Some people are insane

Gary Smith, the Scotland secretary of the GMB union, said the move represented a “troubling glimpse into the post-Brexit future” for the UK. “Scotland and the rest of the UK are sitting ducks after October 31st. The collective strength we have in the EU trading bloc will be gone and there is simply no such thing as a ‘special relationship’ with the United States – Trump will squeeze the UK economy for everything he can get,” he said.

The tariffs on whisky were imposed because we’re in the EU. If we weren’t in the EU then the tariffs wouldn’t have been imposed. Because we’d not be responsible – partially – for the Airbus subsidies.

So, ill effects of being in the EU are being used to explain how awful it would be to not be in the EU?

Some people are insane.

22 thoughts on “Some people are insane”

  1. I’d like to see the Donald put tariffs on goods from particular countries inside the EU just to upset them. I remember he threatened it before and they started crying about how he couldn’t do that and he didn’t understand how the single market works blah blah blah. But there’s nothing stopping him from doing it if he wants. It would make the most delightful mockery of the single market.

  2. He may of course be perfectly sane but lying in support of the outcome he wants. I find that accounts for a decent amount of apparent intellectual inconsistency.

  3. Bloke in North Dorset

    Spare me the crocodile tears, I can’t find any evidence of them objecting to the EU banging 25% tariffs on USA whisky and bourbon

  4. “I’d like to see the Donald put tariffs on goods from particular countries inside the EU just to upset them.”

    I thought that WTO rules (remember them) forbade countries from putting tariffs on goods from just one country, you had to put a tariff on that type of good from all countries? Or is the US not in the WTO or something?

  5. Erm are we sure the UK in no way subsidises the activities of Airbus? No helpful development grants for their facilities here?

  6. I thought that WTO rules (remember them) forbade countries from putting tariffs on goods from just one country, you had to put a tariff on that type of good from all countries? Or is the US not in the WTO or something?

    I believe the WTO allows targeted tariffs as a “reparations” measure when the target has been found (by the WTO) to be in breach of the rules.

  7. Was Gazza even fleetingly taught this level of accuracy and sophistication of political economic theory at a certain London Poly?

    The imbecilic fuckwittery and general incompetence in constructing a reasoned argument seem eeriely familiar.

  8. There is a valid argument that the size and economic weight of the EU allows it to strike ‘better’ trade deals than the UK could on its own. But what is never asked is: “Better for whom?”

    EU trade deals take forever because every pocket handkerchief state therein wants to protect its own special interests (the Canada deal was nearly sunk by some obscure local argument in a tiny province of a tiny country). Inefficient EU farmers must be protected by agricultural tariffs, and (of course) concerns about German manufacturing shape the whole deal.

    Meanwhile, Britain – with its economy dominated by services far more than any other EU state – has its interests largely neglected.

  9. I thought that WTO rules (remember them) forbade countries from putting tariffs on goods from just one country, you had to put a tariff on that type of good from all countries? Or is the US not in the WTO or something?

    They do, but unless you just missed the whole trade war thing with China you’ll see that Trump doesn’t bother waiting for the WTO to permit it.

  10. Given a case had to be filed with the WTO then go through the complaints process I’m sure that gives plenty of time for the lesson to have been learned and the tariff withdrawn.
    I imagine the WTO process is glacial in its responsiveness.
    There’s also the fact that the US has plenty of form with regards to just ignoring WTO rulings against it

  11. Bloke in North Dorset

    I imagine the WTO process is glacial in its responsiveness.

    It is and made worse by the USA’s refusal to appoint appellate judges.

    It started way before Trump and it is something we should be concerned about as we move to WTO terms on a no deal Brexit.

    Explained in this podcast:

    Keynes and Bown talk with former WTO Appellate Body member Jennifer Hillman (Georgetown Law) about WTO dispute settlement. They describe the procedural, philosophical, and judicial complaints the United States has with the current way of addressing trade frictions, potential solutions to those problems, and how the American refusal to appoint new Appellate Body members could soon destroy the functionality of the entire multilateral system of enforcement.

    And the technical details behind the dispute:

    Keynes and Bown replay episode #45 (July 2, 2018) explaining the outsized importance of “zeroing”—a technical, yet politically controversial method the United States uses to calculate antidumping tariffs. They speak to Thomas Prusa (Rutgers University) about zeroing’s contentious negotiating history, how it works in practice, who is in favor of it, and how much trade is affected by it. They also discuss how the dozens of WTO disputes the United States has lost over this issue set up the current showdown facing the WTO Appellate Body and the future of the trading system.

  12. Looking at the current court case in Scotland on the Benn bill it seems they are claiming that the bill legislates for an extension, I was under the impression it only legislated that PM send a request and that Parliament had a vote if the EU proposed different dates.
    They seem to now be trying to interpret it as an outright ban on no deal which is binding on the govt. and that PM must do everything in his power to seek an extension as no deal is not allowed on the current October date.
    Given that the U.K. parliament can’t enforce what the EU does this seems rather odd and surely if that is the legal interpretation of the bill it throws the entire thing into dispute as it’s unenforceable on the third party.
    Not sure if I’ve not understand it or they are trying legal shenanigans to fix screwing up the bill in the first place.
    Would be amusing if their attempts to ‘fix’ the bill end up in it being invalidated

  13. @Dongguan John October 4, 2019 at 6:16 am

    I’d like to see the Donald put tariffs on goods from particular countries inside the EU just to upset them. I remember he threatened it before and they started crying about how he couldn’t do that and he didn’t understand how the single market works blah blah blah. But there’s nothing stopping him from doing it if he wants. It would make the most delightful mockery of the single market.

    +1

    He’s already demoted EU at UN

    I’d love him to put 50% tariff on French Cheese & Wine, and 50% tariff on German built cars; then adding killer insult to EU: 0% on UK & Hungary produced products

    EU and Remoaners would be appolectic

    .
    @MBE

    Any Airbus/EADS subsidies will be from Welsh Assembly/psuedo-Gov; thank God BAE sold it’s Airbus share and didn’t merge with EADS

    @BniC

    It’s a sideshow, Scot’s rulings apply to Scotland only if they rule against BoJo he’s given a good reason to not visit the NSP’s SNP’s Socialist Scotland

  14. BrexBox Episode 9: Boris Johnson’s plan is to sign the second worst deal in history
    “Boris Johnson the Prime Minister announced his Brexit plan during the Conservative Party Conference and it looks like he going planning on signing the second worst deal in history! He’s replacing the backstop with something more complicated, that doesn’t deliver Brexit”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nggs4dcnIU4

    Imagine what deal we might have had if we had not capitulated from the start. May and her cronies were a disgrace.

    Instead Johnson proposing May’s EU Surrender Treaty with a tiny, tiny tweak

    Still in CFP, ECJ, pay £39Bn, 2yr Transition etc

    It’s what Boris hasn’t said that’s important: eg money, laws, borders

    If EU say Yes, we’re doomed as changes are in non-binding [good faith] Political Declaration, not the Legal Treaty

    FFS BoJo, tell EU we’re doing nothing at NI/RoI border, we’ll accept everything RoI sends – same as Checkpoint Charlie

  15. Pcar

    I’ll reserve judgement for when we know what it looks like (if it ever exists in a negotiated form).

    Some sort of a transition is a sop, it’s fine. Because if we are legally out, we are not then going back in. Once the transition is over, without any way for the EU to veto that, we are out. No ECJ, no Commission. As I understand it, it is intended that NI can decide the same (should they choose).

    If the EU later decide they don’t want Canada + (revised PD), no problem, we’re still out.

    Yes, I would prefer WTO too, or perhaps better a time limited GATT 24 arrangement (is that half way between the two?).

    Perhaps ask a different question. What deal is acceptable to the point where one would vote Remain over that deal, versus vice versa. For May’s deal, I would vote Remain, because we are still materially in but we would also then retain our voice (to put it simplistically). With this new option (we don’t know yet, for sure), I would vote for it because we really are out however messy it is for a short while. Unfortunately, it’s not a perfect world.

    “May and her cronies were a disgrace.”

    You are far too deferential; I will routinely continue to use terminology which includes both of the terms traitors and treason. (Because they can’t genuinely have been that stupid).

  16. That is not correct Pcar. The military deal is cancelled and the ECJ will NOT be over us . The vid you link to was an instant reaction to the speech.

    It isn’t a good deal but we will not be under the ECJ and the military takeover is cancelled and the fisheries secured. It is not the “EU kicks the shit out of us for 5 years and we crawl back” caper Treason May was trying to stick us with.

    Remember–if he gets Brexit BoJo wants to be PM. Being PM for the very period where the EU is stopping out trade deals and shit-kicking us isn’t going to do his term of office much good.

    The Deal will likely be rejected anyway. His concern needs to be how to stop the route–tame EU Scottish Beak scum to tame EU Supreme Beak scum.

    By ANY means needed. The Old Cow Beaks clear publically expressed partiality might be a reason to use the CCA to prevent obviously EU owned Beaks from pronouncing for their EU owners.

  17. Cummings is doubling down in the Times this morning.

    Dominic Cummings told government advisers that the prime minister would not repeat the mistakes of his predecessor and delay Brexit.

    “Next week we are going to know how things turn out,” he said. “If the EU says no then we are not going to do what the last lot did and change our negotiating position. If we don’t get anything next week, we are gone.”

  18. “May and her cronies were a disgrace”

    Is TBP description on youtube, they must be careful as google would love to block them

    @Mr Ecks

    I hope and pray you’re correct

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *