Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

May's brexit speech


spartan max2
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Setton said:

Actually, that's exactly what remainers can do. You wanted it, time you made a success of it. We're quite happy to sit back and see what happens. If you fail, remainers can always make a future case for rejoining without having compromised their morals.

This is a really petty way to conduct politics, and to be frank it demonstrates just how childish much of the antics are within parliament.

It's like sitting watching someone working hard to put up a two-man tent, while offering no help, in the hope that they'll fail, so you - the general you - can say "I could have done that."

Sadly, if the tent doesn't go up, there'll be nowhere for either of you to sleep, and morals don't keep anyone warm.

The decision has been made. It's time to quit the BS, and work together.

Edited by LV-426
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Setton said:

This is what really gets me, the UK public chose to join the EU 25 years ago and Eurosceptics haven't stopped complaining about it since. But now that the vote's gone your way this time, you expect everyone else to just fall into line and help you make it work. The hypocrisy is simply staggering.

Er no, we didnt vote to join the EU 25 years ago.   We were never given the opprtunity.  

(We did vote to remain in the Common Market in 1975, but that was before the EU and before the public were aware of the long term plans that Brussels had for that free trade group)

And whilst there has been a growing demand to finally have that referendum in recent years - which happened last June and resulted in a majority of those who chose to exercise their vote voting to leave - for most of that time the vast majority of people have just got on with their lives and - some petty mumbling in the corner the pub aside - lived with and accepted the consequences of being in the EU.   Straight bananas and all.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Essan said:

Er no, we didnt vote to join the EU 25 years ago.   We were never given the opprtunity.  

(We did vote to remain in the Common Market in 1975, but that was before the EU and before the public were aware of the long term plans that Brussels had for that free trade group)

And whilst there has been a growing demand to finally have that referendum in recent years - which happened last June and resulted in a majority of those who chose to exercise their vote voting to leave - for most of that time the vast majority of people have just got on with their lives and - some petty mumbling in the corner the pub aside - lived with and accepted the consequences of being in the EU.   Straight bananas and all.

The Remainers cannot say we never gave it a good go, 43 years to be exact. (44 years 2017) i think that's ample time for people to live under a system to gauge if they agree or disagree. It was interesting to see those who lived the longest under the system and should have gained the most from membership voted to leave in their droves while those who've known little else didn't, repeating the mistake of their forebears in 1975.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LV-426 said:

This is a really petty way to conduct politics, and to be frank it demonstrates just how childish much of the antics are within parliament.

It's like sitting watching someone working hard to put up a two-man tent, while offering no help, in the hope that they'll fail, so you - the general you - can say "I could have done that."

Sadly, if the tent doesn't go up, there'll be nowhere for either of you to sleep, and morals don't keep anyone warm.

The decision has been made. It's time to quit the BS, and work together.

Yes, but your analogy misses the part where the one not helping had already booked a nice hotel with a jacuzzi :P

50 minutes ago, Essan said:

Er no, we didnt vote to join the EU 25 years ago.   We were never given the opprtunity.  

(We did vote to remain in the Common Market in 1975, but that was before the EU and before the public were aware of the long term plans that Brussels had for that free trade group)

And whilst there has been a growing demand to finally have that referendum in recent years - which happened last June and resulted in a majority of those who chose to exercise their vote voting to leave - for most of that time the vast majority of people have just got on with their lives and - some petty mumbling in the corner the pub aside - lived with and accepted the consequences of being in the EU.   Straight bananas and all.

Fair point about common market rather than EU. Also don't know where I got 25 from. Long day.

The majority got on with their lives, sure. So will I. But they didn't actively work to make the EU a success.

4 minutes ago, stevewinn said:

The Remainers cannot say we never gave it a good go, 43 years to be exact. (44 years 2017) i think that's ample time for people to live under a system to gauge if they agree or disagree. It was interesting to see those who lived the longest under the system and should have gained the most from membership voted to leave in their droves while those who've known little else didn't, repeating the mistake of their forebears in 1975.

We had 1100 years before that without the EU. Should we claim we've also given life on the outside a good go and decided it's not for us?

(As it seems to be necessary to say this these days - this is tongue in cheek and not intended to be taken seriously)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

You're quite right.

Let's talk about Trump. Did you know that there's a new president now? I'd have thought it would have been mentioned a bit more, wouldn't you? :angry:

Another new president? What was wrong with the old one...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, stevewinn said:

The Remainers cannot say we never gave it a good go, 43 years to be exact. (44 years 2017) i think that's ample time for people to live under a system to gauge if they agree or disagree. It was interesting to see those who lived the longest under the system and should have gained the most from membership voted to leave in their droves while those who've known little else didn't, repeating the mistake of their forebears in 1975.

 

 

I think the remainers are arguing that the last 43 years have been better than the previous 43 years before it and that it's wrong to gamble this security and prosperity on a unknown populous call organised by provocateurs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

I think the remainers are arguing that the last 43 years have been better than the previous 43 years before it and that it's wrong to gamble this security and prosperity on a unknown populous call organised by provocateurs. 

Well, according to, who was it, Harold Macmillan I think, we'd never had it so good in, when was it, 1957. And there was the cutting edge of technology and swinging London and what have you in the 60s, and frankly it all started to go downhill in the 70s, at least until That Woman came along, so I don't know whether there's much of a correlation between EEC/EU membership and overall wellbeing.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

I think the remainers are arguing that the last 43 years have been better than the previous 43 years before it and that it's wrong to gamble this security and prosperity on a unknown populous call organised by provocateurs. 

The majority seen different and voted accordingly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, stevewinn said:

The majority seen different and voted accordingly.

 Guess they did. Let's hope they don't get disappointed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

Well, according to, who was it, Harold Macmillan I think, we'd never had it so good in, when was it, 1957. And there was the cutting edge of technology and swinging London and what have you in the 60s, and frankly it all started to go downhill in the 70s, at least until That Woman came along, so I don't know whether there's much of a correlation between EEC/EU membership and overall wellbeing.

Well that's just wrong. Apart from a small post WW2 boom Britain was on a downward economic slide. I think I have already posted something on this earlier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

Well that's just wrong.

See you just dismiss everything if anyone does try to argue with the points you make with blanket statements of opinion, expressed as if they're facts, like this. This is why people get exasperated with you. Though I expect you have a Graph to prove it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

See you just dismiss everything if anyone does try to argue with the points you make with blanket statements of opinion, expressed as if they're facts, like this. This is why people get exasperated with you. Though I expect you have a Graph to prove it.


 
The UK’s growth has exceeded the US while tracking it, even since the crisis of 2008. This makes it hard to argue that the EU is dragging the UK down. Alternatively, compare this to the UK’s performance during the “glory days” of the Empire from 1872 to 1914. Back then Britain’s per capita growth was only 0.9% per year, in contrast to its robust 2.1% since joining the EU.
 
An important bonus is that the benefits of growth in Britain have been divided much more fairly than in the US. Statistics compiled by the Institute for New Economic Thinking show that Since 1974, median income in the UK grew by 79%, in contrast to 16% for the US. Thus, Britain has had the best of both worlds while a member of the EU -- not just strong growth, but more equal growth.
 
As the UK economy has grