On 19/06/2016 13:24, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
And all those countries want a deal with the EU - not the UK on its
own.

You seem to miss the point that a trade deal with the EU is one
conducted with all EU countries individually. Most have the right of
veto, as exemplified by David Cameron's veto on Chinese steel imports.

It would be so much easier to negotiate with just the UK, or even each
EU country in turn.

Carry on believing your fantasies. As they are just that. And sadly,
you'll only find you're wrong after it's too late.

You clearly have no idea how difficult it is for a foreign interest to
negotiate with the EU, where nearly every country within he EU has the
right of veto over negotiations. You are living in cloud cuckoo land.

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
Just turn up the money
printing presses to 11. You just know it makes sense
An accurate representation of official Labour party financial policy
--
bert

In article ,
writes
On Sun, 19 Jun 2016 10:08:59 +0100, Tim Lamb
wrote:

30% of the *subsidy* is
withheld by the UK Govt. to be allocated for *Green activities* SSIs and
the like.

Is this the modulation that has enabled conservation charities to
increase staff remuneration by 400%?

AJH
That and the 5p plastic bag tax.
--
bert

In article , tim...
writes

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:
there are hundreds of country pairs that happily trade with each other
without a separate deal in place. the idea that it is difficult is
nonsense

Can you name a pair of countries that trade happily with no formal
trade deal?

I meant other than standard WTO rules

(I rather thought that was obvious in the context of my other
contributions)

I'd not really call that a formal trade deal. More of a blanket one.

If it were just fine, why bother with any other deals?

TBH, I don't know

The official line that having a deal between country A and country B
increases the wealth of both countries by billions looks somewhat bogus
to me.

If every county A and every country B enter into a trade deal that
would mean that the wealth of the world would be increased by
gazillions.

But, of course, that is not possible. I'm only going to buy the same
number of pairs of shoes each year after all the agreements are signed
than before, so I can't see where this extra economic activity is going
to come from.

ISTM that individual trade deals are just a world wide Ponzi scheme
where only the early entrants win.

Much better to work to reduce WTO tariffs IMHO.

tim




As a general rule trade deals do reduce tariffs and with lower tariffs
international trade increases. However if you have followed the TTIP
saga you will know they can and do contain all sorts of things, for
example the right of large US corporations to sue national governments
for compensation if they subsequently introduce any legislation which
impacts on the investment plans made on the basis of the trade deal. Yet
Labour supports remain which makes TTIP applicable in the UK if it ever
does come to pass.
--
bert

In article , Bosco Green
writes


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 17/06/16 17:56, Adrian wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 17:38:20 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

It's also why we separate trade deals are utterly pointless while we're
in the EU - because if the UK applied zero duty to US goods in a
category, but Germany didn't, we could buy the same things through
Germany and not pay the duty.

I have read the above three times, and am still scratching my head.

Sorry. You're right. What I meant to say was that if the UK applied duty,
but Germany didn't.

Why on earth would we?
Brexit is all about getting out from a trade cartel that only allows
free trade between its members, and is incapable of doing a deal with
anyone else.

Since we trade more with NON EU poeple its to our davnage not to put
up barriers to trade with them.

We USED to have pretty much free trade with te commonwealth. The EU
puts a stop to that.

Yes.

Big mistake. The commonwealth is now a far far bigger market.

Not for what Britain still exports it isnt. They all get what they need
from China and Japan and the US now instead of from Britain.

There are a few exceptions like scotch and BBC and ITV
programs, but not very many of them left at all now.
And Range Rovers and aircraft engines..
--
bert

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 19/06/2016 15:19, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Richard wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

In article ,
Richard wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
And all those countries want a deal with the EU - not the UK on
its own.

You seem to miss the point that a trade deal with the EU is one
conducted with all EU countries individually. Most have the right
of veto, as exemplified by David Cameron's veto on Chinese steel
imports.

It would be so much easier to negotiate with just the UK, or even
each EU country in turn.

Carry on believing your fantasies. As they are just that. And sadly,
you'll only find you're wrong after it's too late.

So you're predicting a Brexit victory.

No wonder you're a BREXIT type. Can't understand plain English so just
read into it anything which suits you.

I can understand plain English. It is you who seems incapable of writing
a sentence which does not read as it reads.

Is that an example of your English? Explains why you can't understand
mine. May also explain why you believe the BREXIT lies too.

Well, if Brexit happens, there will be a further £30b government
expenditure over Remain Osbourne's prediction.

Another lie. Britain will save more than that by not having to pay the EU a
euro cent.

In article , Bosco Green
writes


"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Roger Mills writes:
On 17/06/2016 12:54, Andy Burns wrote:
Mark Allread wrote:

I just picked up a snippet of information showing that those who
said the
UK is already negotiating its own trade deals is wrong as we aren't
allowed to do so whilst in the EU.

This means that we currently have no trade deal with USA, NZ,
Australia,
China or India to name but a few.

We are still a member of WTO (twice in fact, directly as the UK where we
pay the membership fees, and indirectly as a member of the EU where no
fees are paid) so that would give as a basic trade deal with other WTO
members.

But it wouldn't be a *free* trade deal, we'd have to re-negotiate those,
the two years for the EU exit process is rather short for the usual
negotiations, but the carrot to the EU to get their finger out would be
continuing to sell their cars (and windmills, etc) to us without duty
slapped on the price.

It's *much* more important for the EU to
ensure that we fail if we're outside the EU

Not even possible for the EU to do that. The most it
can ever do is impose massive trade barriers with the
EU and it can even legally do that given the WTO
rules that requires the EU to have the SAME tariffs
for everyone with a particular class of goods.

Yes, the EU can certainly treat Britain the same
way as it does all other countries outside the
EU with stuff they sell to the EU, instead of the
current tariff and quota free trade with Britain,
but that can't possibly see Britain fail. The most
that it might do is cripple British agricultural
exports to the EU and see the car manufacturers
that currently manufacture in Britain move those
car plants to the EU so they can continue to ship
those cars and engines etc tariff free to the EU.
That isnt going to see Britain fail.

than it is to sell extra German cars to us. Failure
to ensure we struggle outside the EU will lead
to rapid collapse of the whole EU,

BULL****. France and Germany arent going
to leave because they are the ones that set it
up. Spain, Italy Greece etc arent going to leave
because they would then have no one to bail
them out when their banks implode spectacularly.

It would make a lot of sense for Greece to leave, reintroduce its own
currency and hey presto it's debt is devalued overnight.
Snip
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
tim... wrote:
Again, as I understand it, neither the UK nor the EU currently has a
trade deal with the USA - this is what TTIP is all about, but hasn't
yet been agreed. But we *still* do a lot of trade with the US.

[As far as I can see, TTIP would be bad news for us anyway - so if
we're not in the EU at the time when it's finally agreed, so much the
better!]

As currently "leaked" it seems to be a bad deal for many of the
countries of the EU.

The negotiators seem to be doing a **** poor job at representing the
interests of the countries that they are negotiating for and what they
end up with stands every chance of being voted down when it gets to the
council of ministers - in 30 years time :-)

True. Yet the BREXITs are adamant we will be able to agree advantageous
trade deals around the world after leaving the EU easily and quickly.
Much more quickly then the EU can -but as we have said many times trade
doesn't demand a trade deal.
And
also with the EU.

The pace of that deal depends on the EU. See Treaty of Lisbon article 50
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
tim... wrote:
We wont be "leaving" the EU for this year or next year, we will be doing
if for the next 20, 30, 40 years.

Not so. It's accepted it will take about 2 years.
Ah so at last you have read Article 50.

After that, it will be prolonged negotiations to reach a new deal. If the
EU still exists as now, guaranteed worse that the one we have at the
moment.

And now you doubt the EU will continue to exist for very long
It is the Asian and South American countries that are growing richer
every year that we need to increase trade with, and it is the EU
introspectiveness that is holding us (and all the other EU countries)
back from that.

And all those countries want a deal with the EU - not the UK on its own.

And your evidence for that is?

I really don't think you've any idea just how involved it is negotiating a
deal with another country. It's not done by a couple of people over a pint
one evening. There may well be a handshake between leaders that gets the
publicity as an intention - but then the real work starts.

And in the meantime the trade goes on. After all who would bother to
negotiate a trade agreement with a country they don't trade with?
--
bert

"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , Ratty
writes


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 19/06/16 10:08, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , tim...
writes

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:
We will use standard WTO rules until we can negotiate something
better.

We will almost certainly, unilaterally remove import tariffs from
stuff that we "need" to import, such as food!

If the UK is outside the EU, what do you mean by unilaterally? In
contravention of WTO rules?

WTO rules allow you to apply tariffs (to imports), they don't
mandate it.

Currently we apply tariffs to food from ROW because the EU requires
us
to do so to protect the vested interests of inefficient EU farmers.
Including our own, as it happens.

If we left the EU we would have no need to be protectionist and
would
(probably) remove all tariffs from imported foodstuffs, even if the
other countries that we import from did not reciprocate.

Think you'd find our farmers up in arms if you allowed all and any
food
imports from the very cheapest source. But perhaps that's what you
want?

Our framers can't compete without subsidies even with import tariffs

the solution to the farming problem is to continue with subsidies
(hopefully better targeted)

Oi! The subsidy is meant to compensate for *income foregone* due to
meeting the gold plated rules on environmental issues. Apart from the
raft of limitations on not spreading manures near waterways, cutting
hedges during nesting season, no cropping within 2m of hedge centres
and
numerous other *cross compliance* actions, 30% of the *subsidy* is
withheld by the UK Govt. to be allocated for *Green activities* SSIs
and
the like.

Farmers seem to believe that an exit will bring an end to this nit
picking rural management. I think they are mistaken:-(


UKIP have a very good Farming minister - he is a farmer - and his view
is that post Brexit a UKIP government or coalition would change nothing
except the fishing rights, and start on some long earnest chats with
farmers and environmentalists about which way to go.

They clearly wouldnt get the immense subsidies that the EU currently
provides, and that amounts to HALF their total income currently.

And where does the EU get the money to pay those subsidies?
Snip

Irrelevant to how that sector would be affected.

"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , tim...
writes

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:
there are hundreds of country pairs that happily trade with each
other
without a separate deal in place. the idea that it is difficult is
nonsense

Can you name a pair of countries that trade happily with no formal
trade deal?

I meant other than standard WTO rules

(I rather thought that was obvious in the context of my other
contributions)

I'd not really call that a formal trade deal. More of a blanket one.

If it were just fine, why bother with any other deals?

TBH, I don't know

The official line that having a deal between country A and country B
increases the wealth of both countries by billions looks somewhat bogus to
me.

If every county A and every country B enter into a trade deal that would
mean that the wealth of the world would be increased by gazillions.

But, of course, that is not possible. I'm only going to buy the same
number of pairs of shoes each year after all the agreements are signed
than before, so I can't see where this extra economic activity is going to
come from.

ISTM that individual trade deals are just a world wide Ponzi scheme where
only the early entrants win.

Much better to work to reduce WTO tariffs IMHO.

As a general rule trade deals do reduce tariffs

Yes.

and with lower tariffs international trade increases.

That is very arguable indeed. The volume of trade is determined
by what is consumed and that isnt affected by tariffs very much.

The point of the trade deals is that more trade happens between
the signatories to the trade deal than with others outside the deal.

However if you have followed the TTIP saga you will know they can and do
contain all sorts of things, for example the right of large US
corporations to sue national governments for compensation if they
subsequently introduce any legislation which impacts on the investment
plans made on the basis of the trade deal.

That is really only the case with the trade deals the US does.
There arent to many other trade deals that have those provisions.

Yet Labour supports remain which makes TTIP applicable in the UK if it
ever does come to pass.

It wont, you watch, because the US has gone cold on the
idea now and because given that any country in the EU
has a veto, it won't happen. It is all just more **** and wind.

"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , Bosco Green
writes


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 17/06/16 17:56, Adrian wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 17:38:20 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

It's also why we separate trade deals are utterly pointless while
we're
in the EU - because if the UK applied zero duty to US goods in a
category, but Germany didn't, we could buy the same things through
Germany and not pay the duty.

I have read the above three times, and am still scratching my head.

Sorry. You're right. What I meant to say was that if the UK applied
duty,
but Germany didn't.

Why on earth would we?
Brexit is all about getting out from a trade cartel that only allows
free trade between its members, and is incapable of doing a deal with
anyone else.

Since we trade more with NON EU poeple its to our davnage not to put up
barriers to trade with them.

We USED to have pretty much free trade with te commonwealth. The EU puts
a stop to that.

Yes.

Big mistake. The commonwealth is now a far far bigger market.

Not for what Britain still exports it isnt. They all get what they need
from China and Japan and the US now instead of from Britain.

There are a few exceptions like scotch and BBC and ITV
programs, but not very many of them left at all now.

And Range Rovers

Very few of them buy any of those, they buy Landcruisers and Nissans and
Jeeps instead.

and aircraft engines..

True.

"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , Bosco Green
writes


"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Roger Mills writes:
On 17/06/2016 12:54, Andy Burns wrote:
Mark Allread wrote:

I just picked up a snippet of information showing that those who said
the
UK is already negotiating its own trade deals is wrong as we aren't
allowed to do so whilst in the EU.

This means that we currently have no trade deal with USA, NZ,
Australia,
China or India to name but a few.

We are still a member of WTO (twice in fact, directly as the UK where
we
pay the membership fees, and indirectly as a member of the EU where no
fees are paid) so that would give as a basic trade deal with other WTO
members.

But it wouldn't be a *free* trade deal, we'd have to re-negotiate
those,
the two years for the EU exit process is rather short for the usual
negotiations, but the carrot to the EU to get their finger out would
be
continuing to sell their cars (and windmills, etc) to us without duty
slapped on the price.

It's *much* more important for the EU to
ensure that we fail if we're outside the EU

Not even possible for the EU to do that. The most it
can ever do is impose massive trade barriers with the
EU and it can even legally do that given the WTO
rules that requires the EU to have the SAME tariffs
for everyone with a particular class of goods.

Yes, the EU can certainly treat Britain the same
way as it does all other countries outside the
EU with stuff they sell to the EU, instead of the
current tariff and quota free trade with Britain,
but that can't possibly see Britain fail. The most
that it might do is cripple British agricultural
exports to the EU and see the car manufacturers
that currently manufacture in Britain move those
car plants to the EU so they can continue to ship
those cars and engines etc tariff free to the EU.
That isnt going to see Britain fail.

than it is to sell extra German cars to us. Failure
to ensure we struggle outside the EU will lead
to rapid collapse of the whole EU,

BULL****. France and Germany arent going
to leave because they are the ones that set it
up. Spain, Italy Greece etc arent going to leave
because they would then have no one to bail
them out when their banks implode spectacularly.

It would make a lot of sense for Greece to leave, reintroduce its own
currency and hey presto it's debt is devalued overnight.
Snip

Yes, and they did come close to doing that.

But for some reason most of the Greek voters don't want
to go that route and so they didn't in fact do that.

"bert" wrote in message
...
snip
You realise you're typing to the Aussie prick Rod Speed?

In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
On 19/06/2016 13:24, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
And all those countries want a deal with the EU - not the UK on its
own.

You seem to miss the point that a trade deal with the EU is one
conducted with all EU countries individually. Most have the right of
veto, as exemplified by David Cameron's veto on Chinese steel imports.

It would be so much easier to negotiate with just the UK, or even each
EU country in turn.

Carry on believing your fantasies. As they are just that. And sadly,
you'll only find you're wrong after it's too late.

You clearly have no idea how difficult it is for a foreign interest to
negotiate with the EU, where nearly every country within he EU has the
right of veto over negotiations. You are living in cloud cuckoo land.

It seems to be working reasonably well for the UK at the moment. Within
the EU.

You want to gamble that throwing all that away will make things better for
the UK. Without a scrap of evidence.

Where do you think all these markets are for our goods who can't buy them
at the moment?

--
*They told me I had type-A blood, but it was a Type-O.*

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

In article ,
Ratty wrote:
Irrelevant

Wodneys random name generator is working overtime these days.

Pity his random text generator turns out the same old crap.

--
*The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on my list.

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
On 19/06/2016 13:24, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
And all those countries want a deal with the EU - not the UK on its
own.

You seem to miss the point that a trade deal with the EU is one
conducted with all EU countries individually. Most have the right of
veto, as exemplified by David Cameron's veto on Chinese steel imports.

It would be so much easier to negotiate with just the UK, or even each
EU country in turn.

