So suicide then?
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
So suicide then?
One man's suicide is another man's prosperity.
That does not sound as cool as you think it does.
How about: why should a white man be rich at the expense of a non-white man being poor (given that protectionism protects the former at the expense of the latter)?
Brexit is a suicide cult; China rubbing their hands with glee as they find a new dumping ground.
Sure, but that particular argument could just as easily go the other way. In fact, that's kind of the point of left-wing anti-globalization. That the "global market" leads to the exploitation of the poor countries by the rich countries, where the poor are the providers of cash crops and raw resources while being outcompeted by the rich countries on both manufacturing and agriculture - goods the inhabitants of those poor countries are then often unable to adequately afford.
That’s a valid opinion but I’m not sure that is the reason 52% voted leave. I don’t remember the rights of developing nations featuring heavily in the campaign literature.
I aspire more than these 2 options in life. So far so good
That's as a result of Western protectionism. Western countries ensure that selectively chosen raw materials have zero tariffs, but as soon as those raw materials are processed to any minor degree into more profitable products they incur huge import tariffs (ensuring that Western companies are able to profiteer without fair competition). Effectively poor non-white people can harvest raw materials but those same people aren't able to process them into more profitable produce for a living wage. It's literally designed to keep the poor, poor.
Historically it's gone one step further... White Western countries buy raw goods at tariff free prices and EU programs are designed to subsidise over-production. This means EU companies can as a false economy "dump" excess overproduced goods (subsidised by EU taxpayers) back to poor countries who were exploited for cheap produce in the first place. We literally exploited their vulnerable position, blocked their ability to make a good living and dumped government subsidised produce back into their market, making their farms non-viable.
My point isn't that we should exploit poor countries via low tariffs. It's that we should allow poor Asian/African countries the same opportunities as poor European nations had over the last few decades. If the EU/European dream is a great one why don't we allow every poor country in the world the opportunity to enjoy it by extending the zero tariff zone to every country with a lower GDP per capita than the average EU citizen?
Or... as a hilarious comedian once said... is it only "all right if it's all white"?
I'm weird... I don't care about UK prosperity if it's at the expense of worldwide famine. Why should an unskilled Brit have access to a £9 an hour job when an equally unskilled Somalian can't earn 20% of that?
Last edited:
Why not allow that countries that employes kids for pennies, with lower standards, lower quality and salubrity concerns, not concern of poor environmental manufacture procedures and so many others to compete with european standards and regulations?
Why do you think?
How did European companies manufacture goods a few decades ago? Have they always been compliant with current standards? Of course not.
My question would be why should the EU be able to bolt the door behind themselves after they've had all the benefits of decades of colonialism and exploitation at the expense of the countries we're now further plundering with protectionist policies?
How about the UK and EU put something back into these countries by reducing all tariffs to zero and committing a few dozen billion (at least) to assisting these countries in meeting the "important standards" we've suddenly and specifically made simply to stifle competition from these poor countries that fueled our wealth?
How many of the 27 does that actually apply to? I can't remember Czech, Greek, Irish, Finnish or Swedish colonies...
There is the ‘everything but arms’ agreement where all the poorest countries imports are duty free. So they do that to be fair.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everything_but_Arms
They've had the benefits of free trade with those other countries, so maybe just a second hand beneficiary?
It's gotten better from the awful policies of the 20th century, but does nothing to right historical wrongs (which is kind of by design as European countries now have the efficiencies having invested on the back of unfair historic trade) and is of course still very much imperfect.
I’ve always despised the EU for not creating time travel.
We went through all this two or three years ago. Ignored.
The 'Evil White Man' was replaced by the Evil Man from China' about forty years ago exploiting Africa and South America.
Now the Brexiteers are the useful idiots for China and the final nail in their coffin will be when they sign up for the CPTPP and go from leading country in the EU as a lawmaker to being China's little bitch in the West as a lawtaker
Australia does a lot of trade with China when it suits China. Difference is Australia have natural resources to offer; The UK doesn't. It's just a market place and eventually if all goes well cheap labour.
The 'Evil White Man' was replaced by the Evil Man from China' about forty years ago exploiting Africa and South America.
Now the Brexiteers are the useful idiots for China and the final nail in their coffin will be when they sign up for the CPTPP and go from leading country in the EU as a lawmaker to being China's little bitch in the West as a lawtaker
Australia does a lot of trade with China when it suits China. Difference is Australia have natural resources to offer; The UK doesn't. It's just a market place and eventually if all goes well cheap labour.
First superfarms, then invest enough tiny tiny billions to reach standards in....how many years? 20-30? you know what you are asking?
A lack of political will is by far the biggest barrier. Given that most of these "standards" are specifically designed to prejudice poorer countries in favour of the bloc.
For someone so arsed about poorer countries, you must’ve really enjoyed how leaving the EU gave the UK government a fecking great excuse to reduce foreign aid like.
Stinks of someone who been utterly shown up in the debate and what has transpired since Brexit and is now trying to claim it aint about British superfarms after all, it’s about working conditions in Somalia and opportunities in Indonesia.
I was under the impression that “standards” are there to give citizens good standards. But maybe I’m just being crazy?
The UK government are an absolute clusterfeck at the moment I completely agree?
The point about farms was competing on efficiency given the inherent advantages farmers 50 miles away have on farmers several thousand miles away. I literally stated that I didn't think British farmers would have a problem competing due to this advantage, but if they did they should invest to compete. If after all that they still can't invest then their business is clearly non-viable. I don't see the difference between a London farmer having to compete with a Scottish farmer (land being far, far cheaper and more readily available) and a Scottish farmer having to compete with an Aussie farmer.
If you think the EU over the last 50 years hasn't totally screwed over the poorest in favour of their own then I'd urge you to read more into the subject.
Given the quality of your posts in general I struggle to accept that you believe that completely.
I’d say we British have “screwed over the poorest” probably worse that another other nation in history for a start, with the US not too far behind.
Leaving that aside though, European countries flood the top 20 for foreign aid contributions per GDP. Here’s the top 10.
So yes, rich countries have always exploited the poor, and still do. Let’s not try making out it’s an EU issue that can somehow be remedied by Brexit, but as far as I know, Australia, the US, and a shit load of other rich countries, including the UK pre-EU are not exactly rays of light are they?
Are we also gonna pretend that as far as “rich nations” go, that some EU countries didn’t dominate once again when it came to granting asylum during the 2015 refugee crisis?
Certainly feels like whataboutism after a clusterfeck of a Brexit.
I don’t think you’re naive, so ask yourself the question, is post-EU Britain more likely to help poorer countries prosper, or like with the case of reducing foreign aid at the first opportunity, are they more likely in fact to exploit them?
Last edited:
Please stop. It's getting even more stupid than before. Completely barking up the wrong tree.
If people look back to September 2019 in this thread you will find the same discussion.
It's scary time for the UK
If people look back to September 2019 in this thread you will find the same discussion.
It's scary time for the UK
Last edited:
Not really.. the changes are rather marginal. That's why the government is doing so well right now.
Significant changes will take maybe 3-5 years to manifest themselves.
The Australian deal is a minor thing but once the UK start buying it then the checks from the EU will increase and apart from the UK farmers not being able to compete they won't be able to sell either.
Saw Ian Blackford (SNP) in the UK parliament saying the UK need 200 such deals to make up for the EU. He's wrong , 200 more deals like this and the UK are finished. They need one less deal like this.
The worry is what will Liz Truss do next. Like Finneh she seems to think that granting tariff free access to the UK is a good thing, although not for the same reasons. Couldn't be more wrong.
You're right it will take time but if they carry on doing similar deals it will be (even more of) a disaster.
Best thing for the UK would be to lock Truss in a cupboard and find Johnson's shady links to China.
It was always going to be based on the US, India and China to get trade volume back. There are huge concerns there as we will probably have to reduce standards pretty significantly in comparison to what they are now and move away from the legacy EU standards we've currently got in place.
There might be a positive spin if some tech or finance savvy guys from HK take the offer and relocate to UK. I do think that it could be a really positive spin. (However, they could have done that without Brexit as well.)
The US are already the UK's biggest individual country trade partner plus they are not that interested in a trade deal. The main thing is both Biden and Trump are/were wary of China. Don't see Uk gaining much there even with a deal.
India is a minor market for the UK. Belgium sell more to India than the UK, it's peanuts like Australia. Don't see what UK have to offer to China, they can't compete with China.
China would probably like to use Johnson's freeports as a gateway to Europe. Fortunately the EU are not daft.
That doesn't mean they can't get a lot bigger though. The US in particular is an issue with EU standards on food stopping increasing trade volumes. I'm totally against reducing standards, but we will have to if we want to open new doors unfortunately. India is a huge economy so could be a lot bigger.
I obviously agree with you that we have done ourselves in with Brexit, but it's not as simple as comparing against now as the UK will have to change regulations to create distance from the EU and potentially open up new routes. Personally, I think it won't work as well but part of the reason for the existing volumes is the lack of alignment with those countries in terms of regulations.
But the UK want to sell. The UK can lower their standards to be able to buy more from those countries but that doesn't really help.
EU standards are higher but the UK couldn't sell beef to the USA because of BSE for example; Geography will always play a major part. Whichever country you look at the major part of the trade will be with their closest neighbours.
What does India want from the UK that they can't buy from their nearer neighbours, this is the question,with cheaper transport and production costs.
If you lower standards you can potentially compete better as your product is cheaper allowing you to get into new markets.
I agree with you by the way, I'm just saying that existing trading volumes is not necessarily a good way to look at what could happen. We have closed a trading relationship with a huge market with which we were aligned and are having to scrape around looking for things we could potentially sell to other countries by changing our own standards. It's a rubbish and self inflicted position to be in.
Yes I see what you're saying. It's thoroughly depressing and I don't even live there.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/21/eu-prepares-cut-amount-british-tv-film-shown-brexit
EU prepares to cut amount of British TV and film shown post-Brexit
Exclusive: number of UK productions seen as ‘disproportionate’ and threat to Europe’s cultural diversity
EU prepares to cut amount of British TV and film shown post-Brexit
Exclusive: number of UK productions seen as ‘disproportionate’ and threat to Europe’s cultural diversity
While I agree with a lot of what you say Paul, the UK will live or die by its services rather than goods trade.
@Regulus Arcturus Black
Hopefully the thing we'll both agree on is that the UK and the EU should be doing a hell of a lot more.
Hopefully the thing we'll both agree on is that the UK and the EU should be doing a hell of a lot more.
Yes, in a way, exports of services are 45% of total exports and 55% are goods. Not prioritising a services agreement with the EU in the trade discussions is surely a little worrying.
No idea where the UK are heading. Getting more suspicious of Johnson, if that is possible, as time goes on and he's surrounded himself with idiots.