Tim Martin knows fuck all about the real impacts of tariffs, exactly as any other pub landlord does, and his appearance on Question Time showed his ignorance to WTO rules. He is an embarassment to this country.
Oh, you know more about it too, well done - I have only seen him tie politicians up on TV tbf - and when we see a remainer saying JMR has been ridiculed and put in his place by the nutty radio bully, you watch it and it is clearly bollocks and wishful thinking. Do you run a sandwich shop btw as I will take you more seriously if you do
I tend to believe an experienced QC (Martin Howe) who states: The EU’s tariffs are terrible for the UK because the EEC’s customs union was designed and built before we joined the EEC in 1973. The tariffs were set in order to protect Continental producer interests, notably French farmers, German car makers, and Italian clothing and footwear manufacturers. Those were – and still are – the areas where the EU’s external tariffs are very high. The high food tariffs were and continue to be very damaging to us as a net food importing nation. Our consumers pay 100% of the elevated prices for food inside the EU’s tariff walls, but only part of the benefit goes to British farmers. The rest of the benefit of the higher prices goes to farmers in other EU countries.
Do you have a source regarding the EU's free trade agreement with 60 countries? Sounds very surprising when they are so protectionist.
Watching the news today, an EU official has said if there is a no Deal it is inevitable there will be a hard border in Ireland even though Ireland and the UK say there won't. The Hungarian minster has suggested a five year limit to the backstop. The French and Italians are fighting over something I'm not sure of yet, the Greeks are rioting in the streets, the German and French opposition politicians are up in arms over some agreement between the two countries. It's nice to get back to some peaceful Brexit discussions. Steve
There is indeed a type of Brexiteer that answers to that description. They're in the minority, in my experience but they do exist. Most Brexiteers I know of are motivated by things not mentioned in Jim's effort. I lump such Brexiteers in with uninformed Remainder types (who often sport the #FBPE tag, something which I find very, very useful in my forays into social media). These Remainder types usually describe the horror that await us outside of the EU - often with percentages! - but are bizarrely uncognisant of the direction the EU is taking. EU Army, reduction/elimination of member state vetoes, loss of member-state tax-setting freedoms, proven disdain of democratic process (referenda held until you vote correctly eg Ireland, France). Punishments for "transgressions" (eg Italy, Poland, Hungary). By transgressions, I mean of course, the exercise of sovereign power on the part of a nation. You see, it simply isn't good enough for Remainders to spout off about uninformed Brexit voters whilst cheerfully ignoring the ignorance in their own ranks (that is so cherished by the Remain side - they love ignorance, it's their best friend). Both sides have their footsoldiers who are unaware of the true issues at the heart of the referendum but who vote with their hearts, not their heads - which oddly enough, does not invalidate their votes. False premise, emotive language. Moving on. Sigh. Here we go. If people want aspartine shown on their food labels, they should lobby their MP. If people don't want this, they probably should not. If people care about what they eat, they'll research it. If they don't care, they don't care. If people care about what other people eat, they can highlight the issue and lobby their MP. We can live in a society where people look out for themselves and their own interests, or we can live in a nanny state where every important decision affecting your well-being is made for you. Or we can live in something in between. This can all take place regardless of the existence of a supranational "authority". Oh. The guy is making the same argument, over and over again. I thought @antonye was offering something far more interesting. See my first answer, it applies to most of the above. There will be no point-by-point refutation of false dilemma, spin, supposition and hyperbole. I am disappointed, I was hoping to roll my sleeves up and get stuck in. Truly. ***** Good laws do not depend upon the existence of the EU. Good laws depend upon the will of people who want good laws. If people cannot be bothered with good laws, on what basis is it a good thing that they are imposed by a foreign "government" upon a people who have no say in the matter? You are talking about authoritarianism at best, or totalitarianism at worst. If people want things sorted, they will vote for politicians to sort them. Having people they didn't vote for imposing solutions is wonderful, if your world view is that people are cattle, to be tended, looked after, guided and herded in the right direction. If that is your world view, I entirely understand why you would argue fiercely in favour of the EU and why you would look aghast at anyone with a different opinion. Truly, I do understand. I don't believe that the long-term well-being of the human race is best served by dumbing people down, removing their ability to assess threats, or make good choices. That road leads to a future where humans morph into bovines, looked after by an elite strata of human beings. Actually, come to think of it, this is the whole point of the EU and the other globalist forces that have arrayed themselves against the rest of the human race. Farming humans. I repeat from earlier and from earlier posts, the EU is not an organisation that wants to better the lot of the ordinary person for altruistic purposes. It is an organisation that wishes to set up a world order where corporatists, and their EU bureaucratic servants, organise things in such a way as to benefit a top strata of society without true regard for the long-term well-being of the majority of people living under them. Thought exercise: Say I am right, the EU is a malign New World Order. How would they achieve their aims? 1. Set out their stall as an organisation hell-bent on replacing nations states with a pseudo-democratic (but actually autocratic) government with a view to benefiting elites at the expense of ordinary folk. And with its own army. 2. Pretend to be a trading organisation, a customs union, a force for harmonising both commerce and social order in Europe, dispensing cash (not EU cash, member state cash) on "good causes" which often do as much harm as they do good, with no aspirations towards the creation of a European Superstate, a European Army, the elimination of nation states, etc, etc. Which way would be best? Which way sounds familiar? The point is, there is nothing this Jim Grace comes up with that cannot be managed by an independent nation state. If you argue the the EU is better placed to achieve necessary change in society, I would counter that the EU "cure" for what ails a country like, say, the UK, is far, far worse, in the long term, than the posited ill. In accepting the EU's "help", you are accepting the EU's vision of the future. With "help" like that, who needs help? And may I state again my disappointment at what I was given to read, here. Jim was a one-trick-pony letdown : o (
Copied this from Facebook, is this correct or false news? Here is the impact of the Lisbon Treaty in 2020 & 2022 1: The UK along with all existing members of the EU lose their abstention veto in 2020 as laid down in the Lisbon Treaty when the system changes to that of majority acceptance with no abstentions or veto’s being allowed. 2: All member nations will become states of the new federal nation of the EU by 2022 as clearly laid out in the Lisbon treaty with no exceptions or veto’s. 3: All member states must adopt the Euro by 2022 and any new member state must do so within 2 years of joining the EU as laid down in the Lisbon treaty. 4: The London stock exchange will move to Frankfurt in 2020 and be integrated into the EU stock exchange resulting in a loss of 200,000 plus jobs in the UK because of the relocation. (This has already been pre-agreed and is only on a holding pattern due to the Brexit negotiations, which if Brexit does happen, the move is fully cancelled - but if not and the UK remains a member it’s full steam ahead for the move.) 5: The EU Parliament and ECJ become supreme over all legislative bodies of the UK. 6: The UK will adopt 100% of whatever the EU Parliament and ECJ lays down without any means of abstention or veto, negating the need for the UK to have the Lords or even the Commons as we know it today. 7: The UK will NOT be able to make its own trade deals. 8: The UK will NOT be able to set its own trade tariffs. 9 The UK will NOT be able to set its own trade quotas. 10: The UK loses control of its fishing rights 11: The UK loses control of its oil and gas rights 12: The UK loses control of its borders and enters the Schengen region by 2022 - as clearly laid down in the Lisbon treaty 13: The UK loses control of its planning legislation 14: The UK loses control of its armed forces including its nuclear deterrent 15: The UK loses full control of its taxation policy 16: The UK loses the ability to create its own laws and to implement them 17: The UK loses its standing in the Commonwealth 18: The UK loses control of any provinces or affiliated nations e.g.: Falklands, Cayman Islands, Gibraltar etc 19: The UK loses control of its judicial system 20: The UK loses control of its international policy 21: The UK loses full control of its national policy 22: The UK loses its right to call itself a nation in its own right. 23: The UK loses control of its space exploration program 24: The UK loses control of its Aviation and Sea lane jurisdiction 25: The UK loses its rebate in 2020 as laid down in the Lisbon treaty 26: The UK’s contribution to the EU is set to increase by an average of 1.2bn pa and by 2.3bn pa by 2020
Facebook - what do you think? Is that where all well informed brexiteers go for their well of information? Can’t even spell vetoes.
It will be an international border not only between two sovereign nations but between one that is part of a trading block and one that isn’t. What’s your solution?
Of we leave on WTO terms, farmers meat export tariffs will be at least 45%. Presumably that applies to imports too
One negative, far more positives - how about a full EU to UK / UK to EU list to prove this particular point ah, I know why, it will look worse for the EU - if only they were not so nasty
