our free trade
area. And not having a trade agreement inevitably results in tariffs
or duty etc.

No it doesn't.

Because there's nothing *inevitable* about it.

Highly likely,

Not anymore. Tariffs and dutys are going out of fashion now.
Its really the EU that has lots of them anymore. Almost everyone
else is reducing tariffs and having free trade agreements.

unless you'd like to share the mysterious set of variables that makes it
unlikely.

Nothing mysterious about it, just look at what almost everyone
has been doing about tariffs and free trade agreements.

There is no point in tariffs unless you produce that stuff
and want to protect your local industry against imports
and Britain produces sweet **** all in much volume
anymore that can be protected by tariffs now.

And it didnt have those against the entire ****ing
commonwealth before the EEC anyway, for a reason.

And now the WTO rules, in which Britain had a very
large hand in drafting, dont even allow mindless tit
for tat tariff wars between particular countrys or groups
of countrys anymore and the EU is a WTO signatory.

Breath not held :-)

You know you're being disingenuous/trolling there. Hypothetically,
you're right - an aggressive militarised superpower might not. But in
reality it will result in a cost, paid either as a duty, tariff, barter
or subscription.

What *are* you talking about? No, it's OK, don't bother.

OK.

Sadly, it seems to be a standard Brexiteer response to any points
brought up about us leaving the EU. Basically non of the usual tariffs
and duties etc will apply.

More lies. There are no "usual tariffs and duties". Only the ones we
*choose* to apply.

Choice? Of course there will be choice, but with regard to opportunities
and constraints. Both of which will shift markedly post-exit.

But Britain gets to operate under the WTO rules and produces sweet
**** all that can be protected by tariffs and dutys anymore anyway.

"RJH" wrote in message
news
On 25/04/2017 22:45, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Vir
Campestris wrote:

On 25/04/2017 12:53, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Go on, then. Give us some real world examples.

Two developed countries with no trade agreement at all produce a
similar
thing. Lets say wheat. And it can be freely traded either way.

Since without an agreement there are WTO limited tariffs you have
carefully excluded all possibilities. It's like asking for dry water.

The Remoaner view is that there can be no agreement, and so trade will
be impossible; the Brexiteer that there will be no tariffs. I suggest
the final result will be somewhere in between.

That there will be no tariffs is not my view. I'm just pointing out
that no tariffs is a possibility.

No, you said they're a possibility the UK might choose.

Corse it can now that the fashion is for reducing
trade barriers and having free trade agreements.

You're just creating vacuous arguments to set out a fundamental position,

You're lying now.

then backtracking on the detail.

And again.

Just say you don't know

That would be a lie.

and stick to your principles. Others may or may not join the dots for you.

There are no dots to join in this situation.

On 26/04/2017 01:48, Rod Speed wrote:
RJH wrote
Rod Speed wrote
RJH wrote

Interested. Could you give me a couple of relevant examples of free
trade?

What happens within the EU is one obvious example.

It's pretty difficult to comment on such an example.

Nope, its one example of a group of countrys
that have chosen to have free trade.

The whole point of this discussion relates to when the UK leaves the
EU. The UK won't be in the EU (hence ''exit')

Pity about all of these that arent in the EU either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...ade_agreements


If you look in the right hand column, you'll see they're agreements with
the *EU*. This entire discussion is about the situation the UK will face
when it leaves the EU. I agree they are examples of 'Free Trade' - but
with the EU. Not with a country like the UK.

And even so, they're not 'free trade' in the sense we're discussing. Of
the few I know anything about, they involve some sort of duty, tariff,
barter or subscription.

Take Norway - that's one country you give as an example of a free trade
agreement. Norway *pays* for that arrangement - it isn't 'free' in the
sense that's being discussed. A description of the arrangement is he

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway...nion_relations

Are you suggesting that the post-EU UK will not have any such financial
'duty'? There may be some quid pro quoing (turnips for wine or
something) - but that's not 'free'.

But I do think you know all of this, and you're arguing for the sake of
it, or you are supporting some like-minded comrades out of loyalty.

All of that said, you may well have a point, and there might be an
example of free trade in the context we're discussing in that list - if
you give me one example, I'd appreciate it.


--
Cheers, Rob

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Vir Campestris wrote:
On 25/04/2017 12:53, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Go on, then. Give us some real world examples.

Two developed countries with no trade agreement at all produce a similar
thing. Lets say wheat. And it can be freely traded either way.

Since without an agreement there are WTO limited tariffs you have
carefully excluded all possibilities. It's like asking for dry water.

I'm trying to get some sense from the likes of TS

The Remoaner view is that there can be no agreement,

Where on earth did you get that idea from? Of course there can be an
agreement. But not the one sided one the Brexiteers seem to demand.

and so trade will
be impossible; the Brexiteer that there will be no tariffs. I suggest
the final result will be somewhere in between.

Unless those with a death wish get their way.


Oh, the Reoaners like you!

On 25/04/2017 22:45, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Vir
Campestris wrote:

On 25/04/2017 12:53, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Go on, then. Give us some real world examples.

Two developed countries with no trade agreement at all produce a similar
thing. Lets say wheat. And it can be freely traded either way.

Since without an agreement there are WTO limited tariffs you have
carefully excluded all possibilities. It's like asking for dry water.

The Remoaner view is that there can be no agreement, and so trade will
be impossible; the Brexiteer that there will be no tariffs. I suggest
the final result will be somewhere in between.

That there will be no tariffs is not my view. I'm just pointing out
that no tariffs is a possibility.

Still, I'm glad to see that both Den and Our Dave have finally realised
that too.


Rubbish.
There will be at least the same tariffs and duty as there is now as we
will have to accept them to remain in the free trade area along with
what other costs the EU puts on us. Its only bre****eers that think
otherwise.

RJH wrote
Rod Speed wrote
RJH wrote
Rod Speed wrote
RJH wrote

Interested. Could you give me a couple of relevant examples of free
trade?

What happens within the EU is one obvious example.

It's pretty difficult to comment on such an example.

Nope, its one example of a group of countrys
that have chosen to have free trade.

The whole point of this discussion relates to when the UK leaves the
EU. The UK won't be in the EU (hence ''exit')

Pity about all of these that arent in the EU either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...ade_agreements

If you look in the right hand column, you'll see they're agreements with
the *EU*.

Which would be the situation with Britain outside the EU, ****wit.

This entire discussion is about the situation the UK will face when it
leaves the EU.

And you asked about FREE TRADE situations.

I agree they are examples of 'Free Trade' - but with the EU.

Of course they are with the EU.

Not with a country like the UK.

Those all involve another country that isnt the EU, ****wit.

And even so, they're not 'free trade' in the sense we're discussing.

Corse they are.

Of the few I know anything about, they involve some sort of duty, tariff,
barter or subscription.

What you know anything about is completely irrelevant.

Take Norway - that's one country you give as an example of a free trade
agreement. Norway *pays* for that arrangement

Like hell it does in anything other than a voluntary sense.

And sweet **** all in that MASSIVE list involve any payment what so ever.

- it isn't 'free' in the sense that's being discussed.

Corse it is in the sense that the TRADES is free of tariffs and dutys.

A description of the arrangement is he

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway...nion_relations

Which says that there are no tariffs and dutys
on the TRADE between the EU and Norway.

Are you suggesting that the post-EU UK will not have any such financial
'duty'?

That isnt what the word duty mean.

There may be some quid pro quoing (turnips for wine or something) - but
that's not 'free'.

How odd that they are called free trade agreements
anyway, even when there is some of that involved.

But I do think you know all of this, and you're arguing for the sake of
it,

Corse you never ever do anything like that yourself, eh ?

or you are supporting some like-minded comrades out of loyalty.

I dont operate like that.

All of that said, you may well have a point,

Corse I do.

and there might be an example of free trade in the context we're
discussing in that list

All of them are, which is why that wikipedia article has that title.

- if you give me one example, I'd appreciate it.

More of your flagrant dishonesty.

In article ,
RJH wrote:
On 25/04/2017 22:45, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Vir
Campestris wrote:

On 25/04/2017 12:53, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Go on, then. Give us some real world examples.

Two developed countries with no trade agreement at all produce a similar
thing. Lets say wheat. And it can be freely traded either way.

Since without an agreement there are WTO limited tariffs you have
carefully excluded all possibilities. It's like asking for dry water.

The Remoaner view is that there can be no agreement, and so trade will
be impossible; the Brexiteer that there will be no tariffs. I suggest
the final result will be somewhere in between.

That there will be no tariffs is not my view. I'm just pointing out
that no tariffs is a possibility.


No, you said they're a possibility the UK might choose. You're just
creating vacuous arguments to set out a fundamental position, then
backtracking on the detail. Just say you don't know and stick to your
principles. Others may or may not join the dots for you.

The UK (post Brexit) would be totally mad to allow in all imports free of
tariffs. As that would inevitably decimate what remaining production we
have. We are a high cost country, so can't compete on price alone with
those who have lower production costs.
And, of course, the same applies to other countries too. They won't allow
in UK products tariff/duty free if in competition with things they produce
locally. Or simply just to generate income for that state.

So the only way forward if turning our back totally on the EU is to form
new trade agreements with other countries. Something the leave lot said
would be easy to do. And that was simply a lie, as with so much else of
their dogma.

--
*The most wasted day of all is one in which we have not laughed.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 25/04/2017 22:45, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Vir
Campestris wrote:

On 25/04/2017 12:53, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Go on, then. Give us some real world examples.

Two developed countries with no trade agreement at all produce a
similar
thing. Lets say wheat. And it can be freely traded either way.

Since without an agreement there are WTO limited tariffs you have
carefully excluded all possibilities. It's like asking for dry water.

The Remoaner view is that there can be no agreement, and so trade will
be impossible; the Brexiteer that there will be no tariffs. I suggest
the final result will be somewhere in between.

That there will be no tariffs is not my view. I'm just pointing out
that no tariffs is a possibility.

Still, I'm glad to see that both Den and Our Dave have finally realised
that too.

Rubbish.

Your sig is sposed to be last with a line with just -- on it in front of it.

There will be at least the same tariffs and duty as there is now

Taint gunna happen, you watch.

we will have to accept them to remain in the free trade area

May aint that stupid, you watch.

along with what other costs the EU puts on us.

May aint that stupid, you watch.

Its only bre****eers that think otherwise.

You'll see...

On Tuesday, 25 April 2017 17:32:04 UTC+1, charles wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 25 April 2017 16:45:01 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 25 April 2017 12:54:21 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , Tim
Streater wrote:
Sadly, it seems to be a standard Brexiteer response to any
points brought up about us leaving the EU. Basically non of the
usual tariffs and duties etc will apply.

More lies. There are no "usual tariffs and duties". Only the ones
we *choose* to apply.

Go on, then. Give us some real world examples.

What happened with marmite that shot up in price as brexit was
announced.

You actually think that was due to a tariff or duty? Would that be
because we'd already left the EU?

Why did they increase the cost of marmite at that time ?

because the pound had fallen inv alue following the Brexit result. The
imported content of many of their products cost more.


What imported content ?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/fo...hed-there.html

Marmite, which was invented by a German scientist called Justus von Liebig in the late 19th century, has been produced in Burton since 1902. The towns beer heritage is important: the basic ingredient of the spread is yeast sludge, a waste product left over from brewing beer, and there were once 30 breweries in the surrounding area. Now, the raw materials come from across the UK.




What was the reason they stated ?

see above

Everything was from the UK including the water.

https://www.theguardian.com/business...ce-supermarket

However, after both companies share prices fell on Thursday and Unilever was criticised for blaming the attempt to increase prices on the fall in the value of the pound, a deal was reached late in the afternoon.

Some are eaily fooled into beliving anything aren't they.

On Tuesday, 25 April 2017 20:17:17 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 25 April 2017 16:45:01 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 25 April 2017 12:54:21 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Sadly, it seems to be a standard Brexiteer response to any points
brought up about us leaving the EU. Basically non of the usual
tariffs
and duties etc will apply.

More lies. There are no "usual tariffs and duties". Only the ones
we
*choose* to apply.

Go on, then. Give us some real world examples.

What happened with marmite that shot up in price as brexit was
announced.

You actually think that was due to a tariff or duty? Would that be
because
we'd already left the EU?

Why did they increase the cost of marmite at that time ?

What was the reason they stated ?

What they state is completely irrelevant.

It's relivent for a consumer if they have to pay the increased price.
Where or not the consumer is fooled by them is another matter.
Only the really stupid were fooled by unilevers claim that the marmite on the shelves should cost more because it was made before the brexit vote.

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
because the pound had fallen inv alue following the Brexit result. The
imported content of many of their products cost more.


What imported content ?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/fo...hed-there.html

Marmite, which was invented by a German scientist called Justus von
Liebig in the late 19th century, has been produced in Burton since 1902.
The town‘s beer heritage is important: the basic ingredient of the
spread is yeast sludge, a waste product left over from brewing beer, and
there were once 30 breweries in the surrounding area. Now, the raw
materials come from across the UK.

Are you absolutely certain all the raw materials in a jar of Marmite come
from the UK? And are you including any packaging and transport costs? And
the overheads of the company which make it?

If the only thing which influenced the retail price was the cost of the
yeast, it would likely sell for tuppence a jar.


What was the reason they stated ?

see above

Everything was from the UK including the water.

https://www.theguardian.com/business...ce-supermarket

However, after both companies‘ share prices fell on Thursday and
Unilever was criticised for blaming the attempt to increase prices on
the fall in the value of the pound, a deal was reached late in the
afternoon.

Some are eaily fooled into beliving anything aren't they.

You apparently are.

--
*A chicken crossing the road is poultry in motion.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
It's relivent for a consumer if they have to pay the increased price.
Where or not the consumer is fooled by them is another matter. Only the
really stupid were fooled by unilevers claim that the marmite on the
shelves should cost more because it was made before the brexit vote.

Does that apply to petrol and gas, etc? You always pay the price it cost
when it was made?

How about your favourite Apple products?

--
*If your feet smell and your nose runs, you're built upside down.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
RJH wrote:
On 25/04/2017 22:45, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Vir
Campestris wrote:

On 25/04/2017 12:53, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Go on, then. Give us some real world examples.

Two developed countries with no trade agreement at all produce a similar
thing. Lets say wheat. And it can be freely traded either way.

Since without an agreement there are WTO limited tariffs you have
carefully excluded all possibilities. It's like asking for dry water.

The Remoaner view is that there can be no agreement, and so trade will
be impossible; the Brexiteer that there will be no tariffs. I suggest
the final result will be somewhere in between.

That there will be no tariffs is not my view. I'm just pointing out
that no tariffs is a possibility.


No, you said they're a possibility the UK might choose. You're just
creating vacuous arguments to set out a fundamental position, then
backtracking on the detail. Just say you don't know and stick to your
principles. Others may or may not join the dots for you.

The UK (post Brexit) would be totally mad to allow in all imports free of
tariffs. As that would inevitably decimate what remaining production we
have. We are a high cost country, so can't compete on price alone with
those who have lower production costs.
And, of course, the same applies to other countries too. They won't allow
in UK products tariff/duty free if in competition with things they produce
locally. Or simply just to generate income for that state.

So the only way forward if turning our back totally on the EU is to form
new trade agreements with other countries. Something the leave lot said
would be easy to do. And that was simply a lie, as with so much else of
their dogma.


Dave repeating your blatant lies will not make them true. Brexit is
happening, get used to the idea and move on.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
because the pound had fallen inv alue following the Brexit result. The
imported content of many of their products cost more.


What imported content ?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/fo...hed-there.html

Marmite, which was invented by a German scientist called Justus von
Liebig in the late 19th century, has been produced in Burton since 1902.
The town€˜s beer heritage is important: the basic ingredient of the
spread is yeast sludge, a waste product left over from brewing beer, and
there were once 30 breweries in the surrounding area. Now, the raw
materials come from across the UK.

Are you absolutely certain all the raw materials in a jar of Marmite come
from the UK? And are you including any packaging and transport costs? And
the overheads of the company which make it?

If the only thing which influenced the retail price was the cost of the
yeast, it would likely sell for tuppence a jar.


What was the reason they stated ?

see above

Everything was from the UK including the water.

https://www.theguardian.com/business...ce-supermarket

However, after both companies€˜ share prices fell on Thursday and
Unilever was criticised for blaming the attempt to increase prices on
the fall in the value of the pound, a deal was reached late in the
afternoon.

Some are eaily fooled into beliving anything aren't they.

You apparently are.


Not nearly as much as you. Marmite is priced as a brand, the equivalent
unbranded product, which is exactly the same in content and packaging is
half the price and that price has not been increased. Most branded
consumer goods of this type are priced as to what the market will bear,
Lidl frosted cornflakes are less than half the price of the branded
Kellogs product and have not increased significantly in price. Lidl IIRC
is family ownwd. Unilever is being chased by the hedge funds with a view
to asset stripping the company before destroying it. Unilever is busy
selling off any brands which are less profitable to drive up the share
price and keep the asset strippers at bay. Unilevers days appear to be
numbered as the shareholders will sell once the price is right, only
family owned companies are safe from this type of event, even then as in
the case of Littlewoods it happens.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
It's relivent for a consumer if they have to pay the increased price.
Where or not the consumer is fooled by them is another matter. Only the
really stupid were fooled by unilevers claim that the marmite on the
shelves should cost more because it was made before the brexit vote.

Does that apply to petrol and gas, etc? You always pay the price it cost
when it was made?

How about your favourite Apple products?


Petrol and gas are two different cases. Petrol prices are determined by
the current price of oil and a competitive market. Gas prices are
determined by an effective monopoly which has suckered the nominal
regulators and forced consumers to pay taxes for windmills etc.

On 26/04/17 15:49, Capitol wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
It's relivent for a consumer if they have to pay the increased price.
Where or not the consumer is fooled by them is another matter. Only the
really stupid were fooled by unilevers claim that the marmite on the
shelves should cost more because it was made before the brexit vote.

Does that apply to petrol and gas, etc? You always pay the price it cost
when it was made?

How about your favourite Apple products?


Petrol and gas are two different cases. Petrol prices are determined
by the current price of oil and a competitive market.

Wrong. Petrol prices are determined by government taxation and fuel duty.

Gas prices are
determined by an effective monopoly which has suckered the nominal
regulators and forced consumers to pay taxes for windmills etc.

Wrong. Electricity prices are affected by windmills, not gas prices.

The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all
private property.

Karl Marx

On 26/04/2017 12:43, Tim Streater wrote:


Which free trade area would that be, Den?


You aren't that stupid that I need to answer that, or are you?

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 26/04/17 15:49, Capitol wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
It's relivent for a consumer if they have to pay the increased price.
Where or not the consumer is fooled by them is another matter. Only the
really stupid were fooled by unilevers claim that the marmite on the
shelves should cost more because it was made before the brexit vote.

Does that apply to petrol and gas, etc? You always pay the price it cost
when it was made?

How about your favourite Apple products?


Petrol and gas are two different cases. Petrol prices are determined
by the current price of oil and a competitive market.

Wrong. Petrol prices are determined by government taxation and fuel duty.

Gas prices are
determined by an effective monopoly which has suckered the nominal
regulators and forced consumers to pay taxes for windmills etc.

Wrong. Electricity prices are affected by windmills, not gas prices.

The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all
private property.

Karl Marx


Did you not notice the etc? Gas prices ARE affected by windmills,
albeit indirectly by energy conservation rules.

On 26/04/2017 15:29, Capitol wrote:

Dave repeating your blatant lies will not make them true. Brexit is
happening, get used to the idea and move on.

More bre****.
You delude yourself if you think much will change.
The UK will be worse off and we will still have EU migrants and still
pay into the EU.
But our government will agree to all the regulations, etc. so you get
your sovereignty and all it will cost is any say in the way the EU runs
and lots more cash.

On Tuesday, 25 April 2017 20:17:17 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 25 April 2017 16:45:01 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 25 April 2017 12:54:21 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Sadly, it seems to be a standard Brexiteer response to any points
brought up about us leaving the EU. Basically non of the usual
tariffs
and duties etc will apply.

More lies. There are no "usual tariffs and duties". Only the ones
we
*choose* to apply.

Go on, then. Give us some real world examples.

What happened with marmite that shot up in price as brexit was
announced.

You actually think that was due to a tariff or duty? Would that be
because
we'd already left the EU?

Why did they increase the cost of marmite at that time ?

What was the reason they stated ?

What they state is completely irrelevant.

No it isn't if they are blaming BREXIT.