Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Countryfox]

 

This is not a good page for Webbo at all ....

 

He has been accused of too much classic whataboutery and goal post shifting (love that one Alf), and called a racist, a roguish old troll and someone who sits back and claps his hands like a toddler ! ...     ...    and post shitposts ! ...    

 

Keeps me smiling on a gloomy day ...     

Edited 12 April 2018 by Countryfox

[Countryfox]

Just now, Countryfox said:

 

This is not a good page for Webbo at all ....

 

He has been accused of too much classic whataboutery and goal post shifting (love that one Alf), a racist, a roguish old troll and someone who sits back and claps his hands like a toddler ! ...     ...    and post shitposts ! ...    

 

Keeps me smiling on a gloomy day ...     

 

See ! ...   I say this page and they move me onto a new one ! ...   fvckin Russians !

[Webbo]

12 minutes ago, Countryfox said:

 

This is not a good page for Webbo at all ....

 

He has been accused of too much classic whataboutery and goal post shifting (love that one Alf), and called a racist, a roguish old troll and someone who sits back and claps his hands like a toddler ! ...     ...    and post shitposts ! ...    

 

Keeps me smiling on a gloomy day ...     

None of them can answer me though.  I think I'm pissing it.

[Alf Bentley]

4 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

@Alf Bentley you do know that Webbo has no interest in nuanced debate and just wants to make sweeping generalisations where he ascribes thoughts to people who have claimed nothing like what he's saying then sit back and clap his hands like a toddler every time somebody takes the time to treat him like an adult and give a reasoned response to yet another of his shitposts? 

 

Plus I'm pretty sure the man's a racist.  *Sarcasm Webs, don't get your knickers in a bunch*

 

I can certainly relate to your first paragraph, Carl, though I'm such an argumentative twat by nature that I still enjoy replying - until my head eventually overheats and I have to self-ban for a while.

 

I was going to say that I couldn't recall any racism, but then I just saw a bloke looking like Clark Kent in a paint-spattered blackshirt goosestep past my window and start painting an antisemitic mural on the wall opposite.

Pretty sure it was Corbyn in disguise, but could it have been someone else? (Got to try to keep @Countryfox amused ).

[Webbo]

13 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I can certainly relate to your first paragraph, Carl, though I'm such an argumentative twat by nature that I still enjoy replying - until my head eventually overheats and I have to self-ban for a while.

 

I was going to say that I couldn't recall any racism, but then I just saw a bloke looking like Clark Kent in a paint-spattered blackshirt goosestep past my window and start painting an antisemitic mural on the wall opposite.

Pretty sure it was Corbyn in disguise, but could it have been someone else? (Got to try to keep @Countryfox amused ).

Whataboutery? 

 

You haven't answered my question?

[Alf Bentley]

5 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

 

No, tariffs - and, more importantly, non-tariff barriers to trade - impact consumers, producers and the Treasury differently.

 

Higher tariffs and more red tape makes exporting firms less competitive, damaging UK growth, employment, pay and living standards. In theory, reciprocal barriers imposed by the UK could help domestic producers compete against EU imports, but only in sectors where we had the potential (e.g. not oranges, probably not BMWs) - so there could be gains and losses for the consumer there, plus price increases as distributors offset the extra tax they were paying. The Treasury would get more tax per import from higher tariffs, but could get less revenue overall if EU imports declined.

 

Eliminating tariffs on non-EU imports would probably mean lower consumer prices, but less revenue for the Treasury to spend on public services. It would also give foreign importers a competitive advantage over domestic producers. That would be a bizarre policy as, unless you had some sort of planned shift into other sectors, it would cause British firms to go bust, British jobs to be lost and would place an extra burden on the treasury (lower domestic tax revenue + higher benefits). I suppose some domestic producers who used imports in production might benefit, but that mostly applies to the EU not the wider world (e.g. car firms importing components from the continent) - so that's an argument for a close relationship with the EU, not lower tariffs worldwide.

Reciprocal reductions in export tariffs to non-EU countries would reduce Treasury revenue but might help some exporters to compete - though there are major limits to this. It's hardly going to be practical to export strawberries to Japan or feasible to compete with Japanese car makers to export cars to New Zealand.....and higher wages limits the potential for export growth to poorer countries. There are good reasons why countries still trade disproportionately with their neighbours.

 

In general, well-managed free trade (i.e. minimal barriers for fair trade, support for development, barriers to prevent abuse & sudden shocks) is beneficial. Increasing barriers with your main trading partners, then going cap in hand to more distant nations is a big risk.

 

I find it bizarre how the Brexiteer focus was once on British growth and jobs, but now it's on getting cheap import prices for the consumer, at the expense of British business and British jobs. A bit short-sighted not to realise that consumers also need jobs, but also very unpatriotic!

 

Anyway, why don't you stop the "constant whining", you Brexshit Bory! (I saw that you were among the usual suspects repping Milo for abusing Remoaners, so presume you approve of such banter ).

 

 

 

5 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Whataboutery? 

 

You haven't answered my question?

 

Answer mine properly (not with a gratuitous comment about touchiness and a "what about" question about the Left and food/clothing) and I might consider it.

 

Very busy today, though, so no guarantees. 

Edited 12 April 2018 by Alf Bentley

[Rogstanley]

1 hour ago, Webbo said:

Please give me your nuanced argument. Why is free trade with Europe good and free trade with the rest of the world bad?

I don't know if anyone has actually made that argument, have they?

 

Certainly one way to "piss" a debate is to be the only participant.

[Strokes]

10 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

 

Answer mine properly (not with a gratuitous comment about touchiness and a "what about" question about the Left and food/clothing) and I might consider it.

 

Very busy today, though, so no guarantees. 

Not all brexiteers want the same thing, same not all remainers find the same things important. It’s was me, not Webbo or Matt that was big on the British companies getting a better deal. I’m one that would prefer a more protectionist British market and I’ve disagreed with them on it but just like you guys don’t challenge each other, neither do we. 

This is why I prefer no deal and don’t really care much for trade deals at all tbh. I’d like the government to encourage a British made enthusiasm in us all. 

[Webbo]

39 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

 

Answer mine properly (not with a gratuitous comment about touchiness and a "what about" question about the Left and food/clothing) and I might consider it.

 

Very busy today, though, so no guarantees. 

Give me your question again, but just the bullet points please.

[Webbo]

28 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

I don't know if anyone has actually made that argument, have they?

 

Certainly one way to "piss" a debate is to be the only participant.

You said wed lose tax revenue if we got rid of tariffs. If that's important to you why should we stay in the single market and not put tariffs on EU goods?

 

You can't say free trade is a good thing and a bad thing at the same time. Is that nuanced enough for you?

[DJ Barry Hammond]

4 hours ago, Beechey said:

YouGov reporting that 43% oppose missile strikes, but 60% support a no-fly-zone? Do people not understand the order of magnitude of difference between these two options? NFZ's are a significant step above missile strikes when Russia has a significant presence in the skies above Syria. Shows how much opinion polling means when the people being polled are clueless as to what they're be asked.

 

Bloody idiots, the lot of them.

 

Thats one of the growing problems with consistant polling about everything.

 

It ends up narrowing a debate into defined options, collates that opinion regardless of and without providing context of the participants ability to provide an informed choice and in turn leads people to believe ‘they know the answer’ to very difficult and complex topics where really most people should be answering ‘don’t know.’

 

I’m also astonished how polling companies fail to understand how their framing of questions can effect results - i suspect the ‘no-fly zone’ option came after ‘air-strikes’ in the survey, which can subliminally give off the impression that is the more moderate option (it also feels the more moderate option). 

 

At least with free form debate you get a range of views and can often see where someone’s coming from.

 

Polling however, except for common topic areas that the public generally understand (like who will you vote for?) tends to be baseless and meaningless statistics, so far as you could say it’s a complete waste of time.

 

But of course there’s an easy reason why polling happens - it makes these companies a sack load of money!

[DJ Barry Hammond]

2 hours ago, Webbo said:

None of them can answer me though.  I think I'm pissing it.

 

I wouldn’t expect anything less.

[Webbo]

3 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

I wouldn’t expect anything less.

Me neither, they've got no answer.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Strokes said:

Not all brexiteers want the same thing, same not all remainers find the same things important. It’s was me, not Webbo or Matt that was big on the British companies getting a better deal. I’m one that would prefer a more protectionist British market and I’ve disagreed with them on it but just like you guys don’t challenge each other, neither do we. 

This is why I prefer no deal and don’t really care much for trade deals at all tbh. I’d like the government to encourage a British made enthusiasm in us all. 

It's a lovely idea strokes, I'll give you that. All of us making and buying British. Unfortunately we have no industry and make sod all. Perhaps this could be turned around but I'm not convinced. It's why I bang on about us focusing on two or three future industries - particularly clean energy and transport - with a government led approach to building a modern industry. 

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

Thats one of the growing problems with consistant polling about everything.

 

It ends up narrowing a debate into defined options, collates that opinion regardless of and without providing context of the participants ability to provide an informed choice and in turn leads people to believe ‘they know the answer’ to very difficult and complex topics where really most people should be answering ‘don’t know.’

 

I’m also astonished how polling companies fail to understand how their framing of questions can effect results - i suspect the ‘no-fly zone’ option came after ‘air-strikes’ in the survey, which can subliminally give off the impression that is the more moderate option (it also feels the more moderate option). 

 

At least with free form debate you get a range of views and can often see where someone’s coming from.

 

Polling however, except for common topic areas that the public generally understand (like who will you vote for?) tends to be baseless and meaningless statistics, so far as you could say it’s a complete waste of time.

 

But of course there’s an easy reason why polling happens - it makes these companies a sack load of money!

My suspicion is if you told people what a no fly zone entails it will have even less support than missile strikes. People don't want to get involved in another country's issues. Particularly when it's essentially a proxy war for the two most concerning regimes on the planet.

Edited 12 April 2018 by Guest

[DJ Barry Hammond]

8 hours ago, Webbo said:

So if I'm understanding the remainers on here, tariffs on EU goods a disaster, no tariffs on non EU goods a disaster?

 

You could argue that, because that is the system the UK economy is currently operating in - so to move away from that would be unsettling and require business in this country costs to shift to the new playing field.

 

Most economic thinkers suggest universal free trade would be the panacea, so you could argue coming out of the EU and then applying free trade across the board for everyone would be a great move.

 

HOWEVER - no government would ever do that, or at least in one go, because it would flatten home built protectionist advantage for significant sectors of industry within - leading to that government losing backing / power before not too long.

 

BUT the ultimate answer that applies to all sides of the debate whatever colour is - WE JUST DON’T KNOW - so much is up in the air, it’s quite frankly pointless making any prediction on tariffs given that consideration is at best 4/5 years away to being remotely decided. 

 

It’s also apparent - most of us aren’t exactly knowledgable on the area or qualified to comment conclusively either.

[Rogstanley]

55 minutes ago, Webbo said:

You said wed lose tax revenue if we got rid of tariffs. If that's important to you why should we stay in the single market and not put tariffs on EU goods?

 

You can't say free trade is a good thing and a bad thing at the same time. Is that nuanced enough for you?

I didn't say keeping tariffs was important to me, I questioned whether the ability to remove tariffs could really be considered a positive consequence of brexit. 

 

It would nice if you could try and stick to the topics that are actually being discussed rather than wandering off on your own random tangents.

Edited 12 April 2018 by Rogstanley

[Webbo]

2 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

You could argue that, because that is the system the UK economy is currently operating in - so to move away from that would be unsettling and require business in this country costs to shift to the new playing field.

 

Most economic thinkers suggest universal free trade would be the panacea, so you could argue coming out of the EU and then applying free trade across the board for everyone would be a great move.

 

HOWEVER - no government would ever do that, or at least in one go, because it would flatten home built protectionist advantage for significant sectors of industry within - leading to that government losing backing / power before not too long.

 

BUT the ultimate answer that applies to all sides of the debate whatever colour is - WE JUST DON’T KNOW - so much is up in the air, it’s quite frankly pointless making any prediction on tariffs given that consideration is at best 4/5 years away to being remotely decided. 

 

It’s also apparent - most of us aren’t exactly knowledgable on the area or qualified to comment conclusively either.

That's a fair post. I instinctively favour the free trade argument but I accept there is another view. It's people who claim to that leaving the single market would be a disaster  and at the same time say that FTAs are a bad idea that I can't understand.

[Alf Bentley]

37 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Not all brexiteers want the same thing, same not all remainers find the same things important. It’s was me, not Webbo or Matt that was big on the British companies getting a better deal. I’m one that would prefer a more protectionist British market and I’ve disagreed with them on it but just like you guys don’t challenge each other, neither do we. 

This is why I prefer no deal and don’t really care much for trade deals at all tbh. I’d like the government to encourage a British made enthusiasm in us all. 

 

Fair comment, even if we disagree politically. I've nothing against the encouragement of "British-made enthusiasm" and would also like to see more govt intervention to help British firms invest, innovate, diversify into new sectors, have better infrastructure, finance & transport etc.

 

I disagree on protectionism, though I appreciate that it is a matter of degree, not absolutes (unless you're a neoliberal or Stalinist extremist). Protectionism leads to retaliation, which leads to too much isolation & too little trade, productivity & growth.

I'd favour managed free trade: mainly free trade, with as few tariffs/barriers as possible, but some barriers to keep out abusive traders (e.g. child labour) and to avoid UK firms being exposed to sudden shocks (e.g. important industries going bust because of a sudden influx of cheap imports based on low labour costs), though there's a balance needed there as, in medium-term, those cheap imports need freer market access so that other countries can develop to the benefit of all - while local capital diversifies into other sectors or upskills into higher-tech/knowledge-based activities. It's largely Corbyn's "socialism in one country" outlook that puts me off him....didn't work well for the USSR, did it?

 

I genuinely think "no deal" would be an utter disaster. Quite apart from damaging relations with our closest neighbours (potentially leaving us semi-isolated in difficult international times) and creating a problem over the Irish border, I think it would cause economic disaster - which in turn would cause social disaster. Though it might be quite a slow-moving disaster (many big firms might take years to go bust or to relocate to the continent). Making your firms' trade with your main partners much more difficult and uncompetitive is madness - and leads to lower tax take, less cash for public services, lower living standards, higher unemployment, more social problems etc. I get it that growth is higher in distant developing countries - and that will create some opportunities, whatever deal we do or don't sign. But much of that growth in developing countries will come from domestic businesses with which we cannot compete on price - or from trade with advanced countries that are much closer to them (e.g. China/Japan/Korea in developing Asia; USA in Latin America). Economies in much of Africa will take decades yet to develop to a scale at which they might replace significant amounts of EU trade.

 

Anyway, we've had all these circular arguments before. No point repeating them at length as we won't convince one another and there's no clear evidence - only the opinion of the dreaded "experts" (who must now be held in greater contempt than drug dealers, politicians or estate agents!).

[DJ Barry Hammond]

 

@Alf Bentley see that’s where we disagree Alf, i’d say we might as well go with no deal, unless we miraculously got a ‘cake and eat it deal’ otherwise what was the point in the Leave vote?

 

But that’s the sadist in me going with the ‘give them their head’ view.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Webbo said:

That's a fair post. I instinctively favour the free trade argument but I accept there is another view. It's people who claim to that leaving the single market would be a disaster  and at the same time say that FTAs are a bad idea that I can't understand.

Are there many of them?

[Buce]

2 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

@Alf Bentley see that’s where we disagree Alf, i’d say we might as well go with no deal, unless we miraculously got a ‘cake and eat it deal’ otherwise what was the point in the Leave vote?

 

But that’s the sadist in me going with the ‘give them their head’ view.

 

There was no point in the Leave vote - that's the problem.

[Webbo]

12 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

I didn't say keeping tariffs was important to me, I questioned whether the ability to remove tariffs could really be considered a positive consequence of brexit. 

 

It would nice if you could try and stick to the topics that are actually being discussed rather than wandering off on your own random tangents.

Fair enough,back on topic. Why didn't you answer this?

7 hours ago, Webbo said:

We haven't been able to drop taxes on food before because tariffs are the only taxes on food and we haven't been able to reduce those while we're in the EU.

 

[Webbo]

4 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Are there many of them?

Many what?

[Rogstanley]

3 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Fair enough,back on topic. Why didn't you answer this?

 

Sorry, what's the question?