On 25/07/2016 21:30, bert wrote:
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Bod wrote:
On 25/07/2016 10:05, Capitol wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
wrote:

And the half that currently does will either be replaced by
other EU
countries or fought over by the rest of the world, now we no longer
have
the trading advantage of being in the EU.


really?


remind me, where else can I but an RR aero engine from?


or a "Mini"

You really think sales of those can keep the UK afloat?


Still determined to talk your country down?

JCB already exports to *140* countries. Obviously most of those
countries are not in the EU.

We already know the UK sends 50% of its exports value wise to non EU
countries. The important bit is can we send the other 50% too?

Let us assume for the same of argument that our trade with the EU falls
by 10% as a result of Brexit deal. That means we only need increase our
trade to RoW by 105 to break even. (Apologies to the rest of the group
but one has to spell out things in very simple terms to the resident
thicko)


Does that mean we have the same margins for exports to every country in
the world?

I don't think that just quoting the volume of exports means anything
meaningful as we could be making 1% on some of it and 100% on others.
If we lose the high margin stuff we are in far more trouble than losing
low margin stuff.
So unless you want to tell us where the high margin stuff is sold and
what the effects of brexit are then I doubt if you can claim anything.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 25/07/2016 19:44, tim... wrote:

"Timothy Murphy" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:

remind me, where else can I but an RR aero engine from?

If you look at the Airbus site you will see that
there is an alternative engine.

I know

but airlines don't like to mix and match

If they already have 100 planes, all with RR engines they will, more
likely than not, want RR engines in their next 20 planes as well.

(Obviously that doesn't apply to airlines that have 1000 planes).

Don't the small outfits outsource the maintenance anyway

Not necessarily. REX doesn’t.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_Express_Airlines

so all they care about is the bottom line. If the overall costs are
cheaper with RR engines that's what they will have. If something happens
to make RR engined planes more expensive they will use different engines
or planes.

But it costs a hell of a lot to change what planes you are
using, and the engines you are using in your planes too.

There is also the other consideration with engines.
They all have spare engines that are used when an
engine stops working properly and so it makes sense
to keep using the engines you have been using too.

And with Britain leaving the EU and the pound dropping
a bit, that means that RR engines are actually cheaper than
they were previously so no reason to change from those
if you had been using them before Britain voted to leave.

Customers don't care,

A few of them do, but it is only a tiny group of them that do.

most of them don't even care what plane it is and don't even think of who
makes the engines.

A few of the specialists do.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 25/07/2016 21:21, bert wrote:
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
tim... wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:
That is simply not what a vast number voted out for. They want
zero
immigration - not more.

ITYF that they want zero unskilled immigration

most people have no problem with skilled immigrants

Really? No problem with the brickies, plumbers, electricians etc?

nope

Or
perhaps you don't consider them skilled?

And is the 'skill' of being able to do boring work picking fruit etc
really so non essential?

that's a tiny exception

Yup. All those tiny exemptions add up to pretty well all the immigrants
who come into the UK each year - all to work.

Those who are against immigration simply don't care what jobs they may
or
may not do. They just want it stopped. Completely.

harry.

Would you care to provide a single quote from anyone in this group who
has said they wanted ALL immigration stopped?

Indeed I will go further. Can you provide a single quote from anyone in
the official Leave campaign who said that.



Nige was always hinting at that

Like hell he was. The most he ever did in that regard
was deliberately say it in a way that the most rabid
bigots like harry would lap that up and vote UKIP.

but knew he couldn't actually say it in public.

That utterly mangles what he was doing.

And preferrably, those from the EU sent home ASAP.

As above.

As above.

I don't know what strict control means other than the above as most
applications already get turned down by immigration.

That is a lie.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 25/07/2016 21:30, bert wrote:
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Bod wrote:
On 25/07/2016 10:05, Capitol wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
wrote:

And the half that currently does will either be replaced by
other EU
countries or fought over by the rest of the world, now we no
longer
have
the trading advantage of being in the EU.


really?


remind me, where else can I but an RR aero engine from?


or a "Mini"

You really think sales of those can keep the UK afloat?


Still determined to talk your country down?

JCB already exports to *140* countries. Obviously most of those
countries are not in the EU.

We already know the UK sends 50% of its exports value wise to non EU
countries. The important bit is can we send the other 50% too?

Let us assume for the same of argument that our trade with the EU falls
by 10% as a result of Brexit deal. That means we only need increase our
trade to RoW by 105 to break even. (Apologies to the rest of the group
but one has to spell out things in very simple terms to the resident
thicko)

Does that mean we have the same margins for exports to every country in
the world?

Corse not.

I don't think that just quoting the volume of exports means anything
meaningful as we could be making 1% on some of it and 100% on others.

If we lose the high margin stuff

No reason why Britain should. The highest margin stuff would obviously
be the stuff like docos and drama where the cost of the digital media is
peanuts of the amount paid for the product and there is no reason why
any of that should be lost with Britain leaving the EU given that there
is nowhere else for any of the buyers to get anything like a competitive
product from anyone remaining in the EU.

we are in far more trouble than losing low margin stuff.

Yes, but it is much more likely that it would be the low margin
stuff that would be lost, particularly the agriculture exports.

So unless you want to tell us where the high margin stuff is sold and what
the effects of brexit are then I doubt if you can claim anything.

Doesn’t need him to tell anyone, most of it is obvious.

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

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article , tim...
wrote:
The WTO may well provide a level playing field for countries
with no deals with anyone. But in practice that probably means
near zero countries.

they are hundreds of countries that trade with each other without
a trade deal

Ok. So what you are saying is we don't need to make any deals with
any countries?

No

I am saying that there are 100s of countries that trade without doing
so


That's all

Would it be too much for you to explain your point?

If there were no advantages to a trade deal for any country, why would
any bother with them?

I didn't say that there were no advantages to having a trade deal.

I am answering a point (which I interpreted as) claiming that that were
zero counties in the world that didn't have any trade deals because
they were an absolute necessity for doing trade.

It's rather obvious not all countries in the world have trade deals with
all the others. I was asking about any country which did well enough with
no trade deals at all.

And my point is that they are not an absolute necessity, they are simply
a "nice to have" add on.

Rather more than that in practice, I'd say. Otherwise why go to all the
bother?

(If I interpreted the claim wrongly, please accept my apology)

I'm just rather curious. Many on here seem to think we don't need any deal
with the EU. And can trade round the world with no other deals. Since we
have all the aces - ie products or services that can't be got elsewhere.

No one has ever said anything like that, you silly little pathological liar.

My view is rather different.

Having **** thrashing yet another straw man, you silly little pathological
liar ?

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
bert wrote:
So? If we can already have 50% of our total sales without them being
under a free trade deal, no problem at all in increasing them to 100%?
We've already made it clear we don't need that free trade deal with the
EU by rejecting the conditions that go with it.

By what idiotic logic do you conclude that even with tariffs of say 3%
we will suddenly cease to trade with the EU and increase our trade with
the rest of the world by 100%?

The bert version of economics. Price goes up by 3%, so sales must go down
by only 3%.

He never said anything like that, you silly little pathological liar.

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

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article , tim...
wrote:
The WTO may well provide a level playing field for countries
with no deals with anyone. But in practice that probably means
near zero countries.

they are hundreds of countries that trade with each other without
a trade deal

Ok. So what you are saying is we don't need to make any deals with
any countries?

No

I am saying that there are 100s of countries that trade without doing
so


That's all

Would it be too much for you to explain your point?

If there were no advantages to a trade deal for any country, why would
any bother with them?

I didn't say that there were no advantages to having a trade deal.

I am answering a point (which I interpreted as) claiming that that were
zero counties in the world that didn't have any trade deals because
they were an absolute necessity for doing trade.

It's rather obvious not all countries in the world have trade deals with
all the others. I was asking about any country which did well enough with
no trade deals at all.

That's IS what I said above (even if it was a bit convoluted)

And my point is that they are not an absolute necessity, they are simply
a "nice to have" add on.

Rather more than that in practice, I'd say. Otherwise why go to all the
bother?

(If I interpreted the claim wrongly, please accept my apology)

I'm just rather curious. Many on here seem to think we don't need any deal
with the EU.

A deal with the EU would be good for both sides

but we don't need one at any costs

And AISI, our only red line is no absolute FoM. If they can't concede that
point, IMHO they have more to lose than us, so good riddance.

And can trade round the world with no other deals.

No-one is saying that we wont have other trade deals in the future.

but as you have been pointing out, they take time to negotiate so we will
have to get by with none at all until they are negotiated

tim

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
bert wrote:
So? If we can already have 50% of our total sales without them being
under a free trade deal, no problem at all in increasing them to 100%?
We've already made it clear we don't need that free trade deal with the
EU by rejecting the conditions that go with it.

By what idiotic logic do you conclude that even with tariffs of say 3%
we will suddenly cease to trade with the EU and increase our trade with
the rest of the world by 100%?

The bert version of economics. Price goes up by 3%, so sales must go down
by only 3%.

except that prices wont go up by 3%, because the exchange rate change has
already made them go down by 10%

tim

On 26/07/16 14:27, tim... wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
bert wrote:
So? If we can already have 50% of our total sales without them being
under a free trade deal, no problem at all in increasing them to 100%?
We've already made it clear we don't need that free trade deal with the
EU by rejecting the conditions that go with it.

By what idiotic logic do you conclude that even with tariffs of say 3%
we will suddenly cease to trade with the EU and increase our trade with
the rest of the world by 100%?

The bert version of economics. Price goes up by 3%, so sales must go down
by only 3%.

except that prices wont go up by 3%, because the exchange rate change
has already made them go down by 10%

tim



and furthermore, if Tescos do beans at 50p a can nd Lidl do them at 49p
a can all other things being equal* Tescos wont sell any more beans at all.

Not all relationships are linear.

In et case of tariff barriers, what happens is that the value of the
pound falls so that trade begins even with the tariff barriers.

Or HM govt. steps in and subsidises the exports like wot the chinese do.


--
"Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They
always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them"

Margaret Thatcher

On Friday, 22 July 2016 11:49:17 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tim... wrote:

"alan_m" wrote in message
...
On 21/07/2016 14:32, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
harry wrote:
http://www.theunituk.org.uk/2016/07/...els-over-ceta/

And it's going to be ever so easy for the UK to make deals with all the
other countries in the world, we've been told, as we don't need the EU.


Recently the Canadian official in charge of the negotiation said that
the UK would be part of CETA because it would still be in the EU when
it was ratified within the next 1/2 years and hinted when exiting the
EU the trade deal would may still be valid between Canada and the UK.

There would be nothing to stop us unilaterally withdrawing from it, if
that were to be the case.

(Whether we might want to, or not, is another matter)

The thing so many don't seem to appreciate is just how long trade deals
take to set up. You're talking about 5 years plus of intensive
negotiations.

That's what you are told yes. Do you believe it, it seems yes.

Why do we need trade deals ?

The USA buys German cars they do not have a trade deal between germany and USA.
We can buy German cars we have a trade deal.

Which? the consumser mag was asking why those that have brought german cars in teh USA are getting compenstion of $7k per car from the recent fiddling but as yet the UK car aowners arenl;t geting a refund.


And if anything important changes in either country's
circumstances (like a deal with another country), you may well have to
start again. It is simply not just a handshake over a pint one night.

Like here if I could have a job where I'd be allowed to take 5+ years to get a key cut then that's the job I'd take too.
The peolpe making these decision son on relativel vast saleries and want to keep therio jobs for as long as possible, you can't really believ it takes 5 years.
Lets see if it will really take German car manufacors 5 years to do a deal with those that want to buy their cars.


Oh - May has admitted the UK simply doesn't have anything like enough
trained negotiators for new trade deals. Not surprising, as they've all
had to be done in conjunction with the EU before. And doing a deal with
inexperience negotiators is a sure way to get stitched up.

I'd let germany set whatever price they wanted on their cars.
If they want to charge 100k for a basic model let them, see how many we buy..
Thyey pretty much relly on £15b of car exports to teh UK.
Lets see if they can sell 15 of them at a million each see who bys them.
It's not like there aren't other cars on the market.


I find it laughable just how naive so many are on here. That they reckon
the entire world is queueing up to be nice to the UK in any deals.

Germany want to sell it's car to us so let them put any price they want on them
\and let the purchases decide what they are willing to pay rather than the govenments of those countries

In article ,
tim... wrote:
I'm just rather curious. Many on here seem to think we don't need any
deal with the EU.

A deal with the EU would be good for both sides

but we don't need one at any costs

Doesn't a deal generally mean of equal benefit to both sides?

And AISI, our only red line is no absolute FoM. If they can't concede
that point, IMHO they have more to lose than us, so good riddance.

They have more to lose than us? Trade with the EU accounts for about 50%
of the UK total. Something like 20% the other way. Oh - the good riddance
bit is an excellent way of starting negotiations for a deal. It didn't
work last time. Why think it will now?

And can trade round the world with no other deals.

No-one is saying that we wont have other trade deals in the future.

but as you have been pointing out, they take time to negotiate so we
will have to get by with none at all until they are negotiated

The question is just how long the UK can wait for all these new deals.

--
*England has no kidney bank, but it does have a Liverpool.*

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

In article ,
tim... wrote:
The bert version of economics. Price goes up by 3%, so sales must go
down by only 3%.

except that prices wont go up by 3%, because the exchange rate change
has already made them go down by 10%

Making the imports we rely on that much more expensive. Pushing up costs.

--
*Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large groups *

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

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
Germany want to sell it's car to us so let them put any price they want
on them \and let the purchases decide what they are willing to pay
rather than the govenments of those countries

Germany isn't the EU. In exactly the same way as the UK wasn't the EU. It
requires the agreement of many to change things. Something those who talk
about 'sovereignty' in the UK couldn't allow. They wanted their own way
and only their own way.

The gamble is having voted out is can we get a better deal outside than
in. I wouldn't hold my breath.

--
*Indian Driver - Smoke signals only*

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

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
Germany want to sell it's car to us so let them put any price they want
on them \and let the purchases decide what they are willing to pay
rather than the govenments of those countries

Germany isn't the EU. In exactly the same way as the UK wasn't the EU. It
requires the agreement of many to change things. Something those who talk
about 'sovereignty' in the UK couldn't allow. They wanted their own way
and only their own way.

Trade deals are two way items. A protectionist UK Governemnt might decide
that, in order to protect then UK's car industry and to minimise imports,
it might want to levy a tax on imported vehicles from Germany or France or
whereever. The trade deal would be that we don't levy such a tax and they
don't tax our exports of cars to them.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
wrote:

The bert version of economics. Price goes up by 3%, so sales must go
down by only 3%.


except that prices wont go up by 3%, because the exchange rate change
has already made them go down by 10%

Making the imports we rely on that much more expensive. Pushing up costs.


Life doesn't work that way. If the imports are too expensive,
either you produce yourself or find another source. I've seen prices
reduce by 50% as a result of changing sources.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
wrote:

Germany want to sell it's car to us so let them put any price they want
on them \and let the purchases decide what they are willing to pay
rather than the govenments of those countries

Germany isn't the EU. In exactly the same way as the UK wasn't the EU. It
requires the agreement of many to change things. Something those who talk
about 'sovereignty' in the UK couldn't allow. They wanted their own way
and only their own way.

The gamble is having voted out is can we get a better deal outside than
in. I wouldn't hold my breath.



Pity about the breath holding, I was hopeful you"d do it for 20
minutes and save the rest of us from your doleful predictions!

"tim..." wrote in message
...

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

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article , tim...
wrote:
The WTO may well provide a level playing field for countries
with no deals with anyone. But in practice that probably means
near zero countries.

they are hundreds of countries that trade with each other without
a trade deal

Ok. So what you are saying is we don't need to make any deals with
any countries?

No

I am saying that there are 100s of countries that trade without doing
so


That's all

Would it be too much for you to explain your point?

If there were no advantages to a trade deal for any country, why would
any bother with them?

I didn't say that there were no advantages to having a trade deal.

I am answering a point (which I interpreted as) claiming that that were
zero counties in the world that didn't have any trade deals because
they were an absolute necessity for doing trade.

It's rather obvious not all countries in the world have trade deals with
all the others. I was asking about any country which did well enough with
no trade deals at all.

That's IS what I said above (even if it was a bit convoluted)

And my point is that they are not an absolute necessity, they are simply
a "nice to have" add on.

Rather more than that in practice, I'd say. Otherwise why go to all the
bother?

(If I interpreted the claim wrongly, please accept my apology)

I'm just rather curious. Many on here seem to think we don't need any
deal
with the EU.

A deal with the EU would be good for both sides

That is very arguable if the deal encourages others that
are net contributors to the EU budget to also leave so
they don't have to take any notice of what some failed
politician turned unelected bureaucrat demands they do.

but we don't need one at any costs

And AISI, our only red line is no absolute FoM.

Makes not sense to allow some failed politician turned
unelected bureaucrat who can't be sacked when they ****
up badly enough to determine the bulk of policy either.

If they can't concede that point, IMHO they have more to lose than us, so
good riddance.

And can trade round the world with no other deals.

No-one is saying that we wont have other trade deals in the future.

but as you have been pointing out, they take time to negotiate so we will
have to get by with none at all until they are negotiated

Britain will actually get by with the WTO rules which just happens
to be BY FAR the most comprehensive trade deal the world has ever
seen and which covers FAR more countrys than any other one does
and in which Britain has had a lot more say un the detail of too.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
tim... wrote

I'm just rather curious. Many on here seem
to think we don't need any deal with the EU.

A deal with the EU would be good for both sides

but we don't need one at any costs

Doesn't a deal generally mean of equal benefit to both sides?

Nope, none of these do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...ade_agreements

And AISI, our only red line is no absolute FoM. If they can't concede
that point, IMHO they have more to lose than us, so good riddance.

They have more to lose than us? Trade with the EU accounts for
about 50% of the UK total. Something like 20% the other way.

It isnt just about trade. The EU looses the net contribution Britain
makes to their budget and the proof to others that are considering
leaving the EU that the leaving country does fine out of the EU too.

Oh - the good riddance bit is an excellent
way of starting negotiations for a deal.

It is indeed an excellent way to start negotiations to make
it clear what isnt negotiable and what will see you leave
if they are stupid enough to insist on having that.

It didn't work last time. Why think it will now?

It has worked, the majority have voted to leave.

And can trade round the world with no other deals.

No-one is saying that we wont have other trade deals in the future.

but as you have been pointing out, they take time to negotiate so
we will have to get by with none at all until they are negotiated

The question is just how long the UK can wait for all these new deals.

Doesn’t have to wait, it is free to use what is by far the most
comprehensive
trade deal the world has ever seen, the WTO rules, which applys to FAR more
countrys than Britain will ever bother to negotiate with bilaterally.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
tim... wrote

The bert version of economics. Price goes up
by 3%, so sales must go down by only 3%.

except that prices wont go up by 3%, because the exchange
rate change has already made them go down by 10%

Making the imports we rely on that much more expensive.

Not necessarily. Plenty of imports will be
available more cheaply from outside the EU.

Pushing up costs.

Microscopically with the retail price of the food most eat.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
whisky-dave wrote

Germany want to sell it's car to us so let them put any price
they want on them \and let the purchases decide what they
are willing to pay rather than the govenments of those countries

Germany isn't the EU. In exactly the same way as the UK wasn't
the EU. It requires the agreement of many to change things.

No it does not. Britain is free to leave the EU without
getting the agreement of other country to do that.

Something those who talk about 'sovereignty' in the UK couldn't allow.

Even sillier and more flagrantly dishonest than you usually manage.

They wanted their own way and only their own way.

And they got that when the majority who bothered
to vote decided that that is what they wanted.

The gamble is having voted out is can
we get a better deal outside than in.

Of course Britain can have a better situation outside the
EU than in it on the stuff the majority who bothered to
vote decided they cared about, EU citizens being free
to move to Britain if they feel like doing that and with
failed politicians turned into unsackable bureaucrats
telling Britain what it has to do policy wise.

I wouldn't hold my breath.

Pity about that.

On 26/07/2016 17:20, charles wrote:

Trade deals are two way items. A protectionist UK Governemnt might decide
that, in order to protect then UK's car industry and to minimise imports,
it might want to levy a tax on imported vehicles from Germany or France or
whereever. The trade deal would be that we don't levy such a tax and they
don't tax our exports of cars to them.


Or maybe the UK would want to tax german cars and the EU put a blanket
tax on all imports from the UK in retaliation.
Or maybe they would only give free access in exchange for £350M a week
and free movement of EU citizens.
Who knows what the deal might be?

On 26/07/2016 18:33, Capitol wrote:


Life doesn't work that way. If the imports are too expensive, either
you produce yourself or find another source. I've seen prices reduce by
50% as a result of changing sources.

Where do you suggest we buy oil for less?
Or gas?
Those have gone up because they are paid in dollars.

dennis@home wrote
charles wrote

Trade deals are two way items. A protectionist UK Governemnt might
decide that, in order to protect then UK's car industry and to minimise
imports, it might want to levy a tax on imported vehicles from Germany
or France or whereever. The trade deal would be that we don't levy such a
tax and they don't tax our exports of cars to them.

Or maybe the UK would want to tax german cars and the EU put a blanket tax
on all imports from the UK in retaliation.

Not even possible under the WTO rules that the EU is a signatory to.

Or maybe they would only give free access in exchange for £350M a week and
free movement of EU citizens.

In which case Britain is free to make an obscene gesture in
the general direction of the EU and trade with the EU under
the WTO rules, just like all of the USA, Canada, Australia,
India, China, Taiwan, Japan etc etc etc all do right now.

Who knows what the deal might be?

Don’t need any deal except for by far the most comprehensive
one that the the world has ever seen, which applys to far more
countrys than any other has ever done, the WTO rules.

dennis@home wrote
Capitol wrote

Life doesn't work that way. If the imports are too expensive,
either you produce yourself or find another source. I've seen
prices reduce by 50% as a result of changing sources.

Where do you suggest we buy oil for less?
Or gas?
Those have gone up because they are paid in dollars.

And Britain is free to lower the VAT rate on those
so that the consumer pays the same price as they
did before, now that it no longer has to do what
the EU demands be done with VAT rates.

On 26/07/2016 22:26, Rod Speed wrote:
dennis@home wrote
Capitol wrote

Life doesn't work that way. If the imports are too expensive, either
you produce yourself or find another source. I've seen prices reduce
by 50% as a result of changing sources.

Where do you suggest we buy oil for less?
Or gas?
Those have gone up because they are paid in dollars.

And Britain is free to lower the VAT rate on those so that the consumer
pays the same price as they did before, now that it no longer has to do
what the EU demands be done with VAT rates.

It still costs the UK more to buy the fuel and the tax has to come from
somewhere.

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

Life doesn't work that way. If the imports are too expensive,
either you produce yourself or find another source. I've seen
prices reduce by 50% as a result of changing sources.

Where do you suggest we buy oil for less?
Or gas?
Those have gone up because they are paid in dollars.

And Britain is free to lower the VAT rate on those so that the
consumer pays the same price as they did before, now that it no
longer has to do what the EU demands be done with VAT rates.

It still costs the UK more to buy the fuel

Not when the price of crude oil has dropped a lot
more than that 10% recently due to the oversupply.

and the tax has to come from somewhere.

More than that is saved by Britain no longer
having to ship billions to the EU ever year.

In article ,
charles wrote:
Germany isn't the EU. In exactly the same way as the UK wasn't the EU.
It requires the agreement of many to change things. Something those
who talk about 'sovereignty' in the UK couldn't allow. They wanted
their own way and only their own way.

Trade deals are two way items. A protectionist UK Governemnt might
decide that, in order to protect then UK's car industry and to minimise
imports, it might want to levy a tax on imported vehicles from Germany
or France or whereever. The trade deal would be that we don't levy such
a tax and they don't tax our exports of cars to them.

Think you've missed the point, Charles, that individual EU countries can't
do deals in that way. Because Germany allowing free access from say UK
cars means all others in the EU could get them too. Outside of the EU, the
UK can put tariffs on anything they want to.

--
*What hair colour do they put on the driver's license of a bald man? *

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

In article m,
dennis@home wrote:
On 26/07/2016 22:26, Rod Speed wrote:
dennis@home wrote
Capitol wrote

Life doesn't work that way. If the imports are too expensive, either
you produce yourself or find another source. I've seen prices reduce
by 50% as a result of changing sources.

Where do you suggest we buy oil for less?
Or gas?
Those have gone up because they are paid in dollars.

And Britain is free to lower the VAT rate on those so that the consumer
pays the same price as they did before, now that it no longer has to do
what the EU demands be done with VAT rates.

It still costs the UK more to buy the fuel and the tax has to come from
somewhere.

And the UK government still needs tax etc income to run the country. It
certainly wouldn't reduce tax on imports in a contracting economy. That
would be a total nonsense.

--
*Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder...

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
dennis@home wrote
Rod Speed wrote
dennis@home wrote
Capitol wrote

Life doesn't work that way. If the imports are too expensive,
either you produce yourself or find another source. I've seen
prices reduce by 50% as a result of changing sources.

Where do you suggest we buy oil for less?
Or gas?
Those have gone up because they are paid in dollars.

And Britain is free to lower the VAT rate on those so that the
consumer pays the same price as they did before, now that it no
longer has to do what the EU demands be done with VAT rates.

It still costs the UK more to buy the fuel and
the tax has to come from somewhere.

And the UK government still needs tax etc income to run the country.

But no longer has to send billions a year to the EU.

It certainly wouldn't reduce tax on imports in a contracting economy.

It is free to when it stops ending billions to the EU every year.

That would be a total nonsense.

Even sillier than you usually manage if the govt decides that the higher
retail
price of the petrol and diesel would be bad for the state of the economy.

And it wouldn’t be anyway given that the crude oil
price has dropped by more than that currently anyway.

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
Germany want to sell it's car to us so let them put any price they want
on them \and let the purchases decide what they are willing to pay
rather than the govenments of those countries

Germany isn't the EU. In exactly the same way as the UK wasn't the EU. It
requires the agreement of many to change things. Something those who talk
about 'sovereignty' in the UK couldn't allow. They wanted their own way
and only their own way.

Trade deals are two way items. A protectionist UK Governemnt might decide
that, in order to protect then UK's car industry and to minimise imports,
it might want to levy a tax on imported vehicles from Germany or France or
whereever.

The rules don't allow us to pick and choose like that

if we levy a tariff on (imports of foreign ) cars it must be the same
regardless where they come from

The trade deal would be that we don't levy such a tax and they
don't tax our exports of cars to them.

agreed

tim

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 26/07/2016 17:20, charles wrote:

Trade deals are two way items. A protectionist UK Governemnt might
decide
that, in order to protect then UK's car industry and to minimise imports,
it might want to levy a tax on imported vehicles from Germany or France
or
whereever. The trade deal would be that we don't levy such a tax and they
don't tax our exports of cars to them.


Or maybe the UK would want to tax german cars and the EU put a blanket tax
on all imports from the UK in retaliation.

subject to WTO rules they are free to do that

as are we to retaliate

Or maybe they would only give free access in exchange for £350M a week and
free movement of EU citizens.

They gave a trade deal to Canada (albeit yet to be signed) without those
requirements. This idea that the two things are immutably linked is stuff
and nonsense

Who knows what the deal might be?

agreed

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:
I'm just rather curious. Many on here seem to think we don't need any
deal with the EU.

A deal with the EU would be good for both sides

but we don't need one at any costs

Doesn't a deal generally mean of equal benefit to both sides?

No

usually both side will be looking for a deal which is better for them

sometimes someone wins!


And AISI, our only red line is no absolute FoM. If they can't concede
that point, IMHO they have more to lose than us, so good riddance.

They have more to lose than us? Trade with the EU accounts for about 50%
of the UK total.

50% of exports, but only 10% of total trade

tim

In article ,
tim... wrote:
Trade deals are two way items. A protectionist UK Governemnt might
decide that, in order to protect then UK's car industry and to
minimise imports, it might want to levy a tax on imported vehicles
from Germany or France or whereever.

The rules don't allow us to pick and choose like that

if we levy a tariff on (imports of foreign ) cars it must be the same
regardless where they come from.

Nonsense.

The trade deal would be that we don't levy such a tax and they
don't tax our exports of cars to them.

agreed

A deal could be anything. It's what is agreed between two countries. The
problem comes when either of those countries have a deal with others which
is different. Which is why negotiations take years.

--
*A closed mouth gathers no feet.*

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
tim... wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote

Trade deals are two way items. A protectionist UK Governemnt
might decide that, in order to protect then UK's car industry and
to minimise imports, it might want to levy a tax on imported
vehicles from Germany or France or whereever.

The rules don't allow us to pick and choose like that

if we levy a tariff on (imports of foreign ) cars it must
be the same regardless where they come from.

Nonsense.

Fact. That is what the WTO rules mandate.

The trade deal would be that we don't levy such a
tax and they don't tax our exports of cars to them.

agreed

A deal could be anything. It's what is agreed between two countries.

Wrong given the WTO rules.

The problem comes when either of those countries have a deal with
others which is different. Which is why negotiations take years.

Even more pig ignorant than you usually manage.

dennis@home wrote:
On 26/07/2016 18:33, Capitol wrote:


Life doesn't work that way. If the imports are too expensive, either
you produce yourself or find another source. I've seen prices reduce by
50% as a result of changing sources.

Where do you suggest we buy oil for less?
Or gas?
Those have gone up because they are paid in dollars.



Fracking? Both are less than 2 years ago due to supply gluts.
Invalid examples.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In aweb.com,
lid wrote:

On 26/07/2016 22:26, Rod Speed wrote:

lid wrote

Capitol wrote


Life doesn't work that way. If the imports are too expensive, either
you produce yourself or find another source. I've seen prices reduce
by 50% as a result of changing sources.


Where do you suggest we buy oil for less?
Or gas?
Those have gone up because they are paid in dollars.

And Britain is free to lower the VAT rate on those so that the consumer
pays the same price as they did before, now that it no longer has to do
what the EU demands be done with VAT rates.


It still costs the UK more to buy the fuel and the tax has to come from
somewhere.

And the UK government still needs tax etc income to run the country. It
certainly wouldn't reduce tax on imports in a contracting economy. That
would be a total nonsense.



Once again, economics is not your forte!

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:
Trade deals are two way items. A protectionist UK Governemnt might
decide that, in order to protect then UK's car industry and to
minimise imports, it might want to levy a tax on imported vehicles
from Germany or France or whereever.

The rules don't allow us to pick and choose like that

if we levy a tariff on (imports of foreign ) cars it must be the same
regardless where they come from.

Nonsense.

No it's not

that's what WTO rules demand

if you impose a tariff on (e.g. cars) they must be non-discriminatory.


tim

On 27/07/16 11:02, tim... wrote:
if we levy a tariff on (imports of foreign ) cars it must be the same
regardless where they come from

Wrong.


--
"I am inclined to tell the truth and dislike people who lie consistently.
This makes me unfit for the company of people of a Left persuasion, and
all women"

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/07/16 11:02, tim... wrote:
if we levy a tariff on (imports of foreign ) cars it must be the same
regardless where they come from

Wrong.



He's correct when there is no formal agreement involving those countries.

In article ,
tim... wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article , tim...
wrote:
I'm just rather curious. Many on here seem to think we don't need
any deal with the EU.

A deal with the EU would be good for both sides

but we don't need one at any costs

Doesn't a deal generally mean of equal benefit to both sides?

No

usually both side will be looking for a deal which is better for them

sometimes someone wins!

Then they'd be stupid to sign a one sided deal. Rather my point. And the
ramifications of the UK being able to negotiate a better deal than anyone
else with the EU are rather obvious. They'd all then want the same.


And AISI, our only red line is no absolute FoM. If they can't
concede that point, IMHO they have more to lose than us, so good
riddance.

They have more to lose than us? Trade with the EU accounts for about
50% of the UK total.

50% of exports, but only 10% of total trade

Now give that figure for the EU. Compare apples with apples.

tim



--
*I don't feel old. I don't feel anything until noon. Then it's time for my nap.

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