Brexit Negotiations

[aidanstu]

BST

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36099043

This article explains that due to the EU we have had problems raising the trade tariff on china. Now tell me again how the EU doesn't have a negative impact on British industry.

[BillyStubbsTears]

AS

I wasnt trying to be patronising. It’s not patronising to point out errors. It’s the only way reasoned debate works.

My concern for a long time now is that people are tending to make their minds up first, look for “facts” or arguments which support that decision, then still stick to the original decision even when the “facts” or arguments are comprehensively shown to be erroneous. I do worry how democracy is supposed to operate in that sort of situation.

In this thread, I’ve pointed out half a dozen or more things in your arguments which are unquestionably wrong. But you haven’t once given any indication that this undermines your basic argument. Please don’t think it’s patronising to point this out. But it’s kind of pointless discussing anything if the basic premises of the discussion are simply wrong.

[BillyStubbsTears]

AS

No. No, no, NO! That article does NOT say that the reason we cannot increase tariffs is because of the EU. Go and read it properly.

What you are doing is PRECISELY what I said in the previous post. You start off by deciding that the EU is the problem. Then you read into everything you see that theEU is the problem. Even when there’s no evidence that the EU is the problem. 

[aidanstu]

i could level the same accusations at you but in reverse. i have provided evidence which contradicts your arguments, you don't comment and maintain your view regardless of what is presented. You have formed a rationale the EU is gods gift to europeans, presumable including the greeks, Spanish, Italians and Portuguese and then find facts, and ignore others to maintain your view. That fine but I don't think we are ever going to agree.

You are clearly a bright guy so, out of interest, how would you say the UK could recover economically inside the EU with the constraints and bureaucracy that would entail?

[BillyStubbsTears]

AS

Which arguments of mine have you shown to be wrong?

[Glyn_Wigley]

BST

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36099043

This article explains that due to the EU we have had problems raising the trade tariff on china. Now tell me again how the EU doesn't have a negative impact on British industry.

It does nothing of the sort. It only says that it's a difficult decision because of the possible implications of retaliatory action, not that there are any problems raising tariffs. And it doesn't mention the EU once. No evidence whatsoever.

[aidanstu]

BST

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36099043

This article explains that due to the EU we have had problems raising the trade tariff on china. Now tell me again how the EU doesn't have a negative impact on British industry.

It does nothing of the sort. It only says that it's a difficult decision because of the possible implications of retaliatory action, not that there are any problems raising tariffs. And it doesn't mention the EU once. No evidence whatsoever.

Firstly it does mention the EU, second of all who do you think manages the european/ china tariffs from the european side of business? Its not individual countries as we aren't allowed to do that are we?

[wilts rover]

AS

Your persevernce in your arguments is admirable but I am afraid your arguments themselves are less the pursusive.

In October 2016 the EU imposed a tariff of 22% on the import of Chinese steel to stop dumping.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/oct/07/european-union-import-duties-chinese-steel-port-talbot-tata

In April 2017 it further raised these to 36%.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/oct/07/european-union-import-duties-chinese-steel-port-talbot-tata

This angered the Chinese who argued that this was against WTO rules and they would lodge a case with the WTO for compensation unless these were dropped. Thus in October 2017 the EU revised their tariffs and rules to avoid this case (which is your Telegraph story)
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/business/china-goes-public-in-wto-dispute-with-eu-and-us/articleshow/62088521.cms
https://thediplomat.com/2017/12/eus-new-anti-dumping-rules-threaten-trade-relations-with-china/

Of course there was one country in the EU that has always opposed raising tariffs on Chinese goods including steel - the UK.
https://fullfact.org/europe/is-uk-calling-for-lower-eu-duties-chinese-steel/

At no point in any of the Brexit negotiations have I ever heard anyone (other than you) say that it will allow us in the future to put barriers on trading with China. In fact all I have heard is that it will allow us to get a better free trade deal with China and more cheap Chinese imports.

Which is why Cameron has been appointed some sort of trade ambassador to China and ministers have been out there last week. I have no idea if these will lead to more imports of cheap Chinese steel but it certainly wont lead to less. And there is no way we could impose the extra tarrifs you want - it's illegal under WTO rules as that DT article shows.

Give it up. There is no economic argument for leaving the world's largest trading block. There is an ideological one but that's another story/argument on the lines of Farage.

[aidanstu]

AS

Which arguments of mine have you shown to be wrong?

I really don't have the time, or the energy to go back through all of the posts but we can agree to disagree and I for one have enjoyed a healthy debate. I am still interested though on how you envisage the UK recovering economically inside the EU with the constraints and bureaucracy that would entail.

[aidanstu]

AS

Your persevernce in your arguments is admirable but I am afraid your arguments themselves are less the pursusive.

In October 2016 the EU imposed a tariff of 22% on the import of Chinese steel to stop dumping.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/oct/07/european-union-import-duties-chinese-steel-port-talbot-tata

In April 2017 it further raised these to 36%.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/oct/07/european-union-import-duties-chinese-steel-port-talbot-tata

This angered the Chinese who argued that this was against WTO rules and they would lodge a case with the WTO for compensation unless these were dropped. Thus in October 2017 the EU revised their tariffs and rules to avoid this case (which is your Telegraph story)
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/business/china-goes-public-in-wto-dispute-with-eu-and-us/articleshow/62088521.cms
https://thediplomat.com/2017/12/eus-new-anti-dumping-rules-threaten-trade-relations-with-china/

Of course there was one country in the EU that has always opposed raising tariffs on Chinese goods including steel - the UK.
https://fullfact.org/europe/is-uk-calling-for-lower-eu-duties-chinese-steel/

At no point in any of the Brexit negotiations have I ever heard anyone (other than you) say that it will allow us in the future to put barriers on trading with China. In fact all I have heard is that it will allow us to get a better free trade deal with China and more cheap Chinese imports.

Which is why Cameron has been appointed some sort of trade ambassador to China and ministers have been out there last week. I have no idea if these will lead to more imports of cheap Chinese steel but it certainly wont lead to less. And there is no way we could impose the extra tarrifs you want - it's illegal under WTO rules as that DT article shows.

Give it up. There is no economic argument for leaving the world's largest trading block. There is an ideological one but that's another story/argument on the lines of Farage.

I think your post highlights some of the difficulties with the EU, being the time and complexity of putting safeguards, such as the aforementioned trade agreements in place. To try and put in a trade agreement to stem the flow of steel after the industry has already been destroyed is frustrating and ludicrous. Too little too late. How many times will the EU let this happen?

The weakness of the euro compared to the strength of sterling also led to the steel contract for Hinkley Point being made off shore at the very point our plants were going under.

I am not, and have not directly advocated higher tariffs with the Chinese in any of my posts, there are other protective measures that can be incorporated into trade agreements without the need for higher tariffs. As for Cameron and co I would check the lining of there pockets upon any agreement being reached. There will be no trade deal unless her personally benefits massively from it. 

[BillyStubbsTears]

AS

You wanted my take? Here’s my take.

1) I think the EU has been a phenomenal success in knitting together the most fractious, divided and dangerous region on earth into a grouping that sees its better off working together than working against each other. Consider this. From 100AD until 1945, on average an army crossed the Rhine to do battle every 37 years. Prior to the Treaty of Rome, that had happened 4 times in the previous 86 years. That is utterly unthinkable today. Ask yourself why.

2) I think that the EU has been a phenomenal success in securing democracy in countriestgat didn’t have a strong tradition of it. Spain, Portugal, Greece, Germany, Italy, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, Slovakia,Hungary, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania had all been ruled by non-democratic, (often violently non-democratic) regimes a few years prior to joining the EEC/EC/EU. Ask yourself why it’s unthinkable that most of those will go back to those situations in the medium term (granted, Hungary is slipping).

3) I think the EU has been a phenomenal success in bringing economically backward regions up to higher standards. Italy had an economic miracle in the1960s in the EEC. Spain, Portugal and Ireland were decades behind Germany and France when they joined, as were the ex-Soviet bloc countries. All of them have made massive strides within the EU. That’s vitally important. I don’t want to live in a wealthy country next door to dirt poor people scraping a living. Partly because I’m a socialist and I hate imposed inequality. Partly because it leads to frictions and fractures and makes us all less safe.

4)I think the Euro, or, more specifically, the ECB’s response to the Euro crisis, was an unmitigated disaster which caused a lost of utterly unnecessary economic decline and suffering. If you’re really interested, you could have a look at what I said on the issue in here between 2011 and 2015. But I think many of those lessons have been learned. And in any case, that has nothing whatsoever to do with our membership of the EU.

5) I would accept a slightly poorer, weakefUK just for the benefits of the first 3 points. But membership of the EU has not made us poorer or weaker. Prior to the madness of Austerity, we had done better inside the EU than we had in the period between WWII and joining the EEC.

[BillyStubbsTears]

The weakness of the euro compared to the strength of sterling also led to the steel contract for Hinkley Point being made off shore at the very point our plants were going under.

Jesus wept! How many times? By what measures I you consider the pound to be strong against the Euro? And what on Earth has any of that to do with our membership of the EU?

[Glyn_Wigley]

BST

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36099043

This article explains that due to the EU we have had problems raising the trade tariff on china. Now tell me again how the EU doesn't have a negative impact on British industry.

It does nothing of the sort. It only says that it's a difficult decision because of the possible implications of retaliatory action, not that there are any problems raising tariffs. And it doesn't mention the EU once. No evidence whatsoever.

Firstly it does mention the EU, second of all who do you think manages the european/ china tariffs from the european side of business? Its not individual countries as we aren't allowed to do that are we?

Oh yes, sorry I missed the line that said the EU's output has fallen 12%. But that wasn't anything in the context of trade or imports/exports, which must be why I missed it.

As for everything else, this article that is supposed to prove something says nothing about what you say after your first comma - so why do you think that article proves anything you say at all? I really cannot see why you posted it.

[aidanstu]

The weakness of the euro compared to the strength of sterling also led to the steel contract for Hinkley Point being made off shore at the very point our plants were going under.

Jesus wept! How many times? By what measures I you consider the pound to be strong against the Euro? And what on Earth has any of that to do with our membership of the EU?

On what basis don't you?

[Glyn_Wigley]

I think your post highlights some of the difficulties with the EU, being the time and complexity of putting safeguards, such as the aforementioned trade agreements in place. To try and put in a trade agreement to stem the flow of steel after the industry has already been destroyed is frustrating and ludicrous. Too little too late. How many times will the EU let this happen?

The weakness of the euro compared to the strength of sterling also led to the steel contract for Hinkley Point being made off shore at the very point our plants were going under.

I am not, and have not directly advocated higher tariffs with the Chinese in any of my posts, there are other protective measures that can be incorporated into trade agreements without the need for higher tariffs. As for Cameron and co I would check the lining of there pockets upon any agreement being reached. There will be no trade deal unless her personally benefits massively from it. 

Which ones are you thinking of? The only one I can think of is quotas but that includes protectionist tariffs anyway.

[Glyn_Wigley]

The weakness of the euro compared to the strength of sterling also led to the steel contract for Hinkley Point being made off shore at the very point our plants were going under.

Jesus wept! How many times? By what measures I you consider the pound to be strong against the Euro? And what on Earth has any of that to do with our membership of the EU?

On what basis don't you?

Is the US dollar weaker than the pound because it has a lower exchange rate?

[BillyStubbsTears]

The weakness of the euro compared to the strength of sterling also led to the steel contract for Hinkley Point being made off shore at the very point our plants were going under.

Jesus wept! How many times? By what measures I you consider the pound to be strong against the Euro? And what on Earth has any of that to do with our membership of the EU?

On what basis don't you?

On the basis that, over the past decade, the pound has on average been worth about 10-20% less against the Euro than it was in the period leading up to the start of the Euro. Currently it’s worth more than 30% less.

Back when we joined the EEC, £1 was worth about US$2.4, DM5.5 and 10 French Francs. Today (converting back to the DM and FF currencies for the current £/€ exchange rate) £1 is worth about US$1.35, DM2.25 and FF7.4. So whatever membership of the EE /EU has done, it hasn’t strengthened the pound.

If you truly believe that the fact that £1 buys more than €1 means that the pound is stronger than the Euro then further discussion is pointless.

[hoolahoop]

The last 1 stu, it's not about labour it's about any party, what they do is give a bit in 1 hand take it out the other but when all is done not much changes whichever party is in power

bpool this is not about a temporary change in governance but a complete change in the way we live and trade - a huge huge change to our circumstances. 
A change in Government could be compared to changing suits ; coming out of the EU will mean we can no longer afford a suit and instead will have to strut our stuff on the world's stage with only our boxers/ knickers on !

[hoolahoop]

AS

Your persevernce in your arguments is admirable but I am afraid your arguments themselves are less the pursusive.

In October 2016 the EU imposed a tariff of 22% on the import of Chinese steel to stop dumping.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/oct/07/european-union-import-duties-chinese-steel-port-talbot-tata

In April 2017 it further raised these to 36%.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/oct/07/european-union-import-duties-chinese-steel-port-talbot-tata

This angered the Chinese who argued that this was against WTO rules and they would lodge a case with the WTO for compensation unless these were dropped. Thus in October 2017 the EU revised their tariffs and rules to avoid this case (which is your Telegraph story)
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/business/china-goes-public-in-wto-dispute-with-eu-and-us/articleshow/62088521.cms
https://thediplomat.com/2017/12/eus-new-anti-dumping-rules-threaten-trade-relations-with-china/

Of course there was one country in the EU that has always opposed raising tariffs on Chinese goods including steel - the UK.
https://fullfact.org/europe/is-uk-calling-for-lower-eu-duties-chinese-steel/

At no point in any of the Brexit negotiations have I ever heard anyone (other than you) say that it will allow us in the future to put barriers on trading with China. In fact all I have heard is that it will allow us to get a better free trade deal with China and more cheap Chinese imports.

Which is why Cameron has been appointed some sort of trade ambassador to China and ministers have been out there last week. I have no idea if these will lead to more imports of cheap Chinese steel but it certainly wont lead to less. And there is no way we could impose the extra tarrifs you want - it's illegal under WTO rules as that DT article shows.

Give it up. There is no economic argument for leaving the world's largest trading block. There is an ideological one but that's another story/argument on the lines of Farage.

Yes AS fascinating as this whole debate has been and I must say taken in  good- spirit WITHOUT anyone being patronising . This final quote is the most interesting and unhinged your fine attempts to make a good fist out of weak facts. I do wish you had the grace to concede when you are clearly fighting a losing battle though as difficult as that is .

Fact is the EU has had a negligible effect on our Steel Industry and you haven't proven your case in the least.
Anyway here's the quote I was referring to and perhaps you can enlighten me as to our actions ......

" Of course there was one country in the EU that has always opposed raising tariffs on Chinese goods including steel - the UK. "

Finally there are many Remainers on here and all have expressed some concern or another with the structure and day to day workings  of the EU - however it is the best out there " warts and all  " for us as a leading European country and certainly a better option than chasing trade deals with China ( strangely ) , USA , India and Turkey. There are many other ties we have with the bloc too and it has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt that the benefits of our being a member far outweighed the costs.

Still Brexit has killed the goose that lay the golden egg and that won't be replaced with inferior trade deals with any combination of the above countries . There are so many costs, more than anyone voting in that Referendum could ever know or perhaps admit to. It's not too late AS , oh and that decision NOT to put tariffs on Chinese goods anything to do with keeping the Chinese happy with their investment in Hinckley B or a future trade deal ?

I am still waiting for a Leaver to say anything positive about our 40 + years in the EU . Can you think of anything Aidanstu ?

[aidanstu]

AS

Your persevernce in your arguments is admirable but I am afraid your arguments themselves are less the pursusive.

In October 2016 the EU imposed a tariff of 22% on the import of Chinese steel to stop dumping.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/oct/07/european-union-import-duties-chinese-steel-port-talbot-tata

In April 2017 it further raised these to 36%.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/oct/07/european-union-import-duties-chinese-steel-port-talbot-tata

This angered the Chinese who argued that this was against WTO rules and they would lodge a case with the WTO for compensation unless these were dropped. Thus in October 2017 the EU revised their tariffs and rules to avoid this case (which is your Telegraph story)
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/business/china-goes-public-in-wto-dispute-with-eu-and-us/articleshow/62088521.cms
https://thediplomat.com/2017/12/eus-new-anti-dumping-rules-threaten-trade-relations-with-china/

Of course there was one country in the EU that has always opposed raising tariffs on Chinese goods including steel - the UK.
https://fullfact.org/europe/is-uk-calling-for-lower-eu-duties-chinese-steel/

At no point in any of the Brexit negotiations have I ever heard anyone (other than you) say that it will allow us in the future to put barriers on trading with China. In fact all I have heard is that it will allow us to get a better free trade deal with China and more cheap Chinese imports.

Which is why Cameron has been appointed some sort of trade ambassador to China and ministers have been out there last week. I have no idea if these will lead to more imports of cheap Chinese steel but it certainly wont lead to less. And there is no way we could impose the extra tarrifs you want - it's illegal under WTO rules as that DT article shows.

Give it up. There is no economic argument for leaving the world's largest trading block. There is an ideological one but that's another story/argument on the lines of Farage.

Yes AS fascinating as this whole debate has been and I must say taken in  good- spirit WITHOUT anyone being patronising . This final quote is the most interesting and unhinged your fine attempts to make a good fist out of weak facts. I do wish you had the grace to concede when you are clearly fighting a losing battle though as difficult as that is .

Fact is the EU has had a negligible effect on our Steel Industry and you haven't proven your case in the least.
Anyway here's the quote I was referring to and perhaps you can enlighten me as to our actions ......

" Of course there was one country in the EU that has always opposed raising tariffs on Chinese goods including steel - the UK. "

Finally there are many Remainers on here and all have expressed some concern or another with the structure and day to day workings  of the EU - however it is the best out there " warts and all  " for us as a leading European country and certainly a better option than chasing trade deals with China ( strangely ) , USA , India and Turkey. There are many other ties we have with the bloc too and it has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt that the benefits of our being a member far outweighed the costs.

Still Brexit has killed the goose that lay the golden egg and that won't be replaced with inferior trade deals with any combination of the above countries . There are so many costs, more than anyone voting in that Referendum could ever know or perhaps admit to. It's not too late AS , oh and that decision NOT to put tariffs on Chinese goods anything to do with keeping the Chinese happy with their investment in Hinckley B or a future trade deal ?

I am still waiting for a Leaver to say anything positive about our 40 + years in the EU . Can you think of anything Aidanstu ?

Hoola first of all there are some positives about the EU, i think any idiot can see that. Just because I am a euro sceptic doesn't mean I am blind to the attempts by the EU to improve life i.e.; emergency healthcare in other EU countries (although many countries still continue to attempt to charge British citizens for such), equal consumer rights across the EU (if your able to enforce them) and the "protection" of there Human Rights ct (which isn't fit for purpose and is frequently abused. Sorry I'm being facetious.

The paragraph you refer to above is an example of the EU inability to respond in a timely manner in regards to the threat of international trade, (it started to respond in 2014, way after the Chinese steel industry and exploited Europe. it was argued that the deal the EU was trying to enforce and which the UK was trying to avoid was one that simply throwing the baby out with the bath water and did nothing to protect British steel but was going to damage other trade links.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35951108

The whole Hinkley Point agreement is an embarrassment to the Conservative party and has little benefit to britain other then May and her cronies.

https://cleantechnica.com/2016/09/19/theresa-may-approve-biggest-white-elephant-british-history-hinkley-point-c-nuclear-project/

[hoolahoop]

Smashing AS I anticipated a reply that gave some positives about the EU followed by reasons why they were probably worthless so therefore to your way of thinking a complete waste of time to the average Joe Bloggs out there.

