If we vote for Brexit what happens

CLAPTON

Kohoutek wrote: »

Because you are not able to give a single example of a country / bloc which puts these ideas like 'free trade' into practice to a greater extent than the EU does already.

Australia is one such example.

Kohoutek

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Have you not read the link in Conrad's post?
Then quite why you are inanely pursuing this line is unclear - more so since that link very clearly explains the very serious deficiencies of the EU's supposed "free trade" system.

Hardly a glowing recommendation for a system that it would appear you approve of, is it?

It's a criticism of the common agricultural policy and the effect it has on pricing.

Maybe that would be valid if the EU was the only example of a bloc / country which has significant agricultural subsidies, but as usual the naive Brexiteers miss the fact that every major country does it (many to a greater extent than the EU).

See OECD data on spending on agricultural subsidies:

EU: 0.7% of GDP
Switzerland: 1.27% of GDP
Norway: 0.9% of GDP
Turkey: 2% of GDP
Russia: 0.93% of GDP
Japan: 0.97% of GDP
China: 3.15% of GDP
US: 0.4% of GDP

http://www.oecd.org/tad/agricultural-policies/monitoring-and-evaluation.htm

A_Medium_Size_Jock

Kohoutek wrote: »

It's a criticism of the common agricultural policy and the effect it has on pricing.

Maybe that would be valid if the EU was the only example of a bloc / country which has significant agricultural subsidies, but as usual the naive Brexiteers miss the fact that every major country does it (many to a greater extent than the EU).

See OECD data on spending on agricultural subsidies:

EU: 0.7% of GDP
Switzerland: 1.27% of GDP
Norway: 0.9% of GDP
Turkey: 2% of GDP
Russia: 0.93% of GDP
Japan: 0.97% of GDP
China: 3.15% of GDP
US: 0.4% of GDP

http://www.oecd.org/tad/agricultural-policies/monitoring-and-evaluation.htm

Nice figures BUT perhaps you can provide evidence of how "every other major country" negatively affects those they deal with to the same extent as quoted in the original link?
As in, negatively affecting a major proportion of an entire continent?

You see, most countries would wish to promote their own trade (it is in their own best interests) BUT not many would deliberately set out to ruin other economies in the way the EU has.
The "naive" Brexiteers as you so sneeringly refer to them will not have missed that fact.
As indeed other posters know (Clapton being one such).

Kohoutek

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Nice figures BUT perhaps you can provide evidence of how "every other major country" negatively affects those they deal with to the same extent as quoted in the original link?
As in, negatively affecting a major proportion of an entire continent?

Well, there was no evidence to back up the claims in the Morning Star article, other than the existence of the CAP. The article's argument is:

The criminal £30 billion-a-year subsidy regime allows the EU to dump thousands of tons of heavily subsidised food into Africa every year.

As a result local producers cannot export their products because they compete with the lower prices made possible by the CAP.

The article fails because it is assumes that the EU is the only "criminal subsidy regime", when reality is that it is one of many.

Unsurprisingly the author of the article is "a spokesman for Trade Unionists Against the EU".

A_Medium_Size_Jock

Kohoutek wrote: »

Well, there was no evidence to back up the claims in the Morning Star article, other than the existence of the CAP. The article's argument is:



The article fails because it is assumes that the EU is the only "criminal subsidy regime", when reality is that it is one of many.

Unsurprisingly the author of the article is "a spokesman for Trade Unionists Against the EU".

Are you going to answer the question instead of prevaricating?

Just to remind you:

perhaps you can provide evidence of how "every other major country" negatively affects those they deal with to the same extent as quoted in the original link?
As in, negatively affecting a major proportion of an entire continent?

Kohoutek

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Are you going to answer the question instead of prevaricating?

Just to remind you:

Sure. Here's a serious study on the issue:

https://endingruralhunger.org/assets/files/downloads/ERH_Full_Report.pdf

Note that it does not single out the CAP:

Most developed countries heavily subsidize their domestic agricultural producers. In 2013 OECD countries provided some $250 billion in support to their domestic farmers, equal to 20 percent of the total value of their agricultural production. The consequences of these subsidies are crop-specific and hence location-specific, but in general they distort and depress global prices, leading to lower earnings for farmers in developing countries. They prevent global agricultural markets from functioning freely and fairly, leaving farmers in the developing world with the field tilted against them.

CLAPTON

Kohoutek wrote: »

Sure. Here's a serious study on the issue:

https://endingruralhunger.org/assets/files/downloads/ERH_Full_Report.pdf

Note that it does not single out the CAP:

I guess if your argument is that the EU is not especially bad then you have made a good case.

My general view is that within the EU we have no independent choice : outside the EU we can make our own choices.

My own view about the developing world, is that the developed world (including the EU) has done much harm to the developing countries and for no gain at all to themselves (in fact economic harm) except party political advantage.

I also hold the view that the EU continues to do harm to the people of the EU by the madness of the euro, the high levels of unemployment of young people in Greece and the southern european states and of course the population loss in east and southern europe (which of course the 'remain' camp largely celebrate as a gain.)

Conrad

Kohoutek wrote: »

Well, there was no evidence to back up the claims in the Morning Star article, other than the existence of the CAP. The article's argument is:



The article fails because it is assumes that the EU is the only "criminal subsidy regime", when reality is that it is one of many.

Unsurprisingly the author of the article is "a spokesman for Trade Unionists Against the EU".

The key point you need to perhaps consider is that a free trading UK outside of the EU customs protection racket is very likely to be more open to African agricultural products, indeed I gave this argument several times in the past

thor

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

You see, most countries would wish to promote their own trade (it is in their own best interests) BUT not many would deliberately set out to ruin other economies in the way the EU has.
The "naive" Brexiteers as you so sneeringly refer to them will not have missed that fact.

Huh? Are you seriously saying that Brexiteers even had a clue about the EU sabotaging other economies? Really, what percentage do you think considered this when electing to vote leave?
I put it to you that hardly anyone gave this the remotest thought.

Moby

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Nice figures BUT perhaps you can provide evidence of how "every other major country" negatively affects those they deal with to the same extent as quoted in the original link?
As in, negatively affecting a major proportion of an entire continent?

You see, most countries would wish to promote their own trade (it is in their own best interests) BUT not many would deliberately set out to ruin other economies in the way the EU has.
The "naive" Brexiteers as you so sneeringly refer to them will not have missed that fact.
As indeed other posters know (Clapton being one such).

Its nonsense to say the EU deliberately goes out to destroy the economies of other countries. China perhaps or the US in Cuba but the EU:rotfl: