"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.
The playing field isn't level.
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them. And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
Quite. I would never buy a 'chlorine-drenched' chicken. But others might quite like to do so.
"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.
The playing field isn't level.
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them. And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.
The playing field isn't level.
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them. And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.
The playing field isn't level.
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them. And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
Not quite, but we should choose our partners carefully, and we should be selective in the things we trade freely.
Unlimited, unfettered, anything goes, super-liberalism is stupid.
"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.
The playing field isn't level.
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them. And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
Not quite, but we should choose our partners carefully, and we should be selective in the things we trade freely.
Unlimited, unfettered, anything goes, super-liberalism is stupid.
I've yet to hear a compelling argument why a group of people making a decision for me is better than me making a decision for myself.
"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.
The playing field isn't level.
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them. And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
Not quite, but we should choose our partners carefully, and we should be selective in the things we trade freely.
Unlimited, unfettered, anything goes, super-liberalism is stupid.
I've yet to hear a compelling argument why a group of people making a decision for me is better than me making a decision for myself.
You've gone for too strong a position. Individuals display myopia.
"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.
The playing field isn't level.
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them. And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
Not quite, but we should choose our partners carefully, and we should be selective in the things we trade freely.
Unlimited, unfettered, anything goes, super-liberalism is stupid.
I've yet to hear a compelling argument why a group of people making a decision for me is better than me making a decision for myself.
It isn't about you though, it's about 65m people in our case.
"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.
The playing field isn't level.
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them. And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
Quite. I would never buy a 'chlorine-drenched' chicken. But others might quite like to do so.
People will buy any old shite. Whether because of this truth we should then import even more sickening processed garbage so people can shove yet more crap down their children's throats is however another question.
Puzzled why people think bleached chicken is unique to the USA - I remember accounts of bleached chicken being sold here, not too long ago. Does the USA allow 20% + added salt water to their meat products?
This is a brutal rejection of Trump's foreign policy approach.
Told you she would be terrific. Think there are many on here no matter who they support should just realise her vision and get behind her in her crusade to take this Country into a lead role in the World.
Ok, own up, who has created this brilliant spoof character? The random capitalisation is a particularly fine touch.
"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.
The playing field isn't level.
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them. And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
Your freedom perhaps.
How does it not increase everyone's freedom?
Lots of people are stupid. Should we make it easier for them to render their children stupid too by making it even easier to buy cheap processed garbage with no nutritional value?
"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.
The playing field isn't level.
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them. And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
Not quite, but we should choose our partners carefully, and we should be selective in the things we trade freely.
Unlimited, unfettered, anything goes, super-liberalism is stupid.
I've yet to hear a compelling argument why a group of people making a decision for me is better than me making a decision for myself.
It isn't about you though, it's about 65m people.
Yes, and those 65m people would be better served by being allowed to buy from whom they choose. The alternative, that a small number of politicians - lobbied by rich industrialists - choose to protect industries, and push up prices for consumers. Crony capitalism is not just economically efficient, it is morally wrong.
"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.
The playing field isn't level.
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them. And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
Your freedom perhaps.
How does it not increase everyone's freedom?
Lots of people are stupid. Should we make it easier for them to render their children stupid too by making it even easier to buy cheap processed garbage with no nutritional value?
Lots of people are stupid.
So we should prevent them from making stupid decisions? If they can't be trusted where to buy their chickens from, how can they be trusted to choose the right politicians?
"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.
The playing field isn't level.
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them. And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
Not quite, but we should choose our partners carefully, and we should be selective in the things we trade freely.
Unlimited, unfettered, anything goes, super-liberalism is stupid.
I've yet to hear a compelling argument why a group of people making a decision for me is better than me making a decision for myself.
It isn't about you though, it's about 65m people.
Yes, and those 65m people would be better served by being allowed to buy from whom they choose.
Not if they were earning £26k a year and are now unemployed as a consequence.
"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.
The playing field isn't level.
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them. And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
Not quite, but we should choose our partners carefully, and we should be selective in the things we trade freely.
Unlimited, unfettered, anything goes, super-liberalism is stupid.
I've yet to hear a compelling argument why a group of people making a decision for me is better than me making a decision for myself.
It isn't about you though, it's about 65m people.
Yes, and those 65m people would be better served by being allowed to buy from whom they choose. The alternative, that a small number of politicians - lobbied by rich industrialists - choose to protect industries, and push up prices for consumers. Crony capitalism is not just economically efficient, it is morally wrong.
Puzzled why people think bleached chicken is unique to the USA - I remember accounts of bleached chicken being sold here, not too long ago. Does the USA allow 20% + added salt water to their meat products?
That should be illegal here, if for no other reason than it's tantamount to passing off. Meantime, let's not bring in any more garbage to add to the utter shite people already feed their children.
"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.
The playing field isn't level.
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them. And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
Not quite, but we should choose our partners carefully, and we should be selective in the things we trade freely.
Unlimited, unfettered, anything goes, super-liberalism is stupid.
I've yet to hear a compelling argument why a group of people making a decision for me is better than me making a decision for myself.
It isn't about you though, it's about 65m people.
Yes, and those 65m people would be better served by being allowed to buy from whom they choose. The alternative, that a small number of politicians - lobbied by rich industrialists - choose to protect industries, and push up prices for consumers. Crony capitalism is not just economically efficient, it is morally wrong.
Flooding the market with with cheap imported processed food is morally wrong.
"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.
The playing field isn't level.
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them. And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
Not quite, but we should choose our partners carefully, and we should be selective in the things we trade freely.
Unlimited, unfettered, anything goes, super-liberalism is stupid.
I've yet to hear a compelling argument why a group of people making a decision for me is better than me making a decision for myself.
It isn't about you though, it's about 65m people.
Yes, and those 65m people would be better served by being allowed to buy from whom they choose.
Not if they were earning £26k a year and are now unemployed as a consequence.
Wake up and smell the coffee.
Do you know what happened the last time the world lurched into protectionism? I ask because that was a hell of a lot worse than the current situation: you know the situation where a record proportion of the population is employed.
I would also point out that those developed countries with the fewest trade barriers (like Switzerland, which has a FTA with China) are the ones with the lowest levels of unemployment.
"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.
The playing field isn't level.
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them. And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
Not quite, but we should choose our partners carefully, and we should be selective in the things we trade freely.
Unlimited, unfettered, anything goes, super-liberalism is stupid.
I've yet to hear a compelling argument why a group of people making a decision for me is better than me making a decision for myself.
It isn't about you though, it's about 65m people.
Yes, and those 65m people would be better served by being allowed to buy from whom they choose. The alternative, that a small number of politicians - lobbied by rich industrialists - choose to protect industries, and push up prices for consumers. Crony capitalism is not just economically efficient, it is morally wrong.
Flooding the market with with cheap imported processed food is morally wrong.
Allowing people to make their own decisions, which affect only themselves, is not wrong.
"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.
The playing field isn't level.
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them. And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
Not quite, but we should choose our partners carefully, and we should be selective in the things we trade freely.
Unlimited, unfettered, anything goes, super-liberalism is stupid.
I've yet to hear a compelling argument why a group of people making a decision for me is better than me making a decision for myself.
It isn't about you though, it's about 65m people.
Yes, and those 65m people would be better served by being allowed to buy from whom they choose. The alternative, that a small number of politicians - lobbied by rich industrialists - choose to protect industries, and push up prices for consumers. Crony capitalism is not just economically efficient, it is morally wrong.
Flooding the market with with cheap imported processed food is morally wrong.
"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.
The playing field isn't level.
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them. And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
Not quite, but we should choose our partners carefully, and we should be selective in the things we trade freely.
Unlimited, unfettered, anything goes, super-liberalism is stupid.
I've yet to hear a compelling argument why a group of people making a decision for me is better than me making a decision for myself.
It isn't about you though, it's about 65m people.
Yes, and those 65m people would be better served by being allowed to buy from whom they choose. The alternative, that a small number of politicians - lobbied by rich industrialists - choose to protect industries, and push up prices for consumers. Crony capitalism is not just economically efficient, it is morally wrong.
Flooding the market with with cheap imported processed food is morally wrong.
I read that as "Cheap Imported Labour" at first.. would have 'd as well!
Jobabob - 20 years ago though - I heard that out of date tinned food was being reheated by a major supermarket chain. I remember too that premium quality sausage meat from sainsbury's was mostly fat and turkey dust. Perhaps we could have a star system for quality.
"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.
The playing field isn't level.
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them. And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
Your freedom perhaps.
How does it not increase everyone's freedom?
Lots of people are stupid. Should we make it easier for them to render their children stupid too by making it even easier to buy cheap processed garbage with no nutritional value?
Lots of people are stupid.
So we should prevent them from making stupid decisions? If they can't be trusted where to buy their chickens from, how can they be trusted to choose the right politicians?
Children can't vote. Sadly they can be stuffed full of cheap processed crap by their parents. Damned right we should protect them as much as possible.
"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.
The playing field isn't level.
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them. And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
Not quite, but we should choose our partners carefully, and we should be selective in the things we trade freely.
Unlimited, unfettered, anything goes, super-liberalism is stupid.
I've yet to hear a compelling argument why a group of people making a decision for me is better than me making a decision for myself.
It isn't about you though, it's about 65m people.
Yes, and those 65m people would be better served by being allowed to buy from whom they choose. The alternative, that a small number of politicians - lobbied by rich industrialists - choose to protect industries, and push up prices for consumers. Crony capitalism is not just economically efficient, it is morally wrong.
Flooding the market with with cheap imported processed food is morally wrong.
The nanny state that limits my choices and tells me what I should do is wrong.
"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.
The playing field isn't level.
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them. And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
Your freedom perhaps.
How does it not increase everyone's freedom?
Lots of people are stupid. Should we make it easier for them to render their children stupid too by making it even easier to buy cheap processed garbage with no nutritional value?
Lots of people are stupid.
So we should prevent them from making stupid decisions? If they can't be trusted where to buy their chickens from, how can they be trusted to choose the right politicians?
Children can't vote. Sadly they can be stuffed full of cheap processed crap by their parents. Damned right we should protect them as much as possible.
"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.
The playing field isn't level.
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them. And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
Not quite, but we should choose our partners carefully, and we should be selective in the things we trade freely.
Unlimited, unfettered, anything goes, super-liberalism is stupid.
I've yet to hear a compelling argument why a group of people making a decision for me is better than me making a decision for myself.
"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.
The playing field isn't level.
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them. And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
Not quite, but we should choose our partners carefully, and we should be selective in the things we trade freely.
Unlimited, unfettered, anything goes, super-liberalism is stupid.
I've yet to hear a compelling argument why a group of people making a decision for me is better than me making a decision for myself.
It isn't about you though, it's about 65m people.
Yes, and those 65m people would be better served by being allowed to buy from whom they choose. The alternative, that a small number of politicians - lobbied by rich industrialists - choose to protect industries, and push up prices for consumers. Crony capitalism is not just economically efficient, it is morally wrong.
Flooding the market with with cheap imported processed food is morally wrong.
Allowing people to make their own decisions, which affect only themselves, is not wrong.
"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.
The playing field isn't level.
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them. And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
Not quite, but we should choose our partners carefully, and we should be selective in the things we trade freely.
Unlimited, unfettered, anything goes, super-liberalism is stupid.
I've yet to hear a compelling argument why a group of people making a decision for me is better than me making a decision for myself.
It isn't about you though, it's about 65m people.
Yes, and those 65m people would be better served by being allowed to buy from whom they choose. The alternative, that a small number of politicians - lobbied by rich industrialists - choose to protect industries, and push up prices for consumers. Crony capitalism is not just economically efficient, it is morally wrong.
Flooding the market with with cheap imported processed food is morally wrong.
The nanny state that limits my choices and tells me what I should do is wrong.
Are you against prescription-only medicine and in favour of the commercialisation of heroin and cocaine?
"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.
The playing field isn't level.
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them. And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
Not quite, but we should choose our partners carefully, and we should be selective in the things we trade freely.
Unlimited, unfettered, anything goes, super-liberalism is stupid.
I've yet to hear a compelling argument why a group of people making a decision for me is better than me making a decision for myself.
It isn't about you though, it's about 65m people.
Yes, and those 65m people would be better served by being allowed to buy from whom they choose.
Not if they were earning £26k a year and are now unemployed as a consequence.
Wake up and smell the coffee.
All the evidence- every bit of it - is that increased trade has resulted in increased employment and increased wealth for countries which have control of their own economies. It is only in circumstances where free trade is combined with an artificial fiscal arrangement such as exists in the Eurozone that we see a failure of market forces and large scale unemployment.
"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.
The playing field isn't level.
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them. And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
Your freedom perhaps.
How does it not increase everyone's freedom?
Lots of people are stupid. Should we make it easier for them to render their children stupid too by making it even easier to buy cheap processed garbage with no nutritional value?
Lots of people are stupid.
So we should prevent them from making stupid decisions? If they can't be trusted where to buy their chickens from, how can they be trusted to choose the right politicians?
Children can't vote. Sadly they can be stuffed full of cheap processed crap by their parents. Damned right we should protect them as much as possible.
So, only quinoa to be sold in the shops of Britain, a Macdonalds ban.
"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.
The playing field isn't level.
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them. And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
Not quite, but we should choose our partners carefully, and we should be selective in the things we trade freely.
Unlimited, unfettered, anything goes, super-liberalism is stupid.
I've yet to hear a compelling argument why a group of people making a decision for me is better than me making a decision for myself.
It isn't about you though, it's about 65m people.
Yes, and those 65m people would be better served by being allowed to buy from whom they choose. The alternative, that a small number of politicians - lobbied by rich industrialists - choose to protect industries, and push up prices for consumers. Crony capitalism is not just economically efficient, it is morally wrong.
Flooding the market with with cheap imported processed food is morally wrong.
The nanny state that limits my choices and tells me what I should do is wrong.
Including your choice of cheap Mexican vehicles? ;-)
"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.
The playing field isn't level.
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them. And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
Not quite, but we should choose our partners carefully, and we should be selective in the things we trade freely.
Unlimited, unfettered, anything goes, super-liberalism is stupid.
I've yet to hear a compelling argument why a group of people making a decision for me is better than me making a decision for myself.
It isn't about you though, it's about 65m people.
Yes, and those 65m people would be better served by being allowed to buy from whom they choose. The alternative, that a small number of politicians - lobbied by rich industrialists - choose to protect industries, and push up prices for consumers. Crony capitalism is not just economically efficient, it is morally wrong.
"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.
The playing field isn't level.
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them. And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
Not quite, but we should choose our partners carefully, and we should be selective in the things we trade freely.
Unlimited, unfettered, anything goes, super-liberalism is stupid.
I've yet to hear a compelling argument why a group of people making a decision for me is better than me making a decision for myself.
"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.
The playing field isn't level.
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them. And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
Your freedom perhaps.
How does it not increase everyone's freedom?
Lots of people are stupid. Should we make it easier for them to render their children stupid too by making it even easier to buy cheap processed garbage with no nutritional value?
Lots of people are stupid.
So we should prevent them from making stupid decisions? If they can't be trusted where to buy their chickens from, how can they be trusted to choose the right politicians?
Children can't vote. Sadly they can be stuffed full of cheap processed crap by their parents. Damned right we should protect them as much as possible.
Chickens and pigs can't vote, and I think they should have the highest welfare standards possible. Any nation that wants free trade with us on meat products should have similarly high animal welfare standards.
"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.
The playing field isn't level.
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them. And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
Your freedom perhaps.
How does it not increase everyone's freedom?
Lots of people are stupid. Should we make it easier for them to render their children stupid too by making it even easier to buy cheap processed garbage with no nutritional value?
Lots of people are stupid.
So we should prevent them from making stupid decisions? If they can't be trusted where to buy their chickens from, how can they be trusted to choose the right politicians?
Children can't vote. Sadly they can be stuffed full of cheap processed crap by their parents. Damned right we should protect them as much as possible.
So, only quinoa to be sold in the shops of Britain, a Macdonalds ban.
Jobabob - 20 years ago though - I heard that out of date tinned food was being reheated by a major supermarket chain. I remember too that premium quality sausage meat from sainsbury's was mostly fat and turkey dust. Perhaps we could have a star system for quality.
A very good idea along with tougher baseline standards.
"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.
The playing field isn't level.
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them. And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
Not quite, but we should choose our partners carefully, and we should be selective in the things we trade freely.
Unlimited, unfettered, anything goes, super-liberalism is stupid.
I've yet to hear a compelling argument why a group of people making a decision for me is better than me making a decision for myself.
It isn't about you though, it's about 65m people.
Yes, and those 65m people would be better served by being allowed to buy from whom they choose. The alternative, that a small number of politicians - lobbied by rich industrialists - choose to protect industries, and push up prices for consumers. Crony capitalism is not just economically efficient, it is morally wrong.
"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.
The playing field isn't level.
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them. And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
Your freedom perhaps.
How does it not increase everyone's freedom?
Lots of people are stupid. Should we make it easier for them to render their children stupid too by making it even easier to buy cheap processed garbage with no nutritional value?
Lots of people are stupid.
So we should prevent them from making stupid decisions? If they can't be trusted where to buy their chickens from, how can they be trusted to choose the right politicians?
Children can't vote. Sadly they can be stuffed full of cheap processed crap by their parents. Damned right we should protect them as much as possible.
So, only quinoa to be sold in the shops of Britain, a Macdonalds ban.
Chickens and pigs can't vote, and I think they should have the highest welfare standards possible. Any nation that wants free trade with us on meat products should have similarly high animal welfare standards.
"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.
The playing field isn't level.
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them. And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
Your freedom perhaps.
How does it not increase everyone's freedom?
Lots of people are stupid. Should we make it easier for them to render their children stupid too by making it even easier to buy cheap processed garbage with no nutritional value?
Lots of people are stupid.
So we should prevent them from making stupid decisions? If they can't be trusted where to buy their chickens from, how can they be trusted to choose the right politicians?
Children can't vote. Sadly they can be stuffed full of cheap processed crap by their parents. Damned right we should protect them as much as possible.
Education is preferable to bans. Every time.
So no food standards?
Would you prefer people had the choice of cheap food or your definition of good quality food?
"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.
The playing field isn't level.
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them. And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
Not quite, but we should choose our partners carefully, and we should be selective in the things we trade freely.
Unlimited, unfettered, anything goes, super-liberalism is stupid.
I've yet to hear a compelling argument why a group of people making a decision for me is better than me making a decision for myself.
Surely as a non-executive director with a successful CEO you've been on the other side of that argument before?
"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.
The playing field isn't level.
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them. And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
Not quite, but we should choose our partners carefully, and we should be selective in the things we trade freely.
Unlimited, unfettered, anything goes, super-liberalism is stupid.
I've yet to hear a compelling argument why a group of people making a decision for me is better than me making a decision for myself.
It isn't about you though, it's about 65m people.
Yes, and those 65m people would be better served by being allowed to buy from whom they choose. The alternative, that a small number of politicians - lobbied by rich industrialists - choose to protect industries, and push up prices for consumers. Crony capitalism is not just economically efficient, it is morally wrong.
Flooding the market with with cheap imported processed food is morally wrong.
The nanny state that limits my choices and tells me what I should do is wrong.
Are you against prescription-only medicine and in favour of the commercialisation of heroin and cocaine?
I haven't thought much about prescription medicines but I am very much in favour of the decriminalisation and commercialisation of currently illegal drugs.
Do you know what happened the last time the world lurched into protectionism? I ask because that was a hell of a lot worse than the current situation: you know the situation where a record proportion of the population is employed.
I would also point out that those developed countries with the fewest trade barriers (like Switzerland, which has a FTA with China) are the ones with the lowest levels of unemployment.
You are making a big leap into assuming that Trump's discontent over a trade deal with Mexico is somehow lurching into overall protectionism.
Perhaps, he's just looking for more suitable partners?
"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.
The playing field isn't level.
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them. And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
Not quite, but we should choose our partners carefully, and we should be selective in the things we trade freely.
Unlimited, unfettered, anything goes, super-liberalism is stupid.
I've yet to hear a compelling argument why a group of people making a decision for me is better than me making a decision for myself.
It isn't about you though, it's about 65m people.
Yes, and those 65m people would be better served by being allowed to buy from whom they choose. The alternative, that a small number of politicians - lobbied by rich industrialists - choose to protect industries, and push up prices for consumers. Crony capitalism is not just economically efficient, it is morally wrong.
Flooding the market with with cheap imported processed food is morally wrong.
The nanny state that limits my choices and tells me what I should do is wrong.
Are you against prescription-only medicine and in favour of the commercialisation of heroin and cocaine?
I haven't thought much about prescription medicines but I am very much in favour of the decriminalisation and commercialisation of currently illegal drugs.
"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.
The playing field isn't level.
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them. And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
Your freedom perhaps.
How does it not increase everyone's freedom?
Lots of people are stupid. Should we make it easier for them to render their children stupid too by making it even easier to buy cheap processed garbage with no nutritional value?
Lots of people are stupid.
So we should prevent them from making stupid decisions? If they can't be trusted where to buy their chickens from, how can they be trusted to choose the right politicians?
Children can't vote. Sadly they can be stuffed full of cheap processed crap by their parents. Damned right we should protect them as much as possible.
So, only quinoa to be sold in the shops of Britain, a Macdonalds ban.
What a paradise!
If only the poor could afford to be socialists!
Dumb post. Show me your rationale for flooding the market with shit processed food with sod all nutritional value. Why not just allow salted chicken flavoured rice paper to be sold as chicken? It would be cheap, after all. Robert would argue no need to get the government involved in regulating that.
Obama is someone who was well thought of before he had power and will be well thought after he has had power but not when he did have power.
People like the concept of Obama but not the reality.
Didn't Obama have 60% approval when he left office, compared to the incoming Trump on 40%?
Yes and Obamacare has the highest approval rating. I think when people realise what they have i.e Obamacare they will fight like shit to keep it.
Obamacare is interesting because although its abolition is wanted by many Congress Republicans, what Trump spoke about sounded more like some tweaks and a name-change. Trump has said it would be replaced at the same time it is abolished, and mentioned some steps like allowing cross-state competition to reduce costs.
"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.
The playing field isn't level.
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them. And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
Not quite, but we should choose our partners carefully, and we should be selective in the things we trade freely.
Unlimited, unfettered, anything goes, super-liberalism is stupid.
I've yet to hear a compelling argument why a group of people making a decision for me is better than me making a decision for myself.
It isn't about you though, it's about 65m people.
Yes, and those 65m people would be better served by being allowed to buy from whom they choose. The alternative, that a small number of politicians - lobbied by rich industrialists - choose to protect industries, and push up prices for consumers. Crony capitalism is not just economically efficient, it is morally wrong.
Flooding the market with with cheap imported processed food is morally wrong.
The nanny state that limits my choices and tells me what I should do is wrong.
Are you against prescription-only medicine and in favour of the commercialisation of heroin and cocaine?
I haven't thought much about prescription medicines but I am very much in favour of the decriminalisation and commercialisation of currently illegal drugs.
& Taxation & regulation.
Very sensible :>
Some regulation is always necessary as is some taxation. It is the extent of both that is the point of dissent.
"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.
The playing field isn't level.
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them. And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
Not quite, but we should choose our partners carefully, and we should be selective in the things we trade freely.
Unlimited, unfettered, anything goes, super-liberalism is stupid.
I've yet to hear a compelling argument why a group of people making a decision for me is better than me making a decision for myself.
So you are for the legalisation of all drugs, against compulsion on wearing a seat belt or driving on the left?
Do you know what happened the last time the world lurched into protectionism? I ask because that was a hell of a lot worse than the current situation: you know the situation where a record proportion of the population is employed.
I would also point out that those developed countries with the fewest trade barriers (like Switzerland, which has a FTA with China) are the ones with the lowest levels of unemployment.
Would you advocate that the UK saves itself the bother of having to negotiate free trade agreements by simply declaring a policy of unilateral free trade with the entire globe? Would the advantages of such an approach to consumers and even to businesses, outweigh the disadvantages?
These are genuine questions - I've read opinions for and against such a radical approach, and am undecided. For example, I appreciate that manufacturers might find themselves competing with both cheap foreign imports and asymmetric barriers to exporting, but on the other hand they would have access to tariff-free supplies of all materials - and consumers would surely benefit from tariff-free imports, especially of food, from the rest of the world outside of the EU customs union?
"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.
The playing field isn't level.
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them. And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
Not quite, but we should choose our partners carefully, and we should be selective in the things we trade freely.
Unlimited, unfettered, anything goes, super-liberalism is stupid.
I've yet to hear a compelling argument why a group of people making a decision for me is better than me making a decision for myself.
It isn't about you though, it's about 65m people.
Yes, and those 65m people would be better served by being allowed to buy from whom they choose.
Not if they were earning £26k a year and are now unemployed as a consequence.
Wake up and smell the coffee.
All the evidence- every bit of it - is that increased trade has resulted in increased employment and increased wealth for countries which have control of their own economies. It is only in circumstances where free trade is combined with an artificial fiscal arrangement such as exists in the Eurozone that we see a failure of market forces and large scale unemployment.
GDP.....unemployment statistics.....do you really believe the bloke who can't find a place to live for his family because half a dozen transient workers are renting a room each in the homes he'd like cares about these things? The bloke whose hourly rate never rises?
Allowing people to make their own decisions, which affect only themselves, is not wrong.
Quite right, Robert. Provided they are told what it really is. And what the consequences of eating it are.
I'm very comfortable with the law enforcing disclosure. The better the quality of information, the better the market.
I'm not comfortable with @chestnut choosing which books I should read, and from whom I should buy goods.
So no food standards? Tesco could sell chicken fed on diseased dead chickens, provided the small print said 'food may included recycled suboptimal poultry tissue' ?
Theresa May is preparing to abandon plans for a British Bill of Rights, sources suggest
Theresa May is preparing to abandon plans for a British Bill of Rights after Britain leaves the European Union, Government sources have suggested.
Ministers have confirmed that the Government's plans to scrap the Human Rights Act have been shelved until after Brexit.
However sources told The Daily Telegraph that the plans may now be abandoned entirely because Brexit will significantly strengthen the sovereignty of British courts.
They also highlighted the Brexit judgement by the Supreme Court earlier this week which made clear that Britain will no longer be subject to European Court of Justice rulings after Brexit.
"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.
The playing field isn't level.
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them. And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
Not quite, but we should choose our partners carefully, and we should be selective in the things we trade freely.
Unlimited, unfettered, anything goes, super-liberalism is stupid.
I've yet to hear a compelling argument why a group of people making a decision for me is better than me making a decision for myself.
It isn't about you though, it's about 65m people.
Yes, and those 65m people would be better served by being allowed to buy from whom they choose. The alternative, that a small number of politicians - lobbied by rich industrialists - choose to protect industries, and push up prices for consumers. Crony capitalism is not just economically efficient, it is morally wrong.
Flooding the market with with cheap imported processed food is morally wrong.
Allowing people to make their own decisions, which affect only themselves, is not wrong.
Surely you're not arguing for the complete abolition of food standards ?
"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.
The playing field isn't level.
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them. And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
Not quite, but we should choose our partners carefully, and we should be selective in the things we trade freely.
Unlimited, unfettered, anything goes, super-liberalism is stupid.
I've yet to hear a compelling argument why a group of people making a decision for me is better than me making a decision for myself.
It isn't about you though, it's about 65m people.
Yes, and those 65m people would be better served by being allowed to buy from whom they choose. The alternative, that a small number of politicians - lobbied by rich industrialists - choose to protect industries, and push up prices for consumers. Crony capitalism is not just economically efficient, it is morally wrong.
Flooding the market with with cheap imported processed food is morally wrong.
The nanny state that limits my choices and tells me what I should do is wrong.
Are you against prescription-only medicine and in favour of the commercialisation of heroin and cocaine?
I haven't thought much about prescription medicines but I am very much in favour of the decriminalisation and commercialisation of currently illegal drugs.
& Taxation & regulation.
Very sensible :>
I agree with that completely. Regulation on drugs, as with food!
"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.
The playing field isn't level.
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them. And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
Your freedom perhaps.
How does it not increase everyone's freedom?
Lots of people are stupid. Should we make it easier for them to render their children stupid too by making it even easier to buy cheap processed garbage with no nutritional value?
Lots of people are stupid.
So we should prevent them from making stupid decisions? If they can't be trusted where to buy their chickens from, how can they be trusted to choose the right politicians?
Children can't vote. Sadly they can be stuffed full of cheap processed crap by their parents. Damned right we should protect them as much as possible.
So, only quinoa to be sold in the shops of Britain, a Macdonalds ban.
What a paradise!
If only the poor could afford to be socialists!
Dumb post. Show me your rationale for flooding the market with shit processed food with sod all nutritional value. Why not just allow salted chicken flavoured rice paper to be sold as chicken? It would be cheap, after all. Robert would argue no need to get the government involved in regulating that.
Well as I haven't said any of that I don't think I need to justify it
"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.
The playing field isn't level.
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them. And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
Your freedom perhaps.
How does it not increase everyone's freedom?
Lots of people are stupid. Should we make it easier for them to render their children stupid too by making it even easier to buy cheap processed garbage with no nutritional value?
Lots of people are stupid.
So we should prevent them from making stupid decisions? If they can't be trusted where to buy their chickens from, how can they be trusted to choose the right politicians?
Children can't vote. Sadly they can be stuffed full of cheap processed crap by their parents. Damned right we should protect them as much as possible.
Education is preferable to bans. Every time.
So no food standards?
Would you prefer people had the choice of cheap food or your definition of good quality food?
There needs to be basic safety standards*, and compulsory labelling so consumers can make informed choices. After that people should be allowed to commit "suicide by food" if they choose.
* I understand the reason that US chicken is soaked in chlorine is to wash off the surface bacteria from faecal contamination during poor slaughterhouse practice. The test swabs are thereby clean, though deeper contamination untouched.
Just popped in after dinner at an overpriced restaurant in Chelsea and upon a quick skim I see people are in favour of tearing up our trade deals with Africa because unit labour costs are cheaper over there.
"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.
The playing field isn't level.
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them. And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
Your freedom perhaps.
How does it not increase everyone's freedom?
Lots of people are stupid. Should we make it easier for them to render their children stupid too by making it even easier to buy cheap processed garbage with no nutritional value?
Lots of people are stupid.
So we should prevent them from making stupid decisions? If they can't be trusted where to buy their chickens from, how can they be trusted to choose the right politicians?
Children can't vote. Sadly they can be stuffed full of cheap processed crap by their parents. Damned right we should protect them as much as possible.
Education is preferable to bans. Every time.
So no food standards?
Would you prefer people had the choice of cheap food or your definition of good quality food?
No I would make the wild argument that expert regulators should set sound standards for food, drugs, white goods etc. Mad as that may seem!
Theresa May is preparing to abandon plans for a British Bill of Rights, sources suggest
Theresa May is preparing to abandon plans for a British Bill of Rights after Britain leaves the European Union, Government sources have suggested.
Ministers have confirmed that the Government's plans to scrap the Human Rights Act have been shelved until after Brexit.
However sources told The Daily Telegraph that the plans may now be abandoned entirely because Brexit will significantly strengthen the sovereignty of British courts.
They also highlighted the Brexit judgement by the Supreme Court earlier this week which made clear that Britain will no longer be subject to European Court of Justice rulings after Brexit.
Just popped in after dinner at an overpriced restaurant in Chelsea and upon a quick skim I see people are in favour of tearing up our trade deals with Africa because unit labour costs are cheaper over there.
Have I got that right?
OT but Rabbit on the KR is just excellent. Decent Bachhus on the wine list too.
Do you know what happened the last time the world lurched into protectionism? I ask because that was a hell of a lot worse than the current situation: you know the situation where a record proportion of the population is employed.
I would also point out that those developed countries with the fewest trade barriers (like Switzerland, which has a FTA with China) are the ones with the lowest levels of unemployment.
You are making a big leap into assuming that Trump's discontent over a trade deal with Mexico is somehow lurching into overall protectionism.
Perhaps, he's just looking for more suitable partners?
A bit like Brexit.
Nothing in Trump's rhetoric suggests he is looking for more suitable partners. He is looking to screw over weaker countries (which compared to US is everyone).
Comments
They already did.
Unlimited, unfettered, anything goes, super-liberalism is stupid.
The secret is never to be in the position in the first place.
So we should prevent them from making stupid decisions? If they can't be trusted where to buy their chickens from, how can they be trusted to choose the right politicians?
Wake up and smell the coffee.
Foreign secretary says UK accepts Syrian leader should be allowed to run for re-election in event of peace deal
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/26/boris-johnson-signals-shift-in-uk-policy-on-syria-bashar-al-assad
I would also point out that those developed countries with the fewest trade barriers (like Switzerland, which has a FTA with China) are the ones with the lowest levels of unemployment.
From a socialist? The world has indeed been turned upside down.
Your selective edit not mine.
What a paradise!
Countries that sends goods and services across borders are less likely to send soldiers across those borders.
Hurrah for free trade.
Chickens and pigs can't vote, and I think they should have the highest welfare standards possible. Any nation that wants free trade with us on meat products should have similarly high animal welfare standards.
I'm not comfortable with @chestnut choosing which books I should read, and from whom I should buy goods.
The death penalty, same sex marriage to name but two things.
He'll also appreciate the Douglas Adams themed thread I'm writing for the weekend after next.
Perhaps, he's just looking for more suitable partners?
A bit like Brexit.
Very sensible :>
These are genuine questions - I've read opinions for and against such a radical approach, and am undecided. For example, I appreciate that manufacturers might find themselves competing with both cheap foreign imports and asymmetric barriers to exporting, but on the other hand they would have access to tariff-free supplies of all materials - and consumers would surely benefit from tariff-free imports, especially of food, from the rest of the world outside of the EU customs union?
What a paradise!
Theresa May is preparing to abandon plans for a British Bill of Rights, sources suggest
Theresa May is preparing to abandon plans for a British Bill of Rights after Britain leaves the European Union, Government sources have suggested.
Ministers have confirmed that the Government's plans to scrap the Human Rights Act have been shelved until after Brexit.
However sources told The Daily Telegraph that the plans may now be abandoned entirely because Brexit will significantly strengthen the sovereignty of British courts.
They also highlighted the Brexit judgement by the Supreme Court earlier this week which made clear that Britain will no longer be subject to European Court of Justice rulings after Brexit.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/26/theresa-may-preparing-abandon-plans-british-bill-rights-sources/
My views are far closer to Blair's and Osborne's in the UK aiming to shape the world around us, rather than isolationist.
* I understand the reason that US chicken is soaked in chlorine is to wash off the surface bacteria from faecal contamination during poor slaughterhouse practice. The test swabs are thereby clean, though deeper contamination untouched.
Have I got that right?
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/824748229350871040
https://youtu.be/Q0IGepU7ICc