Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Webbo]

Just now, toddybad said:

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. How is this good for our economy?

You do know we're a net importer of food and manufactured goods? What difference does it make to us if we buy our oranges from Spain or Morocco, our roast coffee from Germany or Uganda, kettles from Poland or Zimbabwe? How many jobs have been moved from this country to Eastern European countries in the EU? why aren't you complaining about that?

 

Google comparative advantage, you're always better off buying from the cheapest source (standards permitting)

[Strokes]

22 minutes ago, RobHawk said:

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!

I think they were all too busy taking it seriously to appreciate

 

 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Webbo said:

You do know we're a net importer of food and manufactured goods? What difference does it make to us if we buy our oranges from Spain or Morocco, our roast coffee from Germany or Uganda, kettles from Poland or Zimbabwe? How many jobs have been moved from this country to Eastern European countries in the EU? why aren't you complaining about that?

 

Google comparative advantage, you're always better off buying from the cheapest source (standards permitting)

You've spent the last 18 months telling everybody Britain will flourish after Brexit because we'll be able to export to the world. You're now saying you want to increase the trade deficit even further. Which is it?

[Guest Kopfkino]

2 hours ago, Fox Ulike said:

 

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?

 

I don't oppose freedom of movement personally. But on a practical level it does raise problems with planning if you have no idea of your population from one year to the next.

[Webbo]

Just now, toddybad said:

You've spent the last 18 months telling everybody Britain will flourish after Brexit because we'll be able to export to the world. You're now saying you want to increase the trade deficit even further. Which is it?

The trade deficit with who? If we buy our stuff from cheaper countries then in cash terms our deficit will reduce.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Webbo said:

The trade deficit with who? If we buy our stuff from cheaper countries then in cash terms our deficit will reduce.

The pint everybody is discussing is that by leaving a situation where we operate to equal regulations inside the EU, we still potentially be operating in a world where potential suppliers don't have those regulations to adhere too. Our farmers are going to have a very difficult future. As are other manufacturers. 

 

If uk citizens aren't buying their goods they'll be out of business. If standards slip.They won't be able to export to the EU.

 

Therefore, trade deficit increases.

Edited 15 February 2018 by Guest

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, toddybad said:

The pint everybody is discussing is that by leaving a situation where we operate to equal regulations inside the EU, we still potentially be operating in a world where potential suppliers don't have those regulations to adhere too. Our farmers are going to have a very difficult future. As are other manufacturers. 

Have we moved on from the deficit point then?

 

We already face cheap competition from Eastern European countries within the EU and yet we survive. If the even cheaper competition from other countries affects some businesses then they'll have to adapt of go out of business. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Webbo said:

Have we moved on from the deficit point then?

 

We already face cheap competition from Eastern European countries within the EU and yet we survive. If the even cheaper competition from other countries affects some businesses then they'll have to adapt of go out of business. 

Read the rest.

[Strokes]

8 minutes ago, toddybad said:

You've spent the last 18 months telling everybody Britain will flourish after Brexit because we'll be able to export to the world. You're now saying you want to increase the trade deficit even further. Which is it?

Just because we are buying more in gross doesn’t mean we are selling less. There isn’t a limit on the amount of trade you can do as a country. So what difference the deficit makes I’ve no idea.

[Captain...]

12 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

I don't oppose freedom of movement personally. But on a practical level it does raise problems with planning if you have no idea of your population from one year to the next.

That's ok the free market will just react to it and everything will be ok

[Webbo]

3 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Read the rest.

We don't have to import stuff that we don't want. The EU already admit that chlorinated chicken is harmless and nobody had produced any evidence that animal welfare standards are on the whole worse than parts of Europe so that's just a red herring.

[Guest Kopfkino]

11 minutes ago, Captain... said:

That's ok the free market will just react to it and everything will be ok

It does a good job of tbf, its poor government that's hamstrung.

 

 

38 minutes ago, Captain... said:

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.

 

No it would be on your initial writings that said our accepting of US chicken would bar us from selling chicken to the EU so therefore we shouldn't accept US chicken to continue trading with the EU. That would be pure form protectionism, banning certain imports to save local producers. I accept your argument, I just don't agree.

 

In fact the whole argument is you don't want our chicken producers to suffer which they would if we import from the US. I say I want consumers to have access to greater choice and better prices. To me it makes no sense to protect exports (there's no saying some won't be replaced anyway) that probably amount to £100m a year to make consumers worse off.

Edited 15 February 2018 by Kopfkino

[DJ Barry Hammond]

49 minutes ago, Webbo said:

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.

 

We could be sell sufficient, it’s a choice not to, because people like the variety and foods that can be produced in a warmer climate than ours.

 

But if the core of what we can produce is lost to other markets and we find ourselves dependent prices will rise. In fact we’ve seen that kind of effect happen recently on imported goods in supermarkets.  

 

It’s also worth considering, if a supplier implements a price rise, it’s normally due to necessity or opportunity; making the likehood of finding a cheaper supplier unlikely, especially if the cost factors of changing a supply chain are considered. 

 

 

[DJ Barry Hammond]

4 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

It does a good job of tbf, its poor government that's hamstrung.

 

 

 

No it would be on your initial writings that said our accepting of US chicken would bar us from selling chicken to the EU so therefore we shouldn't accept US chicken to continue trading with the EU. That would be pure form protectionism, banning certain imports to save local producers. I accept your argument, I just don't agree.

 

In fact the whole argument is you don't want our chicken producers to suffer which they would if we import from the US. I say I want consumers to have access to greater choice and better prices. To me it makes no sense to protect exports (there's no saying some won't be replaced anyway) that probably amount to £100m a year to make consumers worse off.

 

It depends on the impact of not protecting your export market both financially and politically. I wouldn’t know the answer to the point in question, but I suspect it’s the later factor that would concern decision making politicians more.

[leicsmac]

Not really dipping my toes into this one, but following the debate with fascination; there's some interesting contributions to read.

 

One observation I will make is that this debate, like so many others, seems to be pretty much as a fundamental level framed in national self-interest - most of the argument comes back as to whether or not these tarriffs "benefit the country" or not and to what capacity.

 

Why?

[Webbo]

27 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

We could be sell sufficient, it’s a choice not to, because people like the variety and foods that can be produced in a warmer climate than ours.

 

But if the core of what we can produce is lost to other markets and we find ourselves dependent prices will rise. In fact we’ve seen that kind of effect happen recently on imported goods in supermarkets.  

 

It’s also worth considering, if a supplier implements a price rise, it’s normally due to necessity or opportunity; making the likehood of finding a cheaper supplier unlikely, especially if the cost factors of changing a supply chain are considered. 

 

 

If prices rise in Africa because we're buying more then surely prices will fall in Europe because we're buying less. It could be that as farming becomes more profitable in the third world then more land will become cultivated and production will rise. There is literally no downside to free trade.

[Webbo]

23 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Not really dipping my toes into this one, but following the debate with fascination; there's some interesting contributions to read.

 

One observation I will make is that this debate, like so many others, seems to be pretty much as a fundamental level framed in national self-interest - most of the argument comes back as to whether or not these tarriffs "benefit the country" or not and to what capacity.

 

Why?

I think mutual self interest is more accurate. It's good for us, it's good for the countries that will be receiving our business and it would be good for the EU if they embraced free trade too.

 

The problem is you don't see the jobs free trade creates. If you put up protectionist measures to save say the steel industry you save a factory there's perhaps 1000 jobs saved, nobody sees the 2000 jobs created in hospitality, 500 jobs in car sales, more carpet fitters, decorators, brewers etc all because of the extra spending power ordinary people have.

[lifted*fox]

genuinely can't wait for all these cheap chickens to start arriving from africa so I can afford new carpets for the house. 

 

what a time to be alive. 

[leicsmac]

10 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I think mutual self interest is more accurate. It's good for us, it's good for the countries that will be receiving our business and it would be good for the EU if they embraced free trade too.

 

The problem is you don't see the jobs free trade creates. If you put up protectionist measures to save say the steel industry you save a factory there's perhaps 1000 jobs saved, nobody sees the 2000 jobs created in hospitality, 500 jobs in car sales, more carpet fitters, decorators, brewers etc all because of the extra spending power ordinary people have.

As much as I like to believe the concept of a rising tide lifting all ships, history has shown that such things are often more lopsided and geared towards singular self-interest rather than mutual self-interest as given here.

 

If there wasn't that need to secure the best deal for your particular country in the first place, then free trade would be a much easier concept to apply IMO.

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour 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..

 

Thanks, Jezzo! A more detailed cost-benefit analysis might be needed, though.

 

- 70% of UK land is farmland: Will that become wilderness? If so, what risks attach to that? If not, what sort of development will be permitted? Large-scale housing developments? Industry? Drug farms?

- Who, if anyone, would look after the countryside and what cost would that involve, as a significant part of the CAP subsidy to farmers is for such work?

- Not only farmers would lose their livelihoods: e.g. manufacturers of agricultural machinery, fertilizer, animal feed, and their employees & subcontractors

- If consumers had extra cash, how much would be spent in the local economy? We have a large deficit in manufacturing so consumers might just buy more imported goods. That wouldn't do much for the UK economy - and there could be all sort of consequences for exchange rates, interest rates, tax take, public services etc. Especially as we'd also be accruing a much larger trade deficit in agriculture.

- I don't know much about economic policy in Australia and NZ, but do know that they're large, empty countries with a lot of land and natural resources compared to the UK: easier to cut overheads & achieve scale economies

 

I'm a bit mystified at your attitude. I understood that a big motive behind Brexit was to control immigration so as to stop cheap foreign labour depriving British workers of the opportunity to dig turnips or work nights in care homes?

Yet you're happy to allow cheap foreign imports to deprive British producers and workers of the opportunity to earn a living, some of them on farms in the family for generations.

 

 

1 hour ago, Innovindil said:

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.

 

Slight distortion there, eh? 

A few fruit/veg farmers are moving abroad or have lost output due to a shortage of labour -a warning sign. My complaint was that the govt was doing nothing to help provide local labour, having adopted policies to discourage immigrant labour.

And it is cheap labour, not slave labour, of course...and there are many ways of addressing that, such as ensuring that pay is above minimum wage, farms don't just source teams from abroad, labour inspections ensure that terms are being applied, jobs being advertised locally etc.

 

I appreciate that you're happy to abandon 70% of the nation's land and to become 100% dependent on food imports, but why not go further? If farming is a failing sector because developing countries can supply produce cheaper, the same must apply in almost every other sector. Why not close down all British business and source everything cheap from abroad? Cheaper goods for the consumer. Don't understand why we don't do that. We could also import more cheap foreign labour. There are too many expensive painters and decorators in the UK. Why not bring in cheap foreign workers. Extra cash in the British consumer's pocket. Can't see a problem with that. 

[Webbo]

2 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Thanks, Jezzo! A more detailed cost-benefit analysis might be needed, though.

 

- 70% of UK land is farmland: Will that become wilderness? If so, what risks attach to that? If not, what sort of development will be permitted? Large-scale housing developments? Industry? Drug farms?

- Who, if anyone, would look after the countryside and what cost would that involve, as a significant part of the CAP subsidy to farmers is for such work?

- Not only farmers would lose their livelihoods: e.g. manufacturers of agricultural machinery, fertilizer, animal feed, and their employees & subcontractors

- If consumers had extra cash, how much would be spent in the local economy? We have a large deficit in manufacturing so consumers might just buy more imported goods. That wouldn't do much for the UK economy - and there could be all sort of consequences for exchange rates, interest rates, tax take, public services etc. Especially as we'd also be accruing a much larger trade deficit in agriculture.

- I don't know much about economic policy in Australia and NZ, but do know that they're large, empty countries with a lot of land and natural resources compared to the UK: easier to cut overheads & achieve scale economies

 

I'm a bit mystified at your attitude. I understood that a big motive behind Brexit was to control immigration so as to stop cheap foreign labour depriving British workers of the opportunity to dig turnips or work nights in care homes?

Yet you're happy to allow cheap foreign imports to deprive British producers and workers of the opportunity to earn a living, some of them on farms in the family for generations.

 

 

 

 

We can compensate landowners for their stewardship of the land if whatever party is in govt decides to do so.

 

We're talking about buying oranges from Africa rather than Spain, manufactured goods from India rather than Germany, for a cheaper price or we wouldn't bother, so that won't affect our business. If we buy exactly the same amount of goods our deficit in cash terms will go down. If we buy more goods because stuff is cheaper then that's profit for the importers, the distributors, the shops that sell the stuff. There won't be less jobs if we have free trade.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

35 minutes ago, Webbo said:

If prices rise in Africa because we're buying more then surely prices will fall in Europe because we're buying less. It could be that as farming becomes more profitable in the third world then more land will become cultivated and production will rise. There is literally no downside to free trade.

 

Well I believe commodities tend to trade around the same price wherever they are produced - which is essentially what we’re talking about here. The market sets the price, not the producer. 

[Webbo]

Just now, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

Well I believe commodities tend to trade around the same price wherever they are produced - which is essentially what we’re talking about here. The market sets the price, not the producer. 

The EU set the tariff. 

 

I'm just repeating myself now. In summary free trade good, protectionism bad. If anyone has any questions just read my previous answers.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

1 minute ago, Webbo said:

The EU set the tariff. 

 

I'm just repeating myself now. In summary free trade good, protectionism bad. If anyone has any questions just read my previous answers.

 

But that would be universal free trade wouldn’t it? Does the same theory work if there’s free trade in one area but not in the other?

[Webbo]

8 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

But that would be universal free trade wouldn’t it? Does the same theory work if there’s free trade in one area but not in the other?

This is my last post on this subject today.

 

Free trade is good for the countries that participate, ideally that would be every country but that's not going to happen in the near future. It might not happen here, that depends on the govt but I believe we'd all benefit.