Carry on believing your fantasies. As they are just that. And sadly,
you'll only find you're wrong after it's too late.

You clearly have no idea how difficult it is for a foreign interest to
negotiate with the EU, where nearly every country within he EU has the
right of veto over negotiations. You are living in cloud cuckoo land.

It seems to be working reasonably well
for the UK at the moment. Within the EU.

There are in fact **** all trade agreements
that matter between the EU and anyone else.

So Britain doesn’t need any if it was outside the EU either.

And even you should have noticed that the US, Canada,
Australia, India, China, Japan do fine outside the EU too.

You want to gamble that throwing all that
away will make things better for the UK.
Without a scrap of evidence.

We have plenty of evidence that the eurozone is
having a hell of a problem and that Britain will be
called on to bail it out if the **** does hit the fan.

Where do you think all these markets are for
our goods who can't buy them at the moment?

Why do you 'think' that those can't continue to do
what they currently trade with Britain outside the EU ?

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Ratty wrote:
Irrelevant

Wodneys random name generator is working overtime these days.

Pity his random text generator turns out the same old crap.

Agreed.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
**** snipped
**** off Wodney.

"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , Ratty
writes


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 19/06/16 10:08, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , tim...
writes

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:
We will use standard WTO rules until we can negotiate something
better.

We will almost certainly, unilaterally remove import tariffs from
stuff that we "need" to import, such as food!

If the UK is outside the EU, what do you mean by unilaterally? In
contravention of WTO rules?

WTO rules allow you to apply tariffs (to imports), they don't
mandate it.

Currently we apply tariffs to food from ROW because the EU requires
us
to do so to protect the vested interests of inefficient EU farmers.
Including our own, as it happens.

If we left the EU we would have no need to be protectionist and
would
(probably) remove all tariffs from imported foodstuffs, even if the
other countries that we import from did not reciprocate.

Think you'd find our farmers up in arms if you allowed all and any
food
imports from the very cheapest source. But perhaps that's what you
want?

Our framers can't compete without subsidies even with import tariffs

the solution to the farming problem is to continue with subsidies
(hopefully better targeted)

Oi! The subsidy is meant to compensate for *income foregone* due to
meeting the gold plated rules on environmental issues. Apart from the
raft of limitations on not spreading manures near waterways, cutting
hedges during nesting season, no cropping within 2m of hedge centres
and
numerous other *cross compliance* actions, 30% of the *subsidy* is
withheld by the UK Govt. to be allocated for *Green activities* SSIs
and
the like.

Farmers seem to believe that an exit will bring an end to this nit
picking rural management. I think they are mistaken:-(


UKIP have a very good Farming minister - he is a farmer - and his view
is that post Brexit a UKIP government or coalition would change nothing
except the fishing rights, and start on some long earnest chats with
farmers and environmentalists about which way to go.

They clearly wouldnt get the immense subsidies that the EU currently
provides, and that amounts to HALF their total income currently.

And where does the EU get the money to pay those subsidies?

the magic money tree at the end of the garden

tim

On 19/06/2016 22:21, Rod Speed wrote:

Well, if Brexit happens, there will be a further £30b government
expenditure over Remain Osbourne's prediction.

Another lie. Britain will save more than that by not having to pay the
EU a euro cent.

Aussie maths we pay ~£10b and we are going to save £30b from it.
I assume that rod hasn't finished primary school yet.

On 19/06/2016 22:33, bert wrote:
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
tim... wrote:
We wont be "leaving" the EU for this year or next year, we will be doing
if for the next 20, 30, 40 years.

Not so. It's accepted it will take about 2 years.
Ah so at last you have read Article 50.

It says at least 2 years and may be extended by he others with the UK
having no say AFAICS.

bert wrote:
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
Just turn up the money
printing presses to 11. You just know it makes sense
An accurate representation of official Labour party financial policy

And Camorons!

dennis@home wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Well, if Brexit happens, there will be a further £30b government
expenditure over Remain Osbourne's prediction.

Another lie. Britain will save more than that by not having to pay the EU
a euro cent.

Aussie maths we pay ~£10b and we are going to save £30b from it.

That £30b is the bare faced lie.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 19/06/2016 22:33, bert wrote:
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
tim... wrote:
We wont be "leaving" the EU for this year or next year, we will be
doing
if for the next 20, 30, 40 years.

Not so. It's accepted it will take about 2 years.
Ah so at last you have read Article 50.

It says at least 2 years

It says nothing of the sort.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdr...nion#Procedure

and may be extended by he others with the UK having no say AFAICS.

You're lying thru your ****ing teeth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdr...nion#Procedure

On Friday, 17 June 2016 17:17:49 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


If there really were no trade benefits from being in the EU, every single
UK manufacturer would have said so. After all, why put up with EU regs etc
if nothing in it for them at the end of the day?

A good question why would a company want to restrict the sale of products that they don't make by putting in tarriffs ?

Cab you explain why the EU uses tarriffs ?




--
*It doesn't take a genius to spot a goat in a flock of sheep *

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

On 20/06/2016 11:37, Rod Speed wrote:
dennis@home wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Well, if Brexit happens, there will be a further £30b government
expenditure over Remain Osbourne's prediction.

Another lie. Britain will save more than that by not having to pay
the EU a euro cent.

Aussie maths we pay ~£10b and we are going to save £30b from it.

That £30b is the bare faced lie.



So why did you claim it then?

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Friday, 17 June 2016 17:17:49 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


If there really were no trade benefits from being in the EU, every single
UK manufacturer would have said so. After all, why put up with EU regs
etc
if nothing in it for them at the end of the day?

A good question why would a company want to restrict the sale of products
that they don't make by putting in tarriffs ?

to generate income for the government

Sales taxes for cars in Denmark are very high because they have no incumbent
industry to "protect".

tim

dennis@home wrote
Rod Speed wrote
dennis@home wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Well, if Brexit happens, there will be a further £30b government
expenditure over Remain Osbourne's prediction.

Another lie. Britain will save more than that by not having to pay the
EU a euro cent.

Aussie maths we pay ~£10b and we are going to save £30b from it.

That £30b is the bare faced lie.

So why did you claim it then?

I never said anything about £30b

On 20/06/16 21:26, tim... wrote:

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Friday, 17 June 2016 17:17:49 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


If there really were no trade benefits from being in the EU, every
single
UK manufacturer would have said so. After all, why put up with EU
regs etc
if nothing in it for them at the end of the day?

A good question why would a company want to restrict the sale of
products that they don't make by putting in tarriffs ?

to generate income for the government

Sales taxes for cars in Denmark are very high because they have no
incumbent industry to "protect".


Same in canada. Huge market for spare parts in Canada apparently.
I sold my Defender to a chap who said he wouldd diosmantle it, send it
over to canada where it could be bought as a 'kit car' (less tax) put
back together and sold for a large profit.


tim





--
No Apple devices were knowingly used in the preparation of this post.

On Monday, 20 June 2016 21:26:50 UTC+1, tim... wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Friday, 17 June 2016 17:17:49 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


If there really were no trade benefits from being in the EU, every single
UK manufacturer would have said so. After all, why put up with EU regs
etc
if nothing in it for them at the end of the day?

A good question why would a company want to restrict the sale of products
that they don't make by putting in tarriffs ?

to generate income for the government

Sales taxes for cars in Denmark are very high because they have no incumbent
industry to "protect".

I thought Denmark was in the EU and had free trade.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denmar...European_Union

"The main economic reason that Denmark joined the EEC was because it wanted to safeguard its agricultural exports to the United Kingdom."

Bacon




tim

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Monday, 20 June 2016 21:26:50 UTC+1, tim... wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Friday, 17 June 2016 17:17:49 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


If there really were no trade benefits from being in the EU, every
single
UK manufacturer would have said so. After all, why put up with EU regs
etc
if nothing in it for them at the end of the day?

A good question why would a company want to restrict the sale of
products
that they don't make by putting in tarriffs ?

to generate income for the government

Sales taxes for cars in Denmark are very high because they have no
incumbent
industry to "protect".

I thought Denmark was in the EU and had free trade.

It is and it does

these aren't import taxes they are sales taxes

as long as they are applied irrespective of the country of import the EU
rules allow it

tim

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Monday, 20 June 2016 21:26:50 UTC+1, tim... wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Friday, 17 June 2016 17:17:49 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


If there really were no trade benefits from being in the EU, every
single
UK manufacturer would have said so. After all, why put up with EU regs
etc
if nothing in it for them at the end of the day?

