Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

[Paul the Wolf]

Ownership means nothing, most scotch whiskeys are owned by Mexicans. It means nothing, country of origin is where it counts.

The UK sells cars at a premium because they have to pay import costs. Removal of that beings down the cost of UK manufactured cars vs European. As someone who has actually lived in Australia and works as a manufacturing consultant I'm probably better placed than you to actually understand it on the ground. Sending a container to Australia from the UK is about £3500, I know because I recently did it.

Aussie businesses are not rubbing their hands as much as you think, not in the sectors where you think they're going to kill UK industry like agriculture, I'm not sure where you're getting that information.

By the way, next time you buy a banana, mango, avocado, or any other tropical fruit remind yourself that fruit is perishable and then ask how you're buying it in Northern France. That's a ridiculous statement from someone that says they work in logistics because most logistics people will be aware of how fruit is transported internationally.


www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2003/may/10/foodanddrink.shopping6

I'm not in Northern France (SW) nor am I in logistics. I was an international trader and shipped goods to all over the world from all over the world for over 30 years until I retired 5 years ago including shipping goods to Australia. The price of a container was about what you quoted back then , recently another poster quoted a much higher price. Don't forget a refrigerated container costs much more than a standard one. The article you quoted shows how bad it is transporting fruit and veg over such long distances , when you have such an abundance of fresh fruit and veg on your doorstep.

Having worked most of my time with Africa (hi Finneh, it's the Chinese you know) , I know how nice fresh mangoes for example taste compared to the crap you can buy in supermarkets.
the Jacob's Creek quip , although true was a joke.

But in any case trade with Australia will be very small and will cause problems selling to the EU which will still be the UK's main market, just much less and much more difficult.

 

[Green_Red]

I'm not in Northern France (SW) nor am I in logistics. I was an international trader and shipped goods to all over the world from all over the world for over 30 years until I retired 5 years ago including shipping goods to Australia. The price of a container was about what you quoted back then , recently another poster quoted a much higher price. Don't forget a refrigerated container costs much more than a standard one. The article you quoted shows how bad it is transporting fruit and veg over such long distances , when you have such an abundance of fresh fruit and veg on your doorstep.

Having worked most of my time with Africa (hi Finneh, it's the Chinese you know) , I know how nice fresh mangoes for example taste compared to the crap you can buy in supermarkets.
the Jacob's Creek quip , although true was a joke.

But in any case trade with Australia will be very small and will cause problems selling to the EU which will still be the UK's main market, just much less and much more difficult.

Yea I agree with the trade with Australia, although I do think grains and raw materials for food manufacture will be something that happens. Personally I think more trade is good no matter how you look at it. A more global country is a stronger country, I doubt anyone would argue against that. Being in control of your own trade agreements has its benefits too, even if it is against the backdrop of brexit. They just need to be negotiated by people that have half a clue.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Actually there are some small differences between CPTPP membership and the EU deal and its probably these that allow brexiteers to claim it will be a roring success whilst for people like myself who feel we have lost far more economically (and culturally) by brexit than we will gain elsewehere but even as a proud ramain / rejoiner I will admit there are differences

the two primary differences that I see that allow brexiteers to put a positive spin on this are:

1. Trade in services which is not covered under the current eu deals but is by CPTPP i think?
2. Its a trading block only and does not seek to impose laws, a single market or a customs union - i.e. its politically on message for the type of brexit championed by brexiteers whilst painting UK as a global trader (Im not sold on that idea myself but can see how brexiteers buy into it)

I'm using the government's claims. The current figures I have is current exports are £25bn in total add 65% increase claimed £16bn actually is less??

I know it's a political message but political messages only help Boris Johnson, not the UK

 

[JPRouve]

Yea I agree with the trade with Australia, although I do think grains and raw materials for food manufacture will be something that happens. Personally I think more trade is good no matter how you look at it. A more global country is a stronger country, I doubt anyone would argue against that. Being in control of your own trade agreements has its benefits too, even if it is against the backdrop of brexit. They just need to be negotiated by people that have half a clue.

You are not getting more trade but worse trades and in many cases you are getting less trades. You are also not getting more global, you were already trading with pretty much every trade partners possible.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Yea I agree with the trade with Australia, although I do think grains and raw materials for food manufacture will be something that happens. Personally I think more trade is good no matter how you look at it. A more global country is a stronger country, I doubt anyone would argue against that. Being in control of your own trade agreements has its benefits too, even if it is against the backdrop of brexit. They just need to be negotiated by people that have half a clue.

More trade yes but at what cost. If the cost is more than what you've gained it's pointless or much worse than pointless. The Uk were part of EU negotiated trade agreements, the phantom EU bureaucrat didn't agree something and then say here you are UK, this is what we've negotiated for you.

Truss tried to make this point with the Japan trade deal which the UK added a few bits on like the Cornish pasties or Stilton cheese and then she claims a victory. The fact that these are now tariff free is pointless if nobody in Japan buys them.

 

[Ramshock]

The whisky industry must gagging for Scottish independence

It's okay Ireland still makes the real stuff

 

[Ramshock]

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.

Ah good old Top Gear specials

 

[Cheimoon]

Hello everyone! I've been reading this post for about 2 years and recently I got access to post in this forum.

I would like to thank the posters that have been willing to have the same discussions over and over again with the same posters with varying lines of argument, in order to expose the very discernible fact (not only now, but 5 years ago as well) that this was a very bad idea and that people in the UK (and some colaterals like Ireland) will suffer the huge consequences as well.

I'm not from the UK (or the EU for that matter), but I have found myself absorbed (for the lack of a better word) witnessing this extremely slow motion car crash for the last couple of years, and I still haven't processed very well how a country made a decission that is the sociopolitical/economic equivalent of deciding that, in a race against other countries, the best way to win is to keep hitting yourself in the crotch with a baseball bat while running. I understand that it's a mixture of a bunch of very ambitious people with no scruples, an increasingly corrupt and coward governing party, an increasingly inept and out of touch (while also coward) opposition party, an immensely misinformed electorate and a very vague (and also misinformed) feeling of pride and nostalgia for "the good old days" across the population. Anyway, this will be one for the ages and will probably be studied for generations to come, so we better get into it.

Maybe I sound the wrong way while writing this: obviously, the situation is terrible and the -usually poor- people is already facing the consequences. I'm sorry if that's the case, English isn't my native language and, as I said before, this is one of these situations when you just can't look away even when you want to. Anyway, the first step to recovery should be to admit the problem, and if the government isn't willing to do so then the job falls in the hands of the electorate. Will they be up to the task? How to make it work?

Sorry for the long post, I've been here a lot of time reading and learning from all of you and just wanted to say hello and thanks. I'll try to participate if I can.

To me it seems that the explanation is already there.
There is or has been a rise in nationalism. (Not only in UK, but across all of Europe). Opponents often label it as racism, but I am not sure whether I agree.

One thing that seems to be clear now (and it wasn't ten years ago) is that especially the poorer classes of society did not profit in the same way from the UK being an EU member. Also the same classes had to experience the negative effects of immigration like competing for the same jobs, appartments, public spaces, sharing the same schools etc. If you live in a nice neighbourhood in Hertfordshire you can pretty much detach your reality from these negative effects, but it's not the same for people with a lower economic mobility and strength. Probably, there has been a feeling of helplessness among a significant share of the Brexit voters (who on the basis of economic impact probably should not have voted for Brexit), so they regarded the Brexit vote as a kind of last exit possibility. Of course the campaign captured these underlying issues quite well and showed these voters a possible path. (It won't work of course, because at the end it is a problem in the internal social structure. The negative effects of Brexit might even counter any positive effects like higher paid low income jobs because prices will rise or the next Spain holiday becomes more expensive. )

Specifically in Britain, you can probably blame Blair quite a bit for this development. He was just looking at the positive effects of immigration which are undoubtedly there, but these effects are not solely positive.

And you can blame BoJo & co all you want, but we are witnessing similar approaches across Europe (Hungary, Poland, Italy, France are the obvious examples; Spain ruthlessly pushing back on illegal immigration, the CJEU declaring push-backs as legal, Denmark trying to restructure "problematic" neighbourhoods, the German left has suddenly discovered the disproportionate burden of immigration that the economically poor have to deal with.) The major difference is the anti-EU approach which was chosen in the UK. That worked in the UK because there has been an anti EU theme for many decades in the UK, which was exploited for the referendum.

