• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics

scaramanga said:
Not with 116. That's specifically what the article is designed to avoid.

A mere majority of other EU members would and could wipe their veto out.
Click to expand...

This is the nuclear option, has never been used and unable to without a few changes (which can be done without the need agreement by National Govt). However if it were to be used the national Govt has the option to walk away. As it stands a Veto is valid on Tax issues.
 
SpurMeUp said:
They tried. Time ticked on. It was a choice of hard WTO Brexit or play by EU rules. This was never going to be a negotiation, what made you think it would be? The best negotiator in the world would not have broken the very simple deadlock.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
Click to expand...
They didn't try at all. WTO Brexit is significantly better than just bending over and taking whatever the EU offers.
 
SpurMeUp said:
Nayim I take the no reply that you do agree?
Click to expand...

I didnt see it, and no, I dont agree.

I think "better" is in the eye of the beholder, not a one for all thing.

Do you think "better terms" for Poland would be being restricted to trading partners only? NO freedom of movement? NO EU grants? No negative contribution?

I would argue, so far as Poland are concerned "better terms" are in fact exactly what they have now.

The EU trade freely with Canada. They propose trading services with Ukraine. Are these "better terms"? Should the current EU members not be trying to move onto these arrangements already? Of course not.

A trade and services deal is only "better" for us. Because its what we want. It doesnt necessarily follow at all that it would even appeal to other nations.
 
scaramanga said:
They didn't try at all. WTO Brexit is significantly better than just bending over and taking whatever the EU offers.
Click to expand...

They didn't try. Really? They just went to the meetings and played Candy Crush? One of Cameron's pleasures...

WTO Brexit is only better in your eyes. Maybe because of your calculations to show it would be cost neutral? Calculations that didn't factor in the cost on imports under WTO as I recall. Almost everyone else thinks WTO Bexit would be a disaster, but what do they know! Fools!

Car manufacturing, services, imports from the EU...would all be massively affected. Free trade is good. Tariff trade isn't, remember? Thatcher knew this, as a follower of the Iron fist, why don't you?
 
Last edited:
r-u-s-x said:
This is the nuclear option, has never been used and unable to without a few changes (which can be done without the need agreement by National Govt). However if it were to be used the national Govt has the option to walk away. As it stands a Veto is valid on Tax issues.
Click to expand...
I think you've misunderstood Article 16.

Article 116

Where the Commission finds that a difference between the provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States is distorting the conditions of competition in the internal market and that the resultant distortion needs to be eliminated, it shall consult the Member States concerned.

If such consultation does not result in an agreement eliminating the distortion in question, the European, Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, shall issue the necessary directives. Any other appropriate measures provided for in the Treaties may be adopted
Click to expand...
So the steps are:

1) Identify a distortion in the market. Done - that's Luxembourg's tax rules
2) Consult with the Member States concerned. Done - The EU has been consulting with Luxembourg for years over taxation and Luxembourg, for obvious reasons, is not budging.
3) The European Parliament and Council shall issue the necessary directives in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure.

The ordinary legislative procedure referred to here is a majority vote of EU members. There's no other way about this. If the EU decides to invoke Article 116, there's literally nothing Luxembourg can do to stop it other than convincing a majority of EU members to back it in a vote. There is no point anywhere in this process where the national government gets a choice other than leaving the EU.
 
SpurMeUp said:
They didn't try. Really. They just went to the meetings and playe Candy Crush? One of Cameron's pleasures.

WTO Brexit is only better in your eyes. Maybe because of your calculations to show it would be cost neutral? Calculations that didn't factor in the cost on imports under WTO as I recal. Almost everyone else things WTO Bexit would be a disaster, but what do they know! Fools!

Car manufacturing, services, imports from the EU...would all be massively affected. Free trade is good. Tariff trade isn't, remember? Thatcher knew this, as a follower of the Iron fist, why don't you?
Click to expand...
Imports will only cost more if we choose to apply tariffs. I've made it very, very clear in my posts that I think all tariffs should be abolished.
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
I didnt see it, and no, I dont agree.

I think "better" is in the eye of the beholder, not a one for all thing.

Do you think "better terms" for Poland would be being restricted to trading partners only? NO freedom of movement? NO EU grants? No negative contribution?

I would argue, so far as Poland are concerned "better terms" are in fact exactly what they have now.

The EU trade freely with Canada. They propose trading services with Ukraine. Are these "better terms"? Should the current EU members not be trying to move onto these arrangements already? Of course not.

A trade and services deal is only "better" for us. Because its what we want. It doesnt necessarily follow at all that it would even appeal to other nations.
Click to expand...

No Canada and Ukraine don't have better terms. Where do you get this nonsense from? Can you answer this simple question: why would any club exist where membership is a disadvantage?

Its so obvious that the EU is there to protect and do good for its members, not those outside the club. Why are you struggling with this concept? Maybe because you are stuck in one narrative must-argue-for Brexit-regardless-of-logic At least try and be balanced, acquiesce on the things that are clear, and focus on the positive possibilities of Brexit. Trying to tell us that the EU will sort the UK out over its members is a nonsense.
 
Last edited:
scaramanga said:
Imports will only cost more if we choose to apply tariffs. I've made it very, very clear in my posts that I think all tariffs should be abolished.
Click to expand...

Not according to WTO most favoured nation tariff rules. Things have to be consistent for all WTO bound nations if there is no free trade agreement. More Brexit delusions?
 
SpurMeUp said:
Not according to WTO most favoured nation tariff rules. Things have to be consistent for all WTO bound nations if there is no free trade agreement. More Brexit delusions?
Click to expand...
Care to explain precisely why we can't just not apply tariffs to imports?

WTO only insists we don't single anyone out for worse than normal treatment and protects us in the same way. There is no provision in the WTO rules that would prevent us from not applying tariffs.

Even if we were stupid enough to charge tariffs, what's to stop the government from just handing the tariff over to the importer and cancelling it?
 
SpurMeUp said:
No Canada and Ukraine don't have better terms. Where do you get this nonsense from? Can you answer this simple question: why would any club exist where membership is a disadvantage?

Its so obvious that the EU is there to protect and do good for its members, not those outside the club. Why are you struggling with this concept? Maybe because you are stuck in one narrative - must-argue-for Brexit-regardless-of-logic At least try and be balanced, aquaise on the things that are clear, and focus on the positive possibilities of Brexit. Trying to tell us that the EU will sort the UK out over its members is a nonsense.
Click to expand...

It is hilarious you accuse me of being stuck on one narrative, seriously - look in the mirror.

Ive told you time and again, convince me and Ill be convinced. Im yet to see a solid argument on nearly anything from you.

Which is why, once Ive offered a fair rebuttal on a point you make, it suddenly disappears from your posts. Never gets mentioned again.

You see I do not struggle with the concept of the EU being a protectionist bloc, there for the benefit of its members, its hardly a difficult thing to grasp.

There is, despite your protests, much more to the bloc than trade. These are, depending on your point of view, either positive or negative.

If we come down to a trading relationship, we forgo these added things. We lose the free movement of people, for example. For some (like us) that is good (as per the will of the people), for others, that most certainly wouldnt be good at all (see Poland).

And this really is the crux of the matter, for me to "aquaise on the things that are clear", those 'things' actually need to stack up. Not just be assumed truth.

Heres a question, try to give it some thought before answering.

Why would a trade and services agreement be an advantage? Who is this advantage to?
 
scaramanga said:
I think you've misunderstood Article 16.


So the steps are:

1) Identify a distortion in the market. Done - that's Luxembourg's tax rules
2) Consult with the Member States concerned. Done - The EU has been consulting with Luxembourg for years over taxation and Luxembourg, for obvious reasons, is not budging.
3) The European Parliament and Council shall issue the necessary directives in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure.

The ordinary legislative procedure referred to here is a majority vote of EU members. There's no other way about this. If the EU decides to invoke Article 116, there's literally nothing Luxembourg can do to stop it other than convincing a majority of EU members to back it in a vote. There is no point anywhere in this process where the national government gets a choice other than leaving the EU.
Click to expand...


There are loads of similar loop holes in the UK democratic process that are not really designed to be used.

This seems to be the consensus - the commission are pushing for it but there is no plan and there will be a debate prior to using it.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-governments-veto-powers-on-tax-idUSKBN1CT2FC

I concur that what you outline is feasible but unlikely and I agree there is nothing that Luxembourg can do other than invoke Article 50 we are in agreement, but that a choice.
 
r-u-s-x said:
There are loads of similar loop holes in the UK democratic process that are not really designed to be used.

This seems to be the consensus - the commission are pushing for it but there is no plan and there will be a debate prior to using it.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-governments-veto-powers-on-tax-idUSKBN1CT2FC

I concur that what you outline is feasible but unlikely and I agree there is nothing that Luxembourg can do other than invoke Article 50 we are in agreement, but that a choice.
Click to expand...
Doesn't it concern you that the Commission (however little power they have on their own) is pushing for this?

In order to avoid Godwin here I'll suggest it's somewhat reminiscent of Senator Palpatine instead.
 
scaramanga said:
Care to explain precisely why we can't just not apply tariffs to imports?

WTO only insists we don't single anyone out for worse than normal treatment and protects us in the same way. There is no provision in the WTO rules that would prevent us from not applying tariffs.

Even if we were stupid enough to charge tariffs, what's to stop the government from just handing the tariff over to the importer and cancelling it?
Click to expand...

Possibly what you''re missing is the tariff is applied by the exporter. Say someone in spain is exporting clothes to the UK, they would have to apply a tariff. I think you're only looking at it from what the UK applies. That would mean the clothes or shoes etc from Spain would have 5-10% on top. As to whether we'd give zero tariffs, we'd lose our own capacity to produce food in the UK. ALl our farmers would go out of business, as would a number of other industries.

Trade without discrimination
1. Most-favoured-nation (MFN): treating other people equally Under the WTO agreements, countries cannot normally discriminate between their trading partners. Grant someone a special favour (such as a lower customs duty rate for one of their products) and you have to do the same for all other WTO members.
 
Last edited:
r-u-s-x said:
he is right - we CAN impose put tariffs, the WTO rules are maximum.
Click to expand...

Que? I was highlighting that we can't control tariffs on our imports. The EU would have to apply most favoured nation tariffs to UK exports under WTO rules. Incidentally, they are not a maximum, a cap, see MFN info above.
 
Last edited:
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
It is hilarious you accuse me of being stuck on one narrative, seriously - look in the mirror.

Ive told you time and again, convince me and Ill be convinced. Im yet to see a solid argument on nearly anything from you.

Which is why, once Ive offered a fair rebuttal on a point you make, it suddenly disappears from your posts. Never gets mentioned again.

You see I do not struggle with the concept of the EU being a protectionist bloc, there for the benefit of its members, its hardly a difficult thing to grasp.

There is, despite your protests, much more to the bloc than trade. These are, depending on your point of view, either positive or negative.

If we come down to a trading relationship, we forgo these added things. We lose the free movement of people, for example. For some (like us) that is good (as per the will of the people), for others, that most certainly wouldnt be good at all (see Poland).

And this really is the crux of the matter, for me to "aquaise on the things that are clear", those 'things' actually need to stack up. Not just be assumed truth.

Heres a question, try to give it some thought before answering.

Why would a trade and services agreement be an advantage? Who is this advantage to?
Click to expand...

Rather than answer a question, make things personal? That's no way to win an argument.

Rather abstract, but I'll give it go: a "trade and services agreement" is an advantage to everyone. Free trade helps nations prosper. All EU nations have unrestricted trade in both. FTAs get you closer to free trade, but are not free trade, as they contain huge detail and caveats, that's why they are so hard to put in place.
 
SpurMeUp said:
Possibly what you''re missing is the tariff is applied by the exporter. Say someone in spain is exporting clothes to the UK, they would have to apply a tariff. I think you're only looking at it from what the UK applies. That would mean the clothes or shoes etc from Spain would have 5-10% on top. As to whether we'd give zero tariffs, we'd lose our own capacity to produce food in the UK. ALl our farmers would go out of business, as would a number of other industries.

Trade without discrimination
1. Most-favoured-nation (MFN): treating other people equally Under the WTO agreements, countries cannot normally discriminate between their trading partners. Grant someone a special favour (such as a lower customs duty rate for one of their products) and you have to do the same for all other WTO members.
Click to expand...
Erm, that's not how tariffs work.
 
SpurMeUp said:
You're suggesting that tariffs are only applied by one side!?
Click to expand...
Yes. Tariffs are applied to imports.

When I sell something to the US, I don't pay anyone anything. The person buying from me, pays the IRS at their tariff rate.

Similarly, if I buy something from China, the person selling pays nothing at all. I pay HMRC the duty on the value/type of that import.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back