A good question why would a company want to restrict the sale of
products
that they don't make by putting in tarriffs ?

to generate income for the government

Sales taxes for cars in Denmark are very high because they have no
incumbent
industry to "protect".

I thought Denmark was in the EU

Not it's not.

and had free trade.

Yes it does.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denmar...European_Union

"The main economic reason that Denmark joined the EEC was because
it wanted to safeguard its agricultural exports to the United Kingdom."

The EEC isnt the EU, stupid.

Bacon

Pork.

On Tuesday, 21 June 2016 12:50:21 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Monday, 20 June 2016 21:26:50 UTC+1, tim... wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Friday, 17 June 2016 17:17:49 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


If there really were no trade benefits from being in the EU, every
single
UK manufacturer would have said so. After all, why put up with EU regs
etc
if nothing in it for them at the end of the day?

A good question why would a company want to restrict the sale of
products
that they don't make by putting in tarriffs ?

to generate income for the government

Sales taxes for cars in Denmark are very high because they have no
incumbent
industry to "protect".

I thought Denmark was in the EU

Not it's not.

and had free trade.

Yes it does.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denmar...European_Union

"The main economic reason that Denmark joined the EEC was because
it wanted to safeguard its agricultural exports to the United Kingdom."

The EEC isnt the EU, stupid.

we joined the EEC too, not the EU stupid

Bacon

Pork.

No Danish bacon is the importent import we hear about.

On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 21:50:12 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:

"whisky-dave" wrote in message


I thought Denmark was in the EU

Not it's not.

Good to see you have your facts straight. Never mind its easy enough for
anyone with half a mind to check and find that Denmark *is* in the EU but
not in the Eurozone. Perhaps its that which confused you.

"Mark Allread" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 21:50:12 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:

"whisky-dave" wrote in message


I thought Denmark was in the EU

Not it's not.

Good to see you have your facts straight. Never mind its easy enough for
anyone with half a mind to check and find that Denmark *is* in the EU but
not in the Eurozone. Perhaps its that which confused you.

Sorry, my brain fart, I was thinking of Norway, not Denmark.

In article ,
whisky-dave writes
On Tuesday, 21 June 2016 12:50:21 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Monday, 20 June 2016 21:26:50 UTC+1, tim... wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Friday, 17 June 2016 17:17:49 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


If there really were no trade benefits from being in the EU, every
single
UK manufacturer would have said so. After all, why put up with EU regs
etc
if nothing in it for them at the end of the day?

A good question why would a company want to restrict the sale of
products
that they don't make by putting in tarriffs ?

to generate income for the government

Sales taxes for cars in Denmark are very high because they have no
incumbent
industry to "protect".

I thought Denmark was in the EU

Not it's not.

and had free trade.

Yes it does.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denmar...European_Union

"The main economic reason that Denmark joined the EEC was because
it wanted to safeguard its agricultural exports to the United Kingdom."

The EEC isnt the EU, stupid.

we joined the EEC too, not the EU stupid

Bacon

Pork.

No Danish bacon is the importent import we hear about.


And porkies are what we hear from Remain
--
bert

In article om,
lid writes
On 19/06/2016 22:33, bert wrote:
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
tim... wrote:
We wont be "leaving" the EU for this year or next year, we will be doing
if for the next 20, 30, 40 years.

Not so. It's accepted it will take about 2 years.
Ah so at last you have read Article 50.

It says at least 2 years and may be extended by he others with the UK
having no say AFAICS.


Read it again - carefully.
It can only be extended if both parties (the EU and the UK in this case
agree)
If they haven't agreed what they want to agree with us within 2 years
maybe we can sue them.
--
bert

On 21/06/16 22:51, bert wrote:
No Danish bacon is the importent import we hear about.


And porkies are what we hear from Remain



--
Those who want slavery should have the grace to name it by its proper
name. They must face the full meaning of that which they are advocating
or condoning; the full, exact, specific meaning of collectivism, of its
logical implications, of the principles upon which it is based, and of
the ultimate consequences to which these principles will lead. They must
face it, then decide whether this is what they want or not.

Ayn Rand.