INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy. Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

In or out?

...on serious topics that don't fit anywhere else at present.
Post Reply
Message
Author
Gottard
Posts: 1306
Joined: October 3rd, 2008, 3:11 pm

Re: In or out?

#501 Post by Gottard » September 14th, 2016, 4:29 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

In answer to AlanH: with reference to the phrase
“The largest number of people, nearly 17-and-a-half million people, with a majority of over one-and-a-quarter million I think. Had it been a general election between two parties called ‘leave’ and ‘remain’ the majority for leave would have been bigger than the majority Mr Blair had in 1997."

In my opinion Mr Davis misses to consider that there is a difference between a majority for home matters and one entailing foreign treaties, where a parliament vote is/should be mandatory.
The only thing I fear of death is regret if I couldn’t complete my learning experience

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#502 Post by Alan H » September 14th, 2016, 10:56 pm

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#503 Post by Alan H » September 14th, 2016, 11:13 pm

David Davis admits possibility of UK exiting EU without trade deal
David Davis, the Brexit secretary, has admitted the UK could have to revert to World Trade Organisation tariffs if it leaves the EU without having struck a trade deal with the bloc.

The cabinet minister said this was not a very likely outcome but still a possibility if the UK was not successful in talks with the EU.

The Labour MP Chuka Umunna, chair of the campaign group Vote Leave Watch, said Davis had “let the cat out of the bag [about] a real possibility that we could fall out of the EU with no trade deal, and face swingeing and destructive tariffs on key exports.”
After the hearing, Vote Leave Watch warned that reverting to WTO rules could be disastrous for British industry, particularly the car industry, which would face a 10% tariff on its exports to the EU. Other products facing high tariff barriers would be clothing, at 12%, and lamb, at 40%.

It claimed the admission was in “direct contradiction to what was promised by leave campaigners during the EU referendum, all of whom – including Mr Davis – promised the British people that the UK would get a free trade agreement with the EU upon exit.”

Vote Leave’s website said during the referendum campaign: “We will have a new UK-EU treaty based on free trade.”
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Gottard
Posts: 1306
Joined: October 3rd, 2008, 3:11 pm

Re: In or out?

#504 Post by Gottard » September 15th, 2016, 9:18 am

Alan H wrote:David Davis admits possibility of UK exiting EU without trade deal
David Davis, the Brexit secretary, has admitted the UK could have to revert to World Trade Organisation tariffs if it leaves the EU without having struck a trade deal with the bloc.
Mr Davis' claim is consistent and it should be put in context. From the day art.50 is initiated, until agreements are signed, negotiations will go through 2-3 years of battled time. The Industry -and commerce in general- will be reeling in this long time-lapse with two consequences: trade will contract and prices will necessarily go up; if from day one (art 50) UK and EU agree that for 2-3 years UK trade will reverse to WTO tariffs, Industry and Trade would be set on steady feet and prices would settle -in aggregate- slightly above current levels but -certainly- markedly lower than in a vague (wild) situation.
The only thing I fear of death is regret if I couldn’t complete my learning experience

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#505 Post by Alan H » September 15th, 2016, 9:45 am

Nick Clegg: Brexit is too much for the Tory brain
As the former deputy Prime Minister, Clegg knows the Tories like no other opposition politician. While in power during the Coalition, he was attacked for being a sell-out to his right-wing partners. But these days, he says, “it is us Remainers that are the outsiders”. And he is wasting no time in attacking the Brexiteer elite.

He calls the idea of leaving the EU in two years “a fiction”. And his reason is simple: the Tories have got themselves into a mess they are incapable of handling.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#506 Post by animist » September 15th, 2016, 11:29 am

Alan H wrote:Nick Clegg: Brexit is too much for the Tory brain
As the former deputy Prime Minister, Clegg knows the Tories like no other opposition politician. While in power during the Coalition, he was attacked for being a sell-out to his right-wing partners. But these days, he says, “it is us Remainers that are the outsiders”. And he is wasting no time in attacking the Brexiteer elite.

He calls the idea of leaving the EU in two years “a fiction”. And his reason is simple: the Tories have got themselves into a mess they are incapable of handling.
one of the most important things he points out is that the Single Market is less about tariffs and is instead more about common practices and regulations. Lack of these commonalities are known as non-tariff barriers to trade and are increasingly important in a world in which formal tariffs are declining

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#507 Post by animist » September 15th, 2016, 11:34 am

Nick wrote:
animist wrote:another lie is that the EU depends more on Britain for its export markets than vice versa. This is not true and shows the ignorance of most Brexiters - the EU may export more to us than we do to them, but the UK market is much smaller, relative to the total EU export market, than is the EU market in relation to Britain's total export market. This reflects the pretty obvious fact that the 27 countries of the EU form a much larger market than Britain does
I don't think that is quite what is claimed. Rather it is that the EU exports more to the UK than vice versa. If a 10% tariff were to be imposed by the EU, and the UK retaliated, we could, should we care to do so, pay the import duty for all our exporters. This, together with the lower pound, would suit British industry just fine...

Not suggesting this should happen, but then again, it is the EU which is threatening tariffs, so they should be warned.
I am not sure I understand this, and in fact you agreed (some time ago) with the point I made about market shares being more important than absolute export levels. Let's leave the lower pound out of this as it is a different issue. I think you mean that we could subsidise our exports to the EU? Well, yes of course, but this means public expenditure. doesn't it?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#508 Post by animist » September 15th, 2016, 11:56 am

Nick wrote:
animist wrote: What I have been saying is that you seem only to want to talk about the defects of the EU and especially the eurozone, not about what Britain should do now - up to you of course
To my mind, the defects of the EU, exemplified by the eurozone, are fundamental to whether or not we should continue to promote EU membership, hence my interest in it.

I'll try to address some of the other points (WIGABOT!) but ISTM that whatever we in the UK might propose, as David Walliams might say "The EU says no!". As well they might! I think there is a chance that the whole EU "project" may collapse. They are saying no, not because iit is anyones interest, even those of European citizens, but to defend the EU structure. The question is (OK, a question is..) should we turn a blind eye to the inadequacies, follies, errors and heavyhandedness of the EU, in return for some economic advantages? IMVHO, no! A parallel analogy (none of which you seem to like, but never mind!) might be "We should support faith schools because they turn out educated citizens". And just let them off the lies. Or should we approach matters in a different way?
I agree that the strengths and weaknesses of the EU are highly relevant to the question of the UK's future, but it is not really relevant to point to a rather distant possibility of EU collapse, since if the EU collapses, Britain will be impacted considerably whether or not we Brexit. Your analogy with faith schools - OK, here's why it is not appropriate. Faith schools can provide a decent education - but at the risk and cost of distorting this education, and anyway we simply do not need them in the way in which we do need (IMO) the EU; these schools could simply be replaced by secular state schools, whereas the alternative to EU membership is a highly problematic issue.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#509 Post by Alan H » September 15th, 2016, 12:17 pm

animist wrote:
Alan H wrote:Nick Clegg: Brexit is too much for the Tory brain
As the former deputy Prime Minister, Clegg knows the Tories like no other opposition politician. While in power during the Coalition, he was attacked for being a sell-out to his right-wing partners. But these days, he says, “it is us Remainers that are the outsiders”. And he is wasting no time in attacking the Brexiteer elite.

He calls the idea of leaving the EU in two years “a fiction”. And his reason is simple: the Tories have got themselves into a mess they are incapable of handling.
one of the most important things he points out is that the Single Market is less about tariffs and is instead more about common practices and regulations. Lack of these commonalities are known as non-tariff barriers to trade and are increasingly important in a world in which formal tariffs are declining
Indeed. I think I've made the point before that these non-trade barriers - in the form of pan-European product standards (a couple of which I had a hand in writing/revising) - significantly reduce old barriers between countries. Many of these product standards are also being adopted by other countries (including the US, Australia and New Zealand), so we will still need them to trade with the EU/EEA as well as other countries, but out of the EU, we will have no say in writing them.

The UK seems to have two choices: adopt these same standards (usually as British Standards - the irony should not escape anyone) as and when they are created and/or revised in the EU or go our own separate way and write our own, or let them stagnate. The last two options simply mean UK manufacturers having to build two different products: one for the UK market and a different one for the EU/EEA and possibly the rest of the world. Sounds like we would have our own standards yet still have to slavishly follow what the EU/RoW chooses to do without us if we want to trade with them, that is.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: In or out?

#510 Post by Nick » September 15th, 2016, 2:35 pm

animist wrote:
Alan H wrote:Nick Clegg: Brexit is too much for the Tory brain
As the former deputy Prime Minister, Clegg knows the Tories like no other opposition politician. While in power during the Coalition, he was attacked for being a sell-out to his right-wing partners. But these days, he says, “it is us Remainers that are the outsiders”. And he is wasting no time in attacking the Brexiteer elite.

He calls the idea of leaving the EU in two years “a fiction”. And his reason is simple: the Tories have got themselves into a mess they are incapable of handling.
one of the most important things he points out is that the Single Market is less about tariffs and is instead more about common practices and regulations. Lack of these commonalities are known as non-tariff barriers to trade and are increasingly important in a world in which formal tariffs are declining
How typical of the Left to headline the article with personal abuse. :rolleyes:

There are pluses and minuses with Brexit. It's just a question of what or which is most important overall. But a moment's thought. Where it makes sense to adopt such regulations then we can do so. But as far as exports to the EU are concerned, they represent a rather smaller proportion of the economy than we might think. We already face alternative and varying regulations when exporting to the rest of the world, and we cope with those. And as most of the UK economy does not involve exports, a sizeable section of the economy can be regulated to serve the UK, not anyone else.

Oh, and btw, tariffs and other restrictions are currently rising, not falling. Starting with the EU's threats to impose a 10% tariff on imports from the UK, and gratuitous threats towards the City.

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: In or out?

#511 Post by Nick » September 15th, 2016, 2:45 pm

animist wrote:
Nick wrote:
animist wrote:another lie is that the EU depends more on Britain for its export markets than vice versa. This is not true and shows the ignorance of most Brexiters - the EU may export more to us than we do to them, but the UK market is much smaller, relative to the total EU export market, than is the EU market in relation to Britain's total export market. This reflects the pretty obvious fact that the 27 countries of the EU form a much larger market than Britain does
I don't think that is quite what is claimed. Rather it is that the EU exports more to the UK than vice versa. If a 10% tariff were to be imposed by the EU, and the UK retaliated, we could, should we care to do so, pay the import duty for all our exporters. This, together with the lower pound, would suit British industry just fine...

Not suggesting this should happen, but then again, it is the EU which is threatening tariffs, so they should be warned.
I am not sure I understand this, and in fact you agreed (some time ago) with the point I made about market shares being more important than absolute export levels. Let's leave the lower pound out of this as it is a different issue. I think you mean that we could subsidise our exports to the EU? Well, yes of course, but this means public expenditure. doesn't it?
I suppose so, but it would be paid for out of the tariffs charged on imports. As British imports are higher than exports, this would be entirely possible, and we'd still have a revenue surplus, besides diverting imports towards home production.

Of course, I expect you will now start to explain why that would be bad for both sides. (At least I hope so!) But that just demonstrates how taxes impact on citizens in all sorts of ways. Which the EU are threatening the UK. They cry crocodile tears that they don't want to do so, but have to, to threaten convince their citizens that the cure for too much Europe, is more Europe.

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#512 Post by animist » September 15th, 2016, 9:13 pm

Nick wrote: There are pluses and minuses with Brexit. It's just a question of what or which is most important overall. But a moment's thought. Where it makes sense to adopt such regulations then we can do so. But as far as exports to the EU are concerned, they represent a rather smaller proportion of the economy than we might think. We already face alternative and varying regulations when exporting to the rest of the world, and we cope with those. And as most of the UK economy does not involve exports, a sizeable section of the economy can be regulated to serve the UK, not anyone else.

Oh, and btw, tariffs and other restrictions are currently rising, not falling. Starting with the EU's threats to impose a 10% tariff on imports from the UK, and gratuitous threats towards the City.
so what if "most" of the UK economy does not involve exports? What a totally crap argument. Even you must realise that we need to export in order to survive. Can you substantiate your claim that tariffs are rising? - and please don't include (I am getting used to your tricks) "other restrictions" in your reply - the whole point of my post was to reinforce what Cleggie said about non-tariff barriers to trade. Also please don't include any "threats" of the EU towards the UK in your reply - nothing has yet happened twixt the UK and its EU brethren as regards trade barriers. In case you had not realised, we Remainers are dedicated to keeping things as they are, it's the Brexiters who want to put us in some sort of anarchic position in relation to trading with the outside world

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#513 Post by animist » September 15th, 2016, 9:19 pm

Nick wrote:[]I suppose so, but it would be paid for out of the tariffs charged on imports. As British imports are higher than exports, this would be entirely possible, and we'd still have a revenue surplus, besides diverting imports towards home production.
I just answer the points which have some sense in them, and this is one. Yes, I guess there would be a revenue surplus as you say, but I note that you've avoided the much larger issue - ie that the 27 countries of the EU will have much greater options in finding alternative markets than will Little Britain. And I am not sure about your claim that import diversion would be a plus: the whole point of free trade (which I would assume you approved of) is to encourage countries to produce the things that they are best at - no?

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: In or out?

#514 Post by Nick » September 16th, 2016, 12:21 am

animist wrote: Can you substantiate your claim that tariffs are rising?
If I were Alan, I would ignore everything you wrote and ask for your evidence. :wink:

But I'm not. :D

From The Times, [my bold]
Meanwhile, at the G20 meeting in China this month, the leaders of the big economies reaffirmed their commitment to open markets, vowing to “reject protectionism, promote global trade and investment, including through further strengthening the multilateral trading system”.

Fine words, but global politics tells a different story. The reality is that the global multilateral trading system has never looked under greater strain and that protectionist forces are on the rise everywhere. This is reflected in trade flows: growth in world exports has stalled since January last year, according to Simon Evenett and Johannes Fritz, of the University of St Gallen. Outside global recessions, such a sustained plateau is practically unheard of since the fall of the Berlin Wall, they say. At the same time, the use of protectionist measures was up 50 per cent last year compared with 2014. Policy initiatives that harmed foreign commercial interests outnumbered trade liberalisation measures three to one, and G20 members were responsible for 81 per cent of them.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#515 Post by Alan H » September 16th, 2016, 1:03 am

Nick wrote:
animist wrote: Can you substantiate your claim that tariffs are rising?
If I were Alan, I would ignore everything you wrote and ask for your evidence.
Animist did not make the claim, did he?
From The Times, [my bold]
Meanwhile, at the G20 meeting in China this month, the leaders of the big economies reaffirmed their commitment to open markets, vowing to “reject protectionism, promote global trade and investment, including through further strengthening the multilateral trading system”.

Fine words, but global politics tells a different story. The reality is that the global multilateral trading system has never looked under greater strain and that protectionist forces are on the rise everywhere. This is reflected in trade flows: growth in world exports has stalled since January last year, according to Simon Evenett and Johannes Fritz, of the University of St Gallen. Outside global recessions, such a sustained plateau is practically unheard of since the fall of the Berlin Wall, they say. At the same time, the use of protectionist measures was up 50 per cent last year compared with 2014. Policy initiatives that harmed foreign commercial interests outnumbered trade liberalisation measures three to one, and G20 members were responsible for 81 per cent of them.
You really aren't trying to maintain that 'the use of protectionist measures was up 50 per cent last year' to substantiate your specific claim that tariffs are rising, are you? Even if it is correct, all The Times says is that there are more 'protectionist measures' than there were in 2014. That may well include rising tariffs - which was your claim - but it is not inherent in it and it does not say or imply that.

Please let's not get into another battle here: it has to be the case that when you make an objective claim that you might well be asked to substantiate it. We all sometimes mis-remember and use the wrong figure or say something that isn't quite right. When these are pointed out, the best thing to do is to accept that what was said may not be quite correct and re-cast your argument, changing your opinion if necessary to suit the known facts.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: In or out?

#516 Post by Nick » September 16th, 2016, 8:59 am

Alan H wrote:
Nick wrote:
animist wrote: Can you substantiate your claim that tariffs are rising?
If I were Alan, I would ignore everything you wrote and ask for your evidence.
Animist did not make the claim, did he?
He claimed they were falling. Any evidence then?
You really aren't trying to maintain that 'the use of protectionist measures was up 50 per cent last year' to substantiate your specific claim that tariffs are rising, are you? Even if it is correct, all The Times says is that there are more 'protectionist measures' than there were in 2014. That may well include rising tariffs - which was your claim - but it is not inherent in it and it does not say or imply that.

Please let's not get into another battle here:
You are being somewhat tiresome Alan. Animist was making a general point about world trade becoming freer; I responded to that.
it has to be the case that when you make an objective claim that you might well be asked to substantiate it. We all sometimes mis-remember and use the wrong figure or say something that isn't quite right. When these are pointed out, the best thing to do is to accept that what was said may not be quite correct and re-cast your argument, changing your opinion if necessary to suit the known facts.
It may also be that you remember the figure, but not the source. Not ideal but not a hanging offence. Using such a thing to derail a discussion is not ideal on a discussion board.

Now then Alan, where's your evidence, previously requested? And what's your opinion of the mass unemployment in southern Europe, or don't you care?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#517 Post by Alan H » September 16th, 2016, 9:48 am

Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:
Nick wrote: If I were Alan, I would ignore everything you wrote and ask for your evidence.
Animist did not make the claim, did he?
He claimed they were falling. Any evidence then?
So he did - I had missed that. What he said was 'formal tariffs are declining'. My apologies.
You really aren't trying to maintain that 'the use of protectionist measures was up 50 per cent last year' to substantiate your specific claim that tariffs are rising, are you? Even if it is correct, all The Times says is that there are more 'protectionist measures' than there were in 2014. That may well include rising tariffs - which was your claim - but it is not inherent in it and it does not say or imply that.

Please let's not get into another battle here:
You are being somewhat tiresome Alan. Animist was making a general point about world trade becoming freer; I responded to that.
Your quote does not substantiate your claim, however.
it has to be the case that when you make an objective claim that you might well be asked to substantiate it. We all sometimes mis-remember and use the wrong figure or say something that isn't quite right. When these are pointed out, the best thing to do is to accept that what was said may not be quite correct and re-cast your argument, changing your opinion if necessary to suit the known facts.
It may also be that you remember the figure, but not the source. Not ideal but not a hanging offence. Using such a thing to derail a discussion is not ideal on a discussion board.

Now then Alan, where's your evidence, previously requested?
For what? What claim of mine are you asking that I substantiate?
And what's your opinion of the mass unemployment in southern Europe, or don't you care?
Eh?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: In or out?

#518 Post by Nick » September 16th, 2016, 9:54 am

animist wrote:
Nick wrote: There are pluses and minuses with Brexit. It's just a question of what or which is most important overall. But a moment's thought. Where it makes sense to adopt such regulations then we can do so. But as far as exports to the EU are concerned, they represent a rather smaller proportion of the economy than we might think. We already face alternative and varying regulations when exporting to the rest of the world, and we cope with those. And as most of the UK economy does not involve exports, a sizeable section of the economy can be regulated to serve the UK, not anyone else.

Oh, and btw, tariffs and other restrictions are currently rising, not falling. Starting with the EU's threats to impose a 10% tariff on imports from the UK, and gratuitous threats towards the City.
so what if "most" of the UK economy does not involve exports? What a totally crap argument. Even you must realise that we need to export in order to survive. Can you substantiate your claim that tariffs are rising? - and please don't include (I am getting used to your tricks) "other restrictions" in your reply - the whole point of my post was to reinforce what Cleggie said about non-tariff barriers to trade. Also please don't include any "threats" of the EU towards the UK in your reply - nothing has yet happened twixt the UK and its EU brethren as regards trade barriers. In case you had not realised, we Remainers are dedicated to keeping things as they are, it's the Brexiters who want to put us in some sort of anarchic position in relation to trading with the outside world
Animist, having re-read your post, I need to amend my reply. I didn't take all your post into account, but rather stooped at your second question. Oh, well. I put it down to the time of day. I'm getting a bit of a backlog of things to reply to, but I hope I can respond more adequately in due course.

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: In or out?

#519 Post by Nick » September 16th, 2016, 10:17 am

Alan H wrote:So he did - I had missed that. What he said was 'formal tariffs are declining'. My apologies.
Thanks, Alan, but I'd rather be discussing the issues than references....
Animist was making a general point about world trade becoming freer; I responded to that.
Your quote does not substantiate your claim, however.
You think so...?
it has to be the case that when you make an objective claim that you might well be asked to substantiate it. We all sometimes mis-remember and use the wrong figure or say something that isn't quite right. When these are pointed out, the best thing to do is to accept that what was said may not be quite correct and re-cast your argument, changing your opinion if necessary to suit the known facts.
It may also be that you remember the figure, but not the source. Not ideal but not a hanging offence. Using such a thing to derail a discussion is not ideal on a discussion board.

Now then Alan, where's your evidence, previously requested?
For what? What claim of mine are you asking that I substantiate?
You claimed to know Greek youth unemployment figures.
And what's your opinion of the mass unemployment in southern Europe, or don't you care?
Eh?
You see how discussion has been derailed? Read back through the thread and see for yourself.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#520 Post by Alan H » September 16th, 2016, 10:32 am

Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:So he did - I had missed that. What he said was 'formal tariffs are declining'. My apologies.
Thanks, Alan, but I'd rather be discussing the issues than references....
Don't you think references that substantiate what you say are important?
You think so...?
Yep. For the reason I already gave.
You claimed to know Greek youth unemployment figures.
I didn't actually, but here's an authoritative source that gives a whole slew of data.
You see how discussion has been derailed? Read back through the thread and see for yourself.
It was 'derailed' (if you want to call it that) when you were unable or unwilling to substantiate a claim you made when questioned about it.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: In or out?

#521 Post by Nick » September 16th, 2016, 10:40 am

QED

Post Reply