On 19/05/2017 12:07, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
James Harris wrote:
On 19/05/2017 00:51, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
James Harris wrote:
I keep on asking just which did anything in the way of 'limiting'.
And so far have had very little concrete information.
OK. Here are some examples.
We wanted to protect our steel industry from Chinese dumping. But
under EU rules we had to try to persuade them to impose tariffs. They
would only do so if they thought it was good for the average across
the EU28.
The Chinese dumping steel is good for just what EU country? Germany?
Italy?
Countries which don't produce steel will not care as much - if at all -
as those who do. And the EU works as a collective.
Odd. You've just said as regard oranges it works for just individual
countries.
Not really. I expect quite a few EU nations grow oranges.
In fact, if they consume steel some countries might see dumping as
welcome. Even if not officially, they can still put bureaucratic blocks
in the way.
With its voluminous rulebooks and focus on red tape the EU is an ideal
organ for preventing things happening. It could hardly be better.
So absolutely no different from our government - or any other?
To allude to Conan Doyle, normal governments are like cut-purses; the EU
is the Moriarty!
Have you seen this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9Hf...QaIOamCgM_aOvL
It sets out the primary three protections the EU uses but also explains
why they don't work in the long term.
To protect farmers the EU last year put up tariffs against oranges. We
don't grow oranges in the UK so it helped us not at all. All it did was
put up the prices consumers have to pay in the shops.
OK. So the EU can't do anything to protect industries in other EU
countries. But you expect it to protect UK steel.
No. I was saying that outside the EU we would be able to choose whether
to protect the steel industry or not. We would not have to go to
Brussels or Strasbourg to try to persuade them to do what's good for
British people and British jobs. We could do that ourselves.
All that would be fine if we were a self sufficient country. But we're
not. We need to both import and export goods and services to make a
living. Which - evetually - some will come to realise means co-operation
with others. Not just being out for No1.
You're on another straw man. Once out of the EU I expect the UK to build
far more international trade, not less, and to build various links with
big parts of the world.
Would it be worth it? Maybe. America slapped on very large tariffs of
100% to 150% (possibly temporarily). We were not allowed to. Think about
that. The elected British government was _not allowed_ to do what it
thought best for Brits, because EU rules take precedence over UK
ministers.
What's left of our steel industry survives mainly on specialist products.
We've not been competitive on world market for general steel for a long
time. Same as with so much heavy industry.
Don't forget that China was dumping steel. And the UK's steel industry
is back on its feet now.
And protection has been shown
simply to not work.
Good to see you say that. Are you aware that the EU is highly
protectionist? You think Trump's MAGA was bad. What about the EU???
You need to find niche markets where you can be
competitive.
The EU decided that it should act as a country and have its own
foreign policy. So it appointed a "high representative" of itself -
initially Cathy Ashton, now Federica Mogherini.
And?
I was illustrating that it is not a trade block. It has a flag, an
anthem, a parliament, a means of taxing people, an armed force - at
least one "battlegroup", and now its own foreign policy. It is becoming
a superstate.
And?
You asked for examples of where the EU limits its members. It is in the
process of taking governance from them!
Over-regulation is a dream for big companies as it helps them defeat
smaller competitors. Brussels is a lobbyists paradise but it stifles
competition.
And us leaving will help that in just what way? Will that stop the EU
regulating companies?
As long as the government does the right thing the EU will lose its
ability to regulate British businesses. That should lead to the UK
designing better regulatory systems - e.g. ones which are more liberal
and are better for the economy.
You think the EU would allow the UK to 'dump' products in the EU? Odd the
way that others mustn't do this to the UK - but it would be fine for the
UK to do it to others.
I did not suggest the UK do any such thing.
But odd that Germany seems to do OK with all that
regulation.
Germany is helped by two things.
1. The EU has an excellent single market in goods - just what Germany,
with its great reputation for manufacturing goods, needs. (The EU does
not have as good a market in digital or services - which is what we
would want.)
Right. So you think we can pick and choose which bits of the EU would suit
us best as regards trade and services. Can I ask why you think the EU
would be mad enough to allow that?
We are leaving so there's no pick-and-choose. We'll trade as an external
nation.
But think about your question. Why shouldn't all the nations of Europe
cooperate and trade with each other on the terms which suit them? Why
does the EU require there to be one size which fits all?
2. All eurozone countries are locked to the same exchange rate. Because
of their relative economies, for Greece the rate is too high. For
Germany it is too low. That makes German exports very competitive on
world markets. (And, unfortunately, at the same time it hurts Greece.)
The net result: Germany gets richer, Greece gets poorer. That is part of
the _design_ of a single currency.
We are not in the Euro. Does that come as a surprise?
I don't see the connection. I fear you've not understood the points I made.
The EU is large but it is deathly _slow_ at making trade deals. It has
missed growing parts of the world. We have missed their growth because
we have not been allowed to cut our own deals. We are already poorer
than we should be as a result. Why is it slow? Two reasons: (1) It is a
committee of 28 nations and tries to suit them all. (2) Those who do the
negotiation are indolent and unaccountable. If they don't do a good job
they are still paid, they still eat and drink well, they know they are
accumulating gold-plated pensions, and they know that they will not be
held to account by the public.
Right. So now we are free to make deals with all those other countries.
But in the process cut ourselves off from the largest single market in the
world.
Not so. America is a larger market than the EU. And when we leave, we
will take a lot of the EU's market with us. We are not just 64 million
people, but compared with much of the EU's 450 million we are far
wealthier on average. That gives us greater spending power. We will
therefore punch well above our weight on trade talks.
Ah - the US answer. Despite Trump telling everyone he wants to bring back
production of near everything to the US. A country - by the way - with
vast natural resources, unlike the UK. So lower costs.
Again, that's irrelevant. You said EU was the world's largest market. I
pointed out that the US is larger.
So let's hear about those countries large enough to replace that
lost trade in goods and services.
How much EU trade do you expect us to lose? (Bear in mind it will be
reduced, not lost altogether.)
It's not trade as such that is so important to our economy, but services.
Trade includes goods and services.
--
James Harris