toby1234abc:
Carryfast, your posts are too long winded and no driver would have time to read the pointless stuff you write on here, i would need two 45 minute tacho breaks .
So what’s your view to solve it.Yet more failed policies of foreign ownership and free markets.
Or impose trade barriers to create the trading conditions required to make it a viable commercial operation and run by a domestic operator in the national interest ?.
Don’t think the second option can be exercised while we remain in the EU
raymundo:
Don’t think the second option can be exercised while we remain in the EU
+1
The problem then being that we’ll still have to sort out the same choice and argument of free markets v protectionist among ourselves and our own leadership.
The Hitchens article suggests that things might be turning in that regard even among the Thatcherite vote and going by the comments he seems to have stirred up a hornets nest against him within it. 
raymundo:
Don’t think the second option can be exercised while we remain in the EU
Or under WTO rules either, which is the system of regulation that most of the serious out campaigners quote, when asked to explain how we negotiate our trading terms once away from the EU.
Like in the EU, some of the signatories to the WTO trade body don’t follow all the rules, hence the US putting high tariffs on Chinese steel 
eddie snax:
raymundo:
Don’t think the second option can be exercised while we remain in the EUOr under WTO rules either, which is the system of regulation that most of the serious out campaigners quote, when asked to explain how we negotiate our trading terms once away from the EU.
Like in the EU, some of the signatories to the WTO trade body don’t follow all the rules, hence the US putting high tariffs on Chinese steel
Why would anyone want to write,let alone abide by,any rule that doesn’t allow the ability to prioritise the national interest over so called free trade. As for the out campaign as I said the same free markets v protectionist argument obviously applies.With even the Conservative vote now showing a rethink at least in the case of Hitchens.Let’s hope there’s more like him.
Carryfast:
eddie snax:
raymundo:
Don’t think the second option can be exercised while we remain in the EUOr under WTO rules either, which is the system of regulation that most of the serious out campaigners quote, when asked to explain how we negotiate our trading terms once away from the EU.
Like in the EU, some of the signatories to the WTO trade body don’t follow all the rules, hence the US putting high tariffs on Chinese steel
Why would anyone want to write,let alone abide by,any rule that doesn’t allow the ability to prioritise the national interest over so called free trade.
I’m just saying what the fact about the WTO is, and I’ve heard both Farage and Johnson propose the WTO as the UK rule book to the World Market.
It matters not what you, or Peter Hitchens think about the free market, the fact is, that most of the main proponents in the OUT campaign, argue that the EU is impeding Britians access the World (free) Market. So if/when we leave the EU, not much as regard the rush to the bottom in the labour market will change, unless of coarse the turns into a stampede in an effort to compete
Unlike the US (wto) or Germany (eu), British politicians seem to set great store by playing to what ever set of rules they have or have been signed upto, unless its their own money so in the event of Brexit, don’t expect a conversion in the philosophy of either the British politician or the Whitehall civil servants, it will more of the same, just without the whipping boy named Europe
eddie snax:
Unlike the US (wto) or Germany (eu), British politicians seem to set great store by playing to what ever set of rules they have or have been signed upto, unless its their own money
As I said having been on the out campaign side of the Labour vote the fact is getting away from Conservative race to the bottom free markets ideology will take ditching both the EU and the WTO rules.Sadly Labour having been more preoccupied with Socialism and Internationalism in that regard than British jobs for British workers.The EU in this case being run by Germany for Germany and the WTO being all about subsidising the fortunes of the Chinese Communists.Im guessing that there maybe more chance of the Conservatives changing their outlook in that regard than Labour.On that note Farage has already shown that he can do protectionist in the case of cheap east euro labour at least. 
Carryfast:
eddie snax:
Unlike the US (wto) or Germany (eu), British politicians seem to set great store by playing to what ever set of rules they have or have been signed upto, unless its their own moneyAs I said having been on the out campaign side of the Labour vote the fact is getting away from Conservative race to the bottom free markets ideology will take ditching both the EU and the WTO rules.Sadly Labour having been more preoccupied with Socialism and Internationalism in that regard than British jobs for British workers.The EU in this case being run by Germany for Germany and the WTO being all about subsidising the fortunes of the Chinese Communists.Im guessing that there maybe more chance of the Conservatives changing their outlook in that regard than Labour.On that note Farage has already shown that he can do protectionist in the case of cheap east euro labour at least.
I’m glad that we see eye to eye on the massed political classes being only interested in a global village, and are only concerned as to how to access the global market place. Though I’m sorry you don’t see Farage as an opportunist, His rhetoric on East Euro labour depressing wage rates though true, indeed and fact, is on his part “white man speaking with forked tongue”.
The answer to some of our woe’s, such as, getting to the OP, our politicians growing some and doing as the Germans do, or better still, supporting the EU in its efforts to put worthwhile tariffs on Chinese, and any other steel, or any other products manufactured below the cost of production(by the method of gov subsidy) and dumped into our markets. Unfortunatly the British tory group within the EU parliament blocked such a move recently, maybe not heeding the warnings from Tata and the British Steel (council) of the woeful state of the said industry within Britain
eddie snax:
I’m glad that we see eye to eye on the massed political classes being only interested in a global village, and are only concerned as to how to access the global market place. Though I’m sorry you don’t see Farage as an opportunist, His rhetoric on East Euro labour depressing wage rates though true, indeed and fact, is on his part “white man speaking with forked tongue”.The answer to some of our woe’s, such as, getting to the OP, our politicians growing some and doing as the Germans do, or better still, supporting the EU in its efforts to put worthwhile tariffs on Chinese, and any other steel, or any other products manufactured below the cost of production(by the method of gov subsidy) and dumped into our markets. Unfortunatly the British tory group within the EU parliament blocked such a move recently, maybe not heeding the warnings from Tata and the British Steel (council) of the woeful state of the said industry within Britain
To be fair Farage is probably the only game in town and has shown that he’s willing to work with people like Kate Hoey.On that note I’d bet more on the chances of Farage being able to be turned full on protectionist economics along the lines of Marine Le Pen.Than trusting Tata in doing what’s best for us,as opposed to what’s best for China and India ( bearing in mind Tata’s Chinese and domestic business interests ).Which seems to be confirmed here.IE the naturally expected national interest in buying up Brit steel making capacity then closing it down to allow a bigger global market share for expansion of its own domestic operations.
tatasteel.com/investors/annu … india.html
As for staying in the EU the trade figures and the strength of Germany’s steel industry already show where Germany stands,regarding the issue of Germany doing what’s best for Germany.Which also obviously means keeping us down if not putting us out of the frame.IE what’s needed now is a massive radical change in economic thinking that realises the massive mistake in allowing the naive ridiculous dream of uncontrolled free trade to over ride the national interest.
I used to think Boris Johnson was a bit of a weirdo but after this speech ■■
quote …Everyone feels sorry for the 15,000 steelworkers at Port Talbot; everyone in this country will be hoping for a solution that will keep them in work. That is partly because their fate seems so unjust. This disaster isn’t their fault. They don’t have some new strain of the Seventies “British disease”. The plant is not a hotbed of union activity.
On the contrary, these workers have agreed over the past few years to make substantial reductions in jobs and big increases in productivity. They make superb quality steel. They offer it at a reasonable price. It is just that the Wales plant has been overwhelmed by a series of misfortunes over which they – the workers – have absolutely no control; and these misfortunes, moreover, arise in policy areas over which these workers might reasonably expect their elected government to have some control, but which the UK has simply lost; abandoned; surrendered; supinely given up as part of our membership of the EU.
There is the massive global dumping of cheap Chinese steel, subsidised by a Beijing government that is itself alarmed by impending job losses in the sector. Then there are the excessive fuel bills that this country currently imposes on industry. When you are running blast furnaces the cost of energy matters a great deal. A recent report by the Business, Innovation and Skills parliamentary committee said that UK steelmakers were facing energy costs as much as 80 per cent higher than the EU median. Even if that figure is high, there can be no doubt that the UK’s various climate change policies – largely generated by Ed Miliband – have been highly damaging for British manufacturing.
Then, I am afraid, there is Brussels, which is exacerbating both problems. It is one of the features of membership that we must not only accept that about 60 per cent of our legislation – primary and secondary – comes from the EU. We must also accept a fatal loss of flexibility, an inability to take decisions that might be in our national interest – and an inability even to make good our own mistakes.
Take the glut of Chinese steel. It seems that the EU Commission has been considering a broad range of anti-dumping measures for some time. It is also clear that before Tata took the decision to close Port Talbot, the UK was one of the countries to be lobbying against such tariffs. Some have suggested that this was out of a general desire to ■■■■ up to the Chinese; others that it was a principled aversion to tariffs, and recognition that such import duties would hit domestic consumers of steel. Since the Port Talbot crisis blew up, the story seems to have changed. We are now told that the UK does indeed favour anti-dumping measures, though not of the kind that the EU Commission has been proposing.
The result? Probably nothing. Nothing will happen in the near future, if ever, because there is no agreement round the table in Brussels. Even when we want to change tack on tariffs, we can’t – because we have given up control.
Contrast the US, where – wham – they have applied 266 per cent tariffs on dumped Chinese steel. Contrast China itself, which – to add insult to injury – has just slapped 46 per cent duties on steel from Port Talbot. Britain can do nothing to mimic these steps, because we have given up control.
Exactly the same point can be made about energy costs. It is true that much of the burden of these high UK energy bills is self-imposed. There is a sense in which Miliband’s bonkers plan has succeeded. We have certainly cut our CO2 emissions – but only by applying such crippling levies to UK industry that much of this manufacturing has simply gone elsewhere – along with the CO2 production. We may feel virtuous about cutting our CO2, but it is unlikely that the planet notices the difference.
The Conservative Government is sensibly trying to make amends for Miliband’s folly, and to cut the costs of energy for industry – but at every turn we have the problem of the EU, and the objections of Brussels to anything that looks like state aids. Even when we are trying to address our home-grown mistakes, even when we are simply trying to bring down our energy costs so that they are more in line with the rest of the EU, we face the same difficulty: we no longer call the shots, even when thousands of jobs are at stake.
When this referendum campaign began, and I said that the key issue was sovereignty, I remember people giving me pitying looks. No one cares about sovereignty, they said. Well, losing sovereignty is just a fancy way of talking about losing control – and I think people care passionately about it.
As Michael Howard said yesterday, it is absolutely true that we cannot systematically check to see whether doctors practising in this country can speak good enough English. It is absolutely true, as Priti Patel has pointed out, that uncontrolled immigration from the EU has put a massive strain on the NHS. I spoke to one long-serving Hertfordshire GP who said she had never seen such pressure – and what can we do? Nothing. We can’t take emergency action against dumped Chinese steel, even with British industry on its knees. We can’t cut our own self-imposed energy costs. We can’t set our own language tests for practising doctors. We can’t control our borders.
What do we get for this sacrifice of control? Access, supposedly, to the giant EU market. Well, plenty of countries have access to that market. US exports to the EU have been growing faster than ours, and so have Switzerland’s – and both those countries have kept control of their democracies. The EU system is being daily exposed in this debate as an anachronism, and membership is increasingly ■■■■■■■■■■ and anti-democratic. Nowhere else are they conducting a giant experiment of trying to fuse so many countries into one.
It is time to ignore the doomsters, get out, go global. It is time to take back control of our country – not to speak of about £10 billion net. We would have more money, and more freedom to rescue the British steel industry – and we might even succeed.
raymundo:
I used to think Boris Johnson was a bit of a weirdo but after this speech ■■It is time to ignore the doomsters, get out, go global. It is time to take back control of our country – not to speak of about £10 billion net. We would have more money, and more freedom to rescue the British steel industry – and we might even succeed.
Unlike Hitchens I don’t think Boris is ready ditch his Con ideological baggage and self denial.IE it’s globalism and free markets which are the problem not the solution.On that note the only difference between global v the EU is that the former is all about pandering to the interests of the developing Asian economies and China while the latter is all about same regards the interests of the Germans.
It’s time for those like Boris to get their heads around the idea that international free trade is a flawed economic experiment that has predictably failed big time at least for the developed western economies.In addition to the fact that our EU membership was always just a geopolitical move which intentionally sacrificed our economy in favour of Germany’s.