UK signs another trade deal.

[GerryT]

And dismal Jeremiah returns with yet more lamentations,keep it up Gerry will soon be Christmas 

Yea, it's been mad busy, but I'll hopefully have time soon to get back to some of the posts. 

[Thomas]

And dismal Jeremiah returns with yet more lamentations,keep it up Gerry will soon be Christmas 

prepare for yet another incoming wail about brexit cromwell.

I tell you , if gerry is the leader of labours ground offensive to win hearts and minds over brexit , i think they are in for a spot of serious bother.

The party of the working people now demanding punitive measures against the working man by stopping trade with countries that are  deemed too far and applying carbon taxes to damage business. all because of a non stop petulant wail about the uk leaving his beloved EU.

Remember we all laughed when ed milliband demanded a coal mine in cumbria was stopped from reopening?

How the party fathers must be turning in their graves witnessing what this lot have become.

[Thomas]

What are you talking about, you said
quite clearly that isnt the case

I havent said any of this. I said china is germanys biggest trading partner.  This is true unless you are denying it.

I also didnt say or claim germany didnt sell most of its goods to its collective neightbours.

I really wish you would stop misrepresenting me in this thread , by attaching views to me that i dont hold or havent claimed , all to platform yet another tedious boring brexit lecture from you we have heard a million times over.

I made two initial points to steve.

1. the large historical caveats in his so called "localist trade truism."

2. His carbon emissions bollix.

You keep saying, and it's only you that says it, that people want the UK to rejoin

why are you here then?

Let us reiterate the big question you continue to refuse to answer , this is a political forum for discussing a wide range of political topics from many countries.

In your time on this froum , i havent seen you discuss one single issue from the country you claim to be a national of unless someone else brings that topic up. You talk solely and exclusivly about brexit and the EU to the exclusion of all else unlike any other forum member on here.

So why are you here except to talk exclusively about , and attempt to rubbish brexit at every turn?

Now that's hard to believe with the position you have taken.

I dont care what you do or dont believe .The fact of the matter is whatever you think , democracy has spoken , and the uk is out. Im, not the one crying bitter salty remain tears constantly becuase of an inability to accept the democratic vote and the peoples wish to leave the eu.

[cromwell]

And dismal Jeremiah returns with yet more lamentations,keep it up Gerry will soon be Christmas  

[GerryT]

Again , you are attacking a straw man. This isnt my argument.

I make the point once more , that china should not be germanys top trading partner if all that matters is either your "inverse /trade" argument or steves climate argument.

What are you talking about, you said
quite clearly that isnt the case
Well quite clearly it is the case, over 50% of Germany's exports go to close countries. China is a massive market and it can only attract 8%, why, because it's far away primarily. There are other factors, distance being the most relevant. If Chine was next door to Germany, do you think Germany's exports would only be 8% going to China ?

Hence why nations on the opposite side of the planet are desperate to trade with these rich and massive economies. Including your beloved EU. So whats your point?

Are you making an argument in agreement with me , or are you suggesting trade with these vast economic monoliths on the other side of the planet is a bad thing.?

I've made my point, your just not getting it. Re-read the posts.
Now that second bit is a straw man. I'm not saying either of those two things.

f**k carbon taxes is what i say.only 27 of 200 countires currently implement carbon taxes , the vast majority being against them.

You'll find your alone there, of those 27 countries, what proportion of global trade does that represent ? The USA might not have a carbon tax, but it has legislation now to reduce carbon output by 50% by 2030 and to 0% by 2050. That will affect long distance trade. The UK are alone in paying less attention to local trade and looking to replace it with trade on the other side of the planet, madness.

Although Frost is accepting ECJ on trade with NI, so maybe his recent climb down shows he's not as stupid as he comes across. https://twitter.com/nicktolhurst/status/1471749986287333385 

Quote from: Thomas 12/18/2021, 4:06:20 PM

The big economies being totally against them .

China says EU's planned carbon border tax violates trade principles

https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/china-says-ecs-carbon-border-tax-is-expanding-climate-issues-trade-2021-07-26/


Every economist i know of predicts trade with emerging economies on the other side of the world is set to rise further and has been rising , so thank god we left the EU if thats the economically illiterate road they are headed down.

Huh, the EU and China are in there, the USA has carbon reduction laws, even the UK is in there. So what large economies are you talking about.
Go back and talk to your economist friends, ask them what they think of the UK taking their eye off trade with the EU & other close countries to focus on Asia & Australia, they'll laugh.

another straw man. Not my argument.


The uk has left the eu , and whever barriers to local trade between the uk and eu that exists becaus of brexit is something we have to either live with or deal with. If it involves tying the uk to eu rules and laws , or rejoining , then im afraid its mere wishfull thinking in my opinion.

Im not about to regurgitate yet another brexit argument with you gerry , because quite frankly  , we have said it over and over and ite getting boring. Get labour elected and then you have a chance.

You keep saying, and it's only you that says it, that people want the UK to rejoin. Nobody wants that and I don't think Labour wants it either. I don't have a vote in the UK so that's a weak point from you also.
The UK has accepted EU rules, laws and ECJ courts. In full in one region of the UK and in part in the rest, didn't you know that ? For GB if you export to the EU then those UK business follow EU rules and laws. 

STRAW MAN.NOT MY ARGUMENT .I VOTED REMAIN.

Now that's hard to believe with the position you have taken. I get you accept the result of the vote and are trying to get on with it. But you are allowed to call out the bull that brexit is, that what was promised wasn't delivered, that brexit has only just started and it will take decades to "get brexit done"

Sigh. Why do you keep misrepresenting my argument with steve ?


That you can't accept brexit gerry is your prolem , and the problem of remainers like you. I can't help it if you can't accept democracy. We have went over all this so many times you are beyond being described as a broken record. I think it is bordering on you making yourself ill denying democracy gerry.

It was a simple question, if you think distance has no impact on trade, why hasn't the UK developed more trade on the other side of the planet with all these opportunities over the past 10, 20 or 30 years.

[Thomas]

If you don't take into account the size of the market you are exporting to you aren't looking at it correctly.
.

Again , you are attacking a straw man. This isnt my argument.

I make the point once more , that china should not be germanys top trading partner if all that matters is either your "inverse /trade" argument or steves climate argument.

But look correctly at the numbers. The GDP of both China and USA is greater than all the rest combined.

Hence why nations on the opposite side of the planet are desperate to trade with these rich and massive economies. Including your beloved EU. So whats your point?

Are you making an argument in agreement with me , or are you suggesting trade with these vast economic monoliths on the other side of the planet is a bad thing.?

I imagine EU trade with the other side of the planet will slow as countries impose more and more carbon tax's, as has been witnessed in recent meetings in the UK.

f**k carbon taxes is what i say.only 27 of 200 countires currently implement carbon taxes , the vast majority being against them.

Carbon Tax Countries

There are currently 27 countries with a carbon tax implemented: Argentina, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Denmark, the European Union (27 countries), Japan, Kazakhstan, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, South Africa, Sweden, the UK, and Ukraine

The big economies being totally against them .

China says EU's planned carbon border tax violates trade principles

https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/china-says-ecs-carbon-border-tax-is-expanding-climate-issues-trade-2021-07-26/





Every economist i know of predicts trade with emerging economies on the other side of the world is set to rise further and has been rising , so thank god we left the EU if thats the economically illiterate road they are headed down.

What I said was, countries will develop trade around the world, they will try maximise it, but it is not a substitute for local trade, which is more important.

another straw man. Not my argument.


The uk has left the eu , and whever barriers to local trade between the uk and eu that exists becaus of brexit is something we have to either live with or deal with. If it involves tying the uk to eu rules and laws , or rejoining , then im afraid its mere wishfull thinking in my opinion.

Im not about to regurgitate yet another brexit argument with you gerry , because quite frankly  , we have said it over and over and ite getting boring. Get labour elected and then you have a chance.

That doesn't mean you don't develop trading partners on the other side of the world, but to think you would substitute your local partners with one's the other side of the planet is not a widely supported view

STRAW MAN.NOT MY ARGUMENT .I VOTED REMAIN.

Simply put, when the UK was in the EU it could have developed more trade with the other side of the planet, with China or with USA. But it didn't. So what makes you think it will do it now, especially with that utter clown Johnson in charge and the merry band of lying edjit's he has himself surrounded with. You haven't a hope in hell with that lot in charge.

Sigh. Why do you keep misrepresenting my argument with steve ?


That you can't accept brexit gerry is your prolem , and the problem of remainers like you. I can't help it if you can't accept democracy. We have went over all this so many times you are beyond being described as a broken record. I think it is bordering on you making yourself ill denying democracy gerry.

[GerryT]

quite clearly that isnt the case.

Germany and ireland as i said two biggest trading partners , and much of the eu is the same , is both china and the usa. If distance is inverse to the amount of trade you do , then clearly this wouldnt be the case.

England should be irelands biggest trading partner , yet its the usa thousands of miles away.

China , on the other side of the planet shouldnt be germanys but it is.

The idea we should ignore growing economies on the other side of the wrold because of emissions quite clearly is bollocks. The biggest economy in europe doesnt agree with steve over this , which is why china became germanies biggest trading partner in 2016 , and has remained there ever since.

• China is the EU's biggest source of imports and its second-biggest export market. ...
• EU's main imports from China are industrial and consumer goods, machinery and equipment, and footwear and clothing.
• EU main exports to China are: machinery and equipment, motor vehicles, aircraft, and chemicals

https://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/countries/china/

So why is it ok for the eu to create carbon emmisions trading with the other side of planet but not the uk?

If you don't take into account the size of the market you are exporting to you aren't looking at it correctly.

From below, 70% of Germanies exports go to the following

https://www.worldstopexports.com/germanys-top-import-partners/

At a glance, yes USA and China are Germanys no.1 export destination. But look correctly at the numbers. The GDP of both China and USA is greater than all the rest combined. Rearranging the numbers look like this


Now the picture is clear, Germany trades with it's closest neighbours more than six times what it does with either USA or China. When you look at the neighbours as a block, their combined market is even Smaller than China or USA.
I imagine EU trade with the other side of the planet will slow as countries impose more and more carbon tax's, as has been witnessed in recent meetings in the UK.

What I said, was, countries will develop trade around the world, they will try maximise it, but it is not a substitute for local trade, which is more important. The UK thinks it can do this, the trade deals it has struck have so far been worse or a best the same as what they had when in the EU. That is not what brexit was sold on. This is what I said:

That doesn't mean you don't develop trading partners on the other side of the world, but to think you would substitute your local partners with one's the other side of the planet is not a widely supported view.

Simply put, when the UK was in the EU it could have developed more trade with the other side of the planet, with China or with USA. But it didn't. So what makes you think it will do it now, especially with that utter clown Johnson in charge and the merry band of lying edjit's he has himself surrounded with. You haven't a hope in hell with that lot in charge.

[Thomas]

If you look at countries trade around the world, the distance from a trading partner is inverse to the amount of trade you do with them. It stands to logic.

quite clearly that isnt the case.

Germany and ireland as i said two biggest trading partners , and much of the eu is the same , is both china and the usa. If distance is inverse to the amount of trade you do , then clearly this wouldnt be the case.

England should be irelands biggest trading partner , yet its the usa thousands of miles away.

China , on the other side of the planet shouldnt be germanys but it is.

The idea we should ignore growing economies on the other side of the wrold because of emissions quite clearly is bollocks. The biggest economy in europe doesnt agree with steve over this , which is why china became germanies biggest trading partner in 2016 , and has remained there ever since.

• China is the EU's biggest source of imports and its second-biggest export market. ...
• EU's main imports from China are industrial and consumer goods, machinery and equipment, and footwear and clothing.
• EU main exports to China are: machinery and equipment, motor vehicles, aircraft, and chemicals

https://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/countries/china/

So why is it ok for the eu to create carbon emmisions trading with the other side of planet but not the uk?

[Thomas]

If you look at countries trade around the world, the distance from a trading partner is inverse to the amount of trade you do with them. It stands to logic. That doesn't mean you don't develop trading partners on the other side of the world, but to think you would substitute your local partners with one's the other side of the planet is not a widely supported view, for example how much export trade does the UK expect to do with Australia under this new deal. As has been pointed out but quickly dismissed, what does the future of export trade look like with global tightening on carbon production, will that help or hinder long distance trade.
This long distance trade is very different to times past, in those days the UK went somewhere and just took what they wanted, that's not really trade now is it. Replacing land owners with UK people, the comparison is mute.

JIT has been hit globally, it's not just an issue in the UK, but it is worse because of brexit. In January the UK will introduce it's import checks on trade with the EU (excl IRL) which is long overdue, but that's going to impact JIT. The UK will find it's competitors will continue to use JIT, keeping costs down, the rest you can work out for yourself, it's not a brexit win, that's for sure.

There were many good reasons for been in the EU, not many good reasons to leave. The idea it was costing the UK more than the benefits it got from the EU has been totally proven wrong. The argument of sovereignty is very weak, there was a question repeated over and over, after leaving the EU what rules did the UK want to change that they couldn't as part of the EU, still waiting on that one. There was some reasons such as ;'we will be better off' or '350m a week for our NHS' or 'we will get better trade deals' or 'they need us more than we need them'...all a crock of crap.

Steve srb made the initial point that trade overseas is wrong by bringing carbon emmisions into it , and i was merely telling him how trade world wide both historically and now is the norm. I can't think of many civilisations , empires or countries that hasnt benefitted in large part to trading beyond its near neighbours , and grown rich in the process by doing so.

Clearly you make the point what i was going to say next , that the whole remain argument was based on trading both with your near neighbours and with countries on the other side of the world.

Steve wasnt initially arguing this , he was insinuating trade with our near neighbours is what we should be concentrating on for climate reasons and i was disagreeing with him.

I havent once said or suggested countries shouldnt trade with their near neighbours , so im not sure why you are arguing with me over this point.?

This idealogical obsession you and others have with remain seem to lable black as white , white as black and bring up all the straw men in between.

[GerryT]

"our" nation?

Scotland wasnt part of the united kingdom till 1707 , and much of the historical period we have been talking about scotland was an independent country from "your " nation , and both countries werent rich from local trade under feudalism , and had tiny percentages of economic growth.

All that aside , the historian michael lynch clearly disagrees with you basic point of "local " trade , when he points out in the early modern period and captialism , when scotland was still an independent nation in the late 17th century , for example the last decade of indy before the union from 1697 to 1707 , scotland economy was growing  , especially the east coast burghs , at an average of 2.5 % per annum , not with local trade with its near neighbour england , ireland  or norway , but with countries further afield as far as the baltic states.

After the union and when our near neighbour gained control of scotlands economy , the economy went into freefall for the best part of the next century , and didnt pick up till world trade further afield opened up with the colonies( glasgow boomed with the tobacco trade).

So rather than scratching about in the dirt to try and make a futile point on how feudalistic serfs were barely existing attempting to grow local crops in the medieval period , when the economy of bot scotland and england was relatively tiny to non existant , i think it better to look from the early modern period when both england and scotland clearly grew rich from far flung trade.

On top of that , here today rather than the historical examples , once again , while local trade with near neighbours can be important , the republic of irelands biggest single trading partner is the united states on the other side of the planet. Germanys biggest single trading partner is china , and i think you will find for the EU as a whole , the vast vast majroty of nations within the EU heavily rely on the USA and china as among their main trading partners.

No one is denying local trade , historically minimal , so much so you had to offer the example of illicit trade and smuggling , took place and still takes place today , but to go back to your earlier point where you were trying to rubbish the uk trading with countires like australia on the other side of the world , clearly , you are making not only an economically illiterate point , but historically illiterate when you consider both not only your nation and mine , but both our home cities flourished and were largely built off the back of overseas trade with far flung countries.

This is in part the reason why remainers and the labour party are largely laughed at steve. Trying to make futile , puerile points that a child could pick apart.

A better reason for membership of the EU i always thought was the safety in numbers argument , of being part of a large trading block to compete with the big super economies of china and america. Not the futile easily torn part rubbish of "having to trade with neighbours " bollocks.

If you look at countries trade around the world, the distance from a trading partner is inverse to the amount of trade you do with them. It stands to logic. That doesn't mean you don't develop trading partners on the other side of the world, but to think you would substitute your local partners with one's the other side of the planet is not a widely supported view, for example how much export trade does the UK expect to do with Australia under this new deal. As has been pointed out but quickly dismissed, what does the future of export trade look like with global tightening on carbon production, will that help or hinder long distance trade.
This long distance trade is very different to times past, in those days the UK went somewhere and just took what they wanted, that's not really trade now is it. Replacing land owners with UK people, the comparison is mute.

