Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15

Thread: Australia and New Zealand object to UK's split quota idea

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    1,592
    Thanks
    139
    Thanked 309 Times in 243 Posts

    Australia and New Zealand object to UK's split quota idea


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,576
    Thanks
    1,000
    Thanked 577 Times in 411 Posts
    The spider's web of the EU. It would seem that slowly but surely we are being drawn into it once more. Each word that has been uttered up to now is being gradually reneged. Now May speaks of Europe and the UK going forward together - like a dance of partners that in the end will mean we will be out but tied irrevocably together dancing in a duet choreographed only to work in unison with our partner. Our bid for top billing and a solo in the spotlight is in grave danger.

    Unless we make a proper break why should anyone in the wider world bother with us. We will be seen as weak, inconsistent and malleable to the point of looking ridiculous.

    I despair!
    ...till I die I will not remove mine integrity from me, xx

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    London N16
    Posts
    5,331
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 536 Times in 450 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by T00ts View Post
    The spider's web of the EU. It would seem that slowly but surely we are being drawn into it once more. Each word that has been uttered up to now is being gradually reneged. Now May speaks of Europe and the UK going forward together - like a dance of partners that in the end will mean we will be out but tied irrevocably together dancing in a duet choreographed only to work in unison with our partner. Our bid for top billing and a solo in the spotlight is in grave danger.

    Unless we make a proper break why should anyone in the wider world bother with us. We will be seen as weak, inconsistent and malleable to the point of looking ridiculous.

    I despair!
    But isnít that a price worth paying for regaining our sovereignty, blue passports, and control over our boarders?

    Second thoughts ó scrub that last one, we donít want the Irish boarder controlled...
    The poster reserves the right to amend or completely change any opinions he has posted at any time...

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    1,592
    Thanks
    139
    Thanked 309 Times in 243 Posts
    It seems to me that Leave voters did not pay too much attention to any of the annoying detail and I have also noted disrespect for "experts", not to mention a majority of MPs, who recognised some of the issues regarding leaving the EU. On the other hand, I think very few of any of us understand all the implications, either way. I wholly agree with the immigration problem being an issue but I think it unfortunate that this was then associated with a lot of other, less well undertood, matters - like the trade and economic trade offs involved and what implications these will have on us, the general public. I don't think many Remain voters fully understand these issues very well either; I know I don't. The whole Leave/Remain issue was really decided, on balance, on an emotive basis rather than being based on reason. IMO, a referendum where so much depends on very detailed knowledge was never a good idea, so here we are. I have said this before - it is a bit like having a referendum on which type of engine to fit on a passenger plane, but actually a lot more complicated.

    Here is an example of some of the trade issues in a very limited section of the farming industry...

    https://ahdb.org.uk/brexit/documents...b_bitesize.pdf

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,576
    Thanks
    1,000
    Thanked 577 Times in 411 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by grumzed View Post
    It seems to me that Leave voters did not pay too much attention to any of the annoying detail and I have also noted disrespect for "experts", not to mention a majority of MPs, who recognised some of the issues regarding leaving the EU. On the other hand, I think very few of any of us understand all the implications, either way. I wholly agree with the immigration problem being an issue but I think it unfortunate that this was then associated with a lot of other, less well undertood, matters - like the trade and economic trade offs involved and what implications these will have on us, the general public. I don't think many Remain voters fully understand these issues very well either; I know I don't. The whole Leave/Remain issue was really decided, on balance, on an emotive basis rather than being based on reason. IMO, a referendum where so much depends on very detailed knowledge was never a good idea, so here we are. I have said this before - it is a bit like having a referendum on which type of engine to fit on a passenger plane, but actually a lot more complicated.

    Here is an example of some of the trade issues in a very limited section of the farming industry...

    https://ahdb.org.uk/brexit/documents...b_bitesize.pdf
    We can pick over the bones of the Referendum ad infinitum and it will make no difference to where we are. The EU has always been an emotive subject in this country and I believe it always will be but it doesn't alter the fact that so many resented the increasing political union and the affect this was starting to have on us. For decades we have been spun into the EU web and it seems presently that there is no real escape.

    I firmly believe that there is disaster waiting to happen, maybe not immediately, but certainly if the current trend continues. It took me a long time to decide which way to vote but am as adamant now as on polling day that the vote was correct. Sadly as yet, we are still searching for the cojones to carry it through. There is part of me though still hoping that Mrs May is actually giving the EU enough rope to hang itself. If after we have bent over backwards in trying to meet their ever increasing demands we are still not broken - then I sincerely hope Mrs May and all sensible people will tell them what we really think of them and walk away.

    Many hated Mrs Thatcher but in demanding our rebate she simply told them we would stop paying altogether. Sometimes you just have to round on bullies with a dose of their own medicine.
    ...till I die I will not remove mine integrity from me, xx

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to T00ts For This Useful Post:

    grumzed (25-11-2017), Major Sinic (27-11-2017)

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    1,592
    Thanks
    139
    Thanked 309 Times in 243 Posts
    I would not argue with trying to get the best deal and being tough in negotiating it. I am really trying to just point out the seriousness of the situation and I believe you understand this. But you surely have to agree that the full implications of leaving the EU were not put at all to the people in any cogent way though. Any attempt was put down by oversimplified, robust responses from the geniuses (sic) of Farage, Johnson and Gove et al. I agree about the EU's outlandish political ambitions, the stubborness over freedom of movement and many other issues. It remains to be seen whether they can achieve their ambitious goals now the UK is not there as a restraining force. There were also many good reasons for staying within the EU, especially economic ones in a world where size really matters and can only be obtained by states, or groups of states, with a lot of resources. I also am, by nature, more of an internationalist than a nationalist. However, I accept we are where we are, though I do not think the future of the UK or its people will be better as a result.

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,576
    Thanks
    1,000
    Thanked 577 Times in 411 Posts
    I wonder if anyone can truly formulate the overall affect a) of leaving or b) of staying. It seems to me that each vested interest claims disaster or utopia depending on their position. What does worry me at the moment is that from reports we seem to be playing both sides to the middle and the efforts being made to keep both sides of the argument onside will result in us falling between the 2 stools.

    There must come a point when the Government and the country must move one way or another. A halfway house situation, I believe, will do more harm than good not just politically but economically too. While businesses hope and believe in a potential safe landing in the EU single market they will play safe on ideas development and investment. However the EU represents shifting sands to me. The political hue is changing. Now the decision to leave has been made what restraining voice we might raise will be ignored as I believe it always has, and I believe that to be true even if we stay. Cameron showed as a weak man who tried to play both sides and failed. the EU ridiculed him and us and a reputation once lost is hard to reinstate.

    For me the EU is clumsy, slow, backward looking in many ways, protectionist of those stuck in past technology and increasingly introverted. There is an unhealthy preoccupation with power and control of EU citizens and I suspect that there are many at present silent voices that eventually will scream dissent. By which time it may well be too late. I believe our electorate saw this and whichever aspect of the EU prompted them to vote leave the essential reason was a growing concern at that unhealthy control aspect.
    ...till I die I will not remove mine integrity from me, xx

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    1,592
    Thanks
    139
    Thanked 309 Times in 243 Posts
    You make some good points, Toots, but I see the situation as more nuanced. I do not see any utopia whichever situation us and/or the EU is in, but rather which is the lesser of two evils (to quote a hackneyed phrase). Successful negotiations usually require compromise on both sides and a key issue that the Leave campaign did say correctly is that the EU do have revenue to lose by the UK leaving, both as a result of lost trade (the uk being a net importer from the EU) and from the loss of the UK's contributions each year. However it is very few of the EU 27 that get hurt by the loss of trade so it is not certain that unless the few EU members, that benefit from UK trade (mainly Germany), pursuade the rest, this may not be considered with the weight it deserves. The loss of the UK contributions will be more significant but as we note there is likely to be a significant leaving fee anyway and I don't think walking out of the negotiations would relieve the UK from a significant part of those commitments either.

    Having a trading relationship with the EU is seen, rightly, as of benefit to many countries in the world - see the reference I posted earlier about Australia and NZ in meat products. In this case the UK is marginally the bigger customer compared with the rest of the EU so it should all be easier for the UK one would suppose. But trade agreements for large amounts of imports/exports tend to be more complicated because of controlling the amounts, costs and quality for the benefit of the consumer and so as to prevent unfair competition with local suppliers, have to be carried out at government levels - not just by just phoning a company and saying I want 500 tons of lamb chops please. These things can take much time to negotiate even when it may seem like it should be easy, hence the quota issue problem. If you have ever used high wattage LED light bulbs from China you would see the value of an EU marking. Some Chinese companies have faked it by spacing out the E and the U slightly (which they seem to have got away with for a while). Some of these things can be dangerous and burn out quickly too. Without such a requirement, the situation would be worse and, furthermore, the UK will have to re-institute its testing of all things coming into the UK for health and safety, which is done at present jointly with the EU, and re-introduce the British Standard.

    The EU response to Cameron was appalling and, ultimately, self defeating if, as a result, everyone loses - I don't know whether they will see it that way though. I actually wrote to Donald Tusk about it but got a fairly standard response from one of his underlings. I rate Tusk a bit better than many in the current EU hierarchy. I think you are right that the world politics is changing - whether for the better remains to be seen. I think the UK could have played a strong part in any change but I think by simply abandoning the ship we are losing out and certainly losing influence.

  10. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,576
    Thanks
    1,000
    Thanked 577 Times in 411 Posts
    You are indeed persuasive. However if I read you right you are no more certain of the future on either path than the rest of us.

    Way back in the dim distant past we looked at Germany's rising star and the unifying of the richest European countries with some envy. Under de-regulation those entrepreneurs were flying while we stagnated under a barrage of pointless rules and regulations. Couple that with the fact they were on our doorstep rather than around the world and our temptation to put our oar into Europe once more and the scenario of the EEC was attractive. (Not to me) Sadly the direction of travel in Europe was destined for another path and having burned our boats with the Common Wealth markets (I personally resented the years of loss of NZ butter/lamb etc) we were rather left to sink or swim with the EU project possibly in a lake of wine. Subsequent Governments then failed to have true impact and I can't help but feel that the electorate was largely shielded from the truth of that project, endlessly patted on the head to persuade us all was well, while constantly burying us further and further into the EU web. Yes we are losing influence in the EU but I would question the degree of influence we really had/have. Cameron proved how inconsequential it really was. Ireland had none and was bludgeoned into submission. Greece likewise. Employment of particularly the young has fallen and I believe continues to fall in most member states. We build our wealth on a consumerist platform. No job = no cash = no sales = no imports. As far as I can see the EU is not the growing thriving partnership it should be. It will implode, there will be a turning point.

    Unlike you I don't rate Tusk. His body language is duplicitous and I believe we will see that despite promising soundbites at different points there will be little or no movement in the EU stance. They have learned over years of practice that stonewalling stubbornness pays. They will play the waiting game until we show them that it is pointless. They will expect capitulation in the last moments in March 2019 and will pat themselves on the back once again. Just as they have with Italy, Portugal, Ireland, Greece and others.

    It may be difficult, it may mean work for those of us with the vision and tenacity to make it work in the wider world - perhaps we should instigate a new group - let's call it the European Economic Trade Organisation and leave the European Project to those who are carefully leading those weak enough to follow to the European Soviet Union.
    ...till I die I will not remove mine integrity from me, xx

  11. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    1,592
    Thanks
    139
    Thanked 309 Times in 243 Posts
    You are correct, I am not certain of anything. If I were I'd do really well in the stock market! It is more a matter of how I think the world will be best developed that defines how I think about these issues. Perhaps it is for many people. But there are also practical issues at play. The future of this planet depends on more cooperation between nations and the forging of goals we can all agree on. Some will argue that the EU does not matter in this regard but I disagree. From a practical perpective, there are important and necessary developments which need cooperation and, perhaps more importantly more money, than any one nation would be able, or would choose, to fund. These may be commercial or purely resarch for the common good. Whilst this would still be possible for the UK to participate in, it will be much harder outside the EU. Today there are many industries where once the UK had an important role but now is unable to contribute because it needs too large an investment. Some of this is down to how the UK's systems of investment and reward work but mostly it simply limited by the amount of risk capital required and the amount of resources needed. It is really unlikely that the UK would be involved in advanced military aircraft design and manufacture in the future for example. The Typhoon (I designed a tiny part for it many years ago) could not have been developed except as a joint venture between the UK, France, Italy, Spain and Germany. Instead we would have to buy in from the USA, as we are doing to populate the new aircraft carriers, which ironically use the vectored thrust system designed in the UK for the Harrier aircraft years ago (though Rolls Royce get some royalty payments for that). The UK has no longer got any significant semiconductor manufacturing capability because of the huge investment capital required which is now beyond the GDP of many countries. We can fool ourselves that this doesn't matter, but there are times when it may well matter a lot. The UK design capability is excellent but we do not retain ownership of the companies and gradually lose control and lose the knowledge and experience. These, and many other developments that will be needed in future, will need more international cooperation and funding beyond the capability of one country (except, perhaps, the USA or China).

    Sorry, that is more of a personal rant!

    So I think the UK needs integral cooperation within a large and wealthy trading area without awkward restrictions and tariffs and with agreed conformance on quality etc. This is the EU. Some will continue but it will be very hard to pursue joint ventures like (say) Airbus Industries. Not impossible, but problematic and more expensive.

    I also like the international social contact and generally I dislike the Little Englander types who are somehow thinking it was great when England ruled the world (not even the UK, but England) and think it can do again (or even still do). I did not like that element in the Leave/Remain debate.

    The EU, on the other hand, have been over-beaurocratic and are run too centrally by what is almost a "company board" albeit with a necessary oversight by votes from member states. It is democratic but like every existing democracy, it is variable in the quality of its decisions and is inadequate in many respects. It could be better, but my view is that it could be reformed though this will be less likely without the UK. I am also not keen on a United States of Europe which, regrettably, will be made more likely without the UK.

    I could go on...

Similar Threads

  1. Australia invaded!
    By cromwell in forum Political Correctness Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-04-2016, 06:03 PM
  2. Potentially Hazardous Object Science Funding
    By Jim Franklin in forum United Kingdom Politics & Political Forum
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: 27-02-2013, 03:44 PM
  3. What sane god would invent Australia?
    By Robin Goodfellow in forum Religion, Faith and Spirituality
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 24-07-2012, 07:44 PM
  4. International aid for Australia
    By srb7677 in forum Other Countries
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 09-02-2012, 09:19 AM
  5. Australia are going to tax carbon emitters
    By Barry in forum Other Countries
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-07-2011, 06:01 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •