In article ,
tim... wrote:

"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

You don't have to trade under WTO rules. After all we've just gone through
the nonsense of 'getting back control' from the EU. Only to replace that
with something else?

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

--
*When you've seen one shopping centre you've seen a mall*

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

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

They don’t, but it isnt necessarily equal benefit to both sides.

Rather my point.

Wrong.

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.

They don’t necessarily want anything like the same deal.
All but 3 of these got a free trade deal without any free
movement of people involved.
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.

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

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

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

You don't have to trade under WTO rules.

You do if you are a signatory.

After all we've just gone through the nonsense of 'getting back
control' from the EU. Only to replace that with something else?

There are no regulations or directives involved with the
WTO, countrys decide if they want to be a signatory or not.

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

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

"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

You don't have to trade under WTO rules.

In the absence of any trade deals we do

And the argument is that it will take ages to make these deals so as soon as
come out we will only have WTO on offer.

After all we've just gone through
the nonsense of 'getting back control' from the EU. Only to replace that
with something else?

The point about that something else is that it just defines maximum tariffs
as a starting point, it provides for flexibility within that, flexibility
that the EU does not allow

tim

On Tuesday, 26 July 2016 17:09:18 UTC+1, 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.

Explains why Angela Merkel was meeting with MAy about signing deals with the EU doesn't it. Germany is the biggest player in the EU have you not noticed.



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.

Nothing wrong with that.


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

It depends on who's doing the deals. We won;t know as we've been told we don't have experienced negotiaters so who';s been negotaiting for teh last 40 years if it wasn;t someone from the UK ?

On Tuesday, 26 July 2016 17:18:38 UTC+1, charles wrote:
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.

Germany sell about 15 billion worth of cars to teh UK.
If they want to mantain that level then two things have to happen the cars have to stay at a competative price and people want to buy them at that price.

Well say VW decide to add a tarrif on thier cars of say 10% perhaps if they do they might sell 10% less cars, I doubt they'll sell 10% more.
Or will Germany say to VW you have to add 10% to every.


Other than Apple (who niether the UK or EU have a trade deal with) most componies in an effrot to sell more or make more profit tend to lower the price of their products or offer a deal.

It wouldn;t suprise me if the EU decide to double the price of all it's goods to the UK and expect the UK to buy twice as many.

whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 July 2016 17:18:38 UTC+1, charles wrote:

In ,
Dave Plowman 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.

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.

Germany sell about 15 billion worth of cars to teh UK.
If they want to mantain that level then two things have to happen the cars have to stay at a competative price and people want to buy them at that price.

Well say VW decide to add a tarrif on thier cars of say 10% perhaps if they do they might sell 10% less cars, I doubt they'll sell 10% more.
Or will Germany say to VW you have to add 10% to every.


Other than Apple (who niether the UK or EU have a trade deal with) most componies in an effrot to sell more or make more profit tend to lower the price of their products or offer a deal.

It wouldn;t suprise me if the EU decide to double the price of all it's goods to the UK and expect the UK to buy twice as many.


The Chinese manufacturers are just sitting on their hands
waiting for their opportunity to flood the UK market with low cost cars
products. Just look at the TV market!

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 July 2016 17:09:18 UTC+1, 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.

Explains why Angela Merkel was meeting with MAy about signing deals with
the EU doesn't it. Germany is the biggest player in the EU have you not
noticed.

And the UK is a large one too - but didn't get its own way.

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.

Nothing wrong with that.

You think? Pie in the sky that the UK can get its own way in *any*
negotiations. They are always going to be a compromise. Of course if the
UK can't get its own way on what is non negotiable, the answer is to walk
away.


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

It depends on who's doing the deals. We won;t know as we've been told we
don't have experienced negotiaters so who';s been negotaiting for teh
last 40 years if it wasn;t someone from the UK ?

We've not needed much in the way of our own trade deal negotiators since
any deal is common to the EU, so done by their team. Of which we would be
only a part.

--
*All generalizations are false.

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

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
bert wrote:
Those who are against immigration simply don't care what jobs they may
or may not do. They just want it stopped. Completely.

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

This group? You really think it representative?

I'll take that as a no.
--
bert

In article om,
lid writes
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 but knew he couldn't actually say it in
public.

So he didn't say it and you have come up with no-one who did. SO another
remain lie.
Snip
--
bert

In article ,
whisky-dave 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.

Germany sell about 15 billion worth of cars to teh UK. If they want to
mantain that level then two things have to happen the cars have to stay
at a competative price and people want to buy them at that price.

Well say VW decide to add a tarrif on thier cars of say 10% perhaps if
they do they might sell 10% less cars, I doubt they'll sell 10% more. Or
will Germany say to VW you have to add 10% to every.

Think you may have got this tariff business wrong. It's the UK which would
put a tariff on German cars to protect the UK car industry. etc. German
makers charge what they want to.


Other than Apple (who niether the UK or EU have a trade deal with) most
componies in an effrot to sell more or make more profit tend to lower
the price of their products or offer a deal.

Have you looked at the price of an Apple product in the US? And compared
it to UK prices?

It wouldn;t suprise me if the EU decide to double the price of all it's
goods to the UK and expect the UK to buy twice as many.

Really?

--
*A cubicle is just a padded cell without a door.

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

In article , tim...
writes

"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


Any trade deal the EU has automatically includes the UK
Dead easy. Get a copy of trade deal with EU
Find EU - Replace with UK - Sign here.
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
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?
Thicko is at it again.


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.

As long as it takes - and we have at least a two year head start before
we leave the EU
--
bert

In article . com,
lid writes
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?
Average tariff on imports into the EU is about 3%. The effective cost of
our membership of the EU is the equivalent of a tariff of about 7%. - I
read somewhere during the Referendum campaigns. Don't ask me for a link.
Just take the figures as illustrative.
No doubt Thicko will not understand that.
--
bert

In article , tim...
writes

"dennis@home" wrote in message
aweb.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.
Being challenged in Germany as unconstitutional AIUI
This idea that the two things are immutably linked is stuff and
nonsense

Agreed
Who knows what the deal might be?

BMW

--
bert

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

"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

You don't have to trade under WTO rules.
FFS we are members of the WTO.
Either you are thick or just a troll.
After all we've just gone through
the nonsense of 'getting back control' from the EU. Only to replace that
with something else?

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


--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
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%.

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%?
Oh Thicko logic.
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
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.

Which means home products which have high added value become relatively
cheaper so imports fall ( or do not rise as quickly)
--
bert

In article , Capitol
writes
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
wrote:

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

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.
You forget Thicko is a lefty**** and they don't do economics.
--
bert

In article . com,
lid writes
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.


The US has started exporting gas. Stuff the greenies and get fracking in
this country.
--
bert

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 July 2016 17:09:18 UTC+1, 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.

Explains why Angela Merkel was meeting with MAy about signing deals with
the EU doesn't it. Germany is the biggest player in the EU have you not
noticed.

And the UK is a large one too - but didn't get its own way.

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.

Nothing wrong with that.

You think? Pie in the sky that the UK can get its own way in *any*
negotiations. They are always going to be a compromise. Of course if the
UK can't get its own way on what is non negotiable, the answer is to walk
away.


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

It depends on who's doing the deals. We won;t know as we've been told we
don't have experienced negotiaters so who';s been negotaiting for teh
last 40 years if it wasn;t someone from the UK ?

We've not needed much in the way of our own trade deal negotiators since
any deal is common to the EU, so done by their team. Of which we would be
only a part.

But plenty of Brits have worked for the EU as negotiators and presumably
quite
a few of those will choose to remain Brits and can work for Britain instead.

"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:

"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


Any trade deal the EU has automatically includes the UK
Dead easy. Get a copy of trade deal with EU
Find EU - Replace with UK - Sign here.

It isnt that easy. Very few of these are of much use to Britain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...ade_agreements

The 3 that involve paying lots of money to the EU arent going to be
signed with Britain with the same deal for Britain.

In article ,
bert wrote:
The question is just how long the UK can wait for all these new deals.

As long as it takes - and we have at least a two year head start before
we leave the EU

Thin most would like things sorted sooner rather than later.

I doubt many who voted out had any idea just how long it might take to get
to their 'brave new world' where the UK does well trading with the rest of
the world. While going downhill in the interim.

--
*Growing old is inevitable, growing up is optional

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
bert wrote

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

As long as it takes - and we have at least a
two year head start before we leave the EU

Thin most would like things sorted sooner rather than later.

Its well sorted right from the start with by far the most comprehensive
trade agreement the world has ever seen, the WTO rules.

Yes, it is certainly possible to do better than that, but there
is no urgency about that given that all of the USA, Canada,
Taiwan, India, Japan, Korea, Australia etc etc etc all do the
absolute vast bulk of the trade they do under the WTO rules.

I doubt many who voted out had any idea just how long
it might take to get to their 'brave new world' where the
UK does well trading with the rest of the world.

You havent established that Britain will do any worse
trading under the WTO rules than it does currently
given that the drop in the pound means that exports
will do quite a bit better and that Britain outside the
EU will be free to import from wherever it likes without
having to pay any import duty or tariffs that it had to
when it was in the EU.

While going downhill in the interim.

Just more remainer lies without any evidence to support it.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
wrote:

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


As long as it takes - and we have at least a two year head start before
we leave the EU

Thin most would like things sorted sooner rather than later.

I doubt many who voted out had any idea just how long it might take to get
to their 'brave new world' where the UK does well trading with the rest of
the world. While going downhill in the interim.



I love an optimist!

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
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.


Germany sell about 15 billion worth of cars to teh UK. If they want to
mantain that level then two things have to happen the cars have to stay
at a competative price and people want to buy them at that price.


Well say VW decide to add a tarrif on thier cars of say 10% perhaps if
they do they might sell 10% less cars, I doubt they'll sell 10% more. Or
will Germany say to VW you have to add 10% to every.

Think you may have got this tariff business wrong. It's the UK which would
put a tariff on German cars to protect the UK car industry. etc. German
makers charge what they want to.



Other than Apple (who niether the UK or EU have a trade deal with) most
componies in an effrot to sell more or make more profit tend to lower
the price of their products or offer a deal.

Have you looked at the price of an Apple product in the US? And compared
it to UK prices?


It wouldn;t suprise me if the EU decide to double the price of all it's
goods to the UK and expect the UK to buy twice as many.

Really?


The buyer has the choice, you don't have to buy any overpriced
product. That's why you buy on Ebay from China isn't it?

bert wrote:
In article . com,
lid writes
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.


The US has started exporting gas. Stuff the greenies and get fracking
in this country.
The oil price has dropped about 10% in the past month and is
still going down. Dollar pound ratio isn't shifting much.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , bert
wrote:

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
bert wrote:
Those who are against immigration simply don't care what jobs they
may or may not do. They just want it stopped. Completely.

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

This group? You really think it representative?

I'll take that as a no.

It was another attempt at a shimmy by Dave. One of these days he'll
learn how to do it. Or perhaps not.

Never cease to be amazed just how out of touch this group really is.

--
*Real men don't waste their hormones growing hair

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Tim Streater wrote
bert wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
bert wrote

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

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

This group? You really think it representative?

I'll take that as a no.

It was another attempt at a shimmy by Dave. One of
these days he'll learn how to do it. Or perhaps not.

Never cease to be amazed just how out of touch this group really is.

In fact you are so stupid that just because some fool journo can find
a few load mouthed bigots who say something like that in a vox pop
so their relos can see them on TV, that more than a microscopic
subset of those who bothered to vote feel the same way.

"Capitol" wrote in message
o.uk...
whisky-dave wrote:


The Chinese manufacturers are just sitting on their hands waiting
for their opportunity to flood the UK market with low cost cars products.

If they perform adequately - GOOD

tim

In article ,
tim... wrote:
The Chinese manufacturers are just sitting on their hands waiting
for their opportunity to flood the UK market with low cost cars
products.

If they perform adequately - GOOD

You do realise that imports have to be paid for in one way or another?

Thought the whole idea of 'taking back control' was to get the country on
a firmer footing. Including trade wise.

--
*Be nice to your kids. They'll choose your nursing home.

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
wrote:

The Chinese manufacturers are just sitting on their hands waiting
for their opportunity to flood the UK market with low cost cars
products.


If they perform adequately - GOOD

You do realise that imports have to be paid for in one way or another?

Thought the whole idea of 'taking back control' was to get the country on
a firmer footing. Including trade wise.


Where did your TV come from?

On Thursday, 28 July 2016 03:16:30 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 July 2016 17:09:18 UTC+1, 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.

Explains why Angela Merkel was meeting with MAy about signing deals with
the EU doesn't it. Germany is the biggest player in the EU have you not
noticed.

And the UK is a large one too - but didn't get its own way.

And Germany has, I thought the EU was a democracy but we all know it isn't and that's why some voted to leave.


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.

Nothing wrong with that.

You think?

Yes wanting and getting are two differnt things. It's called barganing in most cultures but the EU wants to take that away.



Pie in the sky that the UK can get its own way in *any*
negotiations.

We should at least get some things our way as should other countries.
I don;t understand why we need to agreement of 27 countries in order to buy a german car. I brought a computer without having to ask anyone let alone 27 countries for permission.


They are always going to be a compromise. Of course if the
UK can't get its own way on what is non negotiable, the answer is to walk
away.

Yep, you're not getting a democracy so like it or lump it, so we walked.
I see nothing wrong in that.
It's not like we joined the EU. Just like any realationship if it gets too once sided then agree to part.



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

It depends on who's doing the deals. We won;t know as we've been told we
don't have experienced negotiaters so who';s been negotaiting for teh
last 40 years if it wasn;t someone from the UK ?

We've not needed much in the way of our own trade deal negotiators since
any deal is common to the EU, so done by their team. Of which we would be
only a part.

So which part of that team are ours.. none it seems.
So we've let other decide what is good for us.
Maybe our negotiators weren;t allowed in the meeting.

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
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.

Nothing wrong with that.

You think?

Yes wanting and getting are two differnt things. It's called barganing
in most cultures but the EU wants to take that away.

You've been believing the Express again.

The EU is democratic within its own rules. In the same way as the UK is
within its.

There was no majority of those entitled to vote in the referendum - yet we
are leaving. So it is impossible to be certain it is the will of the
majority.

Thatcher changed democracy within trades unions. That required every
person entitled to vote to be sent a voting form and a pre-paid return
envelope.

Odd that something like a strike ballot is *far* more important than a
referendum on something that will change history.

--
*He who laughs last has just realised the joke.

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

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
We should at least get some things our way as should other countries. I
don;t understand why we need to agreement of 27 countries in order to
buy a german car. I brought a computer without having to ask anyone let
alone 27 countries for permission.

You really don't get it, do you?

There is never a problem *buying* anything. (Except perhaps things which
are defence sensitive) Any country anywhere will be delighted to take your
money. The UK government may have other ideas, though, to protect UK jobs
etc.

It is *selling* things to other countries which need some form of
agreement. Because that country can seek to protect their own jobs too.

--
*If work is so terrific, how come they have to pay you to do it?

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

On Thursday, 28 July 2016 15:30:29 UTC+1, Capitol wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
wrote:

The Chinese manufacturers are just sitting on their hands waiting
for their opportunity to flood the UK market with low cost cars
products.


If they perform adequately - GOOD

You do realise that imports have to be paid for in one way or another?

Thought the whole idea of 'taking back control' was to get the country on
a firmer footing. Including trade wise.


Where did your TV come from?

Argos, I got in last week :-)

On Thursday, 28 July 2016 16:14:10 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
We should at least get some things our way as should other countries. I
don;t understand why we need to agreement of 27 countries in order to
buy a german car. I brought a computer without having to ask anyone let
alone 27 countries for permission.

You really don't get it, do you?

Compared to you as yet I'm not sure.


There is never a problem *buying* anything. (Except perhaps things which
are defence sensitive).

Yes I know as I buy things from the USA of which some items can't be re-exported. In fact sometimes I've asked for stuff which we can't import.


Any country anywhere will be delighted to take your
money. The UK government may have other ideas, though, to protect UK jobs
etc.

Yes exactly so what will happen then.
What UK jobs are at threat from this ?

Steel, milk, chips, bread, kebabs, wine, beer, sugar ?

Just give me some examples where we will have to protect UK jobs now or rather while we leave the EU, and how will that effect things.




It is *selling* things to other countries which need some form of
agreement. Because that country can seek to protect their own jobs too.

Yes I know and when spain joined the EU spain it had to destroy most of it's vineyards (yes I have spanish friends who parents remmeber it well) because they weren;t being allowed to compete with the French (because they were cheaper) So the spansih reduced theri wine production by about 80%
So the price of wine in the EU went up especailly in spain.
I think this is why whetherspoons buy their wines from anywhere else (95%) other than the EU because of prices.

Let the EU protect their wine let them charge £100 if someone wants to buy it then let them, if they want to buy spansih wione at 90p a bottle let them.
What sort of people would want to stop freedom of trade Nazi's perhaps.

On Thursday, 28 July 2016 16:14:10 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
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.

Nothing wrong with that.

You think?

Yes wanting and getting are two differnt things. It's called barganing
in most cultures but the EU wants to take that away.

You've been believing the Express again.

While you believ in what exactly.


The EU is democratic within its own rules. In the same way as the UK is
within its.

so the same then ?


There was no majority of those entitled to vote in the referendum - yet we
are leaving. So it is impossible to be certain it is the will of the
majority.

It's the will of the majorut people that voted, yes. We'll never be sure of what those who didn't vote would have voted for any more than the dead or yet to be born.
Apparently a lot of the younger voters wanted to stay but didn;t manage to get out and vote for some reason. As I said the polls should have been open longer so they could get themselves out of bed.


Thatcher changed democracy within trades unions. That required every
person entitled to vote to be sent a voting form and a pre-paid return
envelope.

Odd that something like a strike ballot is *far* more important than a
referendum on something that will change history.

Are yuo saying a ballot and a referdeum and an election are all teh same ?


Strange isn't it. I don't remember forms being sent out when we joined the EU.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
wrote:

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.


Nothing wrong with that.

You think?


Yes wanting and getting are two differnt things. It's called barganing
in most cultures but the EU wants to take that away.

You've been believing the Express again.

The EU is democratic within its own rules. In the same way as the UK is
within its.

There was no majority of those entitled to vote in the referendum - yet we
are leaving. So it is impossible to be certain it is the will of the
majority.

Thatcher changed democracy within trades unions. That required every
person entitled to vote to be sent a voting form and a pre-paid return
envelope.

Odd that something like a strike ballot is *far* more important than a
referendum on something that will change history.


Still fighting a lost cause? Get back to diy and do something
useful!

tim... wrote
Capitol wrote
whisky-dave wrote

The Chinese manufacturers are just sitting on their hands waiting for
their opportunity to flood the UK market with low cost cars products.

If they perform adequately - GOOD

And they do. Couple of the people I know have Great Walls and they work
fine.