JIT has been hit globally, it's not just an issue in the UK, but it is worse because of brexit. In January the UK will introduce it's import checks on trade with the EU (excl IRL) which is long overdue, but that's going to impact JIT. The UK will find it's competitors will continue to use JIT, keeping costs down, the rest you can work out for yourself, it's not a brexit win, that's for sure.

There were many good reasons for been in the EU, not many good reasons to leave. The idea it was costing the UK more than the benefits it got from the EU has been totally proven wrong. The argument of sovereignty is very weak, there was a question repeated over and over, after leaving the EU what rules did the UK want to change that they couldn't as part of the EU, still waiting on that one. There was some reasons such as ;'we will be better off' or '350m a week for our NHS' or 'we will get better trade deals' or 'they need us more than we need them'...all a crock of crap.

[Thomas]

I am well aware that our nation grew rich via trading with the colonies, but in it's heyday this was mostly achieved by trading in commodities that could not be manufactured here, eg tobacco and sugar. For much of that time we were self sufficient in most basic foodstuffs since our populations were much smaller, and imported foodstuffs mostly consisted of things that could not easily be grown here, eg bananas or oranges.

"our" nation?

Scotland wasnt part of the united kingdom till 1707 , and much of the historical period we have been talking about scotland was an independent country from "your " nation , and both countries werent rich from local trade under feudalism , and had tiny percentages of economic growth.

All that aside , the historian michael lynch clearly disagrees with you basic point of "local " trade , when he points out in the early modern period and captialism , when scotland was still an independent nation in the late 17th century , for example the last decade of indy before the union from 1697 to 1707 , scotland economy was growing  , especially the east coast burghs , at an average of 2.5 % per annum , not with local trade with its near neighbour england , ireland  or norway , but with countries further afield as far as the baltic states.

After the union and when our near neighbour gained control of scotlands economy , the economy went into freefall for the best part of the next century , and didnt pick up till world trade further afield opened up with the colonies( glasgow boomed with the tobacco trade).

So rather than scratching about in the dirt to try and make a futile point on how feudalistic serfs were barely existing attempting to grow local crops in the medieval period , when the economy of bot scotland and england was relatively tiny to non existant , i think it better to look from the early modern period when both england and scotland clearly grew rich from far flung trade.

On top of that , here today rather than the historical examples , once again , while local trade with near neighbours can be important , the republic of irelands biggest single trading partner is the united states on the other side of the planet. Germanys biggest single trading partner is china , and i think you will find for the EU as a whole , the vast vast majroty of nations within the EU heavily rely on the USA and china as among their main trading partners.

No one is denying local trade , historically minimal , so much so you had to offer the example of illicit trade and smuggling , took place and still takes place today , but to go back to your earlier point where you were trying to rubbish the uk trading with countires like australia on the other side of the world , clearly , you are making not only an economically illiterate point , but historically illiterate when you consider both not only your nation and mine , but both our home cities flourished and were largely built off the back of overseas trade with far flung countries.

This is in part the reason why remainers and the labour party are largely laughed at steve. Trying to make futile , puerile points that a child could pick apart.

A better reason for membership of the EU i always thought was the safety in numbers argument , of being part of a large trading block to compete with the big super economies of china and america. Not the futile easily torn part rubbish of "having to trade with neighbours " bollocks.

[Nick]

I am well aware that our nation grew rich via trading with the colonies, but in it's heyday this was mostly achieved by trading in commodities that could not be manufactured here, eg tobacco and sugar.[highlight] For much of that time we were self sufficient in most basic foodstuffs[/highlight] since our populations were much smaller, and imported foodstuffs mostly consisted of things that could not easily be grown here, eg bananas or oranges.

The nearby nations mostly produced things we produced ourselves so we didnt need to trade much with them, though for things that they could produce in quantity which we could not for climatic reasons - eg wine - we tended to import large quantities from Europe. And in the age of wooden sailing warships, the navy relied heavily upon timber imported from the baltic and Scandinavian nations.

In short trade tends to occur - and has always occurred - on the basis of some people pruducing stuff that other people desire but cannot produce themselves. Shipping costs have always been a factor. [highlight=orange]If such desired products can be produced nearer, shipping costs would tend to be lower leading to lower prices, unless artificially high due to tariffs[/highlight]. In the modern world [highlight=lawngreen]meat from Australia is unlikely to be cheaper than meat from France or Germany, simply because the shipping costs would be far greater.[/highlight] Though if we should develop a taste for emu steaks, we'd have to buy from Australia because the indiginous emu population of Europe is very low, .

And for the sake of reducing carbon emisissions, we are all going to have to start sourcing our foods more locally anyway where this is feasible, especially since this is likely to be incentivised by carbon taxes on transportation  over time, which can only encourage localism.

[highlight]We still would be self sufficient in most things if it hadn't been for the EU paying our farmers to grow nothing.[/highlight]

[highlight=orange]So how is it that we can buy Oranges from Brasil at a 10th of the price that Spain sells them at, even with shipping costs they are 80% cheaper. Is it due to the EU artificially keeping the price high?[/highlight]

[highlight=lawngreen]Again, we can get meat of far better quality from Australia or Argentina shipped to the UK at a lower cost.[/highlight]


The EU is a cartel whose only concern is self preservation, snouts in the trough.

[srb7677]

England didnt get rich or even surivive historically off the back of illicit trading with its near neighbours steve. Edward plantagenet banned england from trading withscotland during the wars of independence for example , but its didnt stop scottish and english merchants trading in kings lynn.

A schoolchild could tell you england got rich off the back of a global empire and trade with far flung colonies. You should know this , as i do. Glasgow was a mere village with a church and castle till the tobacco merchants and far flung trade with the colonies on the other side of the world.

i appreciate you are desperate to win hearts and minds over brexit.  spinning half truths over historical trade isnt the way to do it.

Europhiles like tony blair and mandelson are on record as saying while they explicitly believe in the uk place in the EU , trade with the growing economies in far flung parts of the world like brazil india and china are the way forward .

I am well aware that our nation grew rich via trading with the colonies, but in it's heyday this was mostly achieved by trading in commodities that could not be manufactured here, eg tobacco and sugar. For much of that time we were self sufficient in most basic foodstuffs since our populations were much smaller, and imported foodstuffs mostly consisted of things that could not easily be grown here, eg bananas or oranges.

The nearby nations mostly produced things we produced ourselves so we didnt need to trade much with them, though for things that they could produce in quantity which we could not for climatic reasons - eg wine - we tended to import large quantities from Europe. And in the age of wooden sailing warships, the navy relied heavily upon timber imported from the baltic and Scandinavian nations. 

In short trade tends to occur - and has always occurred - on the basis of some people pruducing stuff that other people desire but cannot produce themselves. Shipping costs have always been a factor. If such desired products can be produced nearer, shipping costs would tend to be lower leading to lower prices, unless artificially high due to tariffs. In the modern world meat from Australia is unlikely to be cheaper than meat from France or Germany, simply because the shipping costs would be far greater. Though if we should develop a taste for emu steaks, we'd have to buy from Australia because the indiginous emu population of Europe is very low, .

And for the sake of reducing carbon emisissions, we are all going to have to start sourcing our foods more locally anyway where this is feasible, especially since this is likely to be incentivised by carbon taxes on transportation  over time, which can only encourage localism.

[Thomas]

In fact we traded with them prolifically if illicitly via smuggling.

England didnt get rich or even surivive historically off the back of illicit trading with its near neighbours steve. Edward plantagenet banned england from trading withscotland during the wars of independence for example , but its didnt stop scottish and english merchants trading in kings lynn.

A schoolchild could tell you england got rich off the back of a global empire and trade with far flung colonies. You should know this , as i do. Glasgow was a mere village with a church and castle till the tobacco merchants and far flung trade with the colonies on the other side of the world.

i appreciate you are desperate to win hearts and minds over brexit.  spinning half truths over historical trade isnt the way to do it.

Europhiles like tony blair and mandelson are on record as saying while they explicitly believe in the uk place in the EU , trade with the growing economies in far flung parts of the world like brazil india and china are the way forward .

[srb7677]

barely traded withthem

In fact we traded with them prolifically if illicitly via smuggling.