How you have missed the many many  other positives that this country has received by being a member of this trading bloc shows you up . The way our people move , work, educate, retire and holiday seamlessly for the last 40 + years seems to have gone completely unnoticed by you . Where have you been or rather where have you NOT  been during this time astounds me ?
It is obvious from your posts that you are a bright chap , able to wriggle your way out of the blind alleys that you yourself find yourself in ; so I find myself wondering whether you are being deliberately awkward ( a denier) or perhaps you have been brainwashed . My hope is that it is the former rather than the latter and at some stage you will finally drop the pretence and admit that you actually enjoy taking on a group of intellectuals on the  back foot from the start . If so you deserve my admiration for making a really good fist in defending an extremely weak standpoint.

I'm not going to sit and list all the Treaties between the 28 as I suspect you yourself already know them all off by heart. Giving links to argument after argument and fact after fact about the prosperity that being a member of this club has bought us would I fear be lost on you anyway judging by what I've seen in this thread.

Finally just one final thought , I do have to declare an interest here with my daughter going to study at the University of Copenhagen next year with the financial support of the Erasmus + programme . She is not alone locally , kids from our area could never have dreamed of these opportunities in the 70's or for that matter afford them even now. In much the same way as the European Re-generation projects have propelled this region forward out of the ashes of Thatcher's Britain - these are two specific policies that our people have enjoyed the benefit of and sadly you failed to mention . Please open your eyes or at least drop the pretence. 

Sorry I failed to address your final point on Hinckley B, yes it is a vanity project , like HS 2/3  - all persued to provide cover for what is to come . Yet another pretence to con the peoples of the Midlands and the North of England that all is well when quite clearly it won't be either affordable or sensible to persue projects that will be wildly out of date by the time of completion and providing of course the money lasts.

[aidanstu]

Smashing AS I anticipated a reply that gave some positives about the EU followed by reasons why they were probably worthless so therefore to your way of thinking a complete waste of time to the average Joe Bloggs out there.

How you have missed the many many  other positives that this country has received by being a member of this trading bloc shows you up . The way our people move , work, educate, retire and holiday seamlessly for the last 40 + years seems to have gone completely unnoticed by you . Where have you been or rather where have you NOT  been during this time astounds me ?
It is obvious from your posts that you are a bright chap , able to wriggle your way out of the blind alleys that you yourself find yourself in ; so I find myself wondering whether you are being deliberately awkward ( a denier) or perhaps you have been brainwashed . My hope is that it is the former rather than the latter and at some stage you will finally drop the pretence and admit that you actually enjoy taking on a group of intellectuals on the  back foot from the start . If so you deserve my admiration for making a really good fist in defending an extremely weak standpoint.

I'm not going to sit and list all the Treaties between the 28 as I suspect you yourself already know them all off by heart. Giving links to argument after argument and fact after fact about the prosperity that being a member of this club has bought us would I fear be lost on you anyway judging by what I've seen in this thread.

Finally just one final thought , I do have to declare an interest here with my daughter going to study at the University of Copenhagen next year with the financial support of the Erasmus + programme . She is not alone locally , kids from our area could never have dreamed of these opportunities in the 70's or for that matter afford them even now. In much the same way as the European Re-generation projects have propelled this region forward out of the ashes of Thatcher's Britain - these are two specific policies that our people have enjoyed the benefit of and sadly you failed to mention . Please open your eyes or at least drop the pretence. 

Sorry I failed to address your final point on Hinckley B, yes it is a vanity project , like HS 2/3  - all persued to provide cover for what is to come . Yet another pretence to con the peoples of the Midlands and the North of England that all is well when quite clearly it won't be either affordable or sensible to persue projects that will be wildly out of date by the time of completion and providing of course the money lasts.

Hoola differences apart I am aware of some of the positives Europe brings, although overall I still want out. That said I wish your daughters well for their studies.

[wilts rover]

The paragraph you refer to above is an example of the EU inability to respond in a timely manner in regards to the threat of international trade, (it started to respond in 2014, way after the Chinese steel industry and exploited Europe. it was argued that the deal the EU was trying to enforce and which the UK was trying to avoid was one that simply throwing the baby out with the bath water and did nothing to protect British steel but was going to damage other trade links.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35951108

It's a shame that you didnt read the links in the article you posted. This is what the steel industry said at the time (March 2016) needed to be done to save the industry:

"We need much further action taking place to tackle the imports, the flood of Chinese steel into the UK and the European economy. We need to see government and the European Commission tackling that head on and quickly," says Gareth Stace, director of UK Steel.

"Ministers can also do more by reforming business rates to exclude some of the penalties steel companies and others face if they invest in plant and machinery," says Terry Scuoler, chief executive of EEF, the manufacturers' organisation.

"Alongside this, the UK has one of the highest electricity costs for the energy intensive industries in Europe because of hindering domestic policy. We need to see a level playing field with our European competitors to ensure a positive future for the steel sector," he says.

See nothing in there about the EU policy or tariffs. The industry themselves place both the fault and remedy on the British government. It was the failure of domestic policy that made the industry uncompetitive.

[hoolahoop]

Smashing AS I anticipated a reply that gave some positives about the EU followed by reasons why they were probably worthless so therefore to your way of thinking a complete waste of time to the average Joe Bloggs out there.

How you have missed the many many  other positives that this country has received by being a member of this trading bloc shows you up . The way our people move , work, educate, retire and holiday seamlessly for the last 40 + years seems to have gone completely unnoticed by you . Where have you been or rather where have you NOT  been during this time astounds me ?
It is obvious from your posts that you are a bright chap , able to wriggle your way out of the blind alleys that you yourself find yourself in ; so I find myself wondering whether you are being deliberately awkward ( a denier) or perhaps you have been brainwashed . My hope is that it is the former rather than the latter and at some stage you will finally drop the pretence and admit that you actually enjoy taking on a group of intellectuals on the  back foot from the start . If so you deserve my admiration for making a really good fist in defending an extremely weak standpoint.

I'm not going to sit and list all the Treaties between the 28 as I suspect you yourself already know them all off by heart. Giving links to argument after argument and fact after fact about the prosperity that being a member of this club has bought us would I fear be lost on you anyway judging by what I've seen in this thread.

Finally just one final thought , I do have to declare an interest here with my daughter going to study at the University of Copenhagen next year with the financial support of the Erasmus + programme . She is not alone locally , kids from our area could never have dreamed of these opportunities in the 70's or for that matter afford them even now. In much the same way as the European Re-generation projects have propelled this region forward out of the ashes of Thatcher's Britain - these are two specific policies that our people have enjoyed the benefit of and sadly you failed to mention . Please open your eyes or at least drop the pretence. 

Sorry I failed to address your final point on Hinckley B, yes it is a vanity project , like HS 2/3  - all persued to provide cover for what is to come . Yet another pretence to con the peoples of the Midlands and the North of England that all is well when quite clearly it won't be either affordable or sensible to persue projects that will be wildly out of date by the time of completion and providing of course the money lasts.

Hoola differences apart I am aware of some of the positives Europe brings, although overall I still want out. That said I wish your daughters well for their studies.

Thanks for your wishes AS and of course fella you are entitled to your opinion - as long as you don't start supporting Leeds that is  . RTWD  and let's look forward to a great Cup win tomorrow or should I now say today.

[SydneyRover]

Do you think it will make much difference to the average person if we are in or out of the eu? I was thinking back to when labour were in power other day and to be honest it's no different from now, apart from a few quid either way I'm not sure it makes any difference

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/67030/1/Begg_EU%20budget.pdf

Page 7, chart shows that of the 4 largest economies Britains contributions are the lowest.

"UK household is £3,000 per year better off through belonging to the EU. This may or may not be a well-founded statistic, but it is derived from an assessment that includes the effects of lower prices
attributable to the more competitive business environment of the single market and various"

If I have read correctly Britain's contributions work out to be 1% of the GNI, and as BST stated earlier the cost of a coffee/wk/person.

[aidanstu]

Do you think it will make much difference to the average person if we are in or out of the eu? I was thinking back to when labour were in power other day and to be honest it's no different from now, apart from a few quid either way I'm not sure it makes any difference

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/67030/1/Begg_EU%20budget.pdf

Page 7, chart shows that of the 4 largest economies Britains contributions are the lowest.

"UK household is £3,000 per year better off through belonging to the EU. This may or may not be a well-founded statistic, but it is derived from an assessment that includes the effects of lower prices
attributable to the more competitive business environment of the single market and various"

If I have read correctly Britain's contributions work out to be 1% of the GNI, and as BST stated earlier the cost of a coffee/wk/person.

Which people are £3000 better off? The average jo in the street? I think not. Both the London school of economics is part funded by the EU, is based in Westminster and benefit from the tuition fees of European students. What other motivation would they need to turn out such a report in any event. Hardly independent.

All of the references used in the report predate 2010 so the research is not either recent or relevant. Nice try though.

[BillyStubbsTears]

AS

Your cynicism is depressing. The assumption that everyone is on the fiddle and trying to lie to you means that you can find a reason to reject anything that goes against your pre-set opinions.

For your info, that wasn’t a “report”. It was a peer-reviewed research paper, published in a major economics journal which has been publishing in this field for half a century.

The peer review process means that every fact and claim in the paper is checked by leading experts on the subject. If they are not happy, they can demand that changes are made to the article before it is published. Or, they can recommend to the Editor of the journal that the article is unfit for publication.

Trust me, that process is usually very detailed and very arduous. Journals make their reputation by publishing work which stands up to scrutiny. Journals which publish shit quickly die off.

This is how truth and facts get established. This is how society develops and matures. Not by folk on the internet chucking out “facts” which are not actually facts but which support a pre-determined opinion and then shouting “Not interested” when anything comes along which challenges that belief. But by establishing genuine facts which stand up to scrutiny and which can then be used to draw solid conclusions.

[hoolahoop]

Do you think it will make much difference to the average person if we are in or out of the eu? I was thinking back to when labour were in power other day and to be honest it's no different from now, apart from a few quid either way I'm not sure it makes any difference

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/67030/1/Begg_EU%20budget.pdf

Page 7, chart shows that of the 4 largest economies Britains contributions are the lowest.

"UK household is £3,000 per year better off through belonging to the EU. This may or may not be a well-founded statistic, but it is derived from an assessment that includes the effects of lower prices
attributable to the more competitive business environment of the single market and various"

If I have read correctly Britain's contributions work out to be 1% of the GNI, and as BST stated earlier the cost of a coffee/wk/person.

Which people are £3000 better off? The average jo in the street? I think not. Both the London school of economics is part funded by the EU, is based in Westminster and benefit from the tuition fees of European students. What other motivation would they need to turn out such a report in any event. Hardly independent.

All of the references used in the report predate 2010 so the research is not either recent or relevant. Nice try though.

I am absolutely fascinated by the way you are so dismissive of such an extensive set of research as this from the LSE . It may have escaped your notice but ALL  our major universities have benefited for years from EU money - does that mean that you can just dismiss any report on virtually any subject on that premise ? You are so ill- informed and dismiss any material that doesn't meet your pre-conceived nonsense aren't you ; why are  you so quick to level these claims at a piece of research that fits in neatly with your own strange thoughts .... I give in with you !

[albie]

It would appear David "smoke and mirrors" Davis has been a bit more informative in private than his public statements admit, according to this leak reported in the Canary;
https://www.thecanary.co/?p=95309

Obfuscation as a political strategy has its limits.
Empire viagra is not a sufficient rationale other than to those using it to harvest votes from the dispossessed.

The idea that the UK should just blunder on to March 2019 without pause for thought looks increasingly shambolic.

There are fundamental questions about the nature of modern political governance behind this clusterf**k.

[hoolahoop]

Seems to tie in with his now official concerns about the EU  preparing for a " no deal " scenario and the possibility of legal action .

You simply can't make this stuff up ....we threaten them with a " no deal " ,  they prepare for a " no deal " and that's the EU then scaring our companies to invest in the option that we in the first instance put on the table .

This is NOT going well , there are still unresolved matters from Phase1 To fight over yet . It is indeed a clusterf**k of the highest order . This man is both lazy and stupid .