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 (1,447 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:
RoofGardener
Member Avatar
Lord of Plantpots
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
May 17 2017, 09:22 AM
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?

And how specifically did the EEC address that ? Wouldn't the devaluation (prior to joining) have helped that by boosting exports ?
Quote:
 

Sterling devalued.

And remained so .. the EEC didn't address that. (because it was a solution, not a problem).
Quote:
 

The UK noncompetitive, imports rising, exports failing.

Which the devaluation would have ameliorated. The EEC certainly didn't do anything in particular ?
Quote:
 

After WWII up to 1960 the UK had the highest income per capita in the West. It lost that place.

Yes, because it couldn't sustain it.. then or now. That is not relevant to a discussion on the EEC/EU ?

Back in 1971, joining the EEC would have been regarded as a positive, stabalising influence on the UK economy. But it would have been one of very many factors, including the World economy coming out of a dip, the UK changing its manufacturing processes, a positive effort being made to address the atrocious balance of trade, and much much more.

The EEC would have helped, but not to the wild extent that some here are suggesting. It certainly didn't result in "Billions" in investment, nor would it have created "Hundreds of thousands" of jobs.
Edited by RoofGardener, May 17 2017, 11:27 AM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
May 1 2017, 07:10 PM
Affa
May 1 2017, 06:12 PM
Rich
May 1 2017, 02:45 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.

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.
The trade unions did not hold NL to ransom, what a pity that insinuated lies and political bias destroyed New Labour.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
RoofGardener
Member Avatar
Lord of Plantpots
[ *  *  *  * ]
Well, I'm sure that's true.. compared to what they did in the 1970's.

They may not have held NL to ransom in the sense of general strikes etc... but I suspect they had influence.

Umm... which is.. of course.. what they are SUPPOSED to do !
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
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.
I understood that we originally joined the "EC"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Communities_membership_referendum,_1975
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Mr Pat
May 17 2017, 09:11 AM
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.
!jk!

You have so much to catch up on. Perhaps if you made your appearances here less sporadic you would have to. But then you don't really come here to debate do you

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
RoofGardener
May 17 2017, 10:10 AM
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

Ah again the tactic of posting false accounts of what others posted in order to supposedly refute them. Not really debating is it.

Take the Falklands and the massive co-operation we got from other EU/EEC nations. No one said the EU/EEC specifically directed that we got that. But the point was we were in a collective group whose co-operative mechanisms create the atmosphere for mutual co-operation

It is inconceivable that we'd have got that co-operation in 1982 had we told the EEC/EU in our 1975 referendum that we were leaving (with similar pejorative rhetoric as used by Outers in the run up to June last year)

To be blunt it is either dishonest or incredibly stupid to pretend you can call another fat, ugly and a drain on us and then expect them not to reap commercial advantages from legally selling to our enemies and instead give us crucial secrets to use against those enemies.

Similar with the Channel Tunnel. With us thumbing our nose at France they'd never have stumped up their massive contribution to make it work.


Offline Profile Goto Top
 
RoofGardener
Member Avatar
Lord of Plantpots
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
May 17 2017, 10:42 PM
RoofGardener
May 17 2017, 10:10 AM
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

Ah again the tactic of posting false accounts of what others posted in order to supposedly refute them. Not really debating is it.

Take the Falklands and the massive co-operation we got from other EU/EEC nations. No one said the EU/EEC specifically directed that we got that. But the point was we were in a collective group whose co-operative mechanisms create the atmosphere for mutual co-operation

It is inconceivable that we'd have got that co-operation in 1982 had we told the EEC/EU in our 1975 referendum that we were leaving (with similar pejorative rhetoric as used by Outers in the run up to June last year)

To be blunt it is either dishonest or incredibly stupid to pretend you can call another fat, ugly and a drain on us and then expect them not to reap commercial advantages from legally selling to our enemies and instead give us crucial secrets to use against those enemies.

Similar with the Channel Tunnel. With us thumbing our nose at France they'd never have stumped up their massive contribution to make it work.


ROFL... and in what way did I misrepresent other posters posts ?

OK... lets take the Falklands. The post I responded to was http://w11.zetaboards.com/UK_Debate_Mk_2/single/?p=10047497&t=30207537

The post explicitly stated that the EU gave "..intelligence and other support..." to the UK. But it didn't. Individual nations gave intelligence and other support. (particularly France over the issue of Exocet missiles). The EEC was not involved; it didn't have any intelligence "competencies" back in those days.

What it DID do was respond to a request that import sanctions be imposed against Argentina, which WAS helpful. However, it would likely have done so even if the UK was NOT a member. Several other non-EU nations imposed sanctions; Australia, Switzerland and (fashionably late in the day, as ever) the USA, for example. Even then, EEC support for sanctions began to crumble when the Belgrano was sunk; had the war not been completed quickly, it is unlikely they would have lasted for very long. In addition, the thrust of British diplomacy was as much with the individual EEC member nations as it was with the institution of the EEC itself.

The underlying thrust of the recent debate is that the UK would have struggled over the last 60 years without its membership of the EEC/EU The issue of the Falklands conflict was raised as being an example of the EU offering major benefits to the UK. But I'm afraid that simply doesn't stack up.

The attempt to conflate the current Brexit situation with the situation in 1982 is also a red herring. Apart from anything else, the EEC was not the EU; it did not at the time have the close political bonds that the EU currently (?) does. A 'leave' vote in 1973 would hardly have had repercussions of the sort you describe in a military conflict 9 years later.


Quote:
 

...Take the Falklands and the massive co-operation we got from other EU/EEC nations. No one said the EU/EEC specifically directed that we got that. But the point was we were in a collective group whose co-operative mechanisms create the atmosphere for mutual co-operation...

I disagree. The implication in the respective posts was that the "co-operation" was a direct result of EEC effort.

A similar argument relates to the Channel Tunnel. This was an arrangement between the Banks (who ended up owning it.. or at least a controlling share), two national governments (Britain and France), and private commercial company. The involvement of the British and French governments respectively was limited to authorising the venture, drafting agreements on customs and immigration (because - effectively - a new land border was being created), and arranging for planning permission etc. This was a purely bilateral commercial arrangement. The EU was not involved at any stage ! Had we voted to leave the EEC in 1973, then there are no grounds to believe that the tunnel would not have been built.

Other claims have been raised, including that the EU was responsible for "Billions" of pounds in investment, and "hundreds of thousands" of jobs. The authors of these figures have not yet chosen to defend them when I subsequently challenged them.

You also mention roaming charges as an EU triumph, Steve. That 'triumph' will just force general mobile tariffs to increase across the board, as the phone operators compensate for the lost profits. A "pyrrhic" triumph perhaps ? ;D

As for your assertion that the EEC "Rescued the UK economy".. well.... sorry.. no it didn't.

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
RoofGardener
May 18 2017, 09:40 AM

I disagree. The implication in the respective posts was that the "co-operation" was a direct result of EEC effort. . .

Err no it said in mock Python terms

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?


I should know, I posted it. Perhaps you should watch Life of Brian again

Quote:
 
You also mention roaming charges as an EU triumph, Steve. That 'triumph' will just force general mobile tariffs to increase across the board, as the phone operators compensate for the lost profits. A "pyrrhic" triumph perhaps ? ;D

How strange that roaming charges to Australia went down at the same time. I paid just 10p a megabyte last time I was there. So no that's another false Outer line

Quote:
 
As for your assertion that the EEC "Rescued the UK economy".. well.... sorry.. no it didn't.
Again misrepresentation. Being a member enabled the UK to rescue its economy. Not being a member if going to reverse much of that. The Outers know that, that's why they oppose a second referendum when the eventual leaving terms are known (to be a lot less rosy than Boris etc said they'd be). Outers couldn't let the people decide could they?
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
RoofGardener
Member Avatar
Lord of Plantpots
[ *  *  *  * ]
In reverse order of appearance:
There is no misrepresentation. You assert that being a member of the EEC enabled the UK to 'rescue' its economy. I dispute that. Several people have made similar statements, but non of them will substantiate them. There where a large number of initiatives in play on the UK economy during the 50's, 60's and 70's, not least being a general increase in global economic activity. The EEC may have been a factor, but you can't credit it with "rescuing the economy".

In regards Australia; I refer you back to my point; the forced reduction in roaming charges will likely produce a general increase in tarifs. Not immediately, or the EU could claim a causal relationship and punish the phone operators, but soon. That is basic economics. Of course, that is just my opinion, but either way it is a little early in the day to be declaring this a EU triumph.

In regards Python; if you think the EU offers any Autonomy then you're fooling yourself. It is a dictatorship; a self-perpetuating Autocracy in which the working class is repressed !
Edited by RoofGardener, May 18 2017, 12:53 PM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
You got it hopelessly wrong on roaming charges, why not admit it?

The rest of your theory is plain denial of the clear correlations. As I said way too many Outers won't accept anything positive about the EU unless it is absolutely proven scientific fact. And then 5 minutes later they'll deny it



Offline Profile Goto Top
 
RoofGardener
Member Avatar
Lord of Plantpots
[ *  *  *  * ]
And in what way did I get it wrong on roaming charges ? If the telecom operators are going to be forced to reduce their profits in ONE area (international roaming), then they will seek to compensate for it in other ways... and the only way I can see available to them is a general increase in tarifs.

Steve, you cite "clear correlations", but that's the point, isn't it ? There is no clear correlation between joining the EEC, and the "rescuing of the UK economy". The EEC may have been a factor, but it would have been one factor amongst many, and I would suggest it would NOT have been a major one. (the 'breaking' of the unions in the UK would have been FAR more significant, as would deregulation, along with the psychological realisation that we where no longer an empire, that the world didn't owe us a favour, and that Hemp was no longer cutting-edge technology).

My "roaming" comment was indeed a theory, but don't you think it is an entirely reasonable one ? (we will have to wait a year or two for it to be demonstrated one way or the other). But the rest of my comments are pure logic, based on two principles:
1) asking that assertions are proven, or at least corroborated, or failing that at least explained , and
2) a rejection of the logical fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
RoofGardener
May 19 2017, 07:15 AM
And in what way did I get it wrong on roaming charges ? If the telecom operators are going to be forced to reduce their profits in ONE area (international roaming), then they will seek to compensate for it in other ways... and the only way I can see available to them is a general increase in tarifs.
How simply do you need this?

You said that when the EU forced the end of rip off charges inside the EU then that was unfair as the operators just went on to rip off customers in other areas

Except they didn't. As I said the likes of TalkMobile REDUCED their roaming charges for non EU areas at the same time. It's a fact, go look it up. And at the same time mobile phone charges across the board have been reducing. BT for example keep offering me calls, 4G data and texts for a fiver a month. Link

Your theory was a crock

Edited by Steve K, May 19 2017, 08:44 AM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
RoofGardener
Member Avatar
Lord of Plantpots
[ *  *  *  * ]
What I said.. in post #167 above... is that...

Quote:
 

You also mention roaming charges as an EU triumph, Steve. That 'triumph' will just force general mobile tariffs to increase across the board, as the phone operators compensate for the lost profits. A "pyrrhic" triumph perhaps ? ;D

I did not say that the operators "went on to....". I suggested that they "will"... the future tense. In my subsequent post, I suggested that this will not be immediate , as that would allow the EU to infer a causal relationship between the two, and pile on more sanctions. In my opinion, the prices WILL go up once the dust has settled and the EU can't easily demonstrate a connection between the two. This is basic market forces.

Speculation ? Yes, but a reasonable one. Either way, it is too early to tout the roaming charges as a triumph for the EU.

You have misrepresented my post Steve ! Report to my study ! Spank1:
;D
Edited by RoofGardener, May 19 2017, 02:10 PM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
RoofGardener
May 19 2017, 02:06 PM
What I said.. in post #167 above... is that...

Quote:
 

You also mention roaming charges as an EU triumph, Steve. That 'triumph' will just force general mobile tariffs to increase across the board, as the phone operators compensate for the lost profits. A "pyrrhic" triumph perhaps ? ;D

I did not say that the operators "went on to....". I suggested that they "will"... the future tense. In my subsequent post, I suggested that this will not be immediate , as that would allow the EU to infer a causal relationship between the two, and pile on more sanctions. In my opinion, the prices WILL go up once the dust has settled and the EU can't easily demonstrate a connection between the two. This is basic market forces.

Speculation ? Yes, but a reasonable one. Either way, it is too early to tout the roaming charges as a triumph for the EU.

You have misrepresented my post Steve ! Report to my study ! Spank1:
;D
So at best you are a hostage to fortune then. And being not a little perverse. Why would they delay in increasing such prices if that was their plan?

Worse if anything the future is going to give us increased roaming charges in Europe as we will have reduced leverage to take on the big players

A case of "oh shit we left" looms
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
RoofGardener
Member Avatar
Lord of Plantpots
[ *  *  *  * ]
Why the delay ? Umm.. I think I've addressed that ? At least twice ?

As for a "..hostage to fortune".. well.. perhaps. We shall see. Either way, it repeat: it is too soon to classify the Roaming Charges cap as being a EU triumph !

Still, it is a small thing. If you are happy to cede that the EU where not critical in "rescuing our economy", or helping us in the Falklands conflict, or building the channel tunnel then.... I'll cede you your roaming charges in Australia ! :)
Edited by RoofGardener, May 19 2017, 07:31 PM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Mr Pat
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
So much disharmony in Europe.

Allies. Yeah right.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
johnofgwent
Member Avatar
It .. It is GREEN !!
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Apr 9 2017, 09:25 AM
Mr Pat
Apr 9 2017, 09:07 AM
Affa
Apr 9 2017, 08:44 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep


I'm using remainer logic here. If we voted out to the detriment of GDP, you voted in to the detriment of lives.

Which chancellor was shouting and ordering wilkomen on behalf of other nation states; in order to fakeugees, refugees, economic migrants and would be terrorists in?

We'll play that game again, here's the clue her surname begins with another ominous 'M'.

That would be under club EU remit and I see the tensions are still their with Hungary and other ex-E.bloc nations.

Do as you are told, or fuck offski!

So it should be so easy for you to name one terrorist incident in the UK that was perpetrated by someone admitted to the UK because of EU rules

Go on then, name one
Steve ...


http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/london-bridge-terrorist-moroccan-living-10563469


I admit a bit of a stretch, because some wanker in westminster decided that because they USED to be part of a United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, we should allow these rebellious bastards free passage to and from our country after they decided to use violence to depart the union BUT it is a fact that without EU Rules allowing him into ireland to marry and become an Irish citizen because of it, he would not have been allowed to slash, maim and kill on London bridge, WOULD HE...
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Mr Pat
Aug 5 2017, 02:19 AM
So much disharmony in Europe.

Allies. Yeah right.
No, no no, WE are the allies.....but only when they are in sxxt street and need helping.

More than once. ;-)
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
johnofgwent
Aug 5 2017, 06:43 PM
Steve K
Apr 9 2017, 09:25 AM
Mr Pat
Apr 9 2017, 09:07 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
So it should be so easy for you to name one terrorist incident in the UK that was perpetrated by someone admitted to the UK because of EU rules

Go on then, name one
Steve ...


http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/london-bridge-terrorist-moroccan-living-10563469


I admit a bit of a stretch, because some wanker in westminster decided that because they USED to be part of a United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, we should allow these rebellious bastards free passage to and from our country after they decided to use violence to depart the union BUT it is a fact that without EU Rules allowing him into ireland to marry and become an Irish citizen because of it, he would not have been allowed to slash, maim and kill on London bridge, WOULD HE...
Arguable but of course we had free movement across that border before we joined the EU

But then if he'd married a German we'd have let him in under EU rules so yes you win on this one.

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Aug 5 2017, 07:57 PM
johnofgwent
Aug 5 2017, 06:43 PM
Steve K
Apr 9 2017, 09:25 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Steve ...


http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/london-bridge-terrorist-moroccan-living-10563469


I admit a bit of a stretch, because some wanker in westminster decided that because they USED to be part of a United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, we should allow these rebellious bastards free passage to and from our country after they decided to use violence to depart the union BUT it is a fact that without EU Rules allowing him into ireland to marry and become an Irish citizen because of it, he would not have been allowed to slash, maim and kill on London bridge, WOULD HE...
Arguable but of course we had free movement across that border before we joined the EU

But then if he'd married a German we'd have let him in under EU rules so yes you win on this one.

So as far as you two high and mighty mods are concerned, this is not about reality and pragmatism, but more about scoring points?

I despair.  nonono:
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
johnofgwent
Member Avatar
It .. It is GREEN !!
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Aug 6 2017, 12:55 AM
Steve K
Aug 5 2017, 07:57 PM
johnofgwent
Aug 5 2017, 06:43 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deephttp://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/london-bridge-terrorist-moroccan-living-10563469


I admit a bit of a stretch, because some wanker in westminster decided that because they USED to be part of a United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, we should allow these rebellious bastards free passage to and from our country after they decided to use violence to depart the union BUT it is a fact that without EU Rules allowing him into ireland to marry and become an Irish citizen because of it, he would not have been allowed to slash, maim and kill on London bridge, WOULD HE...
Arguable but of course we had free movement across that border before we joined the EU

But then if he'd married a German we'd have let him in under EU rules so yes you win on this one.

So as far as you two high and mighty mods are concerned, this is not about reality and pragmatism, but more about scoring points?

I despair.  nonono:
well you can interpret it in that way if you like

as you might see, i had not actually commented in this thread for a while, but had reasons unrelated to the subject to peruse it and about a dozen others ...

while doing so i came upon steve's challenge to Mr Pat, I think it was, not me.

And I remembered something. I remembered the time not so long ago when my day job involved me in the fuckup caused by those three wankers going on a hack and slash mission for their particular flavour of sky fairy (who lots of people insist is nothing to do with the sky fairy with the same name they prostrate themselves before, but I digress). And I remembered someone making the point very loudly that one of the bastards only got in here to carry out his killing spree because some fuckwit let him into ireland and then let him marry an irish citizen. So I thought I'd pass that on.

I did point out the problem is complicated somewhat by our own governments equal if not worse fuckup of continuing to allow murdering bastards free access to this country after they violently departed the union circa 1922...

And on a slightly more general matter, we all post as members unless we wave the !mod! flag and have done since day one otherwise I'd not find anyone to volunteer to be a mod and you wouldnlt have a forum as i wouldn't have the time or the inclination to run it single handed
Edited by johnofgwent, Aug 6 2017, 05:31 AM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Mr Pat
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Full steam ahead then after Juncker's big special speech.

Thank God we left!
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Mr Pat
Sep 13 2017, 10:11 AM


Thank God we left!
"We" haven't left. (Yet.)
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Mr Pat
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/pound-sterling-latest-exchange-rates-us-dollar-euro-uk-interest-rate-rise-economic-growth-a8019221.html

Looking back at over 10 or 20 years, the post-ref drop in value was a pretty minor event.

Looking at over 12 months, the pound has shown a steady improvement.

Only currency speculators look at movements on an hourly or daily basis.

It seems over the last twelve months remainers have been avid currency speculators. ;D
Edited by Mr Pat, Oct 26 2017, 10:17 AM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Mr Pat
Oct 26 2017, 10:16 AM
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/pound-sterling-latest-exchange-rates-us-dollar-euro-uk-interest-rate-rise-economic-growth-a8019221.html

Looking back at over 10 or 20 years, the post-ref drop in value was a pretty minor event.

Looking at over 12 months, the pound has shown a steady improvement.

Only currency speculators look at movements on an hourly or daily basis.

It seems over the last twelve months remainers have been avid currency speculators. ;D

Very rosy!

I reckon some problems are on the horizon very soon, construction output is "unexpectedly" down, no idea why it's unexpected as housing, rents etc are virtually unaffordable despite multiple props and bungs via the government.

Expect to see a sharp contraction in both productivity and consumer spending as the chronic problems we never sorted out come back with interest.

Oh and a BoE interest rate hike as well! :)
Edited by Tigger, Oct 26 2017, 11:14 AM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Mr Pat
Oct 26 2017, 10:16 AM
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/pound-sterling-latest-exchange-rates-us-dollar-euro-uk-interest-rate-rise-economic-growth-a8019221.html

Looking back at over 10 or 20 years, the post-ref drop in value was a pretty minor event.

Looking at over 12 months, the pound has shown a steady improvement.

Only currency speculators look at movements on an hourly or daily basis.

It seems over the last twelve months remainers have been avid currency speculators. ;D
We've shredded that misconception so many times. Have two charts you really won't like as the correlation is undeniable

Posted Image

Posted Image

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Mr Pat
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
You haven't shredded anything.

The pound FACTUALLY rose just a day or so ago.

But as usual, there is no context to say the least, and of course dishonesty at worse.

This graph gives a much better perspective re. how the pound has changed - and it can be seen in 2008; contrary to 'Brexit referendum reason' myths.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/08/30/pound-has-changed-since-last-record-slump-one-chart/

 ::)





Edited by Mr Pat, Oct 27 2017, 09:24 AM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Mr Pat
Oct 27 2017, 08:59 AM
You haven't shredded anything.

The pound FACTUALLY rose just a day or so ago, you're not going to lie about that are you?
No lies here

The pound is currently trading down 0.5% today at US$1.30870 and that is just under 13% down from its end of referendum day figure

The Euro is closed last night at US$1.16279 which is just over 2% up on its referendum day close 1.1368

And as the posted charts showed, the correlation with the result announcements is undeniable.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Mr Pat
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
And like I said, in future this drop will look like a pretty minor event.

Even over the last 9 years, it hasn't been the main headliner.

This is also undeniable.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Mr Pat
Oct 27 2017, 09:41 AM
And like I said, in future this drop will look like a pretty minor event.

Even over the last 9 years, it hasn't been the main headliner.

This is also undeniable.
We just don't know the long term, as I've posted before the current rate looks too low and reflects somewhat on the negotiating competence. A US$1.35 and €1.15 position seems more right.

The Brexit devaluation is more complex than it looks. The early hours fall was the inevitable result of money flight from the UK as the big money investors judged we faced worse times. Osborne had predicted such and had threatened his emergency budget to make government £spend = £receipts. Later that day the BoE issued their 'don't be silly, we'll just print money instead' response which inevitably diluted the currency and was a smarter approach.

We import ~£600B a year, some of it luxuries but much of it necessities like energy, fuel and food. The 13% fall equates to ~£1.2k average worse off per man, woman and child. Not so far from the £4.3k per household by 2020 estimate we were told was a lie. It just came sooner and remember we haven't actually left yet. Some money is still going to be bet on we will stay in the single market.

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Learn More · Register for Free
« Previous Topic · Europe · Next Topic »
Locked Topic