In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

Wonder how competitive our agriculture will be without EU subsidies?

Subsidies don't make uncompetitive things competitive. They just hide
their uncompetitive nature.

Nice sound bite from our resident theorist.

--
*The more I learn about women, the more I love my car

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

On 22/05/2017 11:32, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Handsome Jack wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" posted
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.

What is the difference (as far as benefitting the economy) between an
unskilled, penniless Romanian peasant and an unskilled, penniless
Syrian peasant?

Which type of UK peasant are you? Are you the sort that can take over the
work on farms etc currently done by EU workers? If so, join the non
existent queue.

I haven't followed the broader point you are both arguing, but it is
certainly the case that a Kent fruit farm I visited 3 or 4 years ago
needed migrant workers (Poles in this case, although their origin was
not important. These folk move to the UK for the fruit picking season
and then return home at the end of it, and there is decent on-site
living facilities while they are there.

The issue is that this type of manual work requires that you do it
regularly, even if fit. Otherwise your muscles can't take it over an
extended period, as a British couple, keen to make a go of it, found
out when they were hired on this farm for this work. They lasted a
week.

In fact these workers are not unskilled. You have to know how to pick
fruit which is the correct ripeness, and without damaging it then or
letting it get bruised in the basket later. And without dislodging
other fruit which may or may not be ready for picking.

These may not be earth-shattering skills but are nonetheless important.



--
Cheers, Rob

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
James Harris wrote:
On 22/05/2017 16:56, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
James Harris wrote:
But once we are free of the EU and certainty returns the pound will
likely rise. Once out of the customs union we will be able to reduce
import tariffs to bring down the cost of imported goods - especially
those we don't produce here. That would reduce the cost of living that
the EU artificially inflates just now - and has done for decades. Its
protectionism hurts all of us as consumers.

You *really* think any UK government would allow all imports tarrif
free? Then say goodbye to what little remains of UK industry.

I didn't say _all_ tariffs would be reduced. We could reduce tariffs on
things we don't produce here. (We might or might not. That would be up
to the government to manage but they would have been given the choice
which they don't have now.)

And other countries put tariffs on the things they produce.

Not much anymore. The current approach is to have free trade instead.

You really must understand the UK can't
demand free access to its goods, etc.

No one said they could.

Despite what many seem to think.

Have fun listing even a single individual who
has ever said anything even remotely like that.

It's why such things are thrashed out in a trade agreement.
And why they take so long to agree.

Nope, its much more often due to deciding what will
be included in the new trade agreement and what wont.

And other detail like the **** the US attempts to have in theirs.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 22/05/2017 09:50, Tim Streater wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:

On 21/05/2017 23:03, Tim Streater wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:

On 21/05/2017 20:55, bert wrote:

Utter ********. We will have a share of a bigger expanding cake
outside the EU.

Where have you invented more of the world from?

Are you a socialist or something? They believe in zero-sum too (that
is, they don't understand wealth creation).

Are you too stupid to understand we already have access to that cake
without leaving the EU.

No we don't. We are constrained by having to apply EU tariffs to
imports.

Imports are a problem,

Nope.

you have to export stuff to pay for them.

Britain has been doing that fine for centurys now and will
continue to do that fine when out of the EU too, you watch.

Leaving a free market and probably reducing your exports

You dont know that the exports will be reduced.

Most of what Britain does still export will continue to be
exported to precisely the same buyers as who currently
buy them, most obviously with aircraft engines, airbus
wings, docos, financial services, etc etc etc.

Sure, some of those that currently buy scotch
may change to what Ireland exports instead,
but that isnt likely to be enough matter.

And britain out of the EU wont have to pay the tariff
on what it imports from other than the EU either.

isn't going to help pay for imports.

But not having to pay the EU tariff will.

Which particular imports do you think we want more of outside the EU

All the basic stuff that has EU tariffs imposed on them currently.

and which extra exports are going to pay for them?

Dont need extra exports to pay for the cheaper imports.

It appears to be a common trait amongst brexitters that the world
suddenly gets larger after brexit when it actually might get a lot
smaller as far as exports go.

I refer you to Steve Walker's response of 23:50 last night.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 22/05/2017 11:33, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Are you too stupid to understand we already have access to that cake
without leaving the EU.

No we don't. We are constrained by having to apply EU tariffs to
imports.

Ah - right. You think our way forward is to have cheaper imports?

Would help the cost of living, eh? Last time I looked we don't grow
bananas.


Try something else as we can get bananas at zero rate from lots of
countries.

It actually looks like the ones that pay a tariff do so because they put a
tariff on EU exports to them.

Then you need new glasses BAD. That flouts WTO rules.

Maybe we could get them tariff free from more countries after brexit

No maybe about it.

but then we would probably have to pay a tariff on something we export to
them

Even sillier than you usually manage. **** all
that Britain exports competes with anything
produced in countrys that export bananas.

or to the EU.

Who cares ? Only a fool would import bananas
from the EU or anything else much food wise.

Not really going to help much is it?

More of your flagrant dishonesty.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 22/05/2017 16:04, bert wrote:

I agree there's no guarantee that the government has done the planning
it should. We can only hope. Our future is very much in their hands.


Better our elected government than the ruling Brussels elite.

I'd rather have the one that gets it right rather than going broke

Britain aint gunna go broke, you flagrantly dishonest arsehole.

over "freedom" which doesn't exist.

More of your flagrant dishonesty with being able to
decide which EUians are free to show up in Britain
because they decide that their prospects are better
in Britain than where they are coming from.

dennis@home wrote
bert wrote

And these people will still be available for seasonal work after Brexit.
We can control how long they stay here and whether we pay them in work
benefits which we can't at the moment. Thick remoaners like Denise and
Plow**** can't differentiate between Control and Closure.

Who do you think is going to pay for all this extra control?

There would in fact be **** all extra control that needs to be paid for.

Will it be worth the effort of coming to the UK for a seasonal job

No reason why not.

or will we just stop growing the crop because its cheaper to get it
elsewhere?

Unlikely. That doesnt even happen with cars.

Oh now you are going to suggest tariffs to protect our crops,

Nope.

or do you have some real ideas?

He just did. Continue to allow those who want to show up
from the EU to harvest crops if you can't find enough of the
locals that will do that work instead of putting their hands
out for benefits.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 22/05/2017 16:04, whisky-dave wrote:

Leaving a free market and probably reducing your exports isn't going to
help pay for imports.

why would you reduce exports ?
whether you're importing or exporting is down to avaibility and price.

Are you saying the UK never exports anything to the EU other than as a
sole source of that product?

Corse not.

Why would the EU buy from an outside source if it can buy from inside the
EU.

To get a better product, most obviously with
whisky and docos and financial services.

Which particular imports do you think we want more of outside the EU and
which extra exports are going to pay for them?

Bit of a weird question.
What makes you think the EU won't want to export to the UK ?
If we stopped importing (or added a 50% tarrif) German cars what would
germany do stop importing British cars ?



Try reading what I said!

No point, its always lying ****.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 22/05/2017 16:00, bert wrote:
In article . com,
lid writes
On 21/05/2017 20:55, bert wrote:

Utter ********. We will have a share of a bigger expanding cake outside
the EU.

Where have you invented more of the world from?
Since the UK can already trade with the rest of the world then you must
know something the rest of us don't.

Only within the constraints laid down by the EU.

The EU doesn't stop us exporting to elsewhere so where are all the extra
exports going to go to?

Dont need any extra exports.

The EU may well make it more difficult for us to export to them

And Britain is free to do that with what they want to export to Britain,
like cars.

but brex****eers claim they wont.

Corse they wont when they export so much to Britain.

Ah, maybe you mean we will break the sanctions on North Korea.

On 22/05/2017 23:17, bert wrote:
In article . com,
lid writes
On 22/05/2017 16:00, bert wrote:
In article . com,
lid writes
On 21/05/2017 20:55, bert wrote:

Utter ********. We will have a share of a bigger expanding cake
outside the EU.

Where have you invented more of the world from?
Since the UK can already trade with the rest of the world then you
must know something the rest of us don't.

Only within the constraints laid down by the EU.

The EU doesn't stop us exporting to elsewhere so where are all the
extra exports going to go to? The EU may well make it more difficult
for us to export to them but brex****eers claim they wont.

They're called trade deals and they reduce tariffs which in turn
promotes trade. Is that simple enough for you Denise?

Its obviously not simple enough for you as you appear to think the exact
opposite of what I said.
Just for you the "them" is the EU and brex****eers don't want a trade
deal with the EU because it will come with conditions that they won't like.
Do you understand now?

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 22/05/2017 23:17, bert wrote:
In article . com,
lid writes
On 22/05/2017 16:00, bert wrote:
In article . com,
lid writes
On 21/05/2017 20:55, bert wrote:

Utter ********. We will have a share of a bigger expanding cake
outside the EU.

Where have you invented more of the world from?
Since the UK can already trade with the rest of the world then you
must know something the rest of us don't.

Only within the constraints laid down by the EU.

The EU doesn't stop us exporting to elsewhere so where are all the extra
exports going to go to? The EU may well make it more difficult for us to
export to them but brex****eers claim they wont.

They're called trade deals and they reduce tariffs which in turn promotes
trade. Is that simple enough for you Denise?

Its obviously not simple enough for you as you appear to think the exact
opposite of what I said.

Just for you the "them" is the EU and brex****eers don't want a trade deal
with the EU because it will come with conditions that they won't like.

Just more of your flagrant dishonesty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...ade_agreements

Pity about all of these.

Do you understand now?

Nothing to understand with your flagrant dishonesty
except that you are a bare faced lying arsehole.

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 22/05/2017 23:17, bert wrote:
In article . com,
lid writes
On 22/05/2017 16:00, bert wrote:
In article . com,
lid writes
On 21/05/2017 20:55, bert wrote:

Utter ********. We will have a share of a bigger expanding cake
outside the EU.

Where have you invented more of the world from?
Since the UK can already trade with the rest of the world then you
must know something the rest of us don't.

Only within the constraints laid down by the EU.

The EU doesn't stop us exporting to elsewhere so where are all the
extra exports going to go to? The EU may well make it more difficult
for us to export to them but brex****eers claim they wont.

They're called trade deals and they reduce tariffs which in turn
promotes trade. Is that simple enough for you Denise?

Its obviously not simple enough for you as you appear to think the exact
opposite of what I said. Just for you the "them" is the EU and
brex****eers don't want a trade deal with the EU because it will come
with conditions that they won't like. Do you understand now?

Rather typical of many Brexiteers. The EU will be so desperate to trade
with us after we've left they will give us better terms than we could
negotiate as a memeber. And better than associate countries like Norway
already have.

My view is May isn't as stupid as that. She knows our trade with the EU
can't be replaced by trade with non EU countries. It's why we joined the
EU in the first place.

--
*If one synchronized swimmer drowns, do the rest have to drown too?

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

On 23/05/2017 00:30, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
James Harris wrote:
Try something else as we can get bananas at zero rate from lots of
countries.

I don't know the rate for bananas but here's a good alternative. Per
IDS, last year the EU approximately trebled the tariff on oranges from
3% to 16% to protect Spanish producers. But that, of course, means that
we all have to pay more in the shops.

I don't quite get it. One moment, Brexiteers are complaining the EU took
no action to prevent China selling steel so as to undercut the UK makers.

That's not quite my complaint. Mine is that EU membership prevents the
government from taking action to protect key industries. Whether they
should or not is debatable. But they simply don't have that option while
in the EU. They can only ask the EU to do it.

But with oranges, it's ok. But of course we don't grow oranges.

Why would we want to be behind a tariff wall for things we don't
produce? It makes no sense. All it does is increase the costs of imports
without helping any of our people or businesses.

(Once free again, we might keep some tariffs to use for bargaining - but
that's getting a bit off topic.)


--
James Harris

On 23/05/2017 00:42, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
James Harris wrote:
It was from last year and basically said that the US was again importing
UK beef after our beef had been declared free of mad cow disease, and
that it was a lucrative market for UK farmers.

Right. The articles I've read on it mention the *potential* for such sales.
Which is a rather different matter from achieving them. Especially with
Trump wanting to protect US jobs.

True. The papers did splashed on it when the trade was reopened. So you
would expect them to speak of the *potential*. But they must have based
their adjectives on what the trade was like before the ban came in.

And whether Trump is protectionist or not, the point remains what we can
sell beef to the USA - so international trade is not as simple or
exclusive as you suggested with your earlier examples. That was all I
was pointing out to you.


--
James Harris

On 23/05/17 10:56, James Harris wrote:
Why would we want to be behind a tariff wall for things we don't
produce? It makes no sense. All it does is increase the costs of imports
without helping any of our people or businesses.

It helps the balance of payments. If oranges were £199 each we wouldn't
import many oranges. We might eat more UK apples though.

I am not advocating this: I am merely responding to your rhetorical
question with a serious answer.


--
Canada is all right really, though not for the whole weekend.

"Saki"

On 23/05/2017 10:41, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 22/05/2017 23:17, bert wrote:
In article . com,
lid writes
On 22/05/2017 16:00, bert wrote:
In article . com,
lid writes
On 21/05/2017 20:55, bert wrote:

Utter ********. We will have a share of a bigger expanding cake
outside the EU.

Where have you invented more of the world from?
Since the UK can already trade with the rest of the world then you
must know something the rest of us don't.

Only within the constraints laid down by the EU.

The EU doesn't stop us exporting to elsewhere so where are all the
extra exports going to go to? The EU may well make it more difficult
for us to export to them but brex****eers claim they wont.

They're called trade deals and they reduce tariffs which in turn
promotes trade. Is that simple enough for you Denise?

Its obviously not simple enough for you as you appear to think the exact
opposite of what I said. Just for you the "them" is the EU and
brex****eers don't want a trade deal with the EU because it will come
with conditions that they won't like. Do you understand now?

Rather typical of many Brexiteers. The EU will be so desperate to trade
with us after we've left they will give us better terms than we could
negotiate as a memeber.

That's not going to happen. Our EU trade will be worse. The only
question is to what degree. We may see a big change or very little change.

The EU has to maintain the fear of leaving to prevent other net funders
from leaving. It's nice like that. Mr Juncker's wine has to be paid for
somehow.


And better than associate countries like Norway
already have.

My view is May isn't as stupid as that. She knows our trade with the EU
can't be replaced by trade with non EU countries. It's why we joined the
EU in the first place.


--
James Harris

In article ,
James Harris wrote:
If and when we and the EU arrange a free trade deal, option 1, then we
will still split the existing EU-WTO schedules for our non-EU
international trade. But we and the EU will also have an easier trade
relationship than we would if we trade with them on WTO terms.

Keep saying it. Look at the agreement Norway etc already have. The idea we
will get a better deal in the short term is pie in the sky. Because then
Norway and Switzerland etc would rightly demand it too. Then other EU
countries would rightly ask - 'why are we paying for the EU (etc) when the
UK gets free trade by leaving?

Basically, turkeys don't vote for Xmas. The chances of us getting any deal
which will suit the Brexiteers is zero. It will either be one similar to
what we had as a member, or none at all. And this country can't afford not
to have a deal with the EU.

--
*I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing *

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

In article ,
James Harris wrote:
I don't quite get it. One moment, Brexiteers are complaining the EU
took no action to prevent China selling steel so as to undercut the UK
makers.

That's not quite my complaint. Mine is that EU membership prevents the
government from taking action to protect key industries. Whether they
should or not is debatable. But they simply don't have that option while
in the EU. They can only ask the EU to do it.

Rather obviously if part of a club. You can't reasonably expect to have
one law for you, and different for the rest of the club.

But with oranges, it's ok. But of course we don't grow oranges.

Why would we want to be behind a tariff wall for things we don't
produce? It makes no sense. All it does is increase the costs of imports
without helping any of our people or businesses.

Because we were part of a club. Where things are done for all - not just
some.

(Once free again, we might keep some tariffs to use for bargaining - but
that's getting a bit off topic.)

All this talk of tariffs is a bit of a red herring. As it's services we
make far more out of - not goods.

--
*I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it *

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

In article ,
James Harris wrote:
On 23/05/2017 00:42, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
James Harris wrote:
It was from last year and basically said that the US was again importing
UK beef after our beef had been declared free of mad cow disease, and
that it was a lucrative market for UK farmers.

Right. The articles I've read on it mention the *potential* for such sales.
Which is a rather different matter from achieving them. Especially with
Trump wanting to protect US jobs.

True. The papers did splashed on it when the trade was reopened. So you
would expect them to speak of the *potential*. But they must have based
their adjectives on what the trade was like before the ban came in.

And whether Trump is protectionist or not, the point remains what we can
sell beef to the USA - so international trade is not as simple or
exclusive as you suggested with your earlier examples. That was all I
was pointing out to you.

Sorry - potential is politician speak. I'd rather wait until it happens
before crowing.

And do you *really* think the UK can be competitive in beef sales to the
US? Perhaps as a niche high quality product. But it ain't going to go far
in paying our bills.

--
*The closest I ever got to a 4.0 in school was my blood alcohol content*

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

In article ,
James Harris wrote:
Rather typical of many Brexiteers. The EU will be so desperate to trade
with us after we've left they will give us better terms than we could
negotiate as a memeber.

That's not going to happen. Our EU trade will be worse. The only
question is to what degree. We may see a big change or very little
change.

The EU has to maintain the fear of leaving to prevent other net funders
from leaving. It's nice like that. Mr Juncker's wine has to be paid for
somehow.

Ah. The mantra of fear. So beloved of Brexiteers. Who far prefer unbridled
optimism.

--
*I just got lost in thought. It was unfamiliar territory*

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

On 23/05/17 11:09, James Harris wrote:
That's not going to happen. Our EU trade will be worse. The only
question is to what degree.

Not necessarily so. Our ability to manufacture/farm ex of multiple
pettifogging rules and regulations may allow us to be more competitive.

Do you think our exports of fish will drop?


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

Ayn Rand.

You're completely obsessed, old son.

On Tuesday, 23 May 2017 13:52:53 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
James Harris wrote:
On 23/05/2017 00:42, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
James Harris wrote:
It was from last year and basically said that the US was again importing
UK beef after our beef had been declared free of mad cow disease, and
that it was a lucrative market for UK farmers.

Right. The articles I've read on it mention the *potential* for such sales.
Which is a rather different matter from achieving them. Especially with
Trump wanting to protect US jobs.

True. The papers did splashed on it when the trade was reopened. So you
would expect them to speak of the *potential*. But they must have based
their adjectives on what the trade was like before the ban came in.

And whether Trump is protectionist or not, the point remains what we can
sell beef to the USA - so international trade is not as simple or
exclusive as you suggested with your earlier examples. That was all I
was pointing out to you.

Sorry - potential is politician speak. I'd rather wait until it happens
before crowing.

And do you *really* think the UK can be competitive in beef sales to the
US?

why not ? if ireland can.

http://www.fwi.co.uk/business/uk-hop...eef-to-usa.htm

Perhaps as a niche high quality product. But it ain't going to go far
in paying our bills.

Depends what bills you rack up doesn't it.

On 23/05/2017 13:39, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
James Harris wrote:
If and when we and the EU arrange a free trade deal, option 1, then we
will still split the existing EU-WTO schedules for our non-EU
international trade. But we and the EU will also have an easier trade
relationship than we would if we trade with them on WTO terms.

Keep saying it. Look at the agreement Norway etc already have. The idea we
will get a better deal in the short term is pie in the sky. Because then
Norway and Switzerland etc would rightly demand it too. Then other EU
countries would rightly ask - 'why are we paying for the EU (etc) when the
UK gets free trade by leaving?

I did NOT say we would get a better deal. I said we would end up with
_worse_ EU trade. I couldn't have been clearer. I fear you are not
reading what I have written - albeit that my last response was complex
because I went into more detail than usual.

You know you keep claiming that Brexiteers say we'll get a better EU
deal by leaving. I wonder if you are misunderstanding others too.

I said "if and when" above because even the EU want an FTA with us after
Brexit. The difference is that they plan to string it out over a number
of years and to do it after we have left whereas we want to arrange it
at the same time as the withdrawal agreement.


Basically, turkeys don't vote for Xmas. The chances of us getting any deal
which will suit the Brexiteers is zero. It will either be one similar to
what we had as a member, or none at all. And this country can't afford not
to have a deal with the EU.

That's too simplistic. If we get no free trade deal with the EU and go
to WTO terms then things will be less good for a while and some sectors
will be impacted (with much publicity). But then we should soon begin to
build up more international trade. Even the pro-Remain forecasters on
your side said we would be OK in the long term. And they forecast we'd
be in a recession now. Shows you how negative they were!


--
James Harris

On 23/05/2017 13:43, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
James Harris wrote:
I don't quite get it. One moment, Brexiteers are complaining the EU
took no action to prevent China selling steel so as to undercut the UK
makers.

That's not quite my complaint. Mine is that EU membership prevents the
government from taking action to protect key industries. Whether they
should or not is debatable. But they simply don't have that option while
in the EU. They can only ask the EU to do it.

Rather obviously if part of a club. You can't reasonably expect to have
one law for you, and different for the rest of the club.

The club's rules have been made up over time. It does NOT need to be a
customs union (which is what prevents members from setting their own
tariffs). But it chooses to be that. Why? Because it wants to become a
superstate. That is its purpose, and has been since its inception with
the Treaty of Rome. "We want to do everything a state would do." Trade
is primarily a sweetener to keep members from jumping ship, a means of
saying: you cannot have X unless you accept various forms of Y. And the
forms of Y are geared to the goal of political union.


But with oranges, it's ok. But of course we don't grow oranges.

Why would we want to be behind a tariff wall for things we don't
produce? It makes no sense. All it does is increase the costs of imports
without helping any of our people or businesses.

Because we were part of a club. Where things are done for all - not just
some.

Well, while that's true it is also true that the tariff wall is intended
to be protectionist: "We will protect internal businesses against
competition from without, even if it makes the cost of living greater
than it should be and encourages inefficient firms to remain inefficient."


(Once free again, we might keep some tariffs to use for bargaining - but
that's getting a bit off topic.)

All this talk of tariffs is a bit of a red herring.

Not to exporters!

As it's services we
make far more out of - not goods.

Agreed. And the EU doesn't have a complete single market in services.
(It's possible that the much-vaunted "passports" are needed because the
single market in services is incomplete - something I've not yet got to
the bottom of. Maybe someone can advise.)


--
James Harris

On 23/05/2017 13:48, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
James Harris wrote:
On 23/05/2017 00:42, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
James Harris wrote:
It was from last year and basically said that the US was again importing
UK beef after our beef had been declared free of mad cow disease, and
that it was a lucrative market for UK farmers.

Right. The articles I've read on it mention the *potential* for such sales.
Which is a rather different matter from achieving them. Especially with
Trump wanting to protect US jobs.

True. The papers did splashed on it when the trade was reopened. So you
would expect them to speak of the *potential*. But they must have based
their adjectives on what the trade was like before the ban came in.

And whether Trump is protectionist or not, the point remains what we can
sell beef to the USA - so international trade is not as simple or
exclusive as you suggested with your earlier examples. That was all I
was pointing out to you.

Sorry - potential is politician speak. I'd rather wait until it happens
before crowing.

And do you *really* think the UK can be competitive in beef sales to the
US? Perhaps as a niche high quality product. But it ain't going to go far
in paying our bills.

That's irrelevant to the discussion we were having. If UK firms can make
money from selling beef to the US then they will want to do so.


--
James Harris

On 23/05/2017 14:03, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/05/17 11:09, James Harris wrote:
That's not going to happen. Our EU trade will be worse. The only
question is to what degree.

Not necessarily so. Our ability to manufacture/farm ex of multiple
pettifogging rules and regulations may allow us to be more competitive.

Do you think our exports of fish will drop?

Well, none of us knows exactly what trade deal we will have. But it
seems very likely that our EU trade will be worse than it is now.

That's not to say they are not compensating advantages. There are!


--
James Harris

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
James Harris wrote:
On 22/05/2017 16:56, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
James Harris wrote:
But once we are free of the EU and certainty returns the pound will
likely rise. Once out of the customs union we will be able to reduce
import tariffs to bring down the cost of imported goods - especially
those we don't produce here. That would reduce the cost of living that
the EU artificially inflates just now - and has done for decades. Its
protectionism hurts all of us as consumers.

You *really* think any UK government would allow all imports tarrif
free? Then say goodbye to what little remains of UK industry.

I didn't say _all_ tariffs would be reduced. We could reduce tariffs on
things we don't produce here. (We might or might not. That would be up
to the government to manage but they would have been given the choice
which they don't have now.)

And other countries put tariffs on the things they produce.
You really must understand the UK can't demand free access to its goods,
etc. Despite what many seem to think.

Only you seem to think so - it's the only explanation as to why you keep
repeating the same old crap all the time.
It's why such things are thrashed out in a trade agreement. And why they
take so long to agree.

They only take so long when the EU are involved.
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
James Harris wrote:
If and when we and the EU arrange a free trade deal, option 1, then we
will still split the existing EU-WTO schedules for our non-EU
international trade. But we and the EU will also have an easier trade
relationship than we would if we trade with them on WTO terms.

Keep saying it. Look at the agreement Norway etc already have. The idea we
will get a better deal in the short term is pie in the sky. Because then
Norway and Switzerland etc would rightly demand it too.
Well Canada got a better deal
Then other EU
countries would rightly ask - 'why are we paying for the EU (etc) when the
UK gets free trade by leaving?

Just how many countries do pay in to the EU (net)?
Basically, turkeys don't vote for Xmas. The chances of us getting any deal
which will suit the Brexiteers is zero. It will either be one similar to
what we had as a member, or none at all.
Don't be silly. The worst case is WTO. There's no such thing as no deal.
And this country can't afford not
to have a deal with the EU.

Oh yes we can. ( I always wanted to be in pantomime.)
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
James Harris wrote:
Try something else as we can get bananas at zero rate from lots of
countries.

I don't know the rate for bananas but here's a good alternative. Per
IDS, last year the EU approximately trebled the tariff on oranges from
3% to 16% to protect Spanish producers. But that, of course, means that
we all have to pay more in the shops.

I don't quite get it.
You certainly don't
snip
--
bert

In article , James Harris
writes
On 23/05/2017 13:39, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
James Harris wrote:
If and when we and the EU arrange a free trade deal, option 1, then we
will still split the existing EU-WTO schedules for our non-EU
international trade. But we and the EU will also have an easier trade
relationship than we would if we trade with them on WTO terms.
Keep saying it. Look at the agreement Norway etc already have. The
idea we
will get a better deal in the short term is pie in the sky. Because then
Norway and Switzerland etc would rightly demand it too. Then other EU
countries would rightly ask - 'why are we paying for the EU (etc) when the
UK gets free trade by leaving?

I did NOT say we would get a better deal. I said we would end up with
_worse_ EU trade. I couldn't have been clearer. I fear you are not
reading what I have written - albeit that my last response was complex
because I went into more detail than usual.

Plow**** doesn't do complex - in fact he struggles with simple.
Snip
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
James Harris wrote:
I don't quite get it. One moment, Brexiteers are complaining the EU
took no action to prevent China selling steel so as to undercut the UK
makers.

That's not quite my complaint. Mine is that EU membership prevents the
government from taking action to protect key industries. Whether they
should or not is debatable. But they simply don't have that option while
in the EU. They can only ask the EU to do it.

Rather obviously if part of a club. You can't reasonably expect to have
one law for you, and different for the rest of the club.
So leave the damned club.

But with oranges, it's ok. But of course we don't grow oranges.

Why would we want to be behind a tariff wall for things we don't
produce? It makes no sense. All it does is increase the costs of imports
without helping any of our people or businesses.

Because we were part of a club. Where things are done for all - not just
some.

So leave the damned club.
(Once free again, we might keep some tariffs to use for bargaining - but
that's getting a bit off topic.)

All this talk of tariffs is a bit of a red herring. As it's services we
make far more out of - not goods.

Moving the goal pasts again.
--
bert

In article . com,
lid writes
On 22/05/2017 23:17, bert wrote:
In article . com,
writes
On 22/05/2017 16:00, bert wrote:
In article . com,
writes
On 21/05/2017 20:55, bert wrote:

Utter ********. We will have a share of a bigger expanding cake
outside the EU.

Where have you invented more of the world from?
Since the UK can already trade with the rest of the world then you
must know something the rest of us don't.

Only within the constraints laid down by the EU.

The EU doesn't stop us exporting to elsewhere so where are all the
extra exports going to go to? The EU may well make it more difficult
for us to export to them but brex****eers claim they wont.

They're called trade deals and they reduce tariffs which in turn
promotes trade. Is that simple enough for you Denise?

Its obviously not simple enough for you as you appear to think the
exact opposite of what I said.
Is English not your first language?
Just for you the "them" is the EU and brex****eers don't want a trade
deal with the EU because it will come with conditions that they won't
like.
We want a trade deal you fool but not at any price. The WTO exists to
ensure a basic level of fairness.
Do you understand now?
You obviously don't Denise.
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 22/05/2017 23:17, bert wrote:
In article . com,
lid writes
On 22/05/2017 16:00, bert wrote:
In article . com,
lid writes
On 21/05/2017 20:55, bert wrote:

Utter ********. We will have a share of a bigger expanding cake
outside the EU.

Where have you invented more of the world from?
Since the UK can already trade with the rest of the world then you
must know something the rest of us don't.

Only within the constraints laid down by the EU.

The EU doesn't stop us exporting to elsewhere so where are all the
extra exports going to go to? The EU may well make it more difficult
for us to export to them but brex****eers claim they wont.

They're called trade deals and they reduce tariffs which in turn
promotes trade. Is that simple enough for you Denise?

Its obviously not simple enough for you as you appear to think the exact
opposite of what I said. Just for you the "them" is the EU and
brex****eers don't want a trade deal with the EU because it will come
with conditions that they won't like. Do you understand now?

Rather typical of many Brexiteers. The EU will be so desperate to trade
with us after we've left they will give us better terms than we could
negotiate as a memeber.
So what you are saying is that the rest of the EU apart from the common
market is a burden.
And better than associate countries like Norway
already have.


My view is May isn't as stupid as that. She knows our trade with the EU
can't be replaced by trade with non EU countries. It's why we joined the
EU in the first place.

We joined the Common Market.
--
bert

"James Harris" wrote in message
news
On 23/05/2017 00:30, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
James Harris wrote:
Try something else as we can get bananas at zero rate from lots of
countries.

I don't know the rate for bananas but here's a good alternative. Per
IDS, last year the EU approximately trebled the tariff on oranges from
3% to 16% to protect Spanish producers. But that, of course, means that
we all have to pay more in the shops.

I don't quite get it. One moment, Brexiteers are complaining the EU took
no action to prevent China selling steel so as to undercut the UK makers.

That's not quite my complaint. Mine is that EU membership prevents the
government from taking action to protect key industries. Whether they
should or not is debatable. But they simply don't have that option while
in the EU. They can only ask the EU to do it.

Thats only true of tariffs. The country is free to protect key
industrys in other ways, most obviously with tax breaks and
subsidys and other incentives to operate in their country with
stuff like planning permission etc. Most obviously with nukes,
the car industry and plenty of agriculture too.

But with oranges, it's ok. But of course we don't grow oranges.

Why would we want to be behind a tariff wall for things we don't produce?
It makes no sense. All it does is increase the costs of imports without
helping any of our people or businesses.

(Once free again, we might keep some tariffs to use for bargaining

The WTO rules dont allow that.

- but that's getting a bit off topic.)

Nope, its part of what happens when not in the EU.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
James Harris wrote

If and when we and the EU arrange a free trade deal, option 1,
then we will still split the existing EU-WTO schedules for our non-EU
international trade. But we and the EU will also have an easier trade
relationship than we would if we trade with them on WTO terms.

Keep saying it. Look at the agreement Norway etc already have.

That has **** all bargaining power because its so economically
insignificant.

Same with Iceland and Switzerland.

The idea we will get a better deal in the short term is pie in the sky.

Having fun thrashing that straw man endlessly ?

Because then Norway and Switzerland etc would rightly demand it too.

How odd that they don’t demand what all these others have got.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...ade_agreements

Then other EU countries would rightly ask
- 'why are we paying for the EU (etc)

Most of them are net recipients from the EU.

when the UK gets free trade by leaving?

Because they keep getting what the EU hands them currently.

Basically, turkeys don't vote for Xmas.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

The chances of us getting any deal which will suit the Brexiteers is zero.

How odd that all but 3 of these have managed that on the free movement
of people and being able to ignore any EU policy they don’t agree with.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...ade_agreements

It will either be one similar to what we had as a member, or none at all.

How odd that it isnt with these.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...ade_agreements

And this country can't afford not to have a deal with the EU.

Even sillier than you usually manage. All of the USA, Canada, India,
China, Japan Australia, NZ etc etc etc manage fine. Why can't Britain ?

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
James Harris wrote:
I don't quite get it. One moment, Brexiteers are complaining the EU
took no action to prevent China selling steel so as to undercut the UK
makers.

That's not quite my complaint. Mine is that EU membership prevents the
government from taking action to protect key industries. Whether they
should or not is debatable. But they simply don't have that option while
in the EU. They can only ask the EU to do it.

Rather obviously if part of a club. You can't reasonably expect
to have one law for you, and different for the rest of the club.

How odd that all these do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...ade_agreements

But with oranges, it's ok. But of course we don't grow oranges.

Why would we want to be behind a tariff wall for things we don't
produce? It makes no sense. All it does is increase the costs of imports
without helping any of our people or businesses.

Because we were part of a club.

Not when out of the EU.

Where things are done for all - not just some.

Another bare faced lie with all of these.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...ade_agreements

(Once free again, we might keep some tariffs to use
for bargaining - but that's getting a bit off topic.)

All this talk of tariffs is a bit of a red herring. As
it's services we make far more out of - not goods.

And will continue to do when out of the EU because
the EU can't even have tariff barriers against services.

On 24/05/2017 00:50, Rod Speed wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

....

All this talk of tariffs is a bit of a red herring. As
it's services we make far more out of - not goods.

And will continue to do when out of the EU because
the EU can't even have tariff barriers against services.

Can you say a bit more about that? Why can't the EU have tariffs against
services?


--
James Harris

James Harris wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote

All this talk of tariffs is a bit of a red herring. As
it's services we make far more out of - not goods.

And will continue to do when out of the EU because
the EU can't even have tariff barriers against services.

Can you say a bit more about that?

Yes.

Why can't the EU have tariffs against services?

There is nothing physical moving thru
customs that a tariff can be applied to.

How would the EU apply a tariff to
a service provided electronically ?

On 24/05/2017 10:32, Rod Speed wrote:
James Harris wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote

All this talk of tariffs is a bit of a red herring. As
it's services we make far more out of - not goods.

And will continue to do when out of the EU because
the EU can't even have tariff barriers against services.

Can you say a bit more about that?

Yes.
Why can't the EU have tariffs against services?

There is nothing physical moving thru customs that a tariff can be
applied to.
How would the EU apply a tariff to a service provided electronically ?

I don't know what mechanism would be used but consider Canada. According to


http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/cou...a/index_en.htm

"Examples of traded services between Canada and the EU are
transportation, travel, insurance and communication."

And yet weren't we told that the Canada-EU deal covered goods but not
services? So what's the benefit of including services in a trade deal?

--
James Harris