5 ms·

on one hand the EU is criticising Trump for threatening to institute trade barriers, whilst it is simultaneously threatening to institute trade barriers against

on one hand the EU is criticising Trump for threatening to institute trade barriers, whilst it is simultaneously threatening to institute trade barriers against the UK (unless it pays vast sums of money, and then it's only to begin talking about a free trade agreement) can anyone explain why the EU is viewed as some sort of kind, progressive organisation, when in reality acts like a bitter, protectionist bully?

hn_throwaway_99 9y ago
Oh puhleese. The EU very much wanted the UK to stay in the union. The UK is the one that decided to leave. No way they should get to have the benefits of membership without the responsibilities. And your characterizing this as just "EU putting up trade barriers to the UK" is laughable.
- blibble 9y ago
  it is not asking for the "benefits of membership", the UK Government is asking for a free trade agreement along the lines of that agreed with Canada
  - hn_throwaway_99 9y ago
    They had a great free trade agreement - when they were in the European Union.
    - Chris2048 9y ago
      Did they? Where was the subsidy for shipping across the channel?
    - blibble 9y ago
      that is not in question, but full membership is now politically unacceptable to the UK electorate the UK Government wants to keep barriers to trade as low as possible, it is seeking a free trade agreement the EU is currently ratifying the Canadian FTA, and last week announced agreement with Japan had been reached that would reduce barriers by 99%[1]... whilst simultaneously threatening the UK with increased barriers to trade [1]: https://www.ft.com/content/c874d02a-60ba-11e7-91a7-502f7ee26895 https://www.ft.com/content/c874d02a-60ba-11e7-91a7-502f7ee26...
      - Oletros 9y ago
        > that is not in question, but full membership is now politically unacceptable to the UK electorate > the UK Government wants to keep barriers to trade as low as possible, it is seeking a free trade agreement UK electorate cannot have both
        blibble 9y ago
        so what's this? http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ceta/ceta-explained/ http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ceta/ceta-explaine...
        Oletros 9y ago
        An agreement that was negotiated for a long, long time? Not two years And what the UK wants is not a free trade agreement, they want the same acces that they have now.
        blibble 9y ago
        yes, it took a while to negotiate the UK wants an "ambitious free trade agreement", not membership of the single market, if you don't believe me see https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-governments-negotiating-objectives-for-exiting-the-eu-pm-speech https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-governments-negot... So we do not seek membership of the single market. Instead we seek the greatest possible access to it through a new, comprehensive, bold and ambitious free trade agreement.
        crc32 9y ago
        Im not going to read that huge list of links, but from what I understand CETA doesn't cover e.g. eggs, poultry... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/15/brexit-canada-trade-deal-eu-model-next-steps https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/15/brexit-canada-...
        Oletros 9y ago
    - meh2frdf 9y ago
      A free trade agreement does not require being in the EU. So of course they want one. The EU saying no is there way of punishing the UK, and discouraging any other nations from leaving. Hmmm. Freedom of choice indeed.
      - jk2323 9y ago
        "A free trade agreement does not require being in the EU." which is only offered to NON European countries. Please see the deal that Switzerland and Norway got. Deals that the UK does not want. "there way of punishing the UK" Look, If you are going to have a divorce and tell your wife: "Look, we are going to have a divorce but I don't want to pay alimony and we are going to stay fuck buddies and the cottage in Italy that you inherited from your parents, I am still going to use this." Then all this sounds like an excellent idea but if your wife says "I pass" this does not mean that your wife is going to "punish you". She is just passing on the deal.
        meh2frdf 9y ago
        So the EU will offer will only free trade deals to those not in the European continent, that sounds even worse, sounds like trying to force people into their cartel.
        jk2323 9y ago
        Take it or leave it. But now, you can get a free trade deal even if you are in the European continent. But then all four freedoms apply. No cherry picking. Use your brain!
  - prodmerc 9y ago
    They'll get it, eventually. I gotta ask the opposite, why does the UK want such an FTA so much? Could it be, gasp, that they realized they're actually fucked without one?
matt4077 9y ago
The EU's position is consistent with its founding idea of a free market tied to shared values and the rights of its people. Asking for a better deal is like asking Apple for 30% off on an iPhone because "their margin is 35%, so it should still be a good deal for them"–it's just not gonna happen. It's not like these consequences weren't mentioned before. And I won't bother repeating the arguments about Britain's existing financial obligations which you chose to pretend to be ignorant of.
jk2323 9y ago
Touchée. I give you a point here. But there is the Idea of of the four freedoms for Europe. This may be a good thing or not (I think it is). But If you are part of Europe, you either take all or none. And if some Brexiters are claiming "look, we can get the same deal that Japan is getting this year" then they are delusional. The reason why Japan can get such a deal is because Japan is not a geographic part of Europe. There are things that I don't like about the EU. Especially: * Bureaucracy * They spent 40% of their budget for agriculture subsidies. * Now we have open boarders for immigrants from very violent and tribal societies. (You can downvote me for this if you like). But here are many positive things. Freedom of movement. You can work, retire or open a business in any EU country that you want. Open skies - very cheap airfares (which will hurt the UK a lot). What happens just this year is mind blowing. * Free trade agreement with Japan * Potential free trade agreement with Mercosur countries * No roaming charges for cell phones anymore * PSD2 for Fintech (Banks have to grant access to bank accounts for fintechs) * Money Wires are very cheap or free within the EU. They can still take a day or two. Starting November Banks must offer "instant EU money wires". I think the time is less than a minute. Less than a bitcoin transaction takes to process. * Military Headquarter in the EU, beginning of an EU army Don't write the EU off. Nobody knows the future but for me the Brexit seems like madness.
- sgt101 9y ago
  I am surprised that you left the ruin of Greece off your list of things that you don't like about the EU.
  - jk2323 9y ago
    Well, I think it was the Greeks who ruined Greece (with the help of Goldman Sachs). Greece should never have joined the Euro (thanks Goldman Sachs). It is also a very corrupt country for EU standards. The good thing is: It is a small country. I think things will improve in the long run. But since you mentioned Greece. What about Puerto Rico? Illinois?
    - meh2frdf 9y ago
      So it was fine for Italy to join?
literallycancer 9y ago
I'm an EU citizen, and am entirely satisfied with how the EU is handling brexit. The UK has been getting special treatment for long enough. At some point you have to decide whether you want to play ball, and the UK decided not to. Too bad. >threatening to institute trade barriers against the UK (unless it pays vast sums of money, and then it's only to begin talking about a free trade agreement Like the kind of money that other EEA members are paying to access to common market?
Oletros 9y ago
> whilst it is simultaneously threatening to institute trade barriers against the UK The one leaving the EU is Uk. And you cannot have the cake and eat it. Uk position until now is ditching all the obligations and keep the the benefits. UE is not threateting to institute economic barriers, they are saying that if UK is not an EU member they should be treated like so
- meh2frdf 9y ago
  And the uk is asking to be treated like Canada or Japan, which have free trade agreements. We would like some of that cake please, it was fun at the EU party, but we don't think it's working out for us (nor for some others, but they are too scared to say) and we would like to get on with doing things independently thanks.
derriz 9y ago
But I'll ignore the tone and rhetorical nature of your question and try to explain. The UK decided to leave the EU which means leaving the single market. I'm guessing you do not appreciate the vast difference between being part of a single market and having a trade deal. Regardless of the existence of NAFTA for example, a company based in Mexico city will not have all the same rights and access to the US market as one based in the US. However being a member of the EU means, for example a Danish company can load up a van with its produce, drive to London and deliver them to a customer without any paperwork or customs checks along the way. It has all the rights of a company based in another UK city. This can only work if there are shared standards across the EU and if there is an authority (ultimately the European Court of Justice) to ensure these rights are available to all. It also requires common standards for goods and services. The UK simply cannot expect to maintain this level of access to the EU market unless it is willing to accept the ECJ and all the EU laws and regulations. Btw, only someone with no historical perspective whatsoever would question the progressive credentials of the EU (given the recent history of some of its members: communist rule, military and fascist dictatorship, sectarian division) or accuse it of being protectionist (given that 17 of the 20 most globalised countries in the world in terms of trade are members).
- blibble 9y ago
  > Btw, only someone with no historical perspective whatsoever would question the progressive credentials of the EU (given the recent history of some of its members: communist rule, military and fascist dictatorship, sectarian division) or accuse it of being protectionist I would challenge you to explain how the Common External Tariff combined with the Common Agricultural Policy are not protectionist (tariffs average 18%)! outside of the CAP: there are plenty of other examples of heavy protectionism in the CET. sugar and coffee are two easy examples. sugar has a heavy import tariff: to give the domestic EU sugar beet industry an huge advantage over the cane sugar business in the developing world coffee is more insidious: processed coffee has a heavy import tariff, whilst unprocessed coffee has no tariff at all, this prevents producers in developing countries from developing the profitable part of the industry, forcing them to sell the raw produce at low prices to the EU there are plenty of other examples, the net effect of being that if you are a developing nation: the EU is not an easy destination for your goods
rbehrends 9y ago
Different trade barriers. The EU already has very few tariffs, most of them strategic. The weighted mean applied tariff rate for EU member states is 1.57% [1]. The tricky aspect of free trade agreements is the non-tariff barriers [2]; those relate mostly to regulations, including labor protection, health, the environment, money laundering, and such. They are very difficult to negotiate, because a lot of them are not about economics, but about things that people genuinely care about. For example, one of the major sticking points with TTIP was food quality (the chlorinated chicken debate). As a result, trade agreements that want to reduce regulatory barriers take years to negotiate. Within the EU, this problem is addressed by having an actual, full-blown bicameral legislature and a court of justice to protect the interests of the member states and their citizens. But the UK doesn't even like the ECJ, so this is not going to be easy. As far as the negotiations go, the British government has nobody but itself to blame. It doesn't even seem to be prepared for negotiations (and one has to wonder what it wasted the past year on); it has consistently and aggressively talked trash about the EU (in order to appeal to UKIP voters?), has issued threats (such as turning the UK into a European Singapore), and so forth. It should not be surprising that the reaction hasn't exactly been amicable. [1] http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/TM.TAX.MRCH.WM.AR.ZS?view=map http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/TM.TAX.MRCH.WM.AR.ZS?vie... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-tariff_barriers_to_trade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-tariff_barriers_to_trade
mobiplayer 9y ago
Give me a fucking break mate. If tomorrow the UK says: "Fuck, we screwed up, let's stay in the EU" then the EU will put all their resources behind making that happen. No barriers at all: 4 freedoms and hopefully Schengen, too. Where do you get the idea that is the EU the one leaving the UK for racist reasons, thus wanting to erect barriers against workers from other countries?

hn_throwaway_99 9y ago

Oh puhleese. The EU very much wanted the UK to stay in the union. The UK is the one that decided to leave. No way they should get to have the benefits of membership without the responsibilities. And your characterizing this as just "EU putting up trade barriers to the UK" is laughable.

blibble 9y ago
it is not asking for the "benefits of membership", the UK Government is asking for a free trade agreement along the lines of that agreed with Canada
- hn_throwaway_99 9y ago
  They had a great free trade agreement - when they were in the European Union.
  - Chris2048 9y ago
    Did they? Where was the subsidy for shipping across the channel?
  - blibble 9y ago
    that is not in question, but full membership is now politically unacceptable to the UK electorate the UK Government wants to keep barriers to trade as low as possible, it is seeking a free trade agreement the EU is currently ratifying the Canadian FTA, and last week announced agreement with Japan had been reached that would reduce barriers by 99%[1]... whilst simultaneously threatening the UK with increased barriers to trade [1]: https://www.ft.com/content/c874d02a-60ba-11e7-91a7-502f7ee26895 https://www.ft.com/content/c874d02a-60ba-11e7-91a7-502f7ee26...
    - Oletros 9y ago
      > that is not in question, but full membership is now politically unacceptable to the UK electorate > the UK Government wants to keep barriers to trade as low as possible, it is seeking a free trade agreement UK electorate cannot have both
      - blibble 9y ago
        so what's this? http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ceta/ceta-explained/ http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ceta/ceta-explaine...
        Oletros 9y ago
        An agreement that was negotiated for a long, long time? Not two years And what the UK wants is not a free trade agreement, they want the same acces that they have now.
        blibble 9y ago
        yes, it took a while to negotiate the UK wants an "ambitious free trade agreement", not membership of the single market, if you don't believe me see https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-governments-negotiating-objectives-for-exiting-the-eu-pm-speech https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-governments-negot... So we do not seek membership of the single market. Instead we seek the greatest possible access to it through a new, comprehensive, bold and ambitious free trade agreement.
        crc32 9y ago
        Im not going to read that huge list of links, but from what I understand CETA doesn't cover e.g. eggs, poultry... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/15/brexit-canada-trade-deal-eu-model-next-steps https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/15/brexit-canada-...
        Oletros 9y ago
  - meh2frdf 9y ago
    A free trade agreement does not require being in the EU. So of course they want one. The EU saying no is there way of punishing the UK, and discouraging any other nations from leaving. Hmmm. Freedom of choice indeed.
    - jk2323 9y ago
      "A free trade agreement does not require being in the EU." which is only offered to NON European countries. Please see the deal that Switzerland and Norway got. Deals that the UK does not want. "there way of punishing the UK" Look, If you are going to have a divorce and tell your wife: "Look, we are going to have a divorce but I don't want to pay alimony and we are going to stay fuck buddies and the cottage in Italy that you inherited from your parents, I am still going to use this." Then all this sounds like an excellent idea but if your wife says "I pass" this does not mean that your wife is going to "punish you". She is just passing on the deal.
      - meh2frdf 9y ago
        So the EU will offer will only free trade deals to those not in the European continent, that sounds even worse, sounds like trying to force people into their cartel.
        jk2323 9y ago
        Take it or leave it. But now, you can get a free trade deal even if you are in the European continent. But then all four freedoms apply. No cherry picking. Use your brain!
- prodmerc 9y ago
  They'll get it, eventually. I gotta ask the opposite, why does the UK want such an FTA so much? Could it be, gasp, that they realized they're actually fucked without one?

matt4077 9y ago

The EU's position is consistent with its founding idea of a free market tied to shared values and the rights of its people. Asking for a better deal is like asking Apple for 30% off on an iPhone because "their margin is 35%, so it should still be a good deal for them"–it's just not gonna happen. It's not like these consequences weren't mentioned before. And I won't bother repeating the arguments about Britain's existing financial obligations which you chose to pretend to be ignorant of.

jk2323 9y ago

Touchée. I give you a point here. But there is the Idea of of the four freedoms for Europe. This may be a good thing or not (I think it is). But If you are part of Europe, you either take all or none. And if some Brexiters are claiming "look, we can get the same deal that Japan is getting this year" then they are delusional. The reason why Japan can get such a deal is because Japan is not a geographic part of Europe. There are things that I don't like about the EU. Especially: * Bureaucracy * They spent 40% of their budget for agriculture subsidies. * Now we have open boarders for immigrants from very violent and tribal societies. (You can downvote me for this if you like). But here are many positive things. Freedom of movement. You can work, retire or open a business in any EU country that you want. Open skies - very cheap airfares (which will hurt the UK a lot). What happens just this year is mind blowing. * Free trade agreement with Japan * Potential free trade agreement with Mercosur countries * No roaming charges for cell phones anymore * PSD2 for Fintech (Banks have to grant access to bank accounts for fintechs) * Money Wires are very cheap or free within the EU. They can still take a day or two. Starting November Banks must offer "instant EU money wires". I think the time is less than a minute. Less than a bitcoin transaction takes to process. * Military Headquarter in the EU, beginning of an EU army Don't write the EU off. Nobody knows the future but for me the Brexit seems like madness.

sgt101 9y ago
I am surprised that you left the ruin of Greece off your list of things that you don't like about the EU.
- jk2323 9y ago
  Well, I think it was the Greeks who ruined Greece (with the help of Goldman Sachs). Greece should never have joined the Euro (thanks Goldman Sachs). It is also a very corrupt country for EU standards. The good thing is: It is a small country. I think things will improve in the long run. But since you mentioned Greece. What about Puerto Rico? Illinois?
  - meh2frdf 9y ago
    So it was fine for Italy to join?

literallycancer 9y ago

I'm an EU citizen, and am entirely satisfied with how the EU is handling brexit. The UK has been getting special treatment for long enough. At some point you have to decide whether you want to play ball, and the UK decided not to. Too bad. >threatening to institute trade barriers against the UK (unless it pays vast sums of money, and then it's only to begin talking about a free trade agreement Like the kind of money that other EEA members are paying to access to common market?

Oletros 9y ago

> whilst it is simultaneously threatening to institute trade barriers against the UK The one leaving the EU is Uk. And you cannot have the cake and eat it. Uk position until now is ditching all the obligations and keep the the benefits. UE is not threateting to institute economic barriers, they are saying that if UK is not an EU member they should be treated like so

meh2frdf 9y ago
And the uk is asking to be treated like Canada or Japan, which have free trade agreements. We would like some of that cake please, it was fun at the EU party, but we don't think it's working out for us (nor for some others, but they are too scared to say) and we would like to get on with doing things independently thanks.

derriz 9y ago

But I'll ignore the tone and rhetorical nature of your question and try to explain. The UK decided to leave the EU which means leaving the single market. I'm guessing you do not appreciate the vast difference between being part of a single market and having a trade deal. Regardless of the existence of NAFTA for example, a company based in Mexico city will not have all the same rights and access to the US market as one based in the US. However being a member of the EU means, for example a Danish company can load up a van with its produce, drive to London and deliver them to a customer without any paperwork or customs checks along the way. It has all the rights of a company based in another UK city. This can only work if there are shared standards across the EU and if there is an authority (ultimately the European Court of Justice) to ensure these rights are available to all. It also requires common standards for goods and services. The UK simply cannot expect to maintain this level of access to the EU market unless it is willing to accept the ECJ and all the EU laws and regulations. Btw, only someone with no historical perspective whatsoever would question the progressive credentials of the EU (given the recent history of some of its members: communist rule, military and fascist dictatorship, sectarian division) or accuse it of being protectionist (given that 17 of the 20 most globalised countries in the world in terms of trade are members).

blibble 9y ago
> Btw, only someone with no historical perspective whatsoever would question the progressive credentials of the EU (given the recent history of some of its members: communist rule, military and fascist dictatorship, sectarian division) or accuse it of being protectionist I would challenge you to explain how the Common External Tariff combined with the Common Agricultural Policy are not protectionist (tariffs average 18%)! outside of the CAP: there are plenty of other examples of heavy protectionism in the CET. sugar and coffee are two easy examples. sugar has a heavy import tariff: to give the domestic EU sugar beet industry an huge advantage over the cane sugar business in the developing world coffee is more insidious: processed coffee has a heavy import tariff, whilst unprocessed coffee has no tariff at all, this prevents producers in developing countries from developing the profitable part of the industry, forcing them to sell the raw produce at low prices to the EU there are plenty of other examples, the net effect of being that if you are a developing nation: the EU is not an easy destination for your goods

rbehrends 9y ago

Different trade barriers. The EU already has very few tariffs, most of them strategic. The weighted mean applied tariff rate for EU member states is 1.57% [1]. The tricky aspect of free trade agreements is the non-tariff barriers [2]; those relate mostly to regulations, including labor protection, health, the environment, money laundering, and such. They are very difficult to negotiate, because a lot of them are not about economics, but about things that people genuinely care about. For example, one of the major sticking points with TTIP was food quality (the chlorinated chicken debate). As a result, trade agreements that want to reduce regulatory barriers take years to negotiate. Within the EU, this problem is addressed by having an actual, full-blown bicameral legislature and a court of justice to protect the interests of the member states and their citizens. But the UK doesn't even like the ECJ, so this is not going to be easy. As far as the negotiations go, the British government has nobody but itself to blame. It doesn't even seem to be prepared for negotiations (and one has to wonder what it wasted the past year on); it has consistently and aggressively talked trash about the EU (in order to appeal to UKIP voters?), has issued threats (such as turning the UK into a European Singapore), and so forth. It should not be surprising that the reaction hasn't exactly been amicable. [1] http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/TM.TAX.MRCH.WM.AR.ZS?view=map http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/TM.TAX.MRCH.WM.AR.ZS?vie... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-tariff_barriers_to_trade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-tariff_barriers_to_trade

mobiplayer 9y ago

Give me a fucking break mate. If tomorrow the UK says: "Fuck, we screwed up, let's stay in the EU" then the EU will put all their resources behind making that happen. No barriers at all: 4 freedoms and hopefully Schengen, too. Where do you get the idea that is the EU the one leaving the UK for racist reasons, thus wanting to erect barriers against workers from other countries?