Britain and the EU

CLAPTON

antrobus wrote: »

It is perfectly economically literate to point out that large sections of the UK farming industry rely on a combination of EU subsidies and EU tariff barriers to stay in business. What would be economically illiterate would be to think that you could leave the EU without any consequences to UK farming without having a similar level of subsdies and tariff barriers.

of course

but why didn't you say that?

and of course point out that we could, at least on a like for like basis, be better off as we are net contributors the EU budget and so would have 'spare' money available for subsidies

danothy

CLAPTON wrote: »

bendy bananas to you but the real facts were

-refuse to allow the import of food that was safe and nutritious but didn't meet cosmetic standards

this meant that many poor farmers in poor countries couldn't sell their nutritious food

food (in a world with starvation) was dumped

food costs in the EU were higher than necessary due to real restriction on trade


maybe give some proper consideration to the socio-economic facts rather that emotional rubbish about bendy bananas

This lie has been done to death by liars such as yourself. The "cosmetic standards" that you claim lead to the "refusal to allow import" actually pertain to the quality class that they can be sold under. Bananas with defects of shape that are otherwise "safe and nutritious" can still be imported and sold as Class II. I know you know this, and are therefore still wilfully perpetuating the lie, because we went over this in April of last year. You're worse than Garry_Anderson.

CLAPTON

danothy wrote: »

This lie has been done to death by liars such as yourself. The "cosmetic standards" that you claim lead to the "refusal to allow import" actually pertain to the quality class that they can be sold under. Bananas with defects of shape that are otherwise "safe and nutritious" can still be imported and sold as Class II. I know you know this, and are therefore still wilfully perpetuating the lie, because we went over this in April of last year. You're worse than Garry_Anderson.

yes of course, the bendy banana rules have been changed and no longer apply in the same way.
the damage was done a long time ago but it still has a symbolic meaning : hence my response to the post about what WAS the situation.

Generali

CLAPTON wrote: »

yes of course, the bendy banana rules have been changed and no longer apply in the same way.
the damage was done a long time ago but it still has a symbolic meaning : hence my response to the post about what WAS the situation.

Why did you use the present tense rather than the past if that was the case??

CLAPTON

Generali wrote: »

Why did you use the present tense rather than the past if that was the case??

I posted :

bendy bananas to you but the real facts were

-refuse to allow the import of food that was safe and nutritious but didn't meet cosmetic standards

this meant that many poor farmers in poor countries couldn't sell their nutritious food

food (in a world with starvation) was dumped

food costs in the EU were higher than necessary due to real restriction on trade

Sapphire

Mistermeaner wrote: »

Not checked facts but the above would be my fear - an exit based on emotive dislike of migration and bendy bananas rather than proper consideration of economic consequences.

As with all such things getting proper financial data will nigh on impossible and also buried in a pile of daily mail garbage

Your 'emotive dislike of migration' is others concern about:

1. An invasion by non-European people who have a general dislike of us and would wish us harm. There have been wars and poverty in the world's history, and they have resulted in migrations of relatively small amounts of people, which have generally benefited Britain. However, we are seeing a migration of potentially billions of non-Europeans to Europe, who would bring ruin to the continent (and in the process themselves). Britain has never suffered cruel invasion, unlike some other European countries; I trust that will remain the case, but am not optimistic given the way things are going. Britain has become soft and vulnerable, which is not the way to be when faced with ideologies that are certainly not that.

2. The massive strain on finances (paid for by taxpayers) illegal migrants from non-European countries especially bring to Britain at a time when the health service, for example, is already hugely stretched and can't cope with the indigenous population. And what about education? I've heard it said by illegal migrants that 'all they want to do' is to gain an education – who do you think is going to finance that?. Housing? There isn't enough to go around already, and even if there was, who would pay for it? Again, taxpayers.

3. The influx of such people when there aren't enough jobs in this country, and of their impact on the indigenous working population's wages if they do get work. What do you think that the illegal migrants from the Middle East and Africa (composed largely of fit young men, contrary to the emotive pictures being thrust upon us by the press) will do when they realise there aren't jobs for them?

4. The cultural impact on a society that has taken centuries to build up a decent political and cultural system (flawed it may be, but European culture in general is a lot better than that of the majority of other countries, and is now under threat by a civilisation that is hostile to it). Have you not read about the threats by ISIS to flood the European continent with Muslims? Do you agree to that?

5. Being coerced into being a part of a United States of Germany, which engages in the sort of bullying of small nations that is going on now.

6. The impact on the countries of origin of so many people leaving them. Changes to countries should be made from within to improve them (that's what happened in Britain and other European countries, very gradually, over centuries). Masses of people leaving a country who would otherwise be in a position to effect change – however long this might take – will have a negative effect on their countries of origin.

Resting on one's laurels and voting to stay in the hope that things will just carry on as they have in the past, when the EU didn't have to face any serious issues, is not the answer, in my view. I'm all for helping people financially in the areas to which they belong, and which have similar world views to them (as Britain has been doing more than any other European country), but as for letting them overrun Europe – no, I am not in favour of that at all.

As to 'bendy bananas', another poster has answered your statement adequately. :cool:

danothy

CLAPTON wrote: »

yes of course, the bendy banana rules have been changed and no longer apply in the same way.
the damage was done a long time ago but it still has a symbolic meaning : hence my response to the post about what WAS the situation.

So not only are you objecting to the EU on the basis of something that is no longer a problem, but you offer no evidence other than your say so that it was ever a problem? Given that you're a known liar, I would say that your say so doesn't say so.

vivatifosi

Generali wrote: »

Because the figures come from an economic research company that charges money for access to its research as its business model.

The company concerned doesn't work as a pro or anti-EU organisation AFAIK, they sell economic data to people that seek to use that for their own profit. They make money by being right rather than taking one side or another of the argument.

I'm sure you'd be a little miffed if a stranger came to your house and insisted that you helped them find a book when you were on a day off.

This company no more gives away their research than Toyota gives away cars or Maccas gives away hamburgers. Selling research is what they do (and kinda what I do).

No issue with them, or any other research organisation charging for their research. Just think that given the importance of the decision, that information that will help people come to said decision should be more widely available to the public.

My issue was more with the EU for wanting to put up billboards instead, rather than a company making money for what they do, which is entirely justified. Should have been clearer about that, sorry.

I remain genuinely concerned at the lack of good info being discussed given the approaching vote though.

FWIW the EUs Europa site is better than it was, but still not great. Full Fact has a useful section on the EU, but that doesn't answer all the questions I want answered either. Full Fact is here:

https://fullfact.org/europe/

Generali

vivatifosi wrote: »

No issue with them, or any other research organisation charging for their research. Just think that given the importance of the decision, that information that will help people come to said decision should be more widely available to the public.

That is the equivalent of saying that Maccas should give people a free coffee while they read up on EU rules or indeed any other topic that someone deems important.

I'm sure that the researchers would sell their research into free access if paid enough. IP is the same as any other sort of property really: almost always up for sale at the right price.:money:

leveller2911

antrobus wrote: »

More than 60% of the UK’s food exports go to the EU. The EU has high import tarrifs on food. What do you think would happen?

The EU currently has over 50 free trade agreements with countries around the world to overcome trade tarrifs and is nagotiating more so I really don't see why we would be exempt from a tarrif free trade deal.

Go back to 2009 and the UK charged trade tarrifs to non EU countries of around 1.76% tarrif so giving the impression that we would be paying sky high tarrifs is a red herring imo. This makes the EU as a customs block with tarrifs obsolete.

The EU share of the worlds GDP is predicted to fall to around 22% by 2025 from 37% in the 1970's so why are we teathering ourselves to a failing club?.

Now given the undeniable fact that farming within the EU is seen as a sacred cow by France we will never see a level playing field for subsidies. Farming will continue to receive far more money than its worth. Being in the EU we have managed to changed very little in the CAP and when/if Turkey was allowed in our influence will be even less and that is an undeniable fact.