Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
UK diy (uk.d-i-y) For the discussion of all topics related to diy (do-it-yourself) in the UK. All levels of experience and proficency are welcome to join in to ask questions or offer solutions. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Emergence of Re-leavers
In article ,
James Harris wrote: My guess is the deal we end up with won't be better than before all this nonsense started. Most likely worse in some ways. But designed to satisfy those who talk about sovereignty and other such meaningless things. Yes, the EU deal will be worse than now. The EU will insist on that. But the question is how much worse. And whatever EU deal we get we will have been freed up to build our own trade links. That's the big economic prize of Brexit and is where future generations will derive their wealth. Britain will go back to being an international trader, following the formula which made the country rich in the past. Good grief. More eternal optimism. Trade deals are so interlinked no major country is free to set up new ones just like that. Which is why negotiations for a deal between the EU and US have been going on for so long. Do you not realise that if we have a free trade agreement with the EU, then any goods coming into this country from another agreement (that you think could happen) would then have free access to the EU? Of course with some things easily identifiable like say a make of car, you could control that. But for others, impossible. Would be a smuggler's charter. -- *Home cooking. Where many a man thinks his wife is. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#42
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Emergence of Re-leavers
On 19/05/2017 11:18, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
but that the EU won't be in the UK. They appear to be very optimistic. Maybe that's the big difference, some people are over optimistic? The whole basis of the leave campaign was the gamble we could have our cake and eat it. Sensible people know gamblers always lose. The brexitters have started to moan about the price increases they caused. Now they want caps on energy, etc. to hide their problems until people forget who caused it. |
#43
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Emergence of Re-leavers
On 19/05/2017 11:13, James Harris wrote:
On 19/05/2017 00:51, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , James Harris wrote: I keep on asking just which did anything in the way of 'limiting'. And so far have had very little concrete information. OK. Here are some examples. We wanted to protect our steel industry from Chinese dumping. But under EU rules we had to try to persuade them to impose tariffs. They would only do so if they thought it was good for the average across the EU28. The Chinese dumping steel is good for just what EU country? Germany? Italy? Countries which don't produce steel will not care as much - if at all - as those who do. And the EU works as a collective. In fact, if they consume steel some countries might see dumping as welcome. Even if not officially, they can still put bureaucratic blocks in the way. With its voluminous rulebooks and focus on red tape the EU is an ideal organ for preventing things happening. It could hardly be better. To protect farmers the EU last year put up tariffs against oranges. We don't grow oranges in the UK so it helped us not at all. All it did was put up the prices consumers have to pay in the shops. OK. So the EU can't do anything to protect industries in other EU countries. But you expect it to protect UK steel. No. I was saying that outside the EU we would be able to choose whether to protect the steel industry or not. We would not have to go to Brussels or Strasbourg to try to persuade them to do what's good for British people and British jobs. We could do that ourselves. Would it be worth it? Maybe. America slapped on very large tariffs of 100% to 150% (possibly temporarily). We were not allowed to. Think about that. The elected British government was _not allowed_ to do what it thought best for Brits, because EU rules take precedence over UK ministers. So how does this work with devolution? Most of the steel was in Wales are they going to be allowed to slap on a tariff or will they be overruled by the English,Irish and Scots who happen to be the other members of the UK "free trade area" Maybe its best to just breakup the UK into it separate countries and then do the same for the regions and just keep going until there is nothing left. |
#44
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Emergence of Re-leavers
On 19/05/2017 11:56, bm wrote:
"James Harris" wrote in message news On 19/05/2017 01:16, bm wrote: ... As I keep saying, Dave, Brexit won't happen. Have you been on this journey? "Brits will never vote to leave the EU" "Article 50 will never be triggered" "Brexit won't happen" There's many a slip twixt cup and lip. I wouldn't go flag waving just yet. I wasn't waving any flag. You were! -- James Harris |
#45
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Emergence of Re-leavers
In article ,
James Harris wrote: On 19/05/2017 11:56, bm wrote: "James Harris" wrote in message news On 19/05/2017 01:16, bm wrote: ... As I keep saying, Dave, Brexit won't happen. Have you been on this journey? "Brits will never vote to leave the EU" "Article 50 will never be triggered" "Brexit won't happen" There's many a slip twixt cup and lip. I wouldn't go flag waving just yet. I wasn't waving any flag. You were! Brexit will happen. We will no longer be part of the EU. The main point will be if it was worth it. Assuming we do reach and agreement on trades and services with the EU, which my guess is likely, given that's what May wants too. What is very likely is we'll end up paying into the EU budget but without any real influence on how it is spent. Immigration will be nominally under our control, but in terms of numbers will not be reduced by much - and certainly not to near zero as many leavers wanted. And we'll still be subject to all the common legislation. -- *A plateau is a high form of flattery* Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#46
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Emergence of Re-leavers
On 19/05/17 16:41, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , James Harris wrote: On 19/05/2017 00:41, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , James Harris wrote: I didn't. It was YOU who brought animosity into the discussion. Europe is a beautiful place. And the people of Europe are our friends and neighbours. Friends and neighbours you wish to distance yourself from? No, I don't want to get away from them. I don't want a group of European politicians to be able to overrule the government that Brits elect, if that's what you mean. But that's not because they are Europeans. They could be from Mongolia or Timbuktu and it would make no difference. I repeat: You are claiming an animosity which is not there. But it's what Dave does, so don't be surprised. He sets up his own straw and bogey men and then claims you are in favour of them. He will then claim you are in favour of them because you are a racist or whatever. It's just his fevered imagination working overtime. +1 He's drunk the Marxist koolaid and cant see that Marxism is, in the final analysis, a very flawed and unhelpful way to understand the world and an even worse way to run politics -- A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes. |
#47
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Emergence of Re-leavers
On 19/05/17 11:13, James Harris wrote:
I was illustrating that it is not a trade block. It has a flag, an anthem, a parliament, a means of taxing people, an armed force - at least one "battlegroup", and now its own foreign policy. It is becoming a superstate. *Trying* to become... -- "When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." Jonathan Swift. |
#48
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Emergence of Re-leavers
On 19/05/2017 12:15, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , James Harris wrote: My guess is the deal we end up with won't be better than before all this nonsense started. Most likely worse in some ways. But designed to satisfy those who talk about sovereignty and other such meaningless things. Yes, the EU deal will be worse than now. The EU will insist on that. But the question is how much worse. And whatever EU deal we get we will have been freed up to build our own trade links. That's the big economic prize of Brexit and is where future generations will derive their wealth. Britain will go back to being an international trader, following the formula which made the country rich in the past. Good grief. More eternal optimism. Not at all. Logic and reference to the past. Trade deals are so interlinked no major country is free to set up new ones just like that. Which is why negotiations for a deal between the EU and US have been going on for so long. I keep hearing Remoaners saying "making a trade deal takes a long time. Look at how long the EU takes". Its slowness is a good reason to leave. For example, the EU has been thinking about a trade deal with the US for decades but is in no particular hurry to get it done. By contrast, Australia cut a trade deal with the US in under 2 years. Alright, they had few potential causes of conflict. But deals can be done where there is political will. Some examples: http://pensites.com/politics/article...ke-trade-deals Do you not realise that if we have a free trade agreement with the EU, then any goods coming into this country from another agreement (that you think could happen) would then have free access to the EU? Of course with some things easily identifiable like say a make of car, you could control that. But for others, impossible. Would be a smuggler's charter. How is that different from rules-of-origin issues that are dealt with by countries around the world? -- James Harris |
#49
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Emergence of Re-leavers
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote: In article , James Harris wrote: Note that the EU insists things must be worse not for economic reasons but for political protectionism. It almost always focusses on politics rather than economics. That's why it holds us back and why it is good we are leaving. And is why the EU will, in the long run, go down the drain. Why do you hope this? -- *If at first you don't succeed, try management * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#50
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Emergence of Re-leavers
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote: In article , James Harris wrote: On 19/05/2017 00:41, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , James Harris wrote: I didn't. It was YOU who brought animosity into the discussion. Europe is a beautiful place. And the people of Europe are our friends and neighbours. Friends and neighbours you wish to distance yourself from? No, I don't want to get away from them. I don't want a group of European politicians to be able to overrule the government that Brits elect, if that's what you mean. But that's not because they are Europeans. They could be from Mongolia or Timbuktu and it would make no difference. I repeat: You are claiming an animosity which is not there. But it's what Dave does, so don't be surprised. He sets up his own straw and bogey men and then claims you are in favour of them. Yeh, right. Claim 'Europe' are our friends and neighbours. But don't trust them. Don't want to co-operate with them. And certainly don't want to contribute in any way to the poorer ones. He will then claim you are in favour of them because you are a racist or whatever. It's just his fevered imagination working overtime. Don't need to imagine anything with the likes of you around. -- *By the time a man is wise enough to watch his step, he's too old to go anywhere. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#51
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Emergence of Re-leavers
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote: So you are so passionate about leaving the EU without following any of the arguments pro and con in the run up to the referendum? Figures. I had no need to follow such arguments, tedious as they mostly were, because I'd already seen enough of the EU, its workings, and its absence of democracy, long before the referendum was even called. Ah - right. Odd you constantly fail to give any truly valid reasons for leaving, then. You should have hundreds to choose from, being such an expert. So **** off (again). Nice. Just the sort of thing I'd expect from your pal Farage. -- *We never really grow*up, we only learn how to act in public. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#52
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Emergence of Re-leavers
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote: In article , Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , Tim Streater wrote: In article , Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , James Harris wrote: The EU decided that it should act as a country and have its own foreign policy. So it appointed a "high representative" of itself - initially Cathy Ashton, now Federica Mogherini. And? And another £500 million went down the drain to no purpose except to boost EU bigwigs' egos. Right. So you don't like an organisation having a policy for anything? The EU has no business having a "foreign policy". It is not a country. You are totally mad. Plenty businesses and organisations have a 'foreign policy' although perhaps not called exactly that. -- *Work like you don't need the money. Love like you've never been hurt. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#53
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Emergence of Re-leavers
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
... In article , Tim Streater wrote: In article , James Harris wrote: Note that the EU insists things must be worse not for economic reasons but for political protectionism. It almost always focusses on politics rather than economics. That's why it holds us back and why it is good we are leaving. And is why the EU will, in the long run, go down the drain. Why do you hope this? Why do you ask this question, asshopper? |
#54
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Emergence of Re-leavers
On 19/05/2017 16:32, Tim Streater wrote:
In article om, dennis@home wrote: On 19/05/2017 00:41, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , James Harris wrote: I didn't. It was YOU who brought animosity into the discussion. Europe is a beautiful place. And the people of Europe are our friends and neighbours. Friends and neighbours you wish to distance yourself from? You may have noticed that all the brexitters think we will be free to do what we like in Europe after brexit but that the EU won't be in the UK. The EU won't be in the UK? What *do* you mean, Den? I can't explain it to you I stopped explaining stuff to five year olds a few decades ago. Maybe you should ask your mum? |
#55
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Emergence of Re-leavers
On 19/05/17 20:07, Richard wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ... In article , Tim Streater wrote: In article , James Harris wrote: Note that the EU insists things must be worse not for economic reasons but for political protectionism. It almost always focusses on politics rather than economics. That's why it holds us back and why it is good we are leaving. And is why the EU will, in the long run, go down the drain. Why do you hope this? Why do you ask this question, asshopper? when I say with great sadness, that one day I will die, it is not hope. It is regret But Plow**** only knows the hope for others' deaths. -- Canada is all right really, though not for the whole weekend. "Saki" |
#56
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Emergence of Re-leavers
On 19/05/2017 16:36, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , James Harris wrote: Note that the EU insists things must be worse not for economic reasons but for political protectionism. It almost always focusses on politics rather than economics. That's why it holds us back and why it is good we are leaving. And is why the EU will, in the long run, go down the drain. Agreed. The EU boasts all kinds of protections for workers but has remained economically stagnant for decades and many communities have seen their economic vibrance leached away over time. Now, many parts have high unemployment. A good illustration of that is how Scotland's exports to the UK have grown over the last 15 years while those to the EU have barely changed. See the Export Trends part of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Econom...and_FY2015.png -- James Harris |
#57
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Emergence of Re-leavers
On 19/05/2017 16:39, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , James Harris wrote: On 19/05/2017 07:25, The Natural Philosopher wrote: On 18/05/17 22:12, James Harris wrote: The Remain side got it in to their heads that Brexit would "ruin the economy". And it still sustains them to this day. But where did such a dire belief come from? The EU/Globalist propaganda machine put it there. They certainly caught the media with propagandist terms such as "hard Brexit". The term went everywhere and entered common parlance even though it is designed to influence opinion. It's also entirely misleading, as is "Soft Brexit". The latter tries to imply that we have left the EU when we won't have done. And related, Remoaners like to say that May has no mandate for a hard Brexit. That's more spin. It would be more accurate to say that she has no mandate to keep us partly in under some sort of partial withdrawal, euro-fudge, soft-Brexit. -- James Harris |
#58
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Emergence of Re-leavers
On 19/05/2017 11:18, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , James Harris wrote: On 19/05/2017 08:57, dennis@home wrote: On 19/05/2017 00:41, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , James Harris wrote: I didn't. It was YOU who brought animosity into the discussion. Europe is a beautiful place. And the people of Europe are our friends and neighbours. Friends and neighbours you wish to distance yourself from? You may have noticed that all the brexitters think we will be free to do what we like in Europe after brexit They do? Are you sure? You've not heard politician say we can set up deals with those individual countries in the EU we'd like to after we've left? I've heard Boris Johnson come out with some daft comments, if that's what you mean. But your claim that "all the brexiteers" say such things is patently absurd and just as daft, IMO. I have - on several occasions. And heard the most nonsense about how we could have the current open border with Eire too, after leaving. How some of these idiots ever get elected... but that the EU won't be in the UK. They appear to be very optimistic. Maybe that's the big difference, some people are over optimistic? The whole basis of the leave campaign was the gamble we could have our cake and eat it. Sensible people know gamblers always lose. I don't see that. When we were in, and the EU wanted to change its model to something more political and less prosperous, Britain tried to persuade them out of it. They said: You cannot be in and not come with us on our journey. When we resisted they said you cannot have your cake and eat it. But now we are leaving. We don't want their mouldy old cake. We'll agree a trade deal if they want, and we'll be completely outside. No cake. No eating it. No cherries. No picking. Outside. With a trade relationship just like other independent nations. -- James Harris |
#59
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Emergence of Re-leavers
On 19/05/2017 12:25, dennis@home wrote:
On 19/05/2017 11:18, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: but that the EU won't be in the UK. They appear to be very optimistic. Maybe that's the big difference, some people are over optimistic? The whole basis of the leave campaign was the gamble we could have our cake and eat it. Sensible people know gamblers always lose. The brexitters have started to moan about the price increases they caused. Now they want caps on energy, etc. to hide their problems until people forget who caused it. "The" Brexiteers? The price increases you attribute to Brexit are part of a bigger picture. The lower pound is helping rebalance the UK economy away from the unsustainable London-banking centric model we had before and towards a greater spread of wealth. It is helping bring in money to the country as our exports became more competitive. And it is helping encourage Brits and people abroad to spend here rather than overseas. In other words, the lower pound may have let to price increases (though Tesco is currently boasting it can offset them!) but they are forecast to peak below 3% before turning down, and the low pound has also helped to redistribute wealth through the country, and to boost the UK's overall wealth. It is an ideal shock absorber for the effects of Brexit turbulence. -- James Harris |
#60
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Emergence of Re-leavers
On 19/05/2017 19:37, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , Tim Streater wrote: In article , James Harris wrote: On 19/05/2017 00:41, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , James Harris wrote: I didn't. It was YOU who brought animosity into the discussion. Europe is a beautiful place. And the people of Europe are our friends and neighbours. Friends and neighbours you wish to distance yourself from? No, I don't want to get away from them. I don't want a group of European politicians to be able to overrule the government that Brits elect, if that's what you mean. But that's not because they are Europeans. They could be from Mongolia or Timbuktu and it would make no difference. I repeat: You are claiming an animosity which is not there. But it's what Dave does, so don't be surprised. He sets up his own straw and bogey men and then claims you are in favour of them. Yeh, right. Claim 'Europe' are our friends and neighbours. They are. But don't trust them. That was never mentioned. Don't want to co-operate with them. No, the exact opposite is the case. And certainly don't want to contribute in any way to the poorer ones. That's one way the EU could help the poorer countries - by making financial transfers from rich to poor nations. But do you see any sign of the EU doing that? I don't. Where's this supposed brotherhood of nations that you love so much? Why is it sitting on its hands when its members are suffering and when it itself has caused a large amount of their problems? While the leaders live on vast incomes and expenses, feed themselves at our expense, have a cellar of something like 42,000 bottles of wine, are driven around by liveried chauffeurs etc, what are they going to do to sort out the problems their ideas have caused to real people? I don't see them taking any action. Nada. In fact, when they get to talk about change what kind of change do they want to make? Even though their ideas - Euro, FoM of persons, CAP, protectionism, centralisation, etc - caused the problems that Europe is experiencing, their solutions are, incredibly, to take more power to themselves. They. Just. Don't. Get. It. -- James Harris |
#61
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Emergence of Re-leavers
On 19/05/2017 12:07, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , James Harris wrote: On 19/05/2017 00:51, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , James Harris wrote: I keep on asking just which did anything in the way of 'limiting'. And so far have had very little concrete information. OK. Here are some examples. We wanted to protect our steel industry from Chinese dumping. But under EU rules we had to try to persuade them to impose tariffs. They would only do so if they thought it was good for the average across the EU28. The Chinese dumping steel is good for just what EU country? Germany? Italy? Countries which don't produce steel will not care as much - if at all - as those who do. And the EU works as a collective. Odd. You've just said as regard oranges it works for just individual countries. Not really. I expect quite a few EU nations grow oranges. In fact, if they consume steel some countries might see dumping as welcome. Even if not officially, they can still put bureaucratic blocks in the way. With its voluminous rulebooks and focus on red tape the EU is an ideal organ for preventing things happening. It could hardly be better. So absolutely no different from our government - or any other? To allude to Conan Doyle, normal governments are like cut-purses; the EU is the Moriarty! Have you seen this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9Hf...QaIOamCgM_aOvL It sets out the primary three protections the EU uses but also explains why they don't work in the long term. To protect farmers the EU last year put up tariffs against oranges. We don't grow oranges in the UK so it helped us not at all. All it did was put up the prices consumers have to pay in the shops. OK. So the EU can't do anything to protect industries in other EU countries. But you expect it to protect UK steel. No. I was saying that outside the EU we would be able to choose whether to protect the steel industry or not. We would not have to go to Brussels or Strasbourg to try to persuade them to do what's good for British people and British jobs. We could do that ourselves. All that would be fine if we were a self sufficient country. But we're not. We need to both import and export goods and services to make a living. Which - evetually - some will come to realise means co-operation with others. Not just being out for No1. You're on another straw man. Once out of the EU I expect the UK to build far more international trade, not less, and to build various links with big parts of the world. Would it be worth it? Maybe. America slapped on very large tariffs of 100% to 150% (possibly temporarily). We were not allowed to. Think about that. The elected British government was _not allowed_ to do what it thought best for Brits, because EU rules take precedence over UK ministers. What's left of our steel industry survives mainly on specialist products. We've not been competitive on world market for general steel for a long time. Same as with so much heavy industry. Don't forget that China was dumping steel. And the UK's steel industry is back on its feet now. And protection has been shown simply to not work. Good to see you say that. Are you aware that the EU is highly protectionist? You think Trump's MAGA was bad. What about the EU??? You need to find niche markets where you can be competitive. The EU decided that it should act as a country and have its own foreign policy. So it appointed a "high representative" of itself - initially Cathy Ashton, now Federica Mogherini. And? I was illustrating that it is not a trade block. It has a flag, an anthem, a parliament, a means of taxing people, an armed force - at least one "battlegroup", and now its own foreign policy. It is becoming a superstate. And? You asked for examples of where the EU limits its members. It is in the process of taking governance from them! Over-regulation is a dream for big companies as it helps them defeat smaller competitors. Brussels is a lobbyists paradise but it stifles competition. And us leaving will help that in just what way? Will that stop the EU regulating companies? As long as the government does the right thing the EU will lose its ability to regulate British businesses. That should lead to the UK designing better regulatory systems - e.g. ones which are more liberal and are better for the economy. You think the EU would allow the UK to 'dump' products in the EU? Odd the way that others mustn't do this to the UK - but it would be fine for the UK to do it to others. I did not suggest the UK do any such thing. But odd that Germany seems to do OK with all that regulation. Germany is helped by two things. 1. The EU has an excellent single market in goods - just what Germany, with its great reputation for manufacturing goods, needs. (The EU does not have as good a market in digital or services - which is what we would want.) Right. So you think we can pick and choose which bits of the EU would suit us best as regards trade and services. Can I ask why you think the EU would be mad enough to allow that? We are leaving so there's no pick-and-choose. We'll trade as an external nation. But think about your question. Why shouldn't all the nations of Europe cooperate and trade with each other on the terms which suit them? Why does the EU require there to be one size which fits all? 2. All eurozone countries are locked to the same exchange rate. Because of their relative economies, for Greece the rate is too high. For Germany it is too low. That makes German exports very competitive on world markets. (And, unfortunately, at the same time it hurts Greece.) The net result: Germany gets richer, Greece gets poorer. That is part of the _design_ of a single currency. We are not in the Euro. Does that come as a surprise? I don't see the connection. I fear you've not understood the points I made. The EU is large but it is deathly _slow_ at making trade deals. It has missed growing parts of the world. We have missed their growth because we have not been allowed to cut our own deals. We are already poorer than we should be as a result. Why is it slow? Two reasons: (1) It is a committee of 28 nations and tries to suit them all. (2) Those who do the negotiation are indolent and unaccountable. If they don't do a good job they are still paid, they still eat and drink well, they know they are accumulating gold-plated pensions, and they know that they will not be held to account by the public. Right. So now we are free to make deals with all those other countries. But in the process cut ourselves off from the largest single market in the world. Not so. America is a larger market than the EU. And when we leave, we will take a lot of the EU's market with us. We are not just 64 million people, but compared with much of the EU's 450 million we are far wealthier on average. That gives us greater spending power. We will therefore punch well above our weight on trade talks. Ah - the US answer. Despite Trump telling everyone he wants to bring back production of near everything to the US. A country - by the way - with vast natural resources, unlike the UK. So lower costs. Again, that's irrelevant. You said EU was the world's largest market. I pointed out that the US is larger. So let's hear about those countries large enough to replace that lost trade in goods and services. How much EU trade do you expect us to lose? (Bear in mind it will be reduced, not lost altogether.) It's not trade as such that is so important to our economy, but services. Trade includes goods and services. -- James Harris |
#62
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Emergence of Re-leavers
On 19/05/2017 17:42, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 19/05/17 11:13, James Harris wrote: I was illustrating that it is not a trade block. It has a flag, an anthem, a parliament, a means of taxing people, an armed force - at least one "battlegroup", and now its own foreign policy. It is becoming a superstate. *Trying* to become... I think it's already more than part-way there. Hence, "it is becoming a superstate". -- James Harris |
#63
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Emergence of Re-leavers
On 19/05/17 20:58, James Harris wrote:
On 19/05/2017 16:36, Tim Streater wrote: In article , James Harris wrote: Note that the EU insists things must be worse not for economic reasons but for political protectionism. It almost always focusses on politics rather than economics. That's why it holds us back and why it is good we are leaving. And is why the EU will, in the long run, go down the drain. Agreed. The EU boasts all kinds of protections for workers but has remained economically stagnant for decades and many communities have seen their economic vibrance leached away over time. Now, many parts have high unemployment. Its the old miners union game. Protect the wages and jobs of the wurkahs, as the easy coal runs out, and then instead of investing in labour saving kit that MIGHT allow the mine to compete a bit longer, and keep SOME jobs, you end up with a wage and pension burden that the business simply cant support. So you close the mine. And the ALL lose their jibs. Druncker looks a bit like Arfer Scargill. Mind you, so does Donald Trump A good illustration of that is how Scotland's exports to the UK have grown over the last 15 years while those to the EU have barely changed. See the Export Trends part of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Econom...and_FY2015.png -- Gun Control: The law that ensures that only criminals have guns. |
#64
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Emergence of Re-leavers
On 19/05/17 21:48, James Harris wrote:
On 19/05/2017 17:42, The Natural Philosopher wrote: On 19/05/17 11:13, James Harris wrote: I was illustrating that it is not a trade block. It has a flag, an anthem, a parliament, a means of taxing people, an armed force - at least one "battlegroup", and now its own foreign policy. It is becoming a superstate. *Trying* to become... I think it's already more than part-way there. Hence, "it is becoming a superstate". Being partway there isn't enough. It like saying that because you can drive a ford fiesta you are on your way to becoming F1 world champion. But its not a simple matter of linear progression. One needs a certain dedicated ruthlessness that you don't get downing bottles of Hermitage in La Grand Place. -- "The great thing about Glasgow is that if there's a nuclear attack it'll look exactly the same afterwards." Billy Connolly |
#65
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Emergence of Re-leavers
"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com... On 19/05/2017 16:32, Tim Streater wrote: In article om, dennis@home wrote: On 19/05/2017 00:41, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , James Harris wrote: I didn't. It was YOU who brought animosity into the discussion. Europe is a beautiful place. And the people of Europe are our friends and neighbours. Friends and neighbours you wish to distance yourself from? You may have noticed that all the brexitters think we will be free to do what we like in Europe after brexit but that the EU won't be in the UK. The EU won't be in the UK? What *do* you mean, Den? I can't explain it to you I stopped explaining stuff to five year olds a few decades ago. Maybe you should ask your mum? I can see your problem clearly now, Dense. The five year olds told you to **** off and grow up. I suggest you heed their advice. |
#66
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Emergence of Re-leavers
"Tim Streater" wrote in message .. . In article . com, dennis@home wrote: On 19/05/2017 16:32, Tim Streater wrote: In article om, dennis@home wrote: On 19/05/2017 00:41, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , James Harris wrote: I didn't. It was YOU who brought animosity into the discussion. Europe is a beautiful place. And the people of Europe are our friends and neighbours. Friends and neighbours you wish to distance yourself from? You may have noticed that all the brexitters think we will be free to do what we like in Europe after brexit but that the EU won't be in the UK. The EU won't be in the UK? What *do* you mean, Den? I can't explain it to you I stopped explaining stuff to five year olds a few decades ago. Maybe you should ask your mum? So you don't know. Righto. You should have used Daves model there - Thank you for admitting that you don't know. It just sounds "smarter". |
#67
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Emergence of Re-leavers
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ... In article , Tim Streater wrote: In article , James Harris wrote: On 19/05/2017 00:41, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , James Harris wrote: I didn't. It was YOU who brought animosity into the discussion. Europe is a beautiful place. And the people of Europe are our friends and neighbours. Friends and neighbours you wish to distance yourself from? No, I don't want to get away from them. I don't want a group of European politicians to be able to overrule the government that Brits elect, if that's what you mean. But that's not because they are Europeans. They could be from Mongolia or Timbuktu and it would make no difference. I repeat: You are claiming an animosity which is not there. But it's what Dave does, so don't be surprised. He sets up his own straw and bogey men and then claims you are in favour of them. Yeh, right. Claim 'Europe' are our friends and neighbours. But don't trust them. Unsurprising given that they produced two world wars in living memory. Don't want to co-operate with them. That’s a lie with NATO alone. And certainly don't want to contribute in any way to the poorer ones. More of your flagrant dishonesty. He's happy to have a free trade area with them which does contribute significantly to the poorer ones. He will then claim you are in favour of them because you are a racist or whatever. It's just his fevered imagination working overtime. Don't need to imagine anything with the likes of you around. More of your flagrant dishonesty. |
#68
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Emergence of Re-leavers
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ... In article , Tim Streater wrote: In article , Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , Tim Streater wrote: In article , Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , James Harris wrote: The EU decided that it should act as a country and have its own foreign policy. So it appointed a "high representative" of itself - initially Cathy Ashton, now Federica Mogherini. And? And another £500 million went down the drain to no purpose except to boost EU bigwigs' egos. Right. So you don't like an organisation having a policy for anything? The EU has no business having a "foreign policy". It is not a country. You are totally mad. Plenty businesses and organisations have a 'foreign policy' Even sillier than you usually manage. although perhaps not called exactly that. Never in fact ever called anything even remotely like that. And whatever its called, its nothing even remotely like a country's foreign policy. |
#69
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Emergence of Re-leavers
"James Harris" wrote in message news On 19/05/2017 16:36, Tim Streater wrote: In article , James Harris wrote: Note that the EU insists things must be worse not for economic reasons but for political protectionism. It almost always focusses on politics rather than economics. That's why it holds us back and why it is good we are leaving. And is why the EU will, in the long run, go down the drain. Agreed. The EU boasts all kinds of protections for workers but has remained economically stagnant for decades Thats not true of the kraut car industry or airbus either. and many communities have seen their economic vibrance leached away over time. Sure, but thats inevitable as the results of the industrial revolution ends up spreading to places like China etc. Now, many parts have high unemployment. For the same reason. Germany doesnt tho. A good illustration of that is how Scotland's exports to the UK have grown over the last 15 years while those to the EU have barely changed. For different reasons entirely. See the Export Trends part of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Econom...and_FY2015.png |
#70
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Emergence of Re-leavers
"James Harris" wrote in message news On 19/05/2017 19:37, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , Tim Streater wrote: In article , James Harris wrote: On 19/05/2017 00:41, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , James Harris wrote: I didn't. It was YOU who brought animosity into the discussion. Europe is a beautiful place. And the people of Europe are our friends and neighbours. Friends and neighbours you wish to distance yourself from? No, I don't want to get away from them. I don't want a group of European politicians to be able to overrule the government that Brits elect, if that's what you mean. But that's not because they are Europeans. They could be from Mongolia or Timbuktu and it would make no difference. I repeat: You are claiming an animosity which is not there. But it's what Dave does, so don't be surprised. He sets up his own straw and bogey men and then claims you are in favour of them. Yeh, right. Claim 'Europe' are our friends and neighbours. They are. But don't trust them. That was never mentioned. Don't want to co-operate with them. No, the exact opposite is the case. And certainly don't want to contribute in any way to the poorer ones. That's one way the EU could help the poorer countries - by making financial transfers from rich to poor nations. But do you see any sign of the EU doing that? I don't. Then you need new glasses, BAD. The fact that the rich countrys are net contributors to the EU and the poor countrys are net recipients from the EU is that in spades. Where's this supposed brotherhood of nations that you love so much? There for starters. Why is it sitting on its hands when its members are suffering It isnt with the countrys that are suffering from a mass influx of illegal immigrant due to where they are geographically for a start. and when it itself has caused a large amount of their problems? Sure, but not deliberately with say the mess Greece got into financially. While the leaders live on vast incomes and expenses, feed themselves at our expense, have a cellar of something like 42,000 bottles of wine, are driven around by liveried chauffeurs etc, what are they going to do to sort out the problems their ideas have caused to real people? Quite a bit with illegal immigrants alone. I don't see them taking any action. Nada. Then you need new glasses, BAD. In fact, when they get to talk about change what kind of change do they want to make? Spread the illegal immigrants across the EU instead of leaving them clustered in places like Greece that are so economically ****ed that they dont have even the remotest possibility of dealing with them for starters. Even though their ideas - Euro, FoM of persons, CAP, protectionism, centralisation, etc - caused the problems that Europe is experiencing, The EU free trade area has worked quite well. their solutions are, incredibly, to take more power to themselves. They. Just. Don't. Get. It. |
#71
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Emergence of Re-leavers
"James Harris" wrote in message news On 19/05/2017 12:07, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , James Harris wrote: On 19/05/2017 00:51, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , James Harris wrote: I keep on asking just which did anything in the way of 'limiting'. And so far have had very little concrete information. OK. Here are some examples. We wanted to protect our steel industry from Chinese dumping. But under EU rules we had to try to persuade them to impose tariffs. They would only do so if they thought it was good for the average across the EU28. The Chinese dumping steel is good for just what EU country? Germany? Italy? Countries which don't produce steel will not care as much - if at all - as those who do. And the EU works as a collective. Odd. You've just said as regard oranges it works for just individual countries. Not really. I expect quite a few EU nations grow oranges. In fact, if they consume steel some countries might see dumping as welcome. Even if not officially, they can still put bureaucratic blocks in the way. With its voluminous rulebooks and focus on red tape the EU is an ideal organ for preventing things happening. It could hardly be better. So absolutely no different from our government - or any other? To allude to Conan Doyle, normal governments are like cut-purses; the EU is the Moriarty! Have you seen this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9Hf...QaIOamCgM_aOvL Its flagrantly dishonest with the kraut car industry and airbus and RR aircraft engines alone. It sets out the primary three protections the EU uses but also explains why they don't work in the long term. Are you seriously attempting to claim that the kraut car industry and airbus and RR aircraft engines dont work in the long term ? Or european food production either ? To protect farmers the EU last year put up tariffs against oranges. We don't grow oranges in the UK so it helped us not at all. All it did was put up the prices consumers have to pay in the shops. OK. So the EU can't do anything to protect industries in other EU countries. But you expect it to protect UK steel. No. I was saying that outside the EU we would be able to choose whether to protect the steel industry or not. We would not have to go to Brussels or Strasbourg to try to persuade them to do what's good for British people and British jobs. We could do that ourselves. All that would be fine if we were a self sufficient country. But we're not. We need to both import and export goods and services to make a living. Which - evetually - some will come to realise means co-operation with others. Not just being out for No1. You're on another straw man. Once out of the EU I expect the UK to build far more international trade, not less, Bet it doesnt on the far more. A bit more, maybe. and to build various links with big parts of the world. Bet that doesnt happen much either. But then I dont believe that trade with the EU will diminish much either. Would it be worth it? Maybe. America slapped on very large tariffs of 100% to 150% (possibly temporarily). We were not allowed to. Think about that. The elected British government was _not allowed_ to do what it thought best for Brits, because EU rules take precedence over UK ministers. What's left of our steel industry survives mainly on specialist products. We've not been competitive on world market for general steel for a long time. Same as with so much heavy industry. Don't forget that China was dumping steel. Thats very arguable. And the UK's steel industry is back on its feet now. Like hell it is. And protection has been shown simply to not work. Good to see you say that. Are you aware that the EU is highly protectionist? You think Trump's MAGA was bad. What about the EU??? You need to find niche markets where you can be competitive. The EU decided that it should act as a country and have its own foreign policy. So it appointed a "high representative" of itself - initially Cathy Ashton, now Federica Mogherini. And? I was illustrating that it is not a trade block. It has a flag, an anthem, a parliament, a means of taxing people, an armed force - at least one "battlegroup", and now its own foreign policy. It is becoming a superstate. And? You asked for examples of where the EU limits its members. It is in the process of taking governance from them! Over-regulation is a dream for big companies as it helps them defeat smaller competitors. Brussels is a lobbyists paradise but it stifles competition. And us leaving will help that in just what way? Will that stop the EU regulating companies? As long as the government does the right thing the EU will lose its ability to regulate British businesses. That should lead to the UK designing better regulatory systems - e.g. ones which are more liberal and are better for the economy. You think the EU would allow the UK to 'dump' products in the EU? Odd the way that others mustn't do this to the UK - but it would be fine for the UK to do it to others. I did not suggest the UK do any such thing. But odd that Germany seems to do OK with all that regulation. Germany is helped by two things. 1. The EU has an excellent single market in goods - just what Germany, with its great reputation for manufacturing goods, needs. (The EU does not have as good a market in digital or services - which is what we would want.) Right. So you think we can pick and choose which bits of the EU would suit us best as regards trade and services. Can I ask why you think the EU would be mad enough to allow that? We are leaving so there's no pick-and-choose. We'll trade as an external nation. But think about your question. Why shouldn't all the nations of Europe cooperate and trade with each other on the terms which suit them? Why does the EU require there to be one size which fits all? 2. All eurozone countries are locked to the same exchange rate. Because of their relative economies, for Greece the rate is too high. For Germany it is too low. That makes German exports very competitive on world markets. (And, unfortunately, at the same time it hurts Greece.) The net result: Germany gets richer, Greece gets poorer. That is part of the _design_ of a single currency. We are not in the Euro. Does that come as a surprise? I don't see the connection. I fear you've not understood the points I made. The EU is large but it is deathly _slow_ at making trade deals. It has missed growing parts of the world. We have missed their growth because we have not been allowed to cut our own deals. We are already poorer than we should be as a result. Why is it slow? Two reasons: (1) It is a committee of 28 nations and tries to suit them all. (2) Those who do the negotiation are indolent and unaccountable. If they don't do a good job they are still paid, they still eat and drink well, they know they are accumulating gold-plated pensions, and they know that they will not be held to account by the public. Right. So now we are free to make deals with all those other countries. But in the process cut ourselves off from the largest single market in the world. Not so. America is a larger market than the EU. And when we leave, we will take a lot of the EU's market with us. We are not just 64 million people, but compared with much of the EU's 450 million we are far wealthier on average. That gives us greater spending power. We will therefore punch well above our weight on trade talks. Ah - the US answer. Despite Trump telling everyone he wants to bring back production of near everything to the US. A country - by the way - with vast natural resources, unlike the UK. So lower costs. Again, that's irrelevant. You said EU was the world's largest market. I pointed out that the US is larger. So let's hear about those countries large enough to replace that lost trade in goods and services. How much EU trade do you expect us to lose? (Bear in mind it will be reduced, not lost altogether.) It's not trade as such that is so important to our economy, but services. Trade includes goods and services. |
#72
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Emergence of Re-leavers
On 19/05/2017 21:31, James Harris wrote:
That's one way the EU could help the poorer countries - by making financial transfers from rich to poor nations. But do you see any sign of the EU doing that? It is - but only if the poor country is part of the EU. Many of the subsidies and grants currently enjoyed by Western EU countries are moving to Eastern EU countries. -- mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk |
#73
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Emergence of Re-leavers
Rod Speed posted
Spread the illegal immigrants across the EU instead of leaving them clustered in places like Greece that are so economically ****ed that they dont have even the remotest possibility of dealing with them for starters. But I thought mass immigration was good for a country's economy, bringing a vibrant and flexible new workforce that invariably contributes more to the public finances than it takes out? So directing all the immigrants into Greece will surely spark off rapid growth, turning its economy into the new powerhouse of Europe, with a razor-sharp competitive edge that will soon bring Germany to its very knees. -- Jack |
#74
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Emergence of Re-leavers
alan_m wrote
James Harris wrote That's one way the EU could help the poorer countries - by making financial transfers from rich to poor nations. But do you see any sign of the EU doing that? It is - but only if the poor country is part of the EU. Thats not right either, most countrys in the EU that arent the poor countrys in the EU do give significant amounts of money to poor countrys that arent in the EU. Many of the subsidies and grants currently enjoyed by Western EU countries are moving to Eastern EU countries. True. |
#75
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Emergence of Re-leavers
Handsome Jack wrote
Rod Speed wrote Spread the illegal immigrants across the EU instead of leaving them clustered in places like Greece that are so economically ****ed that they dont have even the remotest possibility of dealing with them for starters. But I thought mass immigration was good for a country's economy, Nope, hasnt been that way for a long time now. bringing a vibrant and flexible new workforce that invariably contributes more to the public finances than it takes out? Thats never been true for some countrys and while it may still be true for some, thats irrelevant to what the voters will accept. So directing all the immigrants into Greece will surely spark off rapid growth, turning its economy into the new powerhouse of Europe, with a razor-sharp competitive edge that will soon bring Germany to its very knees. Even sillier than you usually manage with a place like Greece which has in fact had to export huge numbers of people all over the ****ing world for a hell of a long time now. So has Ireland, England, Scotland and most of europe too. |
#76
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Emergence of Re-leavers
In article ,
James Harris wrote: The whole basis of the leave campaign was the gamble we could have our cake and eat it. Sensible people know gamblers always lose. I don't see that. When we were in, and the EU wanted to change its model to something more political and less prosperous, Britain tried to persuade them out of it. The EU want themselves to be less prosperous? Do tell. They said: You cannot be in and not come with us on our journey. When we resisted they said you cannot have your cake and eat it. The UK was only ever interested in itself. Nothing wrong with that - provided it doesn't become a 'them and us' game. Which is the way the majority of the meja played it for many a year. But now we are leaving. We don't want their mouldy old cake. We'll agree a trade deal if they want, and we'll be completely outside. No cake. No eating it. No cherries. No picking. Outside. With a trade relationship just like other independent nations. Pray tell of one of those 'independent nations' that have a trade deal with the EU? The thing is this ain't the 19th century. Trade agreements between the various countries are already mature. Which is why trying to set up an additional one - like say between the US and EU - is extremely difficult and takes ages. Because one agreement can effect another. What we have done is akin to leaving a well paid job on a whim. Saying it will be easy to get another. Only a fool does that. -- *A closed mouth gathers no feet.* Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#77
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Emergence of Re-leavers
In article ,
Handsome Jack wrote: But I thought mass immigration was good for a country's economy, bringing a vibrant and flexible new workforce that invariably contributes more to the public finances than it takes out? You plainly don't understand the difference between EU workers (and others) coming here to work, and those fleeing oppression. But no surprise there. But I'd have thought even you might have noticed the numbers of refugees the UK has taken in is tiny. -- *Avoid clichés like the plague. (They're old hat.) * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#78
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Emergence of Re-leavers
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
... In article , James Harris wrote: The whole basis of the leave campaign was the gamble we could have our cake and eat it. Sensible people know gamblers always lose. I don't see that. When we were in, and the EU wanted to change its model to something more political and less prosperous, Britain tried to persuade them out of it. The EU want themselves to be less prosperous? Do tell. They said: You cannot be in and not come with us on our journey. When we resisted they said you cannot have your cake and eat it. The UK was only ever interested in itself. Nothing wrong with that - provided it doesn't become a 'them and us' game. Which is the way the majority of the meja played it for many a year. But now we are leaving. We don't want their mouldy old cake. We'll agree a trade deal if they want, and we'll be completely outside. No cake. No eating it. No cherries. No picking. Outside. With a trade relationship just like other independent nations. Pray tell of one of those 'independent nations' that have a trade deal with the EU? A picture for you: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/doc...doc_149622.pdf The thing is this ain't the 19th century. Trade agreements between the various countries are already mature. Which is why trying to set up an additional one - like say between the US and EU - is extremely difficult and takes ages. Because one agreement can effect another. What we have done is akin to leaving a well paid job on a whim. Saying it will be easy to get another. Only a fool does that. -- Windows Live Mail? Use this to make it behave itself: WLMail QuoteFix - http://www.dusko-lolic.from.hr/ |
#79
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Emergence of Re-leavers
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ... In article , James Harris wrote: The whole basis of the leave campaign was the gamble we could have our cake and eat it. Sensible people know gamblers always lose. I don't see that. When we were in, and the EU wanted to change its model to something more political and less prosperous, Britain tried to persuade them out of it. The EU want themselves to be less prosperous? Do tell. They said: You cannot be in and not come with us on our journey. When we resisted they said you cannot have your cake and eat it. The UK was only ever interested in itself. Nothing wrong with that - provided it doesn't become a 'them and us' game. Which is the way the majority of the meja played it for many a year. But now we are leaving. We don't want their mouldy old cake. We'll agree a trade deal if they want, and we'll be completely outside. No cake. No eating it. No cherries. No picking. Outside. With a trade relationship just like other independent nations. Pray tell of one of those 'independent nations' that have a trade deal with the EU? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...ade_agreements The thing is this ain't the 19th century. Trade agreements between the various countries are already mature. Which is why trying to set up an additional one - like say between the US and EU - is extremely difficult and takes ages. Because one agreement can effect another. What we have done is akin to leaving a well paid job on a whim. Saying it will be easy to get another. Even sillier than you usually manage. Only a fool does that. Only a terminal ****wit such as yourself wouldn’t have notice that all of the USA, Canada, China, India, Korea, Australia, NZ etc etc etc all do fine outside the EU. |
#80
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Emergence of Re-leavers
On 21/05/2017 11:16, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , James Harris wrote: The whole basis of the leave campaign was the gamble we could have our cake and eat it. Sensible people know gamblers always lose. I don't see that. When we were in, and the EU wanted to change its model to something more political and less prosperous, Britain tried to persuade them out of it. The EU want themselves to be less prosperous? Do tell. They don't /want/ to make themselves less prosperous but they have been very clear that they want a Brexit deal with that effect. Their pet project always comes above prosperity. They said: You cannot be in and not come with us on our journey. When we resisted they said you cannot have your cake and eat it. The UK was only ever interested in itself. Nothing wrong with that - provided it doesn't become a 'them and us' game. Which is the way the majority of the meja played it for many a year. But now we are leaving. We don't want their mouldy old cake. We'll agree a trade deal if they want, and we'll be completely outside. No cake. No eating it. No cherries. No picking. Outside. With a trade relationship just like other independent nations. Pray tell of one of those 'independent nations' that have a trade deal with the EU? I don't know what you are asking. The thing is this ain't the 19th century. Then why do you keep using 19th century terms like "do tell" and "pray tell"...? Trade agreements between the various countries are already mature. Which is why trying to set up an additional one - like say between the US and EU - is extremely difficult and takes ages. Because one agreement can effect another. What we have done is akin to leaving a well paid job on a whim. Saying it will be easy to get another. Only a fool does that. -- James Harris |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|