EU Vote

[Svensson]

Yes, the idea of keeping good relations with Europe has its balls caught in a zip-wire and is going nowhere. His first trip to the US or Kenya should also be interesting.

[John G]

Just nonsense, absolute nonsense.

I shouldn't really have to say this but you need this sort of caveat to prevent the "RACIST" accusations. I've never voted for UKIP and never will do.

Farage is not an extremist. He's a died-in-the-wool conservative who dreams of rural England, warm beer, cricket, localised power - that sort of thing.

And, maybe, just maybe, no one was convinced by Farage in the 'industrial North'. What? Do you think we need our eyes opening to what has been going on for a long time?

Farage will never, ever be one of us, because he's from a different world - a sort of shire conservative - and he certainly didn't open anyone's eyes.

This is just more of the condescending attitude that you people have towards the Working Classes - we're all so stupid that we're sheep being led 'round the block - you couldn't possibly conceive of a situation where actually we're just sick and tired of the pricks and one lot of politicians is bad enough but another lot on top with four presidents and paying themselves a special rate of lower income tax that us mere serfs are not afforded, and being paid a small fortune to draw up regulations about pillow cases and tooth brushes at our expense; is simply beyond the pale.

And they're not trusted, none of them. A lot of people up here voted out of a sense of '**** you' to all of the politicians. Better to have one lot of politicians than two. More manageable.

I'm not at all sure what points you are trying to make and, for clarification, I consider myself to be working class. As for Nigel Farrage being a political extremist, I consider anyone who would accept the elimination of British manufacturing industry-on the basis of scrapping tariffs for imported goods, whilst allowing other countries to levy tariffs against British goods- to fall into that category regardless of their other beliefs. (Did you actually read the Farage article I provided a link to and, if you did, do you think you understood its implications?)

[Robert]

I hear what you're saying, Svensson, but I think I agree with the EU politician (can't remember who it was) who said that the EU must go forward because if it doesn't go forward, then it will go backwards.

I don't see how the present situation can possibly be maintained. I would suggest that the EU will either have to :

Go forward to full union, with money transfers between the former countries (e.g. from Germany to Greece).

Or

Abandon the Euro, or at the least shave off the southern European countries to leave a tighter, northern Eurozone.

[Robert]

John, I couldn't read the article you linked to, because it's a paysite.

[John G]

John, I couldn't read the article you linked to, because it's a paysite.

Hi Robert

I've just clicked on to it and it's certainly accessible from the UK, without having to pay.The article is from the Spectator magazine and is a transcript of an interview Farage gave to a political journalist. Here's the link again: http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/06...w-neil-brexit/

I would also note that he is commenting on a proposal from his favourite economist, Patrick Minford.

[Robert]

John, I've just noticed that if I give them my email I can read it for free, so I'll try to do that tonight.

[John G]

John, I've just noticed that if I give them my email I can read it for free, so I'll try to do that tonight.

Hi Robert,

Great. Hers's a transcript of Patrick Minford's original article: https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/po...and-even-brie/ (hope the link works!)

In the key paragraph Minford argues: " Over time, if we left the EU, it seems likely we would mostly eliminate manufacturing, leaving mainly industries such as design, marketing and hi-tech. But this shouldn't scare us."

[Robert]

Ok John I've read that. I'll try to read the other one tonight.

[John G]

Ok John I've read that. I'll try to read the other one tonight.

Hi Robert,

Okay. Hope you find it interesting.

[Robert]

Hi John

Re the article(s) :

No one knows what the world will look like ten years, or even five years from now - least of all Governments. Mr Cameron didn't even know that his own people were going to vote Leave. Nor did the other EU bigwigs, for whom the result was apparently a profound shock. However, as a general principle, I think that tariffs are wrong. They're a sort of fraud on the consumer, and they encourage business inefficiency. If I wanted to go all internationalist and Guardian on you, I could even say that they're unfair to countries which aren't in the Cosy Club. It's up to British business to make good products, seek out markets and sell to them. I may be old-fashioned, but there you go.

[Svensson]

then again, call me even more old-fashioned as I believe that tariffs have their usefulness in the global economy.

Not all economies work on the same principles. Goods manufactured in Europe has been manufactured in an environment that makes the product expensive. For example:

- Fair pay-conditions of the labour-force (40 hour week, paid holiday, paid overtime, employment protection laws, social security, etc.)
- Safe and secure working environment (use of safe equipment, fire-exits, heating of the factory, etc)
- Environmentally friendly (don't dump industrial waste in the river, have generators and power stations fitted with filters to cut down air-pollution, etc).

Even if the end-product itself complies with all the standards, the way it is manufactured in other parts of the world may be highly unethical or dangerous. This makes the end-product cheaper and unfairly competitive. Which means that tariffs should come to the rescue to discourage such practices.

There is also the need sometimes for a government to protect its own industries. This is not necessarily about just preserving jobs, but also about preserving capabilities.For example, when the last steel plant closes down, the knowledge and expertise to run a steel plant will go with it. Gone. Forever. And if a steel plant were to open again in 30 year's time, there will be no one left in the country who knows how to run one (except from Wikipedia ). So knowledge and capabilities need to be preserved, sometimes artificially and at a higher cost.

I'm all for the principle of tariffs but in an ideal world, we shouldn't need them.

[Robert]

Svensson, now you've conjured up nightmare visions of EU officials on tours of inspection telling other countries how to make their goods and what is and is not acceptable. That's if it's not already happening.

[Svensson]

Not so. I, as a consumer, don't want to buy good that have been crated in sweat-shops. And while I think that someone should actually be able to tell other countries that workers must be treated humanely, I accept that this is not possible. So I want a tariff as a signal that such despicable practices should not pay off.

And what exactly is wrong with suggesting that other countries treat their people correctly? Am I missing something?

[Mayerling]

then again, call me even more old-fashioned as I believe that tariffs have their usefulness in the global economy.

Not all economies work on the same principles. Goods manufactured in Europe has been manufactured in an environment that makes the product expensive. For example:

- Fair pay-conditions of the labour-force (40 hour week, paid holiday, paid overtime, employment protection laws, social security, etc.)
- Safe and secure working environment (use of safe equipment, fire-exits, heating of the factory, etc)
- Environmentally friendly (don't dump industrial waste in the river, have generators and power stations fitted with filters to cut down air-pollution, etc).

Even if the end-product itself complies with all the standards, the way it is manufactured in other parts of the world may be highly unethical or dangerous. This makes the end-product cheaper and unfairly competitive. Which means that tariffs should come to the rescue to discourage such practices.

There is also the need sometimes for a government to protect its own industries. This is not necessarily about just preserving jobs, but also about preserving capabilities.For example, when the last steel plant closes down, the knowledge and expertise to run a steel plant will go with it. Gone. Forever. And if a steel plant were to open again in 30 year's time, there will be no one left in the country who knows how to run one (except from Wikipedia ). So knowledge and capabilities need to be preserved, sometimes artificially and at a higher cost.

I'm all for the principle of tariffs but in an ideal world, we shouldn't need them.

There seems to be an historical trend in all this - In the 19th Century the protectionists like the Unionists under Joseph Chamberlain tried to make the British Empire a solid trading block for goods and raw materials throughout the world, and tariffs protecting it's industries - a kind of 19th Century mercantilism that seemed fairer to it's units on paper. Opposed were the free traders going back to Richard Cobden and John Bright (and led by Gladstone in the 1870s to 1890s) who wanted to get rid of all those tariff walls between nations. No unified Europe in the 19th Century (as it seems there may be today under the EU) but OCCASIONALLY a government from the opposite side of a border (real or theoretical) would respond favorably: the U.S. in the late 1880s under Grover Cleveland did reduce tariff walls towards foreign goods, but the Republicans reinstalled them when they came back into power.

The twist is that the high/low tariff issues in the 19th Century were basically meat-and-potato economic issues, whereas the current brouhaha is tied to calls of super-patriotism because "those foreign devils" are trying to dictate how we have to behave in our own country!

Jeff

[Robert]

I, as a consumer, don't want to buy good that have been crated in sweat-shops

Then don't buy them.

But you forgot to add 'and I'm going to make damn sure that no one else buys them either.'