EU referendum are you in or out

[Little stoned kiwi]

The UK imports and exports goods and services outside the EU...when the EU allows it to. With things like CAP it wouldn't be incorrect to say "when the EU tells it to".

[KlaxonCow]

The Independent newspaper has started a petition for a second "final say" referendum:

https://www.change.org/p/theresa-may-mp ... rexit-deal

Over 500,000 signatures so far.

[korruptor]

The UK imports and exports goods and services outside the EU...when the EU allows it to. With things like CAP it wouldn't be incorrect to say "when the EU tells it to".

Yeah, in the same way Parliament tells the government it can't just do anything it wants.

We had ~10% of the votes in the EU, and until recently more concessions, vetos and gentleman's agreements than any other member nation in the council (which they'll be glad to see the back of). We've been an incredibly active participant and shaper of EU policy - the single market is far more liberal than it would otherwise be because of Thatcher governments onward - so it's patently ludicrous to talk about the EU as if it surprises us with policy decisions we can do nothing about. We've been in the room with them the entire time.

The CAP is flawed, but at least can be changed. Our farmers aren't going to be better off without it.

[zip accident]

It is going to be a very hard few years before we go back in.

I don't think leaving is avoidable any more, there are probably too many fascists who'd take that as an excuse to riot, and until we've been through it a lot of people won't believe just how bad it is going to be. The Jarrow marches were bad times, but they're almost beyond living memory now, there are one or two who remember, but if you tell that to the kids these days they won't believe you. I don't know what's going to happen.

[goldfish]

The UK imports and exports goods and services outside the EU...when the EU allows it to. With things like CAP it wouldn't be incorrect to say "when the EU tells it to".

Can you expand on this? It’s definitely not my understanding of cap or the eu.

Simon

[tufty]

It’s definitely not my understanding of cap or the eu.

Mainly because that's not even close to an explanation of how EU import and export rules work, nor of the CAP.

[Little stoned kiwi]

Explain it then. I've been asking questions since this thread started and reading the responses.
As I have come to understand it, the EU is chiefly a trade bloc that has expanded into political control. It has complete authority over imports, exports, and flow of people from non-member countries. Members, such as the UK, have no independence regarding quotas, tariffs, and people - it's all done through and by the EU. Member countries are part of the single market where goods and people are openly traded between members without trade limitations.
CAP is how the the EU controls production in member countries instead. By paying subsidies to farmers with money collected from all members it strongly influences who produces what, and protects those markets from fair competition through control of imports and exports outside of the EU. CAP is massive, taking up a significant portion of the EUs budget.

[tufty]

What's happened is you've fallen into the typical europhobic hole of considering the EU as being something external, something "other". Something that hands down orders from above, something we have no way of influencing. It's not that at all, the EU is run by and for the member countries, the UK included. So let's look at your understanding from that angle.

the EU is chiefly a trade bloc that has expanded into political control.

Not really. What the EU is is complex and not a static target, It goes way back beyond the EEC and the common market to the Congress of Europe at the end of the war, which formed the ECHR. The logical goal of European integration is the European superstate or, as Churchill put it, the "United States of Europe". Political control has always been the goal, the formation of a free trading area is part of that.

It has complete authority over imports, exports,

That's kinda correct, although it would be better to say that it provides a coherent set of rules for imports and exports, you can't have a free trade area with differing rules in one place. Doesn't work.

and flow of people from non-member countries.

Incorrect. Consider, for example, commonwealth citizens' rights to come to the UK. What the EU does provide is a baseline rule that EU citizens have the right to live, travel and work freely within the EU.

Members, such as the UK, have no independence regarding quotas, tariffs, and people - it's all done through and by the EU.

Member states can produce whatever the fuck they want. They can let in whoever the fuck they want, but they can't then let them travel into the rest of Europe. They can't refuse to let european citizens in, though.

Tariffs, internal to the EU, are pretty much nil. As far as trade with the outside world is concerned, yeah, it's negotiated through the EU (again, remember, this is done by the member states' representatives, and not by some disconnected "other"), as is normal for any country or trading bloc - the rules have to be coherent.

Member countries are part of the single market where goods and people are openly traded between members without trade limitations.

That's very nearly 100% correct, with the only exception being that we don't trade people any more. That was abolished ages ago, apart from au pair girls and filipino cleaners.

CAP is how the the EU controls production in member countries instead. By paying subsidies to farmers with money collected from all members it strongly influences who produces what, and protects those markets from fair competition through control of imports and exports outside of the EU. CAP is massive, taking up a significant portion of the EUs budget.

There's right and wrong in there, but talking about the problems with the CAP could take up a number of books. The basic idea is to ensure that Europe is self-sufficient in food, which is good, and yes, it subsidises farmers and to an extent "short circuits" free trade. But then so did shipping New Zealand lamb half way round the fucking globe at preferential prices because we used to be the colonial power over there. It's hugely flawed, yes, but like all the problems in Europe, you can't fix it from outside. Without European subsidies, a lot of British farmers are going to go to the wall.

The big bogeyman that you haven't really expressed is refugees ad asylum seekers. That's a fucking mess, frankly, and very unfair to the countries currently overloaded with refugees - Greece and Italy in particular.

[Little stoned kiwi]

What's happened is you've fallen into the typical europhobic hole of considering the EU as being something external, something "other".

To people outside the EU, that's what the EU is. Negotiations are done with the EU. While it's possible to have talks with the UK, it has to be done with the EU.

It has complete authority over imports, exports,

That's kinda correct, although it would be better to say that it provides a coherent set of rules for imports and exports, you can't have a free trade area with differing rules in one place. Doesn't work.

I've said more than once that EU standards are a good thing. They provide consistency and protect the end consumer. That's independent of trade though, which is what I'm talking about. Negotiations are done with the EU. Initial talks might be done with a specific country but it all has to go through the EU in the end.

and flow of people from non-member countries.

Incorrect. Consider, for example, commonwealth citizens' rights to come to the UK. What the EU does provide is a baseline rule that EU citizens have the right to live, travel and work freely within the EU.

British immigration laws used to allow Australians and New Zealanders to live and work in Britain as British citizens.

Tariffs, internal to the EU, are pretty much nil. As far as trade with the outside world is concerned, yeah, it's negotiated through the EU (again, remember, this is done by the member states' representatives, and not by some disconnected "other"), as is normal for any country or trading bloc - the rules have to be coherent.

...CAP is how the the EU controls production in member countries instead.

There's right and wrong in there, but talking about the problems with the CAP could take up a number of books. The basic idea is to ensure that Europe is self-sufficient in food, which is good, and yes, it subsidises farmers and to an extent "short circuits" free trade. But then so did shipping New Zealand lamb half way round the fucking globe at preferential prices because we used to be the colonial power over there. It's hugely flawed, yes, but like all the problems in Europe, you can't fix it from outside. Without European subsidies, a lot of British farmers are going to go to the wall.

Are you saying Britain imported at a premium, with better options available? Out of some sort of charity? If it wasn't for EU quotas protecting local production there (which is propped up with subsidies) then NZ would be exporting even more than it currently is.

[tufty]

British immigration laws used to allow Australians and New Zealanders to live and work in Britain as British citizens.

Indeed they did. Until the Nationality Act of 1981 (18 years before the Schengen agreement), persons born in Britain or the British Empire were automatically entitled to British citizenship. This was decided by the UK, alone, without the help of the EU.

Are you saying Britain imported at a premium, with better options available?

That is absolutely what I'm saying. That's what "preferential access" meant. Until 1971, about 50% of New Zealand's lamb, and close to 100% of their butter production was literally shipped half way around the world to the UK, regardless of whether the UK had cheaper options available. Not because of charity, but because, and again, see the Nationality Act of 1981, NZ citizens were also British citizens if they wanted to be. It was protectionism, pure and simple, exactly what you're now accusing (rightly) the EU's CAP of doing.

[edit]

As for the rest of your whining "oh, but we have to deal with the EU", why the fuck *wouldn't* you want to strike a single deal with one of the world's biggest trading blocs, rather than fuck about making 28 separate agreements.

[gravy]

British immigration laws used to allow Australians and New Zealanders to live and work in Britain as British citizens.

Indeed they did. Until the Nationality Act of 1981 (18 years before the Schengen agreement), persons born in Britain or the British Empire were automatically entitled to British citizenship. This was decided by the UK, alone, without the help of the EU.

Are you saying Britain imported at a premium, with better options available?

That is absolutely what I'm saying. That's what "preferential access" meant. Until 1971, about 50% of New Zealand's lamb, and close to 100% of their butter production was literally shipped half way around the world to the UK, regardless of whether the UK had cheaper options available. Not because of charity, but because, and again, see the Nationality Act of 1981, NZ citizens were also British citizens if they wanted to be. It was protectionism, pure and simple, exactly what you're now accusing (rightly) the EU's CAP of doing.

Kind of, it was a part of a broader trade agreement that saw British imports get preferential treatment in NZ as well. But yeah, there's nothing special enough about NZ lamb to warrant schlepping sheep carcasses halfway across the planet.

Funnily enough, NZ growing their sheep business with a deal to export to China is being held up as a positive example of how a country can deal with a loss of trade by brexit fuckwits.

I mean, what possible downside could their be in becoming a minor partner with a global superpower!

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/arti ... d=11953458

[Cloudane]

The Independent newspaper has started a petition for a second "final say" referendum:

https://www.change.org/p/theresa-may-mp ... rexit-deal

Over 500,000 signatures so far.

I actually fear something like that. Gammon out in droves picking the "no deal" option, because that's the angriest and most "fuck you" sounding.

[Little stoned kiwi]

British immigration laws used to allow Australians and New Zealanders to live and work in Britain as British citizens.

Indeed they did. Until the Nationality Act of 1981 (18 years before the Schengen agreement), persons born in Britain or the British Empire were automatically entitled to British citizenship. This was decided by the UK, alone, without the help of the EU.

Perhaps I'm wrong about the details, it's from a time before I was born. All I know is there was resentment when people had to start using the "Others" queue at customs after the UK joined the EU. It used to be incredibly common for people to have an overseas experience there which then turned into a hassle to get a visa.

Are you saying Britain imported at a premium, with better options available?

That is absolutely what I'm saying. That's what "preferential access" meant. Until 1971, about 50% of New Zealand's lamb, and close to 100% of their butter production was literally shipped half way around the world to the UK, regardless of whether the UK had cheaper options available. Not because of charity, but because, and again, see the Nationality Act of 1981, NZ citizens were also British citizens if they wanted to be. It was protectionism, pure and simple, exactly what you're now accusing (rightly) the EU's CAP of doing.

Glad you agree that's the way it is. So you see market protectionism as a good thing, and being done properly in the EU?
BTW, is the EU making enough butter now after that shortage?

NZ has a production advantage of growing a lot of grass. The competitiveness of dairy and meat depends on the price of feed. Because of the ready availability of grass, it's competitive when the price of feed other countries need is high.
Shipping isn't expensive. That's why a lot of the world's cheap crap comes from China which will probably intensify even more with their Belt and Road Initiative.

As for the rest of your whining "oh, but we have to deal with the EU", why the fuck *wouldn't* you want to strike a single deal with one of the world's biggest trading blocs, rather than fuck about making 28 separate agreements.

Market protectionism, obviously. Such as when the EU isn't producing enough butter, or when the cost of feed is high, but still limiting imports.

[tufty]

Perhaps I'm wrong about the details,

Yes, you are. I pointed out the details in the text you quoted. So you have no excuse for continuing to spout this ill-informed bullshit:

people had to start using the "Others" queue at customs after the UK joined the EU.

Fact: The UK joined the EEC (not the EU, it didn't exist at that point) in 1973
Fact: NZ and other "colonials" were allowed to travel freely to the UK as British Citizens until the UK government passed the 1981 Nationality Act.
Fact: Since 1981, NZ and other "colonials" benefit from a much "lighter" immigration regime than other nationalities, and many benefit from visa waivers.
Fact: The EU only came into being in 1993 after Maastricht (this introduced the concept of European citizenship)
Fact: Free movement across borders for EU citizens (not "workers") only started after Schengen in 1995.
Factoid: 95% of barmen in London are kiwis.

[korruptor]

Not been there for a while, but it was all Russians last time I was. Glad to see them and the Aussies give poor little NZ a chance at a job.