Guest Kopfkino Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 10 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said: OK. Now. I ask these questions only out of interest. I'm not trying to trip you up or anything. But it's mainly based around this sentence: it is immoral for me to choose to restrict someone else's freedom Where does animal welfare come in to all this? Are you saying that each individual has the choice to decide whether to buy low- or high-welfare meat. What about the rights of the animals themselves? Do you believe animals have rights? And if not, does that mean that you think people should be allowed to do fox-hunting, bear-baiting etc? Also, what about the slave trade? If there were laws that prevented mistreatment of slaves, would you be in favour of people being able to sell themselves in slavery? What about Drugs and Prostitution? Is it immoral to restrict somebody's access to high grade heroin? Is it immoral to restrict somebody's freedom to own a gun? A knife? Deadly viruses? And I know you're not arguing for any of these - but I can't see a clear distinction between these things and your idea of 'freedom'. No definitely, animal rights is a difficult challenge to such a viewpoint. I very much support animals having basic rights and standards and acknowledge that mass farming is generally deplorable. Actually animals have a similar right to liberty as us. But I also recognise that is easy for me to say in a relative position of security. Adam Smith said man desires to be loved and be lovely, I hope we get there in terms of our treatment of animals based on that, but banning chlorinated chicken doesn't actually help to achieve that does it? As for fox-hunting, I don't agree with foxes being chased by dogs til they're too tired to stand and ripped apart whilst still alive, but I do think fox populations need controlling. Tbh the thing that pisses me off most about the fox-hunting debate is the revelling in sticking it to toffs on horses. But that's a digression. Yes. Prohibition doesn't work anyway. The point on freedom, is nobody has a right to restrict the freedoms of anyone else. It's Mill's harm principle. So access to deadly viruses is daft because there's not much use for it apart from to inflict harm on someone else. Guns. I think America's gun laws are daft and have no idea why people can own automatic assault rifles, there's no need. The potential to harm has to be considered quite seriously, but there is room for some level of gun ownership in my opinion.
Guest Kopfkino Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 16 minutes ago, Captain... said: Yes, but market equilibrium often means suppliers going out of business and can lead to a race to the bottom. If it is cheaper to buy chlorine washed chicken and there is decent supply from the US then without intervention it will negatively impact the demand for locally bred more expensive chicken. Even with the "uproar" mainly because the uproar is around the incorrect assumption chlorine washed chicken is unsafe. Price usually wins out. Why do you disagree that we need to protect our exports of chicken to the EU? If the EU bans any of our imports, chicken or otherwise, because it doesn't meet their standards, then that is a huge market that we won't be able to sell to. I don't know who much chicken we sell to the EU, but just purely from an economic point of view you don't want to block yourself from selling in to your biggest and closest trading partner. I prefer to protect consumers. If you protect exports to the EU, you protect suppliers. I would much rather open things up to consumers being as there are many many more of them than protect suppliers. We are not blocking ourselves selling to them, they are blocking us. We should be completely open, and that means we don't engage in protectionism because elsewhere does.
Fox Ulike Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 10 minutes ago, Kopfkino said: No definitely, animal rights is a difficult challenge to such a viewpoint. I very much support animals having basic rights and standards and acknowledge that mass farming is generally deplorable. Actually animals have a similar right to liberty as us. But I also recognise that is easy for me to say in a relative position of security. Adam Smith said man desires to be loved and be lovely, I hope we get there in terms of our treatment of animals based on that, but banning chlorinated chicken doesn't actually help to achieve that does it? As for fox-hunting, I don't agree with foxes being chased by dogs til they're too tired to stand and ripped apart whilst still alive, but I do think fox populations need controlling. Tbh the thing that pisses me off most about the fox-hunting debate is the revelling in sticking it to toffs on horses. But that's a digression. Yes. Prohibition doesn't work anyway. The point on freedom, is nobody has a right to restrict the freedoms of anyone else. It's Mill's harm principle. So access to deadly viruses is daft because there's not much use for it apart from to inflict harm on someone else. Guns. I think America's gun laws are daft and have no idea why people can own automatic assault rifles, there's no need. The potential to harm has to be considered quite seriously, but there is room for some level of gun ownership in my opinion. How about freedom of movement? Mill's harm principle and free market principles would seem to allow it "within a civilised community". You could argue this covers the EU. Where do you stand on that?
Captain... Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 3 minutes ago, Kopfkino said: I prefer to protect consumers. If you protect exports to the EU, you protect suppliers. I would much rather open things up to consumers being as there are many many more of them than protect suppliers. We are not blocking ourselves selling to them, they are blocking us. We should be completely open, and that means we don't engage in protectionism because elsewhere does. It is not about protectionism. It is a market that has certain barriers to entry, for animal welfare reasons. Whether you agree with them or not they are a huge market for the UK and any decision to limit that trade should not be taken lightly and not without significant benefit. I know you are a big fan of the free market, but there is no way we are going to be completely free and open as a market place and neither should the EU or the US or any other international market place. There are more important things than trade, protecting against the introduction of potentially damaging and dangerous flora and fauna is one example. The whole reason for the chlorine chicken issue is that the US have their demands on what should be allowed in the event of a free trade deal and you can guarantee ensuring we buy their chicken will not be the last of them. The EU have their standards, the US will have theirs, I don't see a difference from that point of view, the EU is a bigger and closer market though and would be my priority, after our domestic market.
Alf Bentley Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 (edited) 5 hours ago, MattP said: No jurisdiction of the ECJ gives a sovereign nation full control of it's courts, something every country should aspire to as to set out the boundaries and rules of its society, let alone the birthpace of Magna Carta and Habeas Corpus. Independent trade is just that, our government can be responsible for it and we can then judge them accordingly, if they fcuk it up on them, I'd much rather that than be veteod by Wallonia as the Canadian deal was. Removal of tariffs should be obvious, it helps the poorest in our society and the poorest in others, I have no interest in making those at the bottom pay more for their goods to protect people in richer nations. 5 hours ago, MattP said: The Tariffs are unfair, we don't have trade deals with African farmers. Do you think it's fair we are forced to put tariffs on those farmers to protect wealthier Europeans? The EU-Canada trade deal (CETA) was delayed by objections from Wallonia, but it wasn't "vetoed". It has now been approved subject to a few final issues and most of it is already being implemented. Wallonia has agreed that the Belgian national govt can sign and join on its behalf. In contrast, due to Brexit, the UK is currently set to leave that trade deal and dozens of others worldwide - including many in Africa. Here's hoping that impressive man Liam Fox is well advanced in preparing replacement deals. Here's an article by the then-President of Wallonia, explaining their position: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/14/wallonia-ceta-ttip-eu-trade-belgium He cites reasons including extra carbon emissions and the undermining of local democracy, including TTIP-style arbitration panels that allow global corporations to seek compensation for democratic decisions that infringe their commercial rights. Mind you, his example of McDonald's suing the City of Florence for refusing planning permission for a fast-food joint in an ancient square took place under Italian law: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/nov/07/mcdonalds-claims-20m-from-florence-over-piazza-restaurant-rebuff A couple of other provisos: - The Wallonia President is being disingenuous about the reasons for Wallonia's opposition. Wallonia has a big, heavily-subsidised dairy industry, which feared losing out to cheap imports in a region that is already struggling economically (industrial decline). Mind you, protection against cheap imports is an issue for British farmers, too... - It seems these controversial arbitration panels already exist under many other trade deals. They've only rarely been used against the UK or EU15 - an exception being when Eurotunnel successfully sued the UK & France for millions to cover extra security costs due to the Calais migrant camps. However, corporations are making increasing use of these arbitration panels to contest democratic decisions: https://fullfact.org/europe/ttips-secret-courts/ If you are gung-ho for unrestricted free trade, you risk damaging important domestic industries/farming and empowering large global corporations, not national democracy. Maybe the full Brexit slogan should be: "Let's take back control from the EU - and hand it to global corporations"? Cheap imports may benefit consumers, but what about domestic producers? To what extent would you be happy for cheap African food imports to replace domestic farm output? What if all British farmers were priced out of business and we got our fruit/veg from Africa, chicken from the USA, beef from Argentina etc? The UK could end up dependent on Africa and the Americas for its food, and Russia for its energy - with neither food security nor energy security. And what would happen to all the former farmers and farmland in Britain? I suppose, to kill 2 birds with 1 stone, we could sort the housing shortage out by building a lot of new towns on it? It would certainly damage the Tory rural vote, though. I'm exaggerating, but there is a serious point: cheap, tariff-free food imports, be that from Africa or the US, will put some British farmers out of business unless they're given even higher subsidies than they are now. If British farmers are to be jettisoned in favour of cheap imports, proper plans need to be in place for the future of rural Britain. Otherwise, rural society and the environment could face an equivalent devastation to that suffered by traditional industrial areas when large swathes of mining, steel and manufacturing were closed down. Some cheap tariff-free imports from Africa and the Americas might replace EU imports (e.g. Moroccan oranges replacing Spanish oranges). Others would replace British output (e.g. Kenyan mange-touts putting British pea, bean & broccoli growers out of business, Chilean apple imports making British orchards non-viable). Cheap, tariff-free meat imports from the USA and Argentina could threaten the livelihood of British livestock farmers - even assuming that the UK maintains EU-level farm subsidies. Mind you, until free trade deals are signed to replace dozens of existing EU trade deals, many African farmers will be paying HIGHER tariffs post-Brexit....and don't you Brexiteers reckon that it would be no problem for Britain to operate on WTO rules? Well, that wouldn't help the poor African farmers about whom you care so deeply and sincerely... Edited 15 February 2018 by Alf Bentley 3
Webbo Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 4 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said: The EU-Canada trade deal (CETA) was delayed by objections from Wallonia, but it wasn't "vetoed". It has now been approved subject to a few final issues and most of it is already being implemented. Wallonia has agreed that the Belgian national govt can sign and join on its behalf. In contrast, due to Brexit, the UK is currently set to leave that trade deal and dozens of others worldwide - including many in Africa. Here's hoping that impressive man Liam Fox is well advanced in preparing replacement deals. Here's an article by the then-President of Wallonia, explaining their position: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/14/wallonia-ceta-ttip-eu-trade-belgium He cites reasons including extra carbon emissions and the undermining of local democracy, including TTIP-style arbitration panels that allow global corporations to seek compensation for democratic decisions that infringe their commercial rights. Mind you, his example of McDonald's suing the City of Florence for refusing planning permission for a fast-food joint in an ancient square took place under Italian law: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/nov/07/mcdonalds-claims-20m-from-florence-over-piazza-restaurant-rebuff A couple of other provisos: - The Wallonia President is being disingenuous about the reasons for Wallonia's opposition. Wallonia has a big, heavily-subsidised dairy industry, which feared losing out to cheap imports in a region that is already struggling economically (industrial decline). Mind you, protection against cheap imports is an issue for British farmers, too... - It seems these controversial arbitration panels already exist under many other trade deals. They've only rarely been used against the UK or EU15 - an exception being when Eurotunnel successfully sued the UK & France for millions to cover extra security costs due to the Calais migrant camps. However, corporations are making increasing use of these arbitration panels to contest democratic decisions: https://fullfact.org/europe/ttips-secret-courts/ If you are gung-ho for unrestricted free trade, you risk damaging important domestic industries/farming and empowering large global corporations, not national democracy. Maybe the full Brexit slogan should be: "Let's take back control from the EU - and hand it to global corporations"? Cheap imports may benefit consumers, but what about domestic producers? To what extent would you be happy for cheap African food imports to replace domestic farm output? What if all British farmers were priced out of business and we got our fruit/veg from Africa, chicken from the USA, beef from Argentina etc? The UK could end up dependent on Africa and the Americas for its food, and Russia for its energy - with neither food security nor energy security. And what would happen to all the former farmers and farmland in Britain? I suppose, to kill 2 birds with 1 stone, we could sort the housing shortage out by building a lot of new towns on it? It would certainly damage the Tory rural vote, though. I'm exaggerating, but there is a serious point: cheap, tariff-free food imports, be that from Africa or the US, will put some British farmers out of business unless they're given even higher subsidies than they are now. If British farmers are to be jettisoned in favour of cheap imports, proper plans need to be in place for the future of rural Britain. Otherwise, rural society and the environment could face an equivalent devastation to that suffered by traditional industrial areas when large swathes of mining, steel and manufacturing were closed down. Some cheap tariff-free imports from Africa and the Americas might replace EU imports (e.g. Moroccan oranges replacing Spanish oranges). Others would replace British output (e.g. Kenyan mange-touts putting British pea, bean & broccoli growers out of business, Chilean apple imports making British orchards non-viable). Cheap, tariff-free meat imports from the USA and Argentina could threaten the livelihood of British livestock farmers - even assuming that the UK maintains EU-level farm subsidies. Mind you, until free trade deals are signed to replace dozens of existing EU trade deals, many African farmers will be paying HIGHER tariffs post-Brexit....and don't you Brexiteers reckon that it would be no problem for Britain to operate on WTO rules? Well, that wouldn't help the poor African farmers about whom you care so deeply and sincerely... We can unilaterally abolish tariffs on certain products, there will be no need for a trade deal.
Alf Bentley Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 (edited) 28 minutes ago, Webbo said: We can unilaterally abolish tariffs on certain products, there will be no need for a trade deal. Under WTO rules, without a trade deal or customs union, we could only do that unilaterally for developing countries. Otherwise, we'd have to abolish tariffs on those products for all WTO members, including the EU & US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Organization#Principles_of_the_trading_system Assuming such unilateral action only applied to developing countries, cheaper prices might benefit UK consumers (if importers/corporate retailers passed the savings on). It might also benefit African farmers (if extra earnings passed on). It would certainly benefit large trading corporations at the expense of British farmers. What would you do to assist British farmers who went bust or left the sector due to it becoming non-viable? About 50% of farmers' incomes currently comes from EU subsidies. Would you increase farm subsidies from EU levels or just let British farmers go bust? Would you leave the land to run wild, build houses on it, what? Increasing subsidies would be a hard sell when Brexit is supposed to save us money on payments to the EU - and when the Brexiteers have already promised those farm subsidies to the NHS as part of the "£350m per week". Edited 15 February 2018 by Alf Bentley 1
Webbo Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 2 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said: Under WTO rules, without a trade deal or customs union, we could only do that unilaterally for developing countries. Otherwise, we'd have to abolish tariffs on those products for all WTO members, including the EU & US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Organization#Principles_of_the_trading_system Assuming such unilateral action only applied to developing countries, cheaper prices might benefit UK consumers (if importers/corporate retailers passed the savings on). It might also benefit African farmers (if extra earnings passed on). It would certainly benefit large trading corporations at the expense of British farmers. What would you do to assist British farmers who went bust or left the sector due to it becoming non-viable? About 50% of farmers' incomes currently comes from EU subsidies. Would you increase farm subsidies from EU levels or just let British farmers go bust? Would you leave the land to run wild, build houses on it, what? Increasing subsidies would be a hard sell when Brexit is supposed to save us money on payments to the EU - and when the Brexiteers have already promised those farm subsidies to the NHS as part of the "£350m per week". There are more consumers than farmers so to coin a phrase let's do something "for the many, not the few". If we could reduce food prices significantly that will free up enough extra disposable income to boost the economy which should help anyone who loses their job. Australia and New Zealand have both gone down the road of free trade and their economies have benefited..
Guest Kopfkino Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 1 hour ago, Captain... said: It is not about protectionism. It is a market that has certain barriers to entry, for animal welfare reasons. Whether you agree with them or not they are a huge market for the UK and any decision to limit that trade should not be taken lightly and not without significant benefit. I know you are a big fan of the free market, but there is no way we are going to be completely free and open as a market place and neither should the EU or the US or any other international market place. There are more important things than trade, protecting against the introduction of potentially damaging and dangerous flora and fauna is one example. The whole reason for the chlorine chicken issue is that the US have their demands on what should be allowed in the event of a free trade deal and you can guarantee ensuring we buy their chicken will not be the last of them. The EU have their standards, the US will have theirs, I don't see a difference from that point of view, the EU is a bigger and closer market though and would be my priority, after our domestic market. It is about protectionism. Regulatory barriers are protectionist and I would sooner give millions of consumers access to cheaper food than protect a few chicken farmers that might not be able to sell to the EU. I'm sure there's some kind of oft-used soundbite in there.
Innovindil Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 8 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said: Under WTO rules, without a trade deal or customs union, we could only do that unilaterally for developing countries. Otherwise, we'd have to abolish tariffs on those products for all WTO members, including the EU & US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Organization#Principles_of_the_trading_system Assuming such unilateral action only applied to developing countries, cheaper prices might benefit UK consumers (if importers/corporate retailers passed the savings on). It might also benefit African farmers (if extra earnings passed on). It would certainly benefit large trading corporations at the expense of British farmers. What would you do to assist British farmers who went bust or left the sector due to it becoming non-viable? About 50% of farmers' incomes currently comes from EU subsidies. Would you increase farm subsidies from EU levels or just let British farmers go bust? Would you leave the land to run wild, build houses on it, what? Increasing subsidies would be a hard sell when Brexit is supposed to save us money on payments to the EU - and when the Brexiteers have already promised those farm subsidies to the NHS as part of the "£350m per week". Thought all these farms were supposed to be moving overseas anyways since they are struggling to get their slave labour now. All the farms leave, no subsidies to pay out and cheaper imported food for us. Don't understand why we need to pay to keep a failing sector afloat tbh.
Strokes Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 2 hours ago, Webbo said: We already buy cheaper chicken from Europe, what difference does it make to our farmers if it comes from America? If our farmers can't compete they'll have to change their business model. Maybe go organic,aim for a premium market. The money that's saved by the population will be spent on other things, which will be a boost to the economy. They could sell up their land for development and help solve the housing shortage.
Webbo Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 Just now, Strokes said: They could sell up their land for development and help solve the housing shortage. Cheaper food for the poor, higher income for third world countries and helping to reduce homelessness. What's not to like?
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 15 February 2018 Author Posted 15 February 2018 1 minute ago, Webbo said: Cheaper food for the poor, higher income for third world countries and helping to reduce homelessness. What's not to like? Being dependant for food from another nation? That would put this country in a weaker position gloabally.
Webbo Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 Just now, DJ Barry Hammond said: Being dependant for food from another nation? That would put this country in a weaker position gloabally. You think food exporting nations are going to refuse to sell us food? For what reason?
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 15 February 2018 Author Posted 15 February 2018 Just now, Webbo said: You think food exporting nations are going to refuse to sell us food? For what reason? How about simply raising the price? Indeed, if these African countries gain GDP as a result and their currencies became stronger, that’s automatic prize rises there. A major nation doesn’t want to dependent on others for food, military needs, water or power... hmmmmm, wait a minute... ok, well at least not all 4!
lifted*fox Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 TAKE BACK OUR COUNTRY AND RESUME OUR GLORIOUS INDUSTRY OF YESTERYEAR! WOO! but buy low quality chickens from USA and sell our farms!
Webbo Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 4 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said: How about simply raising the price? Indeed, if these African countries gain GDP as a result and their currencies became stronger, that’s automatic prize rises there. A major nation doesn’t want to dependent on others for food, military needs, water or power... hmmmmm, wait a minute... ok, well at least not all 4! But we're not self sufficient now? Countries don't sell food to countries, businesses sell to businesses. If 1 farmer puts their prices up, the food buyers will buy off another farmer, in another country if necessary. It's the way business works. If these African countries do gain in GDP they'll have more money to spend on our products.
Webbo Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 It's an often quoted fact that Germany makes more money out of processing coffee than the whole of Africa makes growing the stuff. Raw coffee beans are tariff free, roast coffee isn't. Why can't we buy coffee roasted in Uganda for instance? It creates jobs in the third world, the wages will be less than in Germany so the coffee will be cheaper for us and as roasted coffee is lighter than raw beans it will reduce the carbon footprint as it's transported. 1
RobHawk Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 2 hours ago, Strokes said: It’s not diseased, in fact it got that fat depressed look about it. How this post hasn't got more love i have no idea! I can't stop laughing at the thought of a fat depressed sheep on an island with strokes and a happy sheep! If any one needs a starting idea for a novel, this is the jackpot!
Guest Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 31 minutes ago, Webbo said: There are more consumers than farmers so to coin a phrase let's do something "for the many, not the few". If we could reduce food prices significantly that will free up enough extra disposable income to boost the economy which should help anyone who loses their job. Australia and New Zealand have both gone down the road of free trade and their economies have benefited.. How does a British consumer switching from spending on british food to cheap african food help our economy?
Webbo Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 2 minutes ago, toddybad said: How does a British consumer switching from spending on british food to cheap african food help our economy? Because the money you don't spend on buying expensive food you spend on something else. BTW it's not all British food, a lot of it is food we can't grow in this country.
Guest Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 Just now, Webbo said: Because the money you don't spend on buying expensive food you spend on something else. Two questions: 1- you spend £30 on british food now. In your future you spend £15 on african food and £15 on a british kettle. How is that good for our economy? 2- why are you only selling African food? What about african kettles?
Webbo Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 1 minute ago, toddybad said: Two questions: 1- you spend £30 on british food now. In your future you spend £15 on african food and £15 on a british kettle. How is that good for our economy? 2- why are you only selling African food? What about african kettles? It's not just kettles, you might use the money to eat out at a (now cheaper) restaurant. If Africa can make kettles cheaper, then we should buy them from there. 1
Captain... Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 25 minutes ago, Kopfkino said: It is about protectionism. Regulatory barriers are protectionist and I would sooner give millions of consumers access to cheaper food than protect a few chicken farmers that might not be able to sell to the EU. I'm sure there's some kind of oft-used soundbite in there. Not protectionism of their markets, there needs to be some level of protectionism for non economic factors, such as protecting the wildlife, protecting the safety of the people. I don't see this as protecting the interests of a certain market it is protecting animal welfare. I am sure there are plenty of examples of EU protectionism and there are plenty of examples of US protectionism, Trump has introduce a load of protectionist laws in his short time in office. The argument about protectionism only really holds water if the alternative is a completely free market, which is not going to be the case. Particularly when it comes to chicken at some point it comes to choice between which market you want to sell to. If we agree to a trade deal with the US and chlorinated chicken it means we will sell to them, and they will sell to us. It also means the EU will sell to us, but won't buy from us. So our domestic market will have cheap imports from the US and imports from the EU (relatively cheapness depends on tariffs with the EU) and our domestic chicken. Now we will be able to sell to the US but how they already have a chicken market with fewer regulations so will be able to produce chicken cheaper and won't have the added transport costs. So we are not opening up a new market to sell into, just to buy from. To compete with cheap imported chicken we would need subsidies or a lowering of standards to meet the same level as the US. That to me isn't a good deal, purely on the chicken, we close off a huge market to open ourselves up to cheap imports from a market that will have very little interest in buying our chicken. Obviously there is a lot more too it than just chicken, GM foods is another aspect, similar consequences less animal cruelty. Purely on chicken it doesn't make sense.
Guest Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Webbo said: It's not just kettles, you might use the money to eat out at a (now cheaper) restaurant. If Africa can make kettles cheaper, then we should buy them from there. But all the British farms and kettle manufacturers have gone bust. They are no longer spending on a thousand things with their suppliers. Their suppliers are also going out of business and shedding jobs. Less people now have money to spend on eating out, african food or african kettles. Restaurants now spend in Africa rather than the UK. Plus everybody else is still spending less in Britain as a portion of their expenditure is now on African rather than uk food and kettles. How is this good for our economy? Edited 15 February 2018 by Guest
Recommended Posts