UK General Election 2017 Megathread

[hungryfront]

The Tory manifesto came out today and for me, this is the key part and what is deciding my vote miles ahead of anything else.



Exactly what I wanted. I wasn't 100% committed to the blues until I saw this.

Already outlined in the Lancaster House speech and Government white paper, but explicit here in the manifesto.

What's wrong with the single market? Not attacking you or anything genuinely curious.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

[-:Undertaker:-]

What's wrong with the single market? Not attacking you or anything genuinely curious.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

If you're in the Single Market then it means many of your regulations and product standards are derived from and exist in European Union Law. Increasingly the Single Market is being expanded to cover more and more sectors (a Single Digital Market and Financial Market were proposed by the EU and Cameron) so would mean even though out of the EU, more powers would be going to it as it seeks to merge the economies of Europe into one singular economy. In addition being in the Single Market requires you to accept Freedom of Movement (mass immigration) which is out of the question as well as accepting the supremacy of the European Court of Justice over British Law. I voted for independence, not vassalage.

The Customs Union on the other hand if we remained within it would mean being bound by EU tariffs to non-Customs Union countries. It leaves you unable to sign your own trade deals, instead the European Commission does it for you. We'd essentially remain bound to what is a very insular and protectionist trade bloc if we left the EU but remained within it's Customs Union - one of the biggest benefits of Brexit in the longer term is rekindling our relationships with the Commonwealth and trading once again with the world. Leaving the Customs Union will also mean taking our place again on the World Trade Organisation (WTO).

Essentially Britain's relationship to the EU once we've left will be like Canada: a Free Trade Agreement (FTA).

[dbgtz]

£5 says we end up remaining in the single market to some degree.

I also just want to say, to counter what Undertaker just said and lay out a positive to being in a larger common market which is cheaper goods. Also, he makes it sound like the European Commission has this divine control when in reality any member state can veto an agreement.
He also makes it sound like we can't trade outside the EU which is misleading.
One final point is that he describes the union as protectionism as if it's inherently a bad thing, which it isn't.

[-:Undertaker:-]

£5 says we end up remaining in the single market to some degree.

Both the Government white paper and European Union have ruled this out explicitly.

I also just want to say, to counter what Undertaker just said and lay out a positive to being in a larger common market which is cheaper goods.

The opposite. Due to being in the Single Market we're unable to make regulations to fit the needs of our economy and trade - having to obey rules made to fit 28 very different countries and economies. In addition, all of our economy has to abide by Single Market regulations when most of our trade and produce/service consumption takes place internally.

Also, he makes it sound like the European Commission has this divine control when in reality any member state can veto an agreement.

A veto which would no longer exist given we're leaving the EU.

He also makes it sound like we can't trade outside the EU which is misleading.

We can trade outside of the EU/Single Market sure, but on the EU's terms of trade and not our own.

One final point is that he describes the union as protectionism as if it's inherently a bad thing, which it isn't.

It can *sometimes* be a good thing. The problem was, we're being made to pay more for goods in order to protect other countries industries. French farmers protecting themselves from cheaper agricultural goods from Africa for example.

Our concern should not be the welfare of heavily unionised French farmers, but how much Britons are paying for their food.

[lemons]

If @lemons; and everyone else is okay with it (don't want a slap on the wrist ), I'll happily do so.

yes

[dbgtz]

Both the Government white paper and European Union have ruled this out explicitly.

Yes because governments always stick to their manifestos...
I mean, even looking at the text it's wishy washy.

The opposite. Due to being in the Single Market we're unable to make regulations to fit the needs of our economy and trade - having to obey rules made to fit 28 very different countries and economies. In addition, all of our economy has to abide by Single Market regulations when most of our trade and produce/service consumption takes place internally.

I mean, I'm certain what you said is complete **** but I cba to look it up right now. However, you've again used the word "obey" as if we we're slaves, but we (as a country) do get a say and again, can veto or opt out of decisions.
Also what regulation is it you'd like to see gone that's making the goods so expensive? Because, as far as I can see, most of this red tape people seem to complain about comes down to workers security, consumer rights and safety.

I just want to add, I literally bought something from the USA the other week and had to pay ~£14 in fees (customs + handling) so I fail to see how the single market has made anything more expensive.

A veto which would no longer exist given we're leaving the EU.

How is this even a counterpoint to my statement lmao

We can trade outside of the EU/Single Market sure, but on the EU's terms of trade and not our own.

We are part of the EU = is on our terms since we (the government) had agreed to it.

It can *sometimes* be a good thing. The problem was, we're being made to pay more for goods in order to protect other countries industries. French farmers protecting themselves from cheaper agricultural goods from Africa for example.

Our concern should not be the welfare of heavily unionised French farmers, but how much Britons are paying for their food.

From what I recall, the EU stopped flooding of cheap Chinese steel which protected our industry. It is our government who has been selling us out to foreign investment, and poorly. Just look at the UK vs French energy sector and take a look at who's doing better.

Also why did you jump from French farmers to the British public in general? Why not British farmers who are arguably **** now if the government doesn't provide subsidies, which would lead to an increase in food prices. It is also far cheaper to import from France and most European countries than any Commonwealth country when looking at transport fees and any other non-tariff fee and considering we import a significant chunk of our food. Following in from that, 54% of our food is home grown, 27% is from the EU and 19% from the rest of the world. (https://www.theatlas.com/charts/r1pz5C5B) Yet you think leaving the EU is going to make our food... cheaper?

[lemons]

the itv 'leaders' debate tonight is so pointless with neither may or corbyn being there

[-:Undertaker:-]

Yes because governments always stick to their manifestos...
I mean, even looking at the text it's wishy washy.

It seems pretty clear cut to me, out of the SM+CM. From somebody who was seeking to destroy the Conservative Party to bring all of this about, joining that splinter party and then winning: I am very content with the direction.

From the Lancaster House speech to the white paper produced by the government, to the appointment of David Davis as Secretary of State for Leaving the European Union and Liam Fox as Secretary of State for International Trade (a brand new department) it all adds up and only points to what is stated in the manifesto. Of course being politicians they could screw us over, in which case we'll have call back Nigel Farage to finish off the job.

I mean, I'm certain what you said is complete **** but I cba to look it up right now. However, you've again used the word "obey" as if we we're slaves, but we (as a country) do get a say and again, can veto or opt out of decisions.

I think that's just you putting a spin on it. Obey in law means exactly that, obey the law. If you are in the Single Market then you are subject to the European Court of Justice and therefore have to obey the rulings of that court.

Also what regulation is it you'd like to see gone that's making the goods so expensive? Because, as far as I can see, most of this red tape people seem to complain about comes down to workers security, consumer rights and safety.

Indeed some of that is red tape.

I just want to add, I literally bought something from the USA the other week and had to pay ~£14 in fees (customs + handling) so I fail to see how the single market has made anything more expensive.

And when we're out of the Customs Union you'll likely have to pay tariff charges too. However this purely depends on the European Union and whether or not it is willing to keep itself open with low tariffs (the British approach) or cut its nose off to spite its face and continue with French style continental economics of high tariffs and a closed economy.

If they do impose tariffs to the full extent then it'll just make it more sensible for us to buy elsewhere. Oh well!

How is this even a counterpoint to my statement lmao

You're telling me that member states have a veto. That is kind of true but the point is that if we remained in the Single Market but left the EU (as we are doing) then we would not have a veto as we're not members of the EU.

We are part of the EU = is on our terms since we (the government) had agreed to it.

It's regards to us signing off the package yes we're giving agreement to it, but the package hasn't been negotiated on our terms as the EU negotiates on behalf of 28 member states. So the final trade deal even if we give the go-ahead obviously isn't tailored to British interests and our terms given we were one of only 28.

If we negotiated alone, which is what we will be doing in two years time when we've left, then trade deals will be tailored to our own needs and interests rather than having to consider the interests of 27 other countries.

From what I recall, the EU stopped flooding of cheap Chinese steel which protected our industry. It is our government who has been selling us out to foreign investment, and poorly. Just look at the UK vs French energy sector and take a look at who's doing better.

Indeed and you can vote the British government out if you do not like their economic policy. You cannot vote the European Union out. If Britons desire more protectionism then let them decide that at each election, similarly if they wish to seek free market FTAs and have more open trade then the same. This is all about what we want for ourselves and not having to go by what others want.

Also why did you jump from French farmers to the British public in general?

Because when French farmers demand high tariffs on non-EU agricultural goods who pays? We the public do.

Why not British farmers who are arguably **** now if the government doesn't provide subsidies, which would lead to an increase in food prices. It is also far cheaper to import from France and most European countries than any Commonwealth country when looking at transport fees and any other non-tariff fee and considering we import a significant chunk of our food.

That is total nonsense. Many people remember the days way before we joined the EEC when we bought New Zealand lamb and dairy very cheap despite it being on the other side of the world and before huge container ships and advanced airline travel which have made the process even faster and cheaper. I swear sometimes your side believes we're living in the 1500's where trading anything further than northern Africa is a big ask.

Following in from that, 54% of our food is home grown, 27% is from the EU and 19% from the rest of the world. (https://www.theatlas.com/charts/r1pz5C5B) Yet you think leaving the EU is going to make our food... cheaper?

Yes. Because those are the current figures whereby we've had to abide by EU tariffs.

In years to come that 19% figure will grow massively benefitting both Britain with cheaper food imports and African nations who will have more customers. It is a win-win situation apart from unionised French farmers who are going to lose 70m customers from their protectionist racket (the EU Customs Union).

That's how we used to trade. And how we will do once again. There's a world outside of Europe y'know.

[dbgtz]

It seems pretty clear cut to me, out of the SM+CM. From somebody who was seeking to destroy the Conservative Party to bring all of this about, joining that splinter party and then winning: I am very content with the direction.

From the Lancaster House speech to the white paper produced by the government, to the appointment of David Davis as Secretary of State for Leaving the European Union and Liam Fox as Secretary of State for International Trade (a brand new department) it all adds up and only points to what is stated in the manifesto. Of course being politicians they could screw us over, in which case we'll have call back Nigel Farage to finish off the job.

Soon find out

I think that's just you putting a spin on it. Obey in law means exactly that, obey the law. If you are in the Single Market then you are subject to the European Court of Justice and therefore have to obey the rulings of that court.

ok

Indeed some of that is red tape.

Name one

And when we're out of the Customs Union you'll likely have to pay tariff charges too. However this purely depends on the European Union and whether or not it is willing to keep itself open with low tariffs (the British approach) or cut its nose off to spite its face and continue with French style continental economics of high tariffs and a closed economy.

If they do impose tariffs to the full extent then it'll just make it more sensible for us to buy elsewhere. Oh well!

Yes I realise that, so by leaving you've just made everything more expensive and you've just agreed the single market makes it cheaper.

You're telling me that member states have a veto. That is kind of true but the point is that if we remained in the Single Market but left the EU (as we are doing) then we would not have a veto as we're not members of the EU.

Right, but my original point was down to what power an EU member state has to counter your point that we just have to blindly follow whatever rules there are.

It's regards to us signing off the package yes we're giving agreement to it, but the package hasn't been negotiated on our terms as the EU negotiates on behalf of 28 member states. So the final trade deal even if we give the go-ahead obviously isn't tailored to British interests and our terms given we were one of only 28.

If we negotiated alone, which is what we will be doing in two years time when we've left, then trade deals will be tailored to our own needs and interests rather than having to consider the interests of 27 other countries.

If the government didn't believe the agreement was in the interests of the country then they don't have to agree to it. What's so hard to understand? You seem to just hate the idea of compromise.

Indeed and you can vote the British government out if you do not like their economic policy. You cannot vote the European Union out. If Britons desire more protectionism then let them decide that at each election, similarly if they wish to seek free market FTAs and have more open trade then the same. This is all about what we want for ourselves and not having to go by what others want.

Stupid comparison there since you can indeed vote your EU parliament members out.
Yes it seems you do hate the idea of compromise too.

Because when French farmers demand high tariffs on non-EU agricultural goods who pays? We the public do.

Think you missed my question entirely but it's not important

That is total nonsense. Many people remember the days way before we joined the EEC when we bought New Zealand lamb and dairy very cheap despite it being on the other side of the world and before huge container ships and advanced airline travel which have made the process even faster and cheaper. I swear sometimes your side believes we're living in the 1500's where trading anything further than northern Africa is a big ask.

No? It's just pretty obvious it's going to be cheaper to transport something 50 km compared to 500 km.

Yes. Because those are the current figures whereby we've had to abide by EU tariffs.

In years to come that 19% figure will grow massively benefitting both Britain with cheaper food imports and African nations who will have more customers. It is a win-win situation apart from unionised French farmers who are going to lose 70m customers from their protectionist racket (the EU Customs Union).

That's how we used to trade. And how we will do once again. There's a world outside of Europe y'know.

Do you literally believe all of these nations will just bend over for us? That's the impression I'm getting from all of this. You seem to have an attachment to this group of countries as if you view it as some kind of hunky-dory family when in reality, business is business and as far as I can see, in order to get this business my rights as an individual are going to get ****. At least under a Conservative government, not sure about Labour in its current state. That's just how I view it, anyway.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Name one

Here's an EU regulation banning olive oil in dishes at restaurants.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeands...restaurants-eu

Yes I realise that, so by leaving you've just made everything more expensive and you've just agreed the single market makes it cheaper.

Um no? Because you'd then be buying more products from elsewhere making a saving. If strawberries from the EU are costing £2.50 a packet and strawberries from the Gambia are costing £1.00 a packet, you don't continue buying strawberries from the EU you buy the African ones. The only areas where tariffs may raise prices will be expensive or quality goods such as Italian cycling gear and German cars like BMW. But those are luxuries anyway so a £10 tariff charge on a one-off Castelli cycling jersey worth £70 won't really make much difference on a cost of living basis.

Right, but my original point was down to what power an EU member state has to counter your point that we just have to blindly follow whatever rules there are.

Yes so you accept that given we are leaving, it therefore makes no sense to remain in the Single Market given we'd be subject to EU rulings but have no veto on the outcomes? Even less power than we had before leaving.

If the government didn't believe the agreement was in the interests of the country then they don't have to agree to it. What's so hard to understand? You seem to just hate the idea of compromise.

What if the government is putting political interests in furthering EU integration before our own economic and national interests? As I believe it was. We simply signed up to those deals to curry favour with the European project. Why take a half-arsed deal that overall you think is "ok" when you can make your own deals which you're fully satisfied with?

In short, why accept second best for the country?

Stupid comparison there since you can indeed vote your EU parliament members out.

The EU Parliament is a powerless talking shop. The power is with the Commission and the European Courts. In addition even if Britain did say elect 73 MEPs to oppose a trade deal or certain regulations, given there are 751 MEPs it counts for zilch. We could still be outvoted on what we regarded as our national interest. That's wrong and undemocratic.

Yes it seems you do hate the idea of compromise too.

I don't see why we should opt for second best to cater to the French or Slovakians, correct.

No? It's just pretty obvious it's going to be cheaper to transport something 50 km compared to 500 km.

A cost which is offset when you take into account production costs. For example it can be more economically beneficial to import a t-shirt from a Bombay factory (with transport costs and tariffs) than to buy a t-shirt made in this country.

So like I said, it isn't the 1500's and you need to stop thinking in terms of distance. Trade is past that.

Do you literally believe all of these nations will just bend over for us? That's the impression I'm getting from all of this. You seem to have an attachment to this group of countries as if you view it as some kind of hunky-dory family when in reality, business is business and as far as I can see

Business is business correct, which is why many country have already begun trade talks with us. But history is history, and given our extensive imperial links with Commonwealth countries (shared language, shared culture, shared law, shared business practices) it is not surprising that the likes of New Zealand have offered us use of their trade negotiators as a kind gesture. We're closer to New Zealand, Australia and Canada than we'll ever be to France and Germany.

We just don't view ourselves as European other than geographically. We're British: Island & Global mentality, not Continental.

in order to get this business my rights as an individual are going to get ****. At least under a Conservative government, not sure about Labour in its current state. That's just how I view it, anyway.

Tell me what 'rights' (a popular word for benefits) you are going to lose?