Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Locked Topic
The Brexit "Thank God We Left" thread
Topic Started: Apr 6 2017, 12:50 PM (1,449 Views)
RoofGardener
Member Avatar
Lord of Plantpots
[ *  *  *  * ]
I thought it might be amusing to have a thread discussing post-referendum EU policies and proposals that we may NOT have been happy about. (and rejoicing in the fact that we are no longer bound by them. )

This is a sort of complementary/counterpoint to Tiggers excellent "Brexit self-harm thread"
http://w11.zetaboards.com/UK_Debate_Mk_2/topic/30198195/4/#new

I'll set the ball rolling with this one, though strictly speaking it started just before the referendum.

Remember how the Remain camp assured us that we would have control over our own borders, and that the EU could not impose migration on us ? (Indeed, that was one of the planks of Camarons negotiations). That was referring to EU migration; obviously. The idea of the EU imposing non-EU migration would have been beyond the pale.

I'm sure I can recall comments that the UK ultimately had the abtility to deny people entrance if it was in the national interest, and hence retained sovereignty.

Well, the eastern-bloc countries would be laughing at THAT one. They are now facing both large fines, and possible expulsion from the EU, because they have refused a new "refugees quota" that the Commission is imposing on all EU states. You have to take in your "quota" of migrants (a quota set by the Commission), or face fines. Refuse to pay the fine, and you could be ejected ! And of course, recent history suggests that "Refugees" rarely leave, and become "Residents". So this is actually enforced immigration policy.

http://bbj.hu/politics/hungary-may-face-eu-quota-ultimatum-says-report_131096

So much for sovereignty of borders then ?
"Glad we're out" !moon!
Edited by RoofGardener, Apr 6 2017, 01:07 PM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Replies:
Dan1989
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Tigger
Apr 29 2017, 11:18 PM
Dan1989
Apr 29 2017, 10:59 PM


Also I am talking in abstract terms,
And that's the problem right there, I've been talking specifics and not throwing the first things that came into my head into the debate and endlessly muddying the waters.

I'm not going to repeat what I've already said because I'm getting bored, suffice to say in any business you usually start small and work your way up, the Japanese were the prime example of this, from an initial reputation of cheap immitators they took over and dominated many industries, this had nothing to do with luck, a cheap currency or trickery of any sort, it was down to talent, hard work, listening to the customer and making things that function properly.
You seem to misunderstood what abstract means.

Maybe me being a programmer, I use it in a way that's makes it hard for you to gleam what I mean.

Short version, talking in numbers instead of individuals, or economic realities instead of specific government policy, which neither of us have talked about, you don't remove the specific details, you just talk about them as a whole instead of one specific case.

Again, this sounds very wishy washy, it's totally them that did it, nothing to do with economic circumstances, again seems like subjective musing and not specifics as you claim.

1)Was their currency low at the time, yes it was.
2)Was their labour cost low, low wages, less regulation, lack of large union involvement, yes.
3)Was their inflation low, yes it was.
4)Were they supported by a super power like America, yes it was, which traded heavily with it.
5)Did they have a competitive tax system, yes it did.
6)Government investment, yes again.

But lets ignore the low performance for decades shall we.

When you abstract all this, instead of talking about mentality and values, you start to see why they could have succeeded.

Why do you think Germany holds onto the Euro(deutschmark would be far higher value) to help it's economy with exports while it's hurting others, oh that's right the Germans are just better would be your explanation, praising national characters as reason for success is suspicious at best.


Edited by Dan1989, Apr 29 2017, 11:44 PM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Mr Pat
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
Remaining 27 EU countries agree Brexit guidelines as Hollande says UK must 'pay price'


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/remaining-27-eu-countries-agree-brexit-guidelines-as-hollande-says-uk-must-pay-price-a7709016.html

Thank God We're Leaving this "club".
Edited by Mr Pat, Apr 30 2017, 03:18 AM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Mr Pat
Apr 30 2017, 12:29 AM
Quote:
 
Remaining 27 EU countries agree Brexit guidelines as Hollande says UK must 'pay price'


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/remaining-27-eu-countries-agree-brexit-guidelines-as-hollande-says-uk-must-pay-price-a7709016.html

Thank God We're Leaving this "club".
---"The EU’s principles and the objectives are already fixed,"---

And fixed in order to protect the EU, one could expect nothing less.

There's little point in the OUTers complaining as they would no doubt do the same if the shoe was on the other foot.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Dan1989
Apr 29 2017, 08:57 PM
Tigger
Apr 29 2017, 08:41 PM
Dan1989
Apr 29 2017, 08:20 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Ever wondered why the EU has scores of World class manufacturers and we don't? Unless they are already European owned of course. That's UK sell the family silver neo liberalism for you.

It's a tabloid myth that free trade exists, if free trade was true everything would function at the lowest level and virtually all jobs in rich nations would gravitate towards poorer ones, you'd allow anyone to undercut you, ironically Brexiteers never seem to be able to understand any of this, ever. Trade blocs exist to get the best deals for members and to keep out dumping, aggresive loss leaders and a host of other things that might COST YOU YOUR JOB.

If other nations want to do business with the new Trotters Independent Trading Co. UK they will mainly be looking to sell not buy,i repeat there is no such thing as free trade, all trade has hidden costs and rules and you'd better have a handle on them otherwise you'll be taken to the cleaners.
Well, then you must have disliked Britain and Germany, both have aggressively pushed for less protectionism, two of the most productive and wealthy nations the other one being France, who normally goes for protectionism, but if Macron(very neo-liberal) wins I can not see that continuing, so ironically the EU might change its course on protectionism, so your argument might fall on deaf ears even within the EU.

