Nody wrote: » Secondly; cars have a tariff of 10% as per WTO; you can't really go higher since WTO is the highest term set there but ignoring that;
Donald Trump is delaying a decision by up to six months on whether to impose tariffs on imported cars and parts to allow for more time for trade talks with the European Union and Japan. ... Mr Trump had threatened to impose tariffs of up to 25% on imported cars and trucks.
McGiver wrote: » Which Eastern Europeans? What reform? If you mean Central Europe, Hungary or Poland - they don't want any reform. Even if you take the Visegrad Group (CZ, PL, SK and HU), they don't agree on anything amongst themselves on any EU reform, except of NO to asylum seekers redistribution, all of the 4 countries are different with different political situations, although PL and HU are quasi-authoritarian but either are of a very different hard right flavour, CZ and SK are generally centre-left.
McGiver wrote: » UK doesn't and didn't want any reform, they wanted special treatment, more opt-outs and generally doing what they wanted and bossing others around (as they used to in the Good Old Empire you know). .
McGiver wrote: » "EU reform" is a eurosceptic cliché with no basis. Anything to anyone - a bit like Brexit i.e. a unicorn.
Melanchthon wrote: » One thing I have learned (not from here), is that when people start getting angry about the various British opt exceptions they have a gut dislike of British politics anyway. How come when the UK gets an opt out its special treatment yet when France or Germany straight up block things as they did its the EU functioning as it should. The opt outs weren't that strange, less economically important countries like Denmark have some, are you saying the UK should have just blocked all the things it has opt outs in or just never joined, after it joined was the UK somehow less an important member than France.
Melanchthon wrote: » The EU badly needs reform, its face is going to be a failed minister with thats possibly corrupt who was put into the role out of nowhere, with the european central bank being headed by somebody that was found criminally financially negligent a couple of years ago. If these were national politicians this could be said about we would hold the system in the regard of Italian politics or Irish 90's politics.
Melanchthon wrote: » Nancy Pelosi is important but she doesn't rule without consensus, if she goes through with a threat to veto a US UK trade deal which requires politicians with manufacturing in their districts its just giving Trump ammunition. This view of Irish - Americans as a Democratic stronghold and an intense interest in Northern Ireland went out of the way with Bill Clinton.
Melanchthon wrote: » What? That makes little sense and is typical of the thinking of this forum UK may reduce tarrifs for some stuff but what's going to happen with autos is that it will be a quick trade deal with the US and a possible deal with Japan in relation to this in relation to cars. Tarrifs on other countries cars e.g Germany could be much much higher Now the standard reply to this is the house Dems will block that type of deal, so they are really going to turn around to factory workers and say "nope we are blocking this" Trump would love that and the Dems know this (and it's not like Irish Americans are even that solid a Dem group anymore).
Pete King, the Republican co-chair of the Friends of Ireland group, said the threat to abandon the backstop and endanger the open border was a “needless provocation”, adding that his party would have no compunction about defying Trump over the issue. “I would think anyone who has a strong belief in Northern Ireland and the Good Friday agreement the open border would certainly be willing to go against the president,” King said.
King compared Gerry Adams, the leader of Sinn F, the political wing of the Irish republican movement, to George Washington, and asserted that the "British government is a murder machine".
Melanchthon wrote: » johnnyskeleton wrote: » Can I ask what reforms you would like to see the EU make? Its never going to role back to the early 90's in role so maybe a two speed Europe, the decline of Italy vs France/Germany over that time period is is enlightening (and no Italian politicians were no better in the 80's they just weren't tied to flawed mechanisms).
johnnyskeleton wrote: » Can I ask what reforms you would like to see the EU make?
Investigate two-speed Europe.
Give European parliament greater role in selection of EU roles, minimum that they propose legislation and can veto particular candidates not the whole selection.
Transparency about expenses and lobbying in EU parliament, remove fixed rate expenses for EU politicians.
Put in place that national representatives to EU have to be approved by the electorate more directly, e.g have an election for the role of EU commissioner on a national list system (might be an unworkable idea).
Try scale back the primacy of court rulings have such wide reaching effects, it shouldn't happen that a spanish court ruling about a teenager taking his mums car thats off the road and killing somebody changes the rules for the entire EU (not kept upto date on this case but an example of over reach).
Explore the idea of migration breaks so flows of people are more even, take into account the very large differences in Purchasing Power Parity for a union that has SE England and rural Romania.
Reform CAP
Take a long hard look at the long term social and economic policies, for an apparently technocratic system the EU and particularly the Eurozone has preformed pretty poorly since the great recession, socially even without the culture wars thing the idea that bringing in a large numbers of people with low levels of education at a time when wide spread automation is around the corner makes little sense particularly with the still high levels of youth unemployment in Southern Europe.
Break Germany back up into its historic Kingdoms and Prince Bishoprics "too big for Europe, too small for the world" .
On a serious point though the fact that the German political system put in place by the allies has served as a model for parts of the EU isn't a good thing, its a system thats built on a distrust of the masses because the Nazi's actions, and the Germans are pretty weird politically, take a look at opinion polling about trust as well as what countries they would defend.
Perhaps the fundamental thing would be to recognize Euro-federalism is not popular with the population at large and act on that.
Originally Posted by Melanchthon View Post UK may reduce tarrifs for some stuff but what's going to happen with autos is that it will be a quick trade deal with the US and a possible deal with Japan in relation to this in relation to cars. Tarrifs on other countries cars e.g Germany could be much much higher.
BluePlanet wrote: » Sectoral trade deals are not legal under WTO. Trade deals must cover substantially all trade.
McGiver wrote: » TLDR; typical eurosceptic waffle - 40% nonsense, 40% cliché, 10% valid related to transparency (everyone agrees with that) plus the remaining 10% good old German bashing (it's just tiresome 75 years after the ww2)....
Irish Praetorian wrote: » Just for my own edification; so does this mean the UK would not be able to knock together a free trade deal with say NZ which says no tariffs on NZ lamb and no tariffs on UK cars and - such a deal would need to include more sectors and services?
McGiver wrote: » But looks like you want to cede more sovereignty to the EU to give it more competency with regards to education and social policy (currently not EU competencies) and also increase EU's economic policy competency (currently very limited)
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » 3 out of 5 in north back "border in Irish Sea" according to tomorrow's Sunday Times.
Melanchthon wrote: » McGiver wrote: » Which Eastern Europeans? What reform? If you mean Central Europe, Hungary or Poland - they don't want any reform. Even if you take the Visegrad Group (CZ, PL, SK and HU), they don't agree on anything amongst themselves on any EU reform, except of NO to asylum seekers redistribution, all of the 4 countries are different with different political situations, although PL and HU are quasi-authoritarian but either are of a very different hard right flavour, CZ and SK are generally centre-left. They have agreement on the idea broadly of great prominence to national sovereignty (sovereignty as it was commonly used in the sense of the word before 2016 when some weird attempts at re-framing it occurred)
McGiver wrote: » UK doesn't and didn't want any reform, they wanted special treatment, more opt-outs and generally doing what they wanted and bossing others around (as they used to in the Good Old Empire you know).
One thing I have learned (not from here), is that when people start getting angry about the various British opt exceptions they have a gut dislike of British politics anyway. How come when the UK gets an opt out its special treatment yet when France or Germany straight up block things as they did its the EU functioning as it should. The opt outs weren't that strange, less economically important countries like Denmark have some, are you saying the UK should have just blocked all the things it has opt outs in or just never joined, after it joined was the UK somehow less an important member than France.
Rain Ascending wrote: » Interesting, Kermit. Which version of the Sunday Times, UK or Ireland? Here's the front-page of the UK version:https://twitter.com/thesundaytimes/status/1162852858565472256 Looks like Michael Gove's Rapid Refutation Unit is going to have its work cut out ... refuting a Cabinet report :rolleyes: More seriously:Unlike the "plausible worst-case scenario" slides Sam Coates had two weeks ago, this material is based on a "basic, reasonable" scenario. As noted by Faisal Islam in his Twitter feed, the Dover crossing throughput figures have been updated, to reflect the better preparedness in Calais. This indicates that the document has been recently revised.
McGiver wrote: » Italy's problems are due to Italy's inability to govern their own country, get rid of extreme bureaucracy and Balkan level corruption. And educate their population. And modernise the economy. Nothing to do with EU. Next.
McGiver wrote: » Cliche. What exactly it is? And how it will work exactly?
McGiver wrote: » Sounds great... on paper. And it's another cliché. Firstly, EP's powers have been steadily increasing over the subsequent treaties, especially Lisbon. Secondly, giving EP the leading power would mean the larger states would really call the shots due to much larger population and hence more MEPs, smaller countries and especially Ireland with just 11 MEPs would be marginalised. Whereas in the Council, each country however small has equal, 1/27th of vote.
McGiver wrote: » Yes, more transparency is always good. But this is hardly a reform. In any sense, whatsoever. So again a nice cliché. This is a cosmetic measure, in grand scheme of things, it's an improvement aimed at more transparency and increasing credibility of the EP as an institution.
McGiver wrote: » No EU27 country elects ministers. That's what Commissioners are in the EU equivalent. There's a reason for it. Why should that be the case on EU level where the Executive is even more specialised and hence needs experienced people? How does general public can make a call on who should be the minister? By looking at their faces if they look pleasant or the like? So elect populists, good looking or well lying people? Please no! Another cliché.
McGiver wrote: » Already in place when new members join. Called transitional provisions. Total restriction of freedom of movement for up to 7 years (2+3+2). Note, Germany used 7 years for A8 countries, whereas UK, Ireland and Sweden allowed freedom of movement from day 1 of A8 - it was their free choice. Thereafter restrictions on FoM is a nonsense and against the core principles of the EU, can't and won't work. Can NY restrict workers coming from Nebraska?
McGiver wrote: » How? And why? To bankrupt farmers and let cheap, low quality food transported half of the world having huge environmental impact to be imported into the EU?
McGiver wrote: » This makes little sense and is non coherent. Every EU country is different, different issues, different workforce etc. But looks like you want to cede more sovereignty to the EU to give it more competency with regards to education and social policy (currently not EU competencies) and also increase EU's economic policy competency (currently very limited) - so you're a federalist like myself, excellent
McGiver wrote: » Not a EU reform. And also it's a nonsense. Have you heard about Bundesrepublik Deutschland? You know Federal Republic of Germany, consisting of, you know, 16 states with rather large autonomy, mostly roughly copying the areas of you know....the historic Kingdoms.
McGiver wrote: » German political system is in fact clearly the best democratic system in the world for the ordinary man based on the results - a social market economy, social democracy with no extremes, generally low corruption, very resilient to populism and extremism, with great balance between regional and national governments, economically extremely successful, industrious, high investment in infrastructure, with very low levels of poverty, with very high employment, with compromise/balance between unions, government and business, with high levels of education and literacy and very high political stability, whilst maintaining very high human rights standard. You would struggle hard to find another system like that, with these results.
McGiver wrote: » What's the evidence for this? And even if it was not popular then there's no need to act - the EU is not a federation, it's a confederation at best. Or do I hear you want to make it less than confederation, basically back to EFTA? Well, that's not a reform, that's a roll-back of the EU as we know it. And no one wants that. If you don't like it, quit the EU and join the EFTA. And hope the Swiss accept you (they don't like competition and foreigners on their VIP club much alright).
McGiver wrote: » Sorry for OT but EU is my area of interest and many of the eurosceptic clichés are common in the Brexiteers narrative, so mods will forgive me my OT.
prawnsambo wrote: » The 'failed' minister had a pretty stellar career up to then. Apparently you're only as good as your last job. And if failure is such a bar to high office, how do you explain Chris Grayling or even Boris Johnson?
Bit cynical wrote: » I think there's a problem with the word "competency", probably as a result of a translation error a long time ago. In ordinary speech it means ability e.g. the ability to sort out EU's economic problems. But in EU speech it means power or remit regardless of ability. So we can transfer "competencies" to the EU but it does not mean they are competent in the use of same.
volchitsa wrote: » Wow. That's some major rewriting of history right there. Nothing to do with Irish politicians, and others including most of the media, encouraging a massive property bubble which had no basis in real needs but was panicking people into borrowing way over their capacities? Not to mention (Irish) people losing the run of themselves. Someone I know, just an ordinary guy with a small business, had a private helicopter he used to use to pick up friends go to parties. Like FFS. Germany wasn't the cause of Ireland's financial meltdown. Ireland was. You need to grow up a bit.
riddles wrote: » You can live in cookoo land all you want but the fact is Ireland with a gdp of 1.2% of the EU total has paid over 40% of the cost of the banking crisis. I’m not trying to defend the fact we are a nation of morons. The fact remains German and belgium banks who could not avail of the credit party in their own countries poured money in here.
riddles wrote: » You can live in cookoo land all you want but the fact is Ireland with a gdp of 1.2% of the EU total has paid over 40% of the cost of the banking crisis. I’m not trying to defend the fact we are a nation of morons. The fact remains German and belgium banks who could not avail of the credit party in their own countries poured money in here. They lost but still won. We have this debt nationalised now and are only staying afloat on borrowed dime. I think it’s a fact we have never had more people in employment. Even with that we are borrowing 14 million a day. Brexit offers no potential upside for us. Anyone delusional enough to think otherwise needs to grow up! Tax harmonization will be a big topic post brexit. Add in the decline of the beef industry there are a lot of challenges. Staying out of debt is the key. Something as a nation we are too stupid to realise. If you are paying over 50% tax in all likelihood you have worked a full year for nothing since the crash. We took a large one up the Swiss without even the courtesy offer of a reach around in return. Seems like a lot are okay with that.
Stop moaning ffs wrote: » Yellowhammer apparently is an anagram of Orwell Mayhem. Can’t be accidental can it? With Cummings now involved it’s hard to take any of the stories coming out at face value. Between things like this and Boris leaving his script in a pub, it’s just seems rather staged in my view.
Enzokk wrote: » You could make an argument that if all of this was staged that Johnson should not have promised to leave by the 31st October if he knew what the damage would be. I think it is more likely that forces outside of No.10 is working hard to try and get it through to the papers and the people how crazy this would be. That is why you get leaked documents and talking points "left" behind.
riddles wrote: » You can live in cookoo land all you want but the fact is Ireland with a gdp of 1.2% of the EU total has paid over 40% of the cost of the banking crisis. I’m not trying to defend the fact we are a nation of morons. The fact remains German and belgium banks who could not avail of the credit party in their own countries poured money in here. They lost but still won. We have this debt nationalised now and are only staying afloat on borrowed dime. I think it’s a fact we have never had more people in employment. Even with that we are borrowing 14 million a day. Brexit offers no potential upside for us. Anyone delusional enough to think otherwise needs to grow up! Tax harmonization will be a big topic post brexit. Add in the decline of the beef industry there are a lot of challenges. Staying out of debt is the key. Something as a nation we are too stupid to realise.
