Corbynomics: A Dystopia

mrginge

davomcdave wrote: »

https://www.uktradeinfo.com/Statistics/OverseasTradeStatistics/Pages/OTS.aspx



A 10% levy on imports imposed by the EU and GB would lead to EU customers paying £2.93bn a month or an average of £43.15 per person.

GB customers on the other hand would pay £4.25bn a month or an average of £663 per person.

Remind me, who has the most to lose from tariffs being imposed?

Erm, maybe you should check those calculations....
Oh and btw, it's the exporting country/region that loses out.

TrickyTree83

davomcdave wrote: »

https://www.uktradeinfo.com/Statistics/OverseasTradeStatistics/Pages/OTS.aspx



A 10% levy on imports imposed by the EU and GB would lead to EU customers paying £2.93bn a month or an average of £43.15 per person.

GB customers on the other hand would pay £4.25bn a month or an average of £663 per person.

Remind me, who has the most to lose from tariffs being imposed?

It looks like you've missed the point.

westernpromise

davomcdave wrote: »

Remind me, who has the most to lose from tariffs being imposed?

The EU.

At the moment there is a charge for access to the single market. The UK state pays this and distributes the costs as general taxation. In the event that charge were to rise outside the EU, the state could pay by funding the payment from tariffs on trade flows the other way.

The result would be a net payment by the EU to UK. The only net losers would be exporters from the EU.

CLAPTON

trade is of benefit to both partners in the trade.
tariiffs, non tariff barriers, in general make both partners worse off

tariffs will in general reduce trade usually with no winners as such.

AnotherJoe

davomcdave wrote: »

A 10% levy on imports imposed by the EU and GB would lead to EU customers paying £2.93bn a month or an average of £43.15 per person.

GB customers on the other hand would pay £4.25bn a month or an average of £663 per person.

Remind me, who has the most to lose from tariffs being imposed?

That 10% levy and more has already been imposed because of the devaluation of the pound. The world has not ended.

Meanwhile there has been a bigger than 10% "minus levy" on exports from the U.K. to the EU due to the same devaluation. So a 10% levy on imports from the U.K. Into the EU would merely leave the U.K. in the same or a better place, price-wise, than it was last June, when apparently according to remainers everything was hunky dory. Yet now if we get back to that position, it's a catastrophe? Nah.

Thrugelmir

davomcdave wrote: »

Remind me, who has the most to lose from tariffs being imposed?

You've answered your own question. The EU. As jobs will be lost as a result of a loss of trade. Politically unpalatable.

Moby

westernpromise wrote: »

Tokenism has a lot to do with it, I suspect. Some proportion of Labour's female and minority MPs are MPs solely because of that, to fill the quota. If you advantage candidates based on sexist and racist criteria then you're going to get a lot of deadbeat MPs. In Labour's view women are second-rate losers who need the deck stacked to get ahead because they're far too stupid and mediocre to get ahead on merit. As a result, stupid and mediocre is what you get. Look at Mary Creagh.

Labour hasn't had a female leader because of this. They've given quota seats to women who are completely ordinary or in Diane Abbott's case actually poisonous.

The deck is already stacked against women and ethnic minorities.....look at the make up of parliament. Look at the make up of the Judiciary........but hey don't let reality get in the way of your prejudices.

Besides your quota theory doesnt explain the lack of talent in the Tory cabinet does it!

CLAPTON

Moby wrote: »

The deck is already stacked against women and ethnic minorities.....look at the make up of parliament. Look at the make up of the Judiciary........but hey don't let reality get in the way of your prejudices.

Besides your quota theory doesnt explain the lack of talent in the Tory cabinet does it!

a decent fair minded person would note the lack of females and ethnic minoritiies in all politicial parties but your class bigotry prevents you from seeing the beam in our own eye.

AnotherJoe

Thrugelmir wrote: »

You've answered your own question. The EU. As jobs will be lost as a result of a loss of trade. Politically unpalatable.

Not to some of the Eurocrat elites like Juncker etc who think punishing the UK "pour encourager les autres" is the right thing to do.

My expectation /hope though is that political expediency amongst those who depend on votes from peopel who have jobs will see them be more pragmatic.

But, devils-advocate, it only needs one poxy Belgian region to decide they dont like it, for nothing to happen. So perhaps it will be WTO tariff rules initially. Which AFAICS once you factor the exchange rate in, is where we were pre-vote anyway.

davomcdave

mrginge wrote: »

Erm, maybe you should check those calculations....
Oh and btw, it's the exporting country/region that loses out.

Oops, out by a factor of 10.

Still the fact remains that the UK would pay a substantial more amount in tax on imports than EU people will pay on imports from the UK as the UK imports more than it exports and there are fewer people in the UK than the EU.

If you reduce trade by imposing a tax then the importers lose out through having a reduced standard of living and the exporters lose out by making less profit. Both sides lose.