Well, the reason we have terrible manufacturers(well in automobiles, pretty good aeronautical and pharmaceutical), wasn't helped with aggressive unions of the past who made them noncompetitive, while in Europe they normally kept up by the state, which the EU demands them to stop and also aim for a market economy, something I would have thought you'd disagreed with where the state can not artificially keep up an industry, so in your words sell the "family silver" as the EU demands.

Well, when people say free trade they are talking about the tariffs involved, not the side effects like regulation and so on.

But again, joining NAFTA is probably very agreeable with a lot of people, because it is EFTA and not the EU, which actually answers your fears(not being in trade union), I kinda like that viewpoint, trade unions like capitalism should entice nations to join, we need more competition between trade unions, joining for geographic reasons isn't good enough.

---"Well, the reason we have terrible manufacturers(well in automobiles, pretty good aeronautical and pharmaceutical), wasn't helped with aggressive unions of the past who made them noncompetitive,"---

The UK economy was trashed in the 1950s and 1960s, this eventually saw both the rise in the number of strike beginning in 1969 and the demise of the mass car production BEFORE the union strikes began to rise.

Chrysler acquired The Rootes group by increasing its percentage ownership between 1964 and 1969. After Chrysler took over they faced the first strike in the company because of the reduction in the quality of the brand under Chrysler.

Most of the UK mass car production had ceased by around 1970, with the British Leyland/Red Robbo era being an aborted attempt to rescue the last of the UK mass car production.

I would suggest that (stupid) union actions were a product of a failing economy, not the cause.

Edited by C-too, Apr 30 2017, 08:31 AM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Mr Pat
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
C-too
Apr 30 2017, 08:01 AM
Mr Pat
Apr 30 2017, 12:29 AM
Quote:
 
Remaining 27 EU countries agree Brexit guidelines as Hollande says UK must 'pay price'


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/remaining-27-eu-countries-agree-brexit-guidelines-as-hollande-says-uk-must-pay-price-a7709016.html

Thank God We're Leaving this "club".
---"The EU’s principles and the objectives are already fixed,"---

And fixed in order to protect the EU, one could expect nothing less.

There's little point in the OUTers complaining as they would no doubt do the same if the shoe was on the other foot.
Our government have been speaking of citizens' rights since Christmas. Nothing new there, although it's becoming clear they want their courts and rules applied to their citizens post Brexit. I can see them trying to take the piss here with the reaches of their ever growing tentacles still interfering in sovereign nation rule and law.

Irish border, was top of the British priority. Nothing new there.

The only hurdle is, they're still after our wallet for this supposed divorce bill.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Mr Pat
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Apparently, it's all unity in the EU, that is until you mention future budgets and the infighting starts because the British cash cow has left a sizeable hole in the budget.

The "unity" hasn't lasted long, all of 4 mins perhaps.. ;D
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

C-too
Apr 30 2017, 08:29 AM
Dan1989
Apr 29 2017, 08:57 PM
Tigger
Apr 29 2017, 08:41 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Well, then you must have disliked Britain and Germany, both have aggressively pushed for less protectionism, two of the most productive and wealthy nations the other one being France, who normally goes for protectionism, but if Macron(very neo-liberal) wins I can not see that continuing, so ironically the EU might change its course on protectionism, so your argument might fall on deaf ears even within the EU.

Well, the reason we have terrible manufacturers(well in automobiles, pretty good aeronautical and pharmaceutical), wasn't helped with aggressive unions of the past who made them noncompetitive, while in Europe they normally kept up by the state, which the EU demands them to stop and also aim for a market economy, something I would have thought you'd disagreed with where the state can not artificially keep up an industry, so in your words sell the "family silver" as the EU demands.

Well, when people say free trade they are talking about the tariffs involved, not the side effects like regulation and so on.

But again, joining NAFTA is probably very agreeable with a lot of people, because it is EFTA and not the EU, which actually answers your fears(not being in trade union), I kinda like that viewpoint, trade unions like capitalism should entice nations to join, we need more competition between trade unions, joining for geographic reasons isn't good enough.

---"Well, the reason we have terrible manufacturers(well in automobiles, pretty good aeronautical and pharmaceutical), wasn't helped with aggressive unions of the past who made them noncompetitive,"---

The UK economy was trashed in the 1950s and 1960s, this eventually saw both the rise in the number of strike beginning in 1969 and the demise of the mass car production BEFORE the union strikes began to rise.

Chrysler acquired The Rootes group by increasing its percentage ownership between 1964 and 1969. After Chrysler took over they faced the first strike in the company because of the reduction in the quality of the brand under Chrysler.

Most of the UK mass car production had ceased by around 1970, with the British Leyland/Red Robbo era being an aborted attempt to rescue the last of the UK mass car production.

I would suggest that (stupid) union actions were a product of a failing economy, not the cause.







. After Chrysler took over they faced the first strike in the company because of the reduction in the quality of the brand under Chrysler.

Most of the UK mass car production had ceased by around 1970,with the British Leyland/Red Robbo era being an aborted attempt to rescue the last of the UK mass car production.

How about some evidence to back up this rubbish.
The former may be true but I doubt it. The latter is simply fake news made up in a lefty newsletter or between your ears.

In a few years the same credulous nitwits will be insisting that RMT were striking for passenger safety.
Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
originally in the election thread
Tytoalba
May 1 2017, 10:34 AM
Steve K
May 1 2017, 09:52 AM
Tytoalba
May 1 2017, 09:39 AM
. . .In1914 Britain went to war to assist Belgium Holland and France against their common enemy, as a matter of treaty and obligation, spent a great deal of our treasure and many thousands of lives to help preserve their Freedoms and defeat their enemies with the help of the USA. Iin 1939 we went to war with the same common enemy when they invaded Poland, Holland Belgium and Norway, and overthrew France again suffering ourselves in the process, and without us standing alone Germany might well have succeeded, and the Third Reich dominating all.
Now those same "friends and allies" threaten us with sanctions , and harsh trade agreements, wish us not to succeed , because we wish to keep our own freedoms and to govern. our selves without their dictatorial interference.
So much for their loyalty to us, and if they really think the British people will crumble in the face of their threats and demands even with the help of our own quislings, they have another think coming.

So what that ^ says Tyto is you want May to win big because only that way will the rest of Europe deal with us as subservient lower class countries because of some twisted interpretation of the world wars

You do realise that subservience ain't ever going to happen don't you? At least in part because WE told them they would be treated fairly.
No one is looking to be subservient to anyone else, thought it does appear that the EU delegates are trying to dominate us and dictate the terms.
We ask for no more than fair dealings and a level playing field. For 40 years we have helped fund the EU one of the net contributors to it and our o armed forces have been part of their defensive arrangements. Its in every bodies interests to have good trading arrangements with each other, and good will negotiations will provide that. The financial demands they are making just show how dependent they were on our contributions to their rotten club. I'm glad that you said that subservience is not going to happen certainly not from the British people {most of them anyway}, and when the claim is made that no one knows what is going to happen can that be said with a bit less of the usual negativity, and a bit more optimism for the future. No one likes constant wingers.
Probably one of the reasons the left wing parties fail to do well, for they spend too much of their time winging on behalf of other people.


Our commitment to NATO was and is very simple. To assist the counties between us and Russia as sacrificial buffers to buy enough time for the USA to land enough ground forces to save the UK and turn the tide back. Europe owes us nothing on that count

Your presumption that Poland owes us anything because we supposedly saved them in WW2 rather misses the truth that we didn't save an inch of Polish soil which then endured decades of occupation, didn't commit any forces for their defence or freedom and yet many Polish fought and died to help save the UK.

The Divorce settlement is a negotiating position and it's a BIG mistake to take Daily Expressograph made up claims as facts. One thing is clear, there is no moral or legal requirement of the EU to give us a trading position better than Japan has with the EU and if we want better than that we may well need to agree to take on some burdens such as the redundancy and pension provisions for UK workers employed by the EU. In short: negotiate or it's the WTO cliff.

There has been no threat by the EU of sanctions. You just made that up

Yes we have been a net contributor to the EU, we have also gained far more by free access to their financial markets. Do you see it as unfair when you pay money to the supermarket for your groceries?

You say " We ask for no more than fair dealings and a level playing field.". Well that's exactly what we might get, just like Japan has with the EU. Unfortunately we need better but whining like the kid that didn't get a free ice cream isn't going to make us look better and certainly won't get us any favours. Acting like a bully when everyone knows we have little to punch with will be even worse.

You got your pyrrhic victory, just now that you realise what pyrrhic means you see it as so unfair.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
"Also considering a large number don't vote, hard to say that our MPs are truly representative, kinda failing the representation part of representative government, but referendums at-least get more arses moving, interesting that, maybe people feel more invested when they get a larger say."

Dan, I have always said that voters get what they deserve, in the same context, non voters get what they deserve, it is the one day in a 5 year span that folks get to "try" and determine their future, whether or not the MP is representative is irrelevant, he was chosen and is in office and can also be deposed at the same time as the general election takes place, the good folks of the UK have their chance to cast their vote on June 8th, if they cannot be bothered to turn out and make a cross on a ballot paper then I do not want to hear another word from the lazy sods.

As for those in the minority, (it may turn out to be me Shrugs: ) then they must live with the democratic result and make the best of it.
Edited by Rich, May 1 2017, 01:13 PM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Dan1989
Apr 29 2017, 11:28 PM
Tigger
Apr 29 2017, 11:18 PM
Dan1989
Apr 29 2017, 10:59 PM


Also I am talking in abstract terms,
And that's the problem right there, I've been talking specifics and not throwing the first things that came into my head into the debate and endlessly muddying the waters.

I'm not going to repeat what I've already said because I'm getting bored, suffice to say in any business you usually start small and work your way up, the Japanese were the prime example of this, from an initial reputation of cheap immitators they took over and dominated many industries, this had nothing to do with luck, a cheap currency or trickery of any sort, it was down to talent, hard work, listening to the customer and making things that function properly.
You seem to misunderstood what abstract means.

Maybe me being a programmer, I use it in a way that's makes it hard for you to gleam what I mean.

Short version, talking in numbers instead of individuals, or economic realities instead of specific government policy, which neither of us have talked about, you don't remove the specific details, you just talk about them as a whole instead of one specific case.

Again, this sounds very wishy washy, it's totally them that did it, nothing to do with economic circumstances, again seems like subjective musing and not specifics as you claim.

1)Was their currency low at the time, yes it was.
2)Was their labour cost low, low wages, less regulation, lack of large union involvement, yes.
3)Was their inflation low, yes it was.
4)Were they supported by a super power like America, yes it was, which traded heavily with it.
5)Did they have a competitive tax system, yes it did.
6)Government investment, yes again.

But lets ignore the low performance for decades shall we.

When you abstract all this, instead of talking about mentality and values, you start to see why they could have succeeded.

Why do you think Germany holds onto the Euro(deutschmark would be far higher value) to help it's economy with exports while it's hurting others, oh that's right the Germans are just better would be your explanation, praising national characters as reason for success is suspicious at best.


As for the meaning of abstract, I think that Picasso beautifully illustrates that.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
gansao
May 1 2017, 10:52 AM
C-too
Apr 30 2017, 08:29 AM
Dan1989
Apr 29 2017, 08:57 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
---"Well, the reason we have terrible manufacturers(well in automobiles, pretty good aeronautical and pharmaceutical), wasn't helped with aggressive unions of the past who made them noncompetitive,"---

The UK economy was trashed in the 1950s and 1960s, this eventually saw both the rise in the number of strike beginning in 1969 and the demise of the mass car production BEFORE the union strikes began to rise.

Chrysler acquired The Rootes group by increasing its percentage ownership between 1964 and 1969. After Chrysler took over they faced the first strike in the company because of the reduction in the quality of the brand under Chrysler.

Most of the UK mass car production had ceased by around 1970, with the British Leyland/Red Robbo era being an aborted attempt to rescue the last of the UK mass car production.

I would suggest that (stupid) union actions were a product of a failing economy, not the cause.

After Chrysler took over they faced the first strike in the company because of the reduction in the quality of the brand under Chrysler.

Most of the UK mass car production had ceased by around 1970,with the British Leyland/Red Robbo era being an aborted attempt to rescue the last of the UK mass car production.

How about some evidence to back up this rubbish.
The former may be true but I doubt it. The latter is simply fake news made up in a lefty newsletter or between your ears.

In a few years the same credulous nitwits will be insisting that RMT were striking for passenger safety.
I have previously posted the information on how the Tory party destroyed the UK economy between 1951 and 1964.

I would be hard pressed to produce all the evidence but I am surprised that you lived through the period but appear to have by-passed the news.

Whatever happened to; Hillman, Humber, Singer, Sunbeam, Talbot, Commer, Austin ? Why do you think we now produce Japanese cars and British brand cars that are now owned by other countries ?
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
May 1 2017, 02:38 PM
gansao
May 1 2017, 10:52 AM
C-too
Apr 30 2017, 08:29 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
After Chrysler took over they faced the first strike in the company because of the reduction in the quality of the brand under Chrysler.

Most of the UK mass car production had ceased by around 1970,with the British Leyland/Red Robbo era being an aborted attempt to rescue the last of the UK mass car production.

How about some evidence to back up this rubbish.
The former may be true but I doubt it. The latter is simply fake news made up in a lefty newsletter or between your ears.

In a few years the same credulous nitwits will be insisting that RMT were striking for passenger safety.
I have previously posted the information on how the Tory party destroyed the UK economy between 1951 and 1964.

I would be hard pressed to produce all the evidence but I am surprised that you lived through the period but appear to have by-passed the news.

Whatever happened to; Hillman, Humber, Singer, Sunbeam, Talbot, Commer, Austin ? Why do you think we now produce Japanese cars and British brand cars that are now owned by other countries ?
Union intransigence?
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
May 1 2017, 02:45 PM
C-too
May 1 2017, 02:38 PM
gansao
May 1 2017, 10:52 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep because of the reduction in the quality of the brand under Chrysler.

Most of the UK mass car production had ceased by around 1970,with the British Leyland/Red Robbo era being an aborted attempt to rescue the last of the UK mass car production.

How about some evidence to back up this rubbish.
The former may be true but I doubt it. The latter is simply fake news made up in a lefty newsletter or between your ears.

In a few years the same credulous nitwits will be insisting that RMT were striking for passenger safety.


Whatever happened to; Hillman, Humber, Singer, Sunbeam, Talbot, Commer, Austin ? Why do you think we now produce Japanese cars and British brand cars that are now owned by other countries ?
Union intransigence?

Here's a piece of logic an engineer like you will understand. When these brands were taken over, when the Japanese decided to build here, we still had Trade Union involvement!
Not intransigent TUs but properly involved and consulted reps, and management that itself was not intransigent.
Result? Good Industrial Relations!
Which in turn resulted in profitable business = success.
A formula that works most everywhere except too often not here in the UK.


Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Dan1989
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Affa
May 1 2017, 06:12 PM
Rich
May 1 2017, 02:45 PM
C-too
May 1 2017, 02:38 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep because of the reduction in the quality of the brand under Chrysler.

Most of the UK mass car production had ceased by around 1970,with the British Leyland/Red Robbo era being an aborted attempt to rescue the last of the UK mass car production.
Union intransigence?

Here's a piece of logic an engineer like you will understand. When these brands were taken over, when the Japanese decided to build here, we still had Trade Union involvement!
Not intransigent TUs but properly involved and consulted reps, and management that itself was not intransigent.
Result? Good Industrial Relations!
Which in turn resulted in profitable business = success.
A formula that works most everywhere except too often not here in the UK.


I kinda agree, but there's a large issue with your reasoning called America, who's even more anti-union then us, who's the most successful economy in the last 50 years.

Let's be honest our unions did go a bit crazy and did need to be reined in a tad the stories I hear from my father like being blackmailed into them, forced to go to union meetings, I believe currently we have a far healthier setup with unions.
Edited by Dan1989, May 1 2017, 06:54 PM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
May 1 2017, 02:45 PM
C-too
May 1 2017, 02:38 PM
gansao
May 1 2017, 10:52 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep because of the reduction in the quality of the brand under Chrysler.

Most of the UK mass car production had ceased by around 1970,with the British Leyland/Red Robbo era being an aborted attempt to rescue the last of the UK mass car production.

How about some evidence to back up this rubbish.
The former may be true but I doubt it. The latter is simply fake news made up in a lefty newsletter or between your ears.

In a few years the same credulous nitwits will be insisting that RMT were striking for passenger safety.
I have previously posted the information on how the Tory party destroyed the UK economy between 1951 and 1964.

I would be hard pressed to produce all the evidence but I am surprised that you lived through the period but appear to have by-passed the news.

Whatever happened to; Hillman, Humber, Singer, Sunbeam, Talbot, Commer, Austin ? Why do you think we now produce Japanese cars and British brand cars that are now owned by other countries ?
Union intransigence?
A product of Conservative economic mismanagement.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Dan1989
May 1 2017, 06:14 PM


Let's be honest our unions did go a bit crazy and did need to be reined in

Unquestionably!
It was a Them & US relationship where each attempted to outdo the other - instead of working together.
We got militant Unions because of Management dogma which resulted in the Unions becoming politicised ....... and then overbearing and wreckers to boot. Complete idiocy!
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
May 1 2017, 06:12 PM
Rich
May 1 2017, 02:45 PM
C-too
May 1 2017, 02:38 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep because of the reduction in the quality of the brand under Chrysler.

Most of the UK mass car production had ceased by around 1970,with the British Leyland/Red Robbo era being an aborted attempt to rescue the last of the UK mass car production.
Union intransigence?

Here's a piece of logic an engineer like you will understand. When these brands were taken over, when the Japanese decided to build here, we still had Trade Union involvement!
Not intransigent TUs but properly involved and consulted reps, and management that itself was not intransigent.
Result? Good Industrial Relations!
Which in turn resulted in profitable business = success.
A formula that works most everywhere except too often not here in the UK.


Yes, and especially when labour has held office and we all know who funds them, therefore, you will not get a fair and compromising attitude towards manufacturing whilst the TU holds the Labour party to ransom....Germany has the right idea IMO, by having those from the shop floor in on meetings where decisions are made.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
RoofGardener
Member Avatar
Lord of Plantpots
[ *  *  *  * ]
EU Army Advances !

Interesting story from the ever-moderate Daily Excess......
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/804749/EU-army-Jean-Claude-Juncker-european-defence-fund-France-Germany

Jean-Claude
 

...A European army is not a project for the near future. It is, however, a project that would give additional weight to the European foreign and security policy. Even though the road may still be long, we could already focus our strengths better.

“That is precisely why the Commission has proposed a European Defence Fund.

It is imperative that we increase our efficiency in defence issues, as the latest report from the Munich Security Conference has shown while we have 178 different types of weapon systems in Europe, the US only has 30.

“Member States could save several million by sharing vehicles, standardising ammunition, and finally conducting research together instead of apart.”


So the choice of weapons etc used by member states now becomes an EU competency ? Not bad for an "economic community".

Mind you... given the choice between the Eurofighter Typhoon and the F35, I might be with Junkers !

Umm... the politician that is, not the German aircraft manufacturer.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
The ramblings of a lame duck glorified clerk with a fondness for a bottle or 5 that even he concedes won't happen?

Real EU policy and direction is set by somewhat more relevant leaders. Still it shows how desperate Outers are getting with their "(yes Brexit is shit) but look what we saved you from" false narrratives
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
RoofGardener
Member Avatar
Lord of Plantpots
[ *  *  *  * ]
The president of the Commission is a lame duck ? Why so ?

And the "policy and direction" is set by the Commission, not the Council (e.g. your "relevant leaders).
I suppose in reality the Commission would only propose a policy if there was at least a decent chance of it being passed by the council of ministers, but nontheless it is the Commission - not the "relevant leaders" - who have the direct power to set policy and direction.

And the direction is for a EU Army !

RAUS !
Edited by RoofGardener, May 16 2017, 09:42 AM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
RoofGardener
May 16 2017, 09:31 AM
The president of the Commission is a lame duck ? Why so ?

And the "policy and direction" is set by the Commission, not the Council (e.g. your "relevant leaders).
I suppose in reality the Commission would only propose a policy if there was at least a decent chance of it being passed by the council of ministers, but nontheless it is the Commission - not the "relevant leaders" - who have the direct power to set policy and direction.

And the direction is for a EU Army !

RAUS !
Absolute tosh

He's a lame duck because he's said he won't stand again (because he knows the serious leads will veto him)

And any serious policy has to be universally approved by all nations. And we and several others would have vetoed it. As you full well know because you've been told before

Is it really getting that desperate for the Outers that they have to keep on with false stories to try and deflect from their folly?

The irony is Brexit could have been made OK. Not a "success" but OK and then some idiot put that offensive liar Boris and the fiddler Fox in key positions and made the whole EU-UK relations so toxic


Offline Profile Goto Top
 
RoofGardener
Member Avatar
Lord of Plantpots
[ *  *  *  * ]
"Lame Duck" ? I believe Claude has another two years in post ? All EU Presidents are elected for 5 year terms. He was elected in 2014. Does that make him a "lame duck" ? If so, then so is Theresa May and Donald Trump !

Tosh is it ? Well, if you want to be entirely sanguine that the Chief Executive of the European Commission has stated that the EU will be moving in the direction of increased military integration, then that is - of course - your privilege !

Personally, I'm not so relaxed; I'll grant you that issues of defence and security require unanimous approval by the Council; however, the Commission has always been a creature of "softly softly catchee monkey", and a EU Army would no doubt be introduced incrementally, and under a different name, until suddenly.. there it is.

Actually, of course, I AM relaxed. Because it's no longer our problem :)

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Pro Veritas
Upstanding Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Curious Cdn
Apr 8 2017, 05:10 PM
This is interesting.

Make a list of all of the benefits that have flooded in to you because of Brexit.

Show us how your lifes have benefitted., so far. Where's the magic?
Make a similar list for being in the EU.

I'd bet its a very, very small list - especially if you are in the lower two quintiles for earnings.

All The Best
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Pro Veritas
May 16 2017, 12:29 PM
Curious Cdn
Apr 8 2017, 05:10 PM
This is interesting.

Make a list of all of the benefits that have flooded in to you because of Brexit.

Show us how your lifes have benefitted., so far. Where's the magic?
Make a similar list for being in the EU.

I'd bet its a very, very small list - especially if you are in the lower two quintiles for earnings.

All The Best
So apart from the £billions in trade, the millions of jobs, the rescued UK economy, increased international leverage, the intelligence and other support in the Falklands, the Channel Tunnel, freedom of travel in Europe, the end of rip off roaming charges, the end of rip off car pricing and thousands of polite, efficient and well spoken serving staff . . . .

. . . . what has the EU ever done for us?

Now tell us what leaving is going to do for us? Give us back £350M a week perchance !jk!
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
RoofGardener
Member Avatar
Lord of Plantpots
[ *  *  *  * ]
Millions of jobs ? Truly ? The EU created millions of jobs in the UK ?

How many millions ? (to the nearest one or two).
Rescued the UK economy ? When did THAT happen ?
Increased international leverage ? Ummm.... no... we gave THAT to the EU by our membership. But we had very limited power to utilise that leverage to OUR advantage independently.

The Falklands ? The European Union helped us in the Falklands ? What, 15 years before it was created ? (the EU that is, not the Falklands).

Ditto the Channel Tunnel, which had nothing to do with the European Economic Community (as it was then). It was a bilateral Anglo-French project.

I could go on, but it's past my bedtime and I'm very sleezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Edited by RoofGardener, May 16 2017, 07:29 PM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RoofGardener
May 16 2017, 12:23 PM
"Lame Duck" ? I believe Claude has another two years in post ? All EU Presidents are elected for 5 year terms. He was elected in 2014. Does that make him a "lame duck" ? If so, then so is Theresa May and Donald Trump !

Tosh is it ? Well, if you want to be entirely sanguine that the Chief Executive of the European Commission has stated that the EU will be moving in the direction of increased military integration, then that is - of course - your privilege !

Personally, I'm not so relaxed; I'll grant you that issues of defence and security require unanimous approval by the Council; however, the Commission has always been a creature of "softly softly catchee monkey", and a EU Army would no doubt be introduced incrementally, and under a different name, until suddenly.. there it is.

Actually, of course, I AM relaxed. Because it's no longer our problem :)

What gets me is....as I understand it, Nato decreed that Germany could not have a standing military force equipped for offensive action as opposed to one equipped for defensive measures, ( what's the difference?), so how would a future EU standing military force square that particular question?
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
RoofGardener
May 16 2017, 07:28 PM
Millions of jobs ? Truly ? The EU created millions of jobs in the UK ?

How many millions ? (to the nearest one or two).
Rescued the UK economy ? When did THAT happen ?
Increased international leverage ? Ummm.... no... we gave THAT to the EU by our membership. But we had very limited power to utilise that leverage to OUR advantage independently.

The Falklands ? The European Union helped us in the Falklands ? What, 15 years before it was created ? (the EU that is, not the Falklands).

Ditto the Channel Tunnel, which had nothing to do with the European Economic Community (as it was then). It was a bilateral Anglo-French project.

I could go on, but it's past my bedtime and I'm very sleezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
"I could go on, but it's past my bedtime and I'm very sleezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz"

It shows.

We joined the EU/EEC in 1971 when in a just about terminal economic decline. And guess what, we became a top 5 economic power.

Remember that in 2030 when your grandkids ask you what it was like to once be even in the G20 and before all of Europe looked down on us as and you try to hide that you voted out.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RoofGardener
May 16 2017, 07:28 PM
Millions of jobs ? Truly ? The EU created millions of jobs in the UK ?

How many millions ? (to the nearest one or two).
Rescued the UK economy ? When did THAT happen ?
Increased international leverage ? Ummm.... no... we gave THAT to the EU by our membership. But we had very limited power to utilise that leverage to OUR advantage independently.

The Falklands ? The European Union helped us in the Falklands ? What, 15 years before it was created ? (the EU that is, not the Falklands).

Ditto the Channel Tunnel, which had nothing to do with the European Economic Community (as it was then). It was a bilateral Anglo-French project.

I could go on, but it's past my bedtime and I'm very sleezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Sick man of Europe.

Hundreds of billions of inward investment.

Jobs, many highly skilled, numbered in the hundreds of thousands at the very least.

The weight of the EU to stand up to economic giants like China and the US.

The French set up mock combat over the channel involving Sea Harrier's and Mirage III's and stopped delivery of more Exocets.

44% of UK trade.

And we are going to give it up because elderly fuckwits think the Empire is coming back they need us more than we need them and we won the war, pretty sad really isn't it? :)
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
May 16 2017, 07:34 PM
What gets me is....as I understand it, Nato decreed that Germany could not have a standing military force equipped for offensive action as opposed to one equipped for defensive measures, ( what's the difference?), so how would a future EU standing military force square that particular question?
Germany was limited by the tripartite powers of Russia/USA/UK not by NATO

The externally imposed limitations expired long ago. German forces fought in the Kosovo war
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
May 16 2017, 07:34 PM


Remember that in 2030 when your grandkids ask you what it was like to once be even in the G20 and before all of Europe looked down on us as and you try to hide that you voted out.
We all know about the tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Westminster Abbey. Right?

We should remeber Brexit with a similar monument, we'll call it the tomb of the Unknown Brexiteer, it won't be in Westminster Abbey but on Tower hill as that was where traitors went in the good old days, the body could be any one of the hundreds of pensioners who die every day.

In 2030 the grandchildren of people like the Unknown Brexiteer can visit the tomb and pay their respects by asking, what the fuck were you thinking you twat? :)

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
May 16 2017, 07:41 PM
Rich
May 16 2017, 07:34 PM
What gets me is....as I understand it, Nato decreed that Germany could not have a standing military force equipped for offensive action as opposed to one equipped for defensive measures, ( what's the difference?), so how would a future EU standing military force square that particular question?
Germany was limited by the tripartite powers of Russia/USA/UK not by NATO

The externally imposed limitations expired long ago. German forces fought in the Kosovo war
Can you imagine how some in the UK will react if Germany re arms? ;D
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
May 16 2017, 07:45 PM
Steve K
May 16 2017, 07:41 PM
Rich
May 16 2017, 07:34 PM
What gets me is....as I understand it, Nato decreed that Germany could not have a standing military force equipped for offensive action as opposed to one equipped for defensive measures, ( what's the difference?), so how would a future EU standing military force square that particular question?
Germany was limited by the tripartite powers of Russia/USA/UK not by NATO

The externally imposed limitations expired long ago. German forces fought in the Kosovo war
Can you imagine how some in the UK will react if Germany re arms? ;D
They'd say that Cameron should have warned them about the international security risks of Brexit ;-)

Yes they really do have that much front
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
RoofGardener
Member Avatar
Lord of Plantpots
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
May 16 2017, 07:34 PM
RoofGardener
May 16 2017, 07:28 PM
Millions of jobs ? Truly ? The EU created millions of jobs in the UK ?

How many millions ? (to the nearest one or two).
Rescued the UK economy ? When did THAT happen ?
Increased international leverage ? Ummm.... no... we gave THAT to the EU by our membership. But we had very limited power to utilise that leverage to OUR advantage independently.

The Falklands ? The European Union helped us in the Falklands ? What, 15 years before it was created ? (the EU that is, not the Falklands).

Ditto the Channel Tunnel, which had nothing to do with the European Economic Community (as it was then). It was a bilateral Anglo-French project.

I could go on, but it's past my bedtime and I'm very sleezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
"I could go on, but it's past my bedtime and I'm very sleezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz"

It shows.

We joined the EU/EEC in 1971 when in a just about terminal economic decline. And guess what, we became a top 5 economic power.

Remember that in 2030 when your grandkids ask you what it was like to once be even in the G20 and before all of Europe looked down on us as and you try to hide that you voted out.
Can you demonstrate (within reason) that joining the EEC caused us to become a top-5 economic power ? And over what timescale ?

In 1971 Led Zeppelin released their fourth Album, which included the track "Stairway to Heaven", frequently cited as being one of the best rock songs ever. The result was that we became a top-5 economic power.

In 1971 the BBC began transmission of The Open University. The result was that we became a top-5 economic power.

In 1971, I went on holiday to Barmouth, and bought a stick of rock. The result was etc etc.

I would suggest that economic success was down to a basket of factors, not least being the diminuation of the Trade Unions (and particularly the Marxist influence over them) and deregulation/privatisation. (and I'm not ENTIRELY ruling out that stick of rock). The EU may have been one of the factors, but I'd suggest it was hardly a dominant one.

Recall that 5 years after joining the EEC, we had to get a bail-out; first from the Americans (or at least.. brokered by them), and then by the IMF.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RoofGardener
May 17 2017, 07:30 AM
Steve K
May 16 2017, 07:34 PM
RoofGardener
May 16 2017, 07:28 PM
Millions of jobs ? Truly ? The EU created millions of jobs in the UK ?

How many millions ? (to the nearest one or two).
Rescued the UK economy ? When did THAT happen ?
Increased international leverage ? Ummm.... no... we gave THAT to the EU by our membership. But we had very limited power to utilise that leverage to OUR advantage independently.

The Falklands ? The European Union helped us in the Falklands ? What, 15 years before it was created ? (the EU that is, not the Falklands).

Ditto the Channel Tunnel, which had nothing to do with the European Economic Community (as it was then). It was a bilateral Anglo-French project.

I could go on, but it's past my bedtime and I'm very sleezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
"I could go on, but it's past my bedtime and I'm very sleezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz"

It shows.

We joined the EU/EEC in 1971 when in a just about terminal economic decline. And guess what, we became a top 5 economic power.

Remember that in 2030 when your grandkids ask you what it was like to once be even in the G20 and before all of Europe looked down on us as and you try to hide that you voted out.
Can you demonstrate (within reason) that joining the EEC caused us to become a top-5 economic power ? And over what timescale ?

In 1971 Led Zeppelin released their fourth Album, which included the track "Stairway to Heaven", frequently cited as being one of the best rock songs ever. The result was that we became a top-5 economic power.

In 1971 the BBC began transmission of The Open University. The result was that we became a top-5 economic power.

In 1971, I went on holiday to Barmouth, and bought a stick of rock. The result was etc etc.

I would suggest that economic success was down to a basket of factors, not least being the diminuation of the Trade Unions (and particularly the Marxist influence over them) and deregulation/privatisation. (and I'm not ENTIRELY ruling out that stick of rock). The EU may have been one of the factors, but I'd suggest it was hardly a dominant one.

Recall that 5 years after joining the EEC, we had to get a bail-out; first from the Americans (or at least.. brokered by them), and then by the IMF.
:nono:
Seriously No!

There were many factors for why the UK had been noncompetitive prior to joining, many of which joining addressed. Factors some of which will return on leaving ..... you know this.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
RoofGardener
Member Avatar
Lord of Plantpots
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
May 16 2017, 07:36 PM
RoofGardener
May 16 2017, 07:28 PM
Millions of jobs ? Truly ? The EU created millions of jobs in the UK ?

How many millions ? (to the nearest one or two).
Rescued the UK economy ? When did THAT happen ?
Increased international leverage ? Ummm.... no... we gave THAT to the EU by our membership. But we had very limited power to utilise that leverage to OUR advantage independently.

The Falklands ? The European Union helped us in the Falklands ? What, 15 years before it was created ? (the EU that is, not the Falklands).

Ditto the Channel Tunnel, which had nothing to do with the European Economic Community (as it was then). It was a bilateral Anglo-French project.

I could go on, but it's past my bedtime and I'm very sleezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Sick man of Europe.

We don't get called that any more. But what has that to do with the EU ?
Quote:
 

Hundreds of billions of inward investment.

What, from the EU ? Really ? Do you have any supporting evidence of that ?
Quote:
 

Jobs, many highly skilled, numbered in the hundreds of thousands at the very least.

Same question.
Quote:
 

The weight of the EU to stand up to economic giants like China and the US.

That is a frequently made comment, but it is logically flawed. The EU does indeed have "weight", in the way you describe. However, this "weight" exists BECAUSE of the UK (and the other 28 members). It benefits the EU in trade negotiations, but that does NOT mean that it benefits the UK. We have very little ability to leverage that "weight" ourselves, Nor do we have much control over how the EU uses that 'weight'.... but at the same time we are obliged to abide by whatever the outcome of said negotiations are.

You could argue that this "weight" that you attribute to the EU is actually a weight indeed... a millstone around the UK's neck.
Quote:
 

The French set up mock combat over the channel involving Sea Harrier's and Mirage III's and stopped delivery of more Exocets.

They did ? That was very nice of them. But what did that have to do with the EU ? (or the EEC as it was then) Also, how exactly did they do that when all of the Sea Harriers where aboard the Hermes and the Invincible, and halfway to Ascension ?

Quote:
 

44% of UK trade.

Leaving the EU does not mean that we have to stop trading with (geographically) European countries.
And we are going to give it up because elderly fuckwits think the Empire is coming back they need us more than we need them and we won the war, pretty sad really isn't it? :)
Edited by RoofGardener, May 17 2017, 08:31 AM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
RoofGardener
Member Avatar
Lord of Plantpots
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
May 17 2017, 08:22 AM
:nono:
Seriously No!

There were many factors for why the UK had been noncompetitive prior to joining, many of which joining addressed. Factors some of which will return on leaving ..... you know this.
No, I do NOT know this :)
Can you give some examples of these "factors" that bedevilled the UK economy, and that joining the EEC addressed ?
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
The plurality-of-standards-ometer has just gone off the chart

Seems any vague or false connection between the EU and anything that might come to be adverse is to be taken as established fact

Solid correlations of economic and political benefits have to be proved in a court beyond all reasonable doubt or they will be rejected

Not worth debating with such is it.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Mr Pat
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Steve K
May 17 2017, 08:43 AM
The plurality-of-standards-ometer has just gone off the chart

Seems any vague or false connection between the EU and anything that might come to be adverse is to be taken as established fact

Solid correlations of economic and political benefits have to be proved in a court beyond all reasonable doubt or they will be rejected

Not worth debating with such is it.
Slang for: I'll hold my hands up as I can't refute the points made.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RoofGardener
May 17 2017, 08:33 AM
Affa
May 17 2017, 08:22 AM
:nono:
Seriously No!

There were many factors for why the UK had been noncompetitive prior to joining, many of which joining addressed. Factors some of which will return on leaving ..... you know this.
No, I do NOT know this :)
Can you give some examples of these "factors" that bedevilled the UK economy, and that joining the EEC addressed ?

How about the slowest growth rate of the seven?
Sterling devalued. The UK noncompetitive, imports rising, exports failing.
After WWII up to 1960 the UK had the highest income per capita in the West. It lost that place.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
RoofGardener
Member Avatar
Lord of Plantpots
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
May 17 2017, 08:43 AM
The plurality-of-standards-ometer has just gone off the chart

Seems any vague or false connection between the EU and anything that might come to be adverse is to be taken as established fact

Solid correlations of economic and political benefits have to be proved in a court beyond all reasonable doubt or they will be rejected

Not worth debating with such is it.
The goalposts have red-shifted as they accelerate towards light speed ;D

I never said that membership of the EU did not bring benefits; I merely challenged some of the figures suggested in the last few posts of "Billions of pounds of investiment" and "Hundreds of thousands of jobs", or that membership of the EEC had a drastic - and unique - effect on the UK's past (and current) economy. Or that the EEC helped us in the Falklands war (they actually DID, though not in the way the poster thought... but I'll let HIM puzzle THAT one out :P ), or that they helped with the Channel Tunnel, and so on and so forth.

I find it revealing that each time I challenge such statements they are never substantiated, merely either repeated, or ignored and NEW assertions issued in their place ;D

Edited by RoofGardener, May 17 2017, 10:23 AM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Europe · Next Topic »
Locked Topic