Amazingly, after everything that happened with Brexit, and the economic downsides it has now clearly be shown to have, Switzerland is currently going through a similar process. Of course, they never were EU members, but they had large collection of agreements that resulted in a very profitable and practical relationship wtih the EU. (Practical, because the economies and labour markets of Switzerland's border area are deeply integrated with those of the EU regions right across those borders, and breaking that up will pose huge challenges.)

Talks have been going on for seven years to wrap that patchwork of agreements into a large and more dynamic agreement that doesn't need renewal and updating every other year, but driven by a deeply nationalist government, Switzerland has been stalling the negotiations and now has just simply walked away from them. This is the same party (SVP) that some years ago pushed for a referendum on limits (or was it an outright ban?) on foreign workers in Switzerland.

And so now, those existing agreements will slowly disappear as they expire one after the other, and Switzerland will be free! Of those pesky foreigners? Cause as I said, they were never a EU member in the first place. Nationalists eh - all only for the good of the country!

So health and, environmental reasons (among other reasons) are designed not to protect our health and environment but to go against poor countries. I am sure they used also the mad cows to revisit what was feeding to the cows also to feck the poor countries too

Your arguments are beyond ridiculous.

If you think governments and politicians across the planet don't regularly use health, safety and environmental reasons to increase taxes, rules, regulations, curbs to their freedom etc then I'm unsure how you'll be convinced. That's literally just politicians being politicians.

To maybe find some middle ground here: it is absolutely true that the EU is very protectionist about its economy, and that this is very damaging to developing economies. I was reading an article about Tunesian olives a couple of months ago, that are apparently of very high quality, but can't make their way into the EU through proper channels that would bring the right money to Tunesia, simply because the EU is protecting its own olive industry.

I can understand why countries want to protect some of their industries, especially for crucial products (like food). But on the other hand, if you want to be serious about supporting developing economies, then fairness in trade would be an excellent starting point. I do agree with @4bars, though, that environmental, health, and labour regulations need to be in place; otherwise 'fairness' just means 'race to the bottom', and that doesn't help anyone.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

 

[Paul the Wolf]

To be fair a sizeable proportion of people who voted against joining never shut up about it for 40 years till they managed to get their way and leave... I for one am happy to push back against the decision and Im pretty confident with demographics on our side we will be able to rejoin in some way a lot quicker than 40 years

Charles de Gaulle, he says 'Non!'

 

[Fingeredmouse]

Ownership means nothing, most scotch whiskeys are owned by Mexicans. It means nothing, country of origin is where it counts.

Whilst this is not hugely valid to your general point, this is not the case, although the majority are not owned by the Scottish. I'm sure there might be a Mexican form or two in the mix somewhere but it certainly not the case that "most scotch whiskeys are owned by Mexicans".

 

[sun_tzu]

In fairness Im sure Brexiteers expected that the german car manufactirersand french wine producers would have their governments hands around their ankles begging for some boris saussage (other chilled meet products are available) by now .... easiest deal in history etc ... so It probably is a surprise to them

 

[Paul the Wolf]

In fairness Im sure Brexiteers expected that the german car manufactirersand french wine producers would have their governments hands around their ankles begging for some boris saussage (other chilled meet products are available) by now .... easiest deal in history etc ... so It probably is a surprise to them

Relations will probably get more strained at the end of the month when the next stage of measures take effect.

 

[Green_Red]

Whilst this is not hugely valid to your general point, this is not the case, although the majority are not owned by the Scottish. I'm sure there might be a Mexican form or two in the mix somewhere but it certainly not the case that "most scotch whiskeys are owned by Mexicans".

No it's not totally true. I was making a point about French companies owning Australian wineries.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

To maybe find some middle ground here: it is absolutely true that the EU is very protectionist about its economy, and that this is very damaging to developing economies. I was reading an article about Tunesian olives a couple of months ago, that are apparently of very high quality, but can't make their way into the EU through proper channels that would bring the right money to Tunesia, simply because the EU is protecting its own olive industry.

63% of Tunisia's Olive Oil total exports come to the EU ($318m 2019) mainly to Spain, Italy and France. (a little $4m to the UK)

 

[Fingeredmouse]

No it's not totally true. I was making a point about French companies owning Australian wineries.

Well, in that case, apologies Sir and my face is shut.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

No it's not totally true. I was making a point about French companies owning Australian wineries.

?

Jacob's Creek is owned by Pernod/Ricard

 

[Maticmaker]

To be fair a sizeable proportion of people who voted against joining never shut up about it for 40 years till they managed to get their way and leave... I for one am happy to push back against the decision and Im pretty confident with demographics on our side we will be able to rejoin in some way a lot quicker than 40 years

I can't imagine any UK government (in the foreseeable future) holding another referendum on the EU, not after the last time.

Any decision to rejoin would need a UK political party to adopt that as part of their manifesto proposals, such as the Lib Dem's appear to want to do. The problem is the 'first past' the post system, would mean a single party gaining a sizeable majority in a normal GE, to be able to force rejoining through. 'Mixing in' the rejoin proposal with other political aims would not be easy or likely to attract enough support.The alternative would be a second largest party and a number of smaller ones all committing to the principle of seeking to rejoin, and trying from the opposition benches to force the Government to at least explore the possibility, but that was possible before but it fell at the first hurdle... then of course you have to have the EU willing to accept a bid to rejoin....???

The problem as always been that most leavers voted leave for a number of different reasons, 'taking back control' etc. being the central one, but not for economic reasons. That was a mistake on a number of levels, but I agree with @Green_Red, that's gone, its done, the pandemic is now engaging most people (outside this thread) the country has to move on. The one time to bury Brexit was when Theresa May lost three votes on the agreement in the House, she should have said 'this will not fly politically' and should have rescinded A50, fallen on her sword if necessary, but she didn't and the ship has now sailed for good or for ill!

But I do enjoy reading this thread, may it go on forever, with @Paul the Wolf involved it probably will.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

I can't imagine any UK government (in the foreseeable future) holding another referendum on the EU, not after the last time.

Any decision to rejoin would need a UK political party to adopt that as part of their manifesto proposals, such as the Lib Dem's appear to want to do. The problem is the 'first past' the post system, would mean a single party gaining a sizeable majority in a normal GE, to be able to force rejoining through. 'Mixing in' the rejoin proposal with other political aims would not be easy or likely to attract enough support.The alternative would be a second largest party and a number of smaller ones all committing to the principle of seeking to rejoin, and trying from the opposition benches to force the Government to at least explore the possibility, but that was possible before but it fell at the first hurdle... then of course you have to have the EU willing to accept a bid to rejoin....???

The problem as always been that most leavers voted leave for a number of different reasons, 'taking back control' etc. being the central one, but not for economic reasons. That was a mistake on a number of levels, but I agree with @Green_Red, that's gone, its done, the pandemic is now engaging most people (outside this thread) the country has to move on. The one time to bury Brexit was when Theresa May lost three votes on the agreement in the House, she should have said 'this will not fly politically' and should have rescinded A50, fallen on her sword if necessary, but she didn't and the ship has now sailed for good or for ill!

But I do enjoy reading this thread, may it go on forever, with @Paul the Wolf involved it probably will.

Brexit is only at the beginning of the beginning, there's so much more to come.

Because it took five years to get to the beginning was probably due to the lack of unicorns, cake and cherries making an appearance.

 

[finneh]

Of course, that's not what he's arguing against. Yes politicians use those reasons for those policy choices. The fact that those policy choices are designed to do what you claim is the point of contention. If you don't even recognise the leap then yes the conversation is unlikely to go very far, but not because he has an odd starting position.

My mistake I thought when he said "So health and, environmental reasons (among other reasons) are designed not to protect our health and environment but to go against poor countries." he was inferring the politicians wouldn't lie and use health and environment as a justification to enact protectionist policies that favour EU companies at the expense of poor countries.

Not every EU policy is designed for the reason of course. But as you infer there are numerous examples of tarrifs and standards that clearly have nothing to do with health, safety or the environment (it's generally down to big business lobbying to protect their profit margins).

 

[Maticmaker]

Brexit is only at the beginning of the beginning, there's so much more to come.

Because it took five years to get to the beginning was probably due to the lack of unicorns, cake and cherries making an appearance.

Oh, I do hope so Paul... reading this thread each day is better than tuning in to GB News!
I must say you have not lost any of your verve over those years, please keep it up we are all rooting for you!

 

[Brwned]

My mistake I thought when he said "So health and, environmental reasons (among other reasons) are designed not to protect our health and environment but to go against poor countries." he was inferring the politicians wouldn't lie and use health and environment as a justification to enact protectionist policies that favour EU companies at the expense of poor countries.

Not every EU policy is designed for the reason of course. But as you infer there are numerous examples of tarrifs and standards that clearly have nothing to do with health, safety or the environment (it's generally down to big business lobbying to protect their profit margins).

There seems to be quite a big gap between what you're saying here, and what you said in the the prior three points. That gap is what was the main point of contention. If that was just due to miscommunication then it's an entirely artificial one. I'm not sure why what people infer from your points and what you intended to imply are so different, but if you didn't remove the nuance from your points then it wouldn't happen in the first place.

Contrast this point with your second paragraph above. If you think they're saying the same things then you should expect people to get lost in pointless arguments with you because they read very differently to most people. The difference is in intentionality, source and proportions. Basically all of the key elements.

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.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Oh, I do hope so Paul... reading this thread each day is better than tuning in to GB News!
I must say you have not lost any of your verve over those years, please keep it up we are all rooting for you!

No other country has ever done this to themselves. I'm especially waiting for some more revelations. Cummings spilling the beans about Brexit and Boris could be fun.

 

[finneh]

There seems to be quite a big gap between what you're saying here, and what you said in the the prior three points. That gap is what was the main point of contention. If that was just due to miscommunication then it's an entirely artificial one. I'm not sure why what people infer from your points and what you intended to imply are so different, but if you didn't remove the nuance from your points then it wouldn't happen in the first place.

Contrast this point with your second paragraph above. If you think they're saying the same things then you should expect people to get lost in pointless arguments with you because they read very differently to most people. The difference is in intentionality, source and proportions. Basically all of the key elements.

A lack of political will in amending standards is exactly the reason that these rules will never be changed to allow poorer countries to compete.

Unless you're pointing out the difference between "most of these standards are designed to prejudice these poorer countries" and "numerous examples of tarrifs and standards that clearly have nothing to do with health, safety or the environment (it's generally down to big business lobbying to protect their profit margins)."

These are two different ways of saying the same thing. I can combine the two: numerous EU tariffs and standards have nothing to do with health, safety or the environment and are specifically designed to protect big EU business at the expense of poorer countries".

 

[Cheimoon]

63% of Tunisia's Olive Oil total exports come to the EU ($318m 2019) mainly to Spain, Italy and France. (a little $4m to the UK)

I'd have to look up the article again, but the problem was that the olive oil can only make its way to the European market in some sort of dumping scheme. They can't sell it as the high-quality product it is, but it goes to Spain (I think it was), where it's mixed with other olives/oil and then is sold like anything else - which is a good deal for Spanish producers and a poor deal for Tunisia given the quality of their product. Something like that.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

I'd have to look up the article again, but the problem was that the olive oil can only make its way to the European market in some sort of dumping scheme. They can't sell it as the high-quality product it is, but it goes to Spain (I think it was), where it's mixed with other olives/oil and then is sold like anything else - which is a good deal for Spanish producers and a poor deal for Tunisia given the quality of their product. Something like that.

I've never dealt with olive oil but they can sell it to the rest of the world. The EU buys almost two thirds of it and they choose to sell it to them.
The point I was really making was finneh should spend some time in Africa and see who really are the bad guys now, especially as Johnson wants to snuggle up to them.

 

[JPRouve]

I'd have to look up the article again, but the problem was that the olive oil can only make its way to the European market in some sort of dumping scheme. They can't sell it as the high-quality product it is, but it goes to Spain (I think it was), where it's mixed with other olives/oil and then is sold like anything else - which is a good deal for Spanish producers and a poor deal for Tunisia given the quality of their product. Something like that.

That's not exactly true. Tunisia biggest buyer is France followed by Germany. The part about spanish producers is also inaccurate, for the most part they are in the same boat than tunisian, moroccan, french or italian producers that do not have protected designation of origin, which is the majority, their oils are mixed with the rest. The ones benefitting are industrials and consumers who get decent quality oils at a relatively low price.

 

[Cheimoon]

That's not exactly true. Tunisia biggest buyer is France followed by Germany. The part about spanish producers is also inaccurate, for the most part they are in the same boat than tunisian, moroccan, french or italian producers that do not have protected designation of origin, which is the majority, their oils are mixed with the rest. The ones benefitting are industrials and consumers who get decent quality oils at a relatively low price.

Maybe we're talking about something else, but the largest buyer by far of Tunisia's olive oil is Spain. See theses graphs from this article (found it back now):

It's in Dutch, but I suppose you can see that Tunisia exports the vast majority of its olive oil as bulk, not bottles (left-most graph), the vast majority of which is bought by Spain (centre-left graph). The article explains that this happens because of EU quota. Spanish companies buy up almost everything from those quota in bulk, mix it with other olive oil, and sell it in bottles - which is a pity for Tunisian producers, as there is much bigger profit in selling olive oil in bottles than in bulk (both graphs on the right). Further detail is in the article.

The point behind all this is that protectionist measures make life hard in countries that need the support. I don't care as much about protectionism between rich countries, but Tunisia's economy isn't on that kind of level, and this system siphons off money that the Tunisians could be making to Spain.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Maybe we're talking about something else, but the largest buyer by far of Tunisia's olive oil is Spain. See theses graphs from this article (found it back now):

It's in Dutch, but I suppose you can see that Tunisia exports the vast majority of its olive oil as bulk, not bottles (left-most graph), the vast majority of which is bought by Spain (centre-left graph). The article explains that this happens because of EU quota. Spanish companies buy up almost everything from those quota in bulk, mix it with other olive oil, and sell it in bottles - which is a pity for Tunisian producers, as there is much bigger profit in selling olive oil in bottles than in bulk (both graphs on the right). Further detail is in the article.

The point behind all this is that protectionist measures make life hard in countries that need the support. I don't care as much about protectionism between rich countries, but Tunisia's economy isn't on that kind of level, and this system siphons off money that the Tunisians could be making to Spain.

JPR was talking about all exports , I believe, not just olive oil.

The table on the right seems pretty accurate but Spain is 26% Italy 24% USA 19%, France 8.5%, Canada 6%.
I translated parts of the article (too much) and the guy said he can't get an export permit (Tunisian law) so he sells to bulk buyers.
He concentrates on Spain but it is only 26% . What about the other EU countries or USA. Probably the same.

Question is - if him or a co-operative of similar buyers bottled their oil would they get a better price selling directly to whoever the bulk buyer sells to; cut out the middle man are they capable of doing this.
Tunisia has duty free access to the EU . It's not EU regulations or dumping but is competition which was what the original discussion was about not having tariffs and free competition - ie finneh's argument compete or die.
What makes little sense is that it is cheaper to produce the finished product in a non-western country and they have tariff free access but that's not good enough?!

 

[JPRouve]

Maybe we're talking about something else, but the largest buyer by far of Tunisia's olive oil is Spain. See theses graphs from this article (found it back now):

It's in Dutch, but I suppose you can see that Tunisia exports the vast majority of its olive oil as bulk, not bottles (left-most graph), the vast majority of which is bought by Spain (centre-left graph). The article explains that this happens because of EU quota. Spanish companies buy up almost everything from those quota in bulk, mix it with other olive oil, and sell it in bottles - which is a pity for Tunisian producers, as there is much bigger profit in selling olive oil in bottles than in bulk (both graphs on the right). Further detail is in the article.

The point behind all this is that protectionist measures make life hard in countries that need the support. I don't care as much about protectionism between rich countries, but Tunisia's economy isn't on that kind of level, and this system siphons off money that the Tunisians could be making to Spain.

France is the first importer of conditioned tunisian oil. And there is something strange with the figures that they mention, they say that the import tax per bottle is 1.25€ but the import tax for olive oil is 17.55€ per 100L and if I'm not mistaken for the US it would be 16€ per 100L.

 

[4bars]

Amazingly, after everything that happened with Brexit, and the economic downsides it has now clearly be shown to have, Switzerland is currently going through a similar process. Of course, they never were EU members, but they had large collection of agreements that resulted in a very profitable and practical relationship wtih the EU. (Practical, because the economies and labour markets of Switzerland's border area are deeply integrated with those of the EU regions right across those borders, and breaking that up will pose huge challenges.)

Talks have been going on for seven years to wrap that patchwork of agreements into a large and more dynamic agreement that doesn't need renewal and updating every other year, but driven by a deeply nationalist government, Switzerland has been stalling the negotiations and now has just simply walked away from them. This is the same party (SVP) that some years ago pushed for a referendum on limits (or was it an outright ban?) on foreign workers in Switzerland.

And so now, those existing agreements will slowly disappear as they expire one after the other, and Switzerland will be free! Of those pesky foreigners? Cause as I said, they were never a EU member in the first place. Nationalists eh - all only for the good of the country!


To maybe find some middle ground here: it is absolutely true that the EU is very protectionist about its economy, and that this is very damaging to developing economies. I was reading an article about Tunesian olives a couple of months ago, that are apparently of very high quality, but can't make their way into the EU through proper channels that would bring the right money to Tunesia, simply because the EU is protecting its own olive industry.

I can understand why countries want to protect some of their industries, especially for crucial products (like food). But on the other hand, if you want to be serious about supporting developing economies, then fairness in trade would be an excellent starting point. I do agree with @4bars, though, that environmental, health, and labour regulations need to be in place; otherwise 'fairness' just means 'race to the bottom', and that doesn't help anyone.

The food industry I commented several pages before that has to be protected for strategic reasons, as you point it out. As others should be also like what we see with the scarcity of items the beginning of the pandemic

But finneh seems like he believe that everything can be exported and we should have the cheapest prices or the UK should creat superfarms bigger than the UK itself to compete with the australian meat. Sure, the EU is protectionist, and sure it is shafting undeveloped countries with it (and many other situations) but @finneh only wants to defend a neoliberal policy with an argument that he cares 0 at all

 

[Drifter]

Government mocked for backing ‘One Britain One Nation’ campaign

The government has been branded “embarrassing” and “insane” after backing a campaign encouraging schoolchildren to celebrate “One Britain One Nation Day”.

The Department of Education said it was “encouraging schools across the UK to celebrate One Britain One Nation Day on 25 June, when children can learn about our shared values of tolerance, kindness, pride and respect”.

The campaign, led by former policeman Kash Singh, says on its webpage that it needs the support of schools to “celebrate the day in the spirit it is intended”.

It goes on to say that schools should “as a MUST” encourage children to clap for a minute to “pay tribute to all those people who helped during the Covid 19 pandemic crisis” and sing the OBON Day 2021 anthem.

The song, written by school children from Bradford, includes the lyrics “We are Britain And we have one dream To unite all people In one great team”.

The song ends with the lyrics “Strong Britain, Great Nation” repeated four times.

One social media user tweeted a picture of North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Un with the words “Hahaha absolutely embarrassing”.

Another tweeter Richard Bullard said the idea was “quite insane”.

The campaign counts actress Joanna Lumley, MP Brandon Lewis, and former politicians David Steel and Norman Tebbit among its supporters, but other Twitter users compared the move to something seen in North Korea, while others referenced the Hitler Youth - the organisation that marshalled children in support of the Nazi regime.

What utopia planet do these people live on.

 

[Maticmaker]

No other country has ever done this to themselves. I'm especially waiting for some more revelations. Cummings spilling the beans about Brexit and Boris could be fun.

Do you think it will make any difference?
Its all getting to be at the level of 'knockabout stuff'.

Judging by my small circle (getting even smaller as most are past 70 yrs old) of acquaintances its actually doing Boris some good, in the sense that some people are actually feeling sorry for him., because his supposed one-time mate is 'dibbing him in'.

The trouble is Cummings was built up to be such a 'demonic figure' by Government opponents, that now his 'turncoat antics' are feeding into this idea especially now among Boris's supporters. Of course it works both ways, those previously trying to defend Cummings are now howling against him and his (as they see it) 'despicable' actions.

It would all be great fun if it wasn't so serious; however at the moment, short of being caught on camera kicking the cat on the steps of number 10, Boris is proving to be somewhat fire-proof, even the Lib-Demo bye-election result hardly caused a ripple and he's certainly out doing 'Teflon Tony'.

How long can it last?

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Do you think it will make any difference?
Its all getting to be at the level of 'knockabout stuff'.

Judging by my small circle (getting even smaller as most are past 70 yrs old) of acquaintances its actually doing Boris some good, in the sense that some people are actually feeling sorry for him., because his supposed one-time mate is 'dibbing him in'.

The trouble is Cummings was built up to be such a 'demonic figure' by Government opponents, that now his 'turncoat antics' are feeding into this idea especially now among Boris's supporters. Of course it works both ways, those previously trying to defend Cummings are now howling against him and his (as they see it) 'despicable' actions.

It would all be great fun if it wasn't so serious; however at the moment, short of being caught on camera kicking the cat on the steps of number 10, Boris is proving to be somewhat fire-proof, even the Lib-Demo bye-election result hardly caused a ripple and he's certainly out doing 'Teflon Tony'.

How long can it last?

Although I have no regard for Cummings I think he knows something much more serious about Boris. I agree there's no opposition from the other political parties and so at the moment he is fireproof. A combination of Brexit getting gradually worse and a surprise revelation may finally turn the public against him.

 

[Buster15]

Although I have no regard for Cummings I think he knows something much more serious about Boris. I agree there's no opposition from the other political parties and so at the moment he is fireproof. A combination of Brexit getting gradually worse and a surprise revelation may finally turn the public against him.

As you rightly say. He is pretty fireproof at the moment.
I have had to concede that I must be the odd one out when it comes to the Boris Johnson Appreciation Society.
And I have formed the view that a lot of his popularity comes down to the fact that he is somewhat different from the run of the mill politicians (similar to Trump). And that it is fashionable to say you are a Tory supporter.

But fashions can change quickly (similar to Trump).
However, I am not at all convinced that any mud is going to stick. Far too slippery for that.
And no Brexit downside is likely to affect him, for the same reason.

The only thing that is likely to really hurt him is for someone or something else to replace him in the popularity stakes.
Because that is how our modern society operates.
Substance - forget it. Not interested in boring facts and figures.
Image - now you are taking. Tell them what they want to hear so they don't have to think too much about it.

Tony Blair and the New Labour project was a classic example. It was all about creating an image and appeal and becoming fashionable to vote Labour.

Same in France??

 

[Pexbo]

Do you think it will make any difference?
Its all getting to be at the level of 'knockabout stuff'.

Judging by my small circle (getting even smaller as most are past 70 yrs old) of acquaintances its actually doing Boris some good, in the sense that some people are actually feeling sorry for him., because his supposed one-time mate is 'dibbing him in'.

The trouble is Cummings was built up to be such a 'demonic figure' by Government opponents, that now his 'turncoat antics' are feeding into this idea especially now among Boris's supporters. Of course it works both ways, those previously trying to defend Cummings are now howling against him and his (as they see it) 'despicable' actions.

It would all be great fun if it wasn't so serious; however at the moment, short of being caught on camera kicking the cat on the steps of number 10, Boris is proving to be somewhat fire-proof, even the Lib-Demo bye-election result hardly caused a ripple and he's certainly out doing 'Teflon Tony'.

How long can it last?

How have Boris and the Tories benefited you personally?

 

[Buster15]

How have Boris and the Tories benefited you personally?

Very good question.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

As you rightly say. He is pretty fireproof at the moment.
I have had to concede that I must be the odd one out when it comes to the Boris Johnson Appreciation Society.
And I have formed the view that a lot of his popularity comes down to the fact that he is somewhat different from the run of the mill politicians (similar to Trump). And that it is fashionable to say you are a Tory supporter.

But fashions can change quickly (similar to Trump).
However, I am not at all convinced that any mud is going to stick. Far too slippery for that.
And no Brexit downside is likely to affect him, for the same reason.

The only thing that is likely to really hurt him is for someone or something else to replace him in the popularity stakes.
Because that is how our modern society operates.
Substance - forget it. Not interested in boring facts and figures.
Image - now you are taking. Tell them what they want to hear so they don't have to think too much about it.

Tony Blair and the New Labour project was a classic example. It was all about creating an image and appeal and becoming fashionable to vote Labour.

Same in France??

Agree with a lot of what you say but I think there's something more serious than a bit of mud. It may take a while to come out but we'll see.

As for other politicians in the UK I don't see signs of anyone in any party with a strong personality or charisma to shake things up.

French politics has some pretty useless polticians as well but the system is different and no-one could ever sit as safely as Boris does.

 

[finneh]

Sure, the EU is protectionist, and sure it is shafting undeveloped countries

At least we agree on this!

 

[TheGame]

These Brexshitters don't like being responded to with facts do they?