Britain can be better off outside Europe

CLAPTON

wotsthat wrote: »

The UK were active participants for over 40 years and helped construct these tariffs. I don't recall much of a fuss in the past about this.

I can recall huge amount of comment about CAP : true less now than formally but still a lot.

Obviously you were blind to all information that doesn't show the EU as a holy empire, otherwise I guess you would have registered this dissent.

I doubt the UK government's attitude to tariffs have changed much. One issue is, I suspect, whatever the government think voters are generally protectionist in nature and don't recognise that a tax on imports is effectively a tax on buying local produce.

over the years I believe they has been consider criticism in parliament over the costs of CAP and fisheries policy.

No we don't know the future but can take a guess. I imagine we'll be less fussed about import tariffs on avocados and oranges but there will be little change with regard to spuds & beer etc.

As I expected little to change with the approach to African farmers it was a non-issue as far as Brexit considerations were concerned. It makes no difference to me or those African farmers which white christian imposes the tariffs. If there was evidence the UK was pushing for lower tariffs in anything more than a lacklustre way and someone said that's why they voted Brexit I'd cheer them as they sat aloft moral mountain. Voting for something, like tariff free African trade, knowing it's not going to happen smacks of trying just a touch too hard to gain the moral high ground.

you don't need to mount a lofty moral mountain if you ACTUALLY believe in the benefits of free trade as it will be in YOUR economic interest to trade with Africa.

Of course if you don't believe in the mutual benefits of free trade then you may trade with africa only as a favour.

As for voting for the correct party who do you suggest? There's currently a choice of one as far as I see.

currently we don't have the option of voting for a party that can implement free trade as we are still bound by the EU but hopefully they will all share that view in due time.

mwpt

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Not an indication of the EU being behind the reason for our success in the Olympics is it.

Who said that?

The argument was pretty simple to follow:

Conrad: We did well in the olympics despite being only a small place

Me: We did well because we have a lot of money to spend on sports programmes, and we have a lot of money while being inside the EU. So the EU can't be bad for us.

No need to try and invent false arguments where people said the EU are directly responsible for us doing well in the Olympics. We spent the money but the point is, we made that money while being part of this so called terrible organisation.

You guys are way too concentrated on the negatives. The EU has done some amazing things for countries and promoted peace and prosperity in Europe (with some ups and downs yes) for many years. You should celebrate it and all the benefits we've had from it over the years.

TrickyTree83

mwpt wrote: »

Who said that?

The argument was pretty simple to follow:

Conrad: We did well in the olympics despite being only a small place

Me: We did well because we have a lot of money to spend on sports programmes, and we have a lot of money while being inside the EU. So the EU can't be bad for us.

No need to try and invent false arguments where people said the EU are directly responsible for us doing well in the Olympics. We spent the money but the point is, we made that money while being part of this so called terrible organisation.

You guys are way too concentrated on the negatives. The EU has done some amazing things for countries and promoted peace and prosperity in Europe (with some ups and downs yes) for many years. You should celebrate it and all the benefits we've had from it over the years.

I wasn't focusing on any negative.

Just that the EU isn't responsible for the Olympic success.

It's also not possible to determine that the Olympic success would not have happened had we not been in the EU for the last 40 years.

mwpt

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

I wasn't focusing on any negative.

Just that the EU isn't responsible for the Olympic success.

So who are you arguing this with?

TrickyTree83

mwpt wrote: »

Do you think that is superior genetics or do you think our training and sports programmes have something to do with it? Those cost money. A lot of money. That comes from our people ultimately and that comes from our economic prosperity. And we achieved this while being in the EU. We "came second" in the Olympics while being part of the EU! Just think of that achievement. I reckon the EU has been incredibly good for Britain. I don't know why you are so negative about it. Try being more positive.

In this post you're trying to create a link between the EU, investment in sports and the Olympic success.

So I'd be arguing with you that you're unable to say the EU is part of the foundation of the Olympic success because of our economic prosperity whilst being within the EU, since you're also unable to prove that the same couldn't have happened whilst not being in the EU.

You cannot create that link between the two.

buglawton

We did well in the Olympics because as a nation we decided that our lamentable performance in the old days wasn't acceptable. The UK decided to do something about it with the help of the National Lottery and a culture change.

It all proves that a 'small' country like the UK can succeed at anything once it puts its mind to it and prioritises accordingly. It proves we don't need to hang onto Auntie EU's skirts.

mwpt

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

In this post you're trying to create a link between the EU, investment in sports and the Olympic success.

So I'd be arguing with you that you're unable to say the EU is part of the foundation of the Olympic success because of our economic prosperity whilst being within the EU, since you're also unable to prove that the same couldn't have happened whilst not being in the EU.

You cannot create that link between the two.

I'm not the one who is down and negative about the EU, that is you guys. I'm pointing out that we have been able to do and achieve a great many positive things while being part of the EU, as a result of our economic prosperity, also while being part of the EU. So stop being so negative about the EU!

A_Medium_Size_Jock

mwpt wrote: »

I'm not the one who is down and negative about the EU, that is you guys. I'm pointing out that we have been able to do and achieve a great many positive things while being part of the EU, as a result of our economic prosperity, also while being part of the EU. So stop being so negative about the EU!

Ah.
Well.
That is what rose-tinted glasses will do to you, I suppose.

Myself (and many others, I suspect) would perhaps more accurately phrase it thus:

I'm pointing out that we have been able to do and achieve a great many positive things despite being part of the EU, as a result of our economic prosperity, also despite being part of the EU. So stop being so positive about the EU!

There has already been screeds written regarding the harms that the EU has caused the UK from decimating our fishing industry to killing our home-grown car manufacturing.
That is a discussion for another thread - if you really want to "go there" again?

mwpt

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Ah.
Well.
That is what rose-tinted glasses will do to you, I suppose.

No, that is observing how things are and making observations about this. I'm not the one downbeat and negative about every little thing that occurs that you may be able to tenuously link to the EU and then proceed to !!!!! and moan about it.

TrickyTree83

mwpt wrote: »

I'm not the one who is down and negative about the EU, that is you guys. I'm pointing out that we have been able to do and achieve a great many positive things while being part of the EU, as a result of our economic prosperity, also while being part of the EU. So stop being so negative about the EU!

You were pointing out that you saw a link between the EU, economic prosperity and the Olympic success we've had in Rio.

I pointed out that you cannot do that, and we're now stuck going around in circles because you've not read, what I'd said, about what you had originally said.

There may well be positive things attributed to the EU over the course of our 40 year membership. I'm simply saying you cannot classify the success in Rio as part of that. What's so difficult to understand about that? Why is that being negative about the EU?

Can we make some sense of this please?