Current Affairs EU In or Out

In or Out

  • In

    Votes: 688 67.9%

  • Out

    Votes: 325 32.1%
  • Total voters
    1,013
Status
Not open for further replies.
davmaher said:
A couple of articles below are pertinent to this. The first is from the Daily Mail in April, the second from the Times in October.

Britain led efforts to block EU tariffs that might have protected the steel industry in this country from a flood of cheap Chinese imports, it emerged yesterday.

George Osborne and David Cameron were accused last night of being more concerned with courting China than the fate of Tata steelworkers.

The claims came as Mr Cameron warned yesterday there was ‘no guarantee’ he could save thousands of steel jobs.

Ministers opposed EU proposals earlier this year to put a 66 per cent tariff on cheap steel products, saying it would lead to higher prices for UK consumers.

Instead, the tariffs stayed at 9 per cent. Officials are now going back to Brussels to increase the tariffs which the EU did agree upon from 9 to 20 per cent.

Axel Eggert, director general of the European Steel Association, which represents the industry across the continent, told the Financial Times: ‘The UK is the ringleader in a blocking minority of member states that is preventing a European Commission proposal on the modernisation of Europe’s trade defence instruments.

‘When the UK Government says it is willing to do whatever it takes, it must take seriously the need to push through – along with other member states – the reforms to European trade policy that could actually defend the industry from unfair dumping and prevent the job losses.’

A French diplomat added: ‘In reality, the UK has been opposing an overhaul of the EU’s anti-dumping system.’ In February, Business Secretary Sajid Javid told MPs that punitive tariffs ‘simply do not work’ and would ‘drive up prices’.

Mr Osborne has been instrumental in persuading China to fund the UK’s first nuclear power station for a generation at Hinkley Point. Chinese president Xi Jinping was in Britain last October on a state visit during which he signed the nuclear deal. The Chancellor and other senior ministers have made a number of trips to Beijing.

Critics say Mr Osborne’s eagerness to do a deal with the Chinese had been so all-consuming that the Government is content to see the fall of the steel industry.

Up to 40,000 jobs are at risk following the shock decision by Indian conglomerate Tata to sell its UK assets, including the giant steelworks at Port Talbot in South Wales. On another day of chaos:

■ Mr Cameron held a crisis meeting in Downing Street, but warned there were ‘no guarantees’ that the Port Talbot plant could be saved;

■ He was accused of using the steel crisis to scaremonger over Brexit by claiming the EU would impose punitive steel tariffs on the UK;

■ Channel 4 News reported that Tata had taken on accountants PwC to draw up a restructuring plan which could be a prelude to going into administration.

Mr Osborne, who was in Paris yesterday for a meeting of G20 finance ministers, insisted the Government was ‘on the side of the families affected by this crisis’ and was doing ‘everything possible and practical’ to support the industry.

But Stephen Kinnock, the Labour MP whose constituency includes the threatened Port Talbot plant, told BBC Breakfast the Government’s actions told a different story.

‘Not just over the last few weeks and days, but over the last five years, the Government has been asleep at the wheel and has been more interested in rolling out the red carpet for China, than it has been in standing up for British steelworkers,’ he said.

He wrote in the Guardian that the Chancellor and the Prime Minister are ‘Beijing’s chief cheerleaders in Europe’.




May opposes higher tariffs against China steel dumping

Marcus Leroux | Bruno Waterfield

October 20 2016, 12:01am, The Times



Share

Save

Theresa May is opposing tougher European protection against Chinese steel imports, dashing hopes in Brussels of a shift in position.

Britain has been the largest nation in a blocking minority of European Union members that prevented higher tariffs being put in place to combat “dumping” by Chinese producers.

Officials had been encouraged by a change in tone from the UK last month at a meeting of trade ministers in Bratislava, but the Department for International Trade said yesterday that it would oppose the removal of a key restraint on the EU’s trade defences.

However, Britain may find itself more isolated in opposing the trade policy. One official calculated that Britain was no longer part of a minority big enough to prevent the European Council from adopting the measures when it meets today and tomorrow.

The British steel industry has lost 5,000 jobs in the past year after prices collapsed because of global oversupply. European producers say that China is selling its steel below cost.
Click to expand...
The USA put massive tarrifs to stop the dumping of cheap Chinese steel the EU did not - in a nutshell !
 
davmaher,
Good post.

I think this is pertinent, with regard to Tory views and attitudes towards working people of the UK: "...‘Not just over the last few weeks and days, but over the last five years, the Government has been asleep at the wheel and has been more interested in rolling out the red carpet for China, than it has been in standing up for British steelworkers,’ he said...."

Given Osborne's predilection for 'cuts, cuts and more cuts', it is no surprise that the Tory Government moved in the direction of currying favour with the Chinese rather than protecting jobs in this country.

But I still stand by what was announced in the media regarding the 'Yay' or 'Nay' EU scenario, notwithstanding the point made about increasing tariffs. But was a jump to 66% from 9% a realistic proposition? A hike of that proportion? Or was it the EU just 'window dressing' after the fact that the Chinese were already flooding (it would appear) the UK/European continent with their cheap steel? I tend to think the latter, and when we held up 66% as ludicrous, the EU could then say we were being obstructive to their goal. A classic 'shift the blame' manoeuvre...
 
Joey66 said:
Italy to put in the 4th unelected leader in itv news!
The guy who stood down a complete Eorofile!
Again unelected!
Click to expand...

so is Theresa May. so what? this is how parliamentary systems work.

Joey66 said:
urm he was put there by the EU not even democratically voted in by the italian people, typical EU sticking their polictical noses where they want - the soone we are free from them politically the better!
Click to expand...

what are you talking about?
 
neil999 said:
Most VOTERS, remain or leave, didn't understand the complex economic arguments
Click to expand...
Quite, and I think a bit more candour from both sides would've led to a markedly different outcome. But each side presented this utopian argument, refusing to concede on hardly anything.

Remaining in the EU is not without its considerable disadvantages. If Cameron and co. had merely stressed that fact, but then stressed what we stood to gain from continued membership, we'd still be in the EU. I still get the feeling that after such a bitter war of words, many people voted Leave simply out of spite, for being treated like fools.
 
Ruairi77 said:
Look. I wasn't personally attacking you. I dont know you. Take umbrage all you want but in my opinion, Trump and Farage ran similar campaigns that used fear to make an argument. Both won. Sure, some looked at the economic situation and made a balanced decision on what way to vote but a lot were swayed by fear.
_90025744_033583881-1.jpg
Click to expand...
How many times does it have to be explained to you remainers?! There was no one single leave or remain campaign. Nigel Fararge and UKIP used leave.EU predominantly while groups like vote leave and grassroots out almost completely divorced themselves from Fararge. What about Labour out? They're controlled by the extreme right are they? Or how about th TUSC party which is as left as you can get but wanted to leave? Trump was one man making a single argument, the referendum was completely different, arguing from a wide range of points for extremely different yet nearly all valid reasons. You can keep using posters from UKIP and their groups all you want but it's still only one single sample of a wide range of people who wanted out that has been flogged to death to discredit everyone who voted leave.
 
Last edited:
The Cowboy said:
Quite, and I think a bit more candour from both sides would've led to a markedly different outcome. But each side presented this utopian argument, refusing to concede on hardly anything.

Remaining in the EU is not without its considerable disadvantages. If Cameron and co. had merely stressed that fact, but then stressed what we stood to gain from continued membership, we'd still be in the EU. I still get the feeling that after such a bitter war of words, many people voted Leave simply out of spite, for being treated like fools.
Click to expand...

Referendums, in any country, no matter what is actually on the ballot, tend to hinge most on one question: "are you generally happy?"

I don't think the UK is a generally happy society these days, but this has little to do with the EU.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

→ Log in 🔑 Register
🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top