Brexiters should be 'Ashamed of the harm to come"

mwpt

Kohoutek wrote: »

Every country / trading bloc practices protectionism to a degree. You won't find many countries that don't have any trade or regulatory barriers protecting their industries whatsoever.

It's more than a little incoherent for advocates of Brexit to argue that UK farmers should not be protected from cheap food imports from non-EU countries, but certain types of UK workers should be protected more from workers immigrating from other EU countries.

It is incoherent because it is complete a load of bee-ess from the brexiteers. They know, and we know, that they were not motivated in the slightest about trade agreements with third world countries and aren't any more concerned about the welfare of people from the third world than the average remain voter and in fact probably considerably less so on average (Ashcroft polls).

They have simply latched on to a misdirection meme invented by their inglorious patrician, the every so saintly Clapton. I mean, if ever you know you're on the losing side....

CLAPTON

Kohoutek wrote: »

Every country / trading bloc practices protectionism to a degree. You won't find many countries that don't have any trade or regulatory barriers protecting their industries whatsoever.

It's more than a little incoherent for advocates of Brexit to argue that UK farmers should not be protected from cheap food imports from non-EU countries, but certain types of UK workers should be protected more from workers immigrating from other EU countries.

quite right

the argument, which has been made many thousands of times, is that it should be the UK government / voters to decide whether they have tariff barriers or not and not a decision made in Brussels

CLAPTON

Kohoutek wrote: »

Every country / trading bloc practices protectionism to a degree. You won't find many countries that don't have any trade or regulatory barriers protecting their industries whatsoever.

It's more than a little incoherent for advocates of Brexit to argue that UK farmers should not be protected from cheap food imports from non-EU countries, but certain types of UK workers should be protected more from workers immigrating from other EU countries.

Presumably you consider it equally incoherent for the EU to decide that EU farmers should be 'protected' from cheap farmer imports whilst many workers in industry are less 'protected.

CLAPTON

mwpt wrote: »

It is incoherent because it is complete a load of bee-ess from the brexiteers. They know, and we know, that they were not motivated in the slightest about trade agreements with third world countries and aren't any more concerned about the welfare of people from the third world than the average remain voter and in fact probably considerably less so on average (Ashcroft polls).

They have simply latched on to a misdirection meme invented by their inglorious patrician, the every so saintly Clapton. I mean, if ever you know you're on the losing side....

Do you have no moral compass whatsoever?
does it not appall you have people have no clean water supply
that children walk for an hour to collect filthy water
that they can't go to school

and to know that many of these people are suffering simply and ONLY because you vote for a EU had artificially puts the politics of german and french farmers above that of simple trade.

Kohoutek

CLAPTON wrote: »

Presumably you consider it equally incoherent for the EU to decide that EU farmers should be 'protected' from cheap farmer imports whilst many workers in industry are less 'protected.

Maybe it is in principle a bit incoherent to protect agriculture but not other industries, but there are valid reasons, e.g. food supply security.

In terms of other industries, there are other ways of protecting people affected by globalisation apart from protectionism, e.g. transfer payments, retraining, job creation by government infrastructure investment.

What is really incoherent though is the idea that leaving the EU is going to help the UK economy or help those UK workers adversely affected by globalisation.

Kohoutek

CLAPTON wrote: »

Do you have no moral compass whatsoever?
does it not appall you have people have no clean water supply
that children walk for an hour to collect filthy water
that they can't go to school

and to know that many of these people are suffering simply and ONLY because you vote for a EU had artificially puts the politics of german and french farmers above that of simple trade.

Even by your low standards, its very silly polemic to say the only reason for these things is the EU common agricultural policy (not corruption, not recent civil wars, not lack of developed government institutions, not lack of the rule of law, etc etc).

CLAPTON

Kohoutek wrote: »

Maybe it is in principle a bit incoherent to protect agriculture but not other industries, but there are valid reasons, e.g. food supply security.

In terms of other industries, there are other ways of protecting people affected by globalisation apart from protectionism, e.g. transfer payments, retraining, job creation by government infrastructure investment.

What is really incoherent though is the idea that leaving the EU is going to help the UK economy or help those UK workers adversely affected by globalisation.

so you have abandoned your last argument in favour of the new one that neither brexit nor the EU will protect UK workers affected by globalisation

I repeat my view that I believe it is better for the UK government/voters to decide the best strategy that suits the UK.

fatbeetle

Words from a man who knows what he is talking about;

> Speaking about the future of the EU in an interview with Business Insider, Mr Stiglitz said: 'I think the most likely thing is something along the lines of a political cataclysmic event like Brexit. 'In other words, the eurozone's member countries are democracies and one sees increasing hostility to the euro, which is unfortunately spilling over to a broader hostility to the broader European project and liberal values.'

> He went on: 'That's going to be the end. What's going to happen is that there will be a definite consensus that Europe is not working. 'The diagnosis will be to shed the currency and keep the rest, or that Europe is not working and a broader rejection — like in the UK. 'So my worry that this is precisely that kind of political event [something like Brexit] is that is what will be the catalyst for change.'

> Asked if Italy's problems could be the catalyst, Mr Stiglitz said: 'That is a big risk. 'Many people are now trying to work with Matteo Renzi [Italy's prime minister] to have him climb down from his commitment that he will resign if his referendum fails.'

mwpt

CLAPTON wrote: »

Do you have no moral compass whatsoever?
does it not appall you have people have no clean water supply
that children walk for an hour to collect filthy water
that they can't go to school

and to know that many of these people are suffering simply and ONLY because you vote for a EU had artificially puts the politics of german and french farmers above that of simple trade.

Exhibit A.

From the supreme snake oil salesman.

Enterprise_1701C

Kohoutek wrote: »

Maybe it is in principle a bit incoherent to protect agriculture but not other industries, but there are valid reasons, e.g. food supply security.

In terms of other industries, there are other ways of protecting people affected by globalisation apart from protectionism, e.g. transfer payments, retraining, job creation by government infrastructure investment.

What is really incoherent though is the idea that leaving the EU is going to help the UK economy or help those UK workers adversely affected by globalisation.

Apparently that is extremely rare, I have been told by someone that is friends with an African that moved here for work. She lived in the sort of area that was depicted, and that advert is a load of bull apparently.

I am not saying that they live lives like we do, but they are several hundred years behind us in development terms so in some cases they are ahead of where they should be because they have had so much help.

What is truly going to wreck the African development is the amount of people that are turning themselves into economic migrants. The countries need their young people to help them to develop further. If everyone with half a brain leaves then there is no future for them. But the migrants getting on the boats have this weird image that they will have everything handed to them when they arrive in Europe.

We have to stop the economic migrants if the African continent is to have any future. You only have to look at what Mugabe has done to the breadbasket of Africa to see what damage can be done by having the wrong people doing the wrong things. He thought that he could just put the blacks in charge (not me saying that, he was the one that wanted the "blacks" to have the land) of the farms etc and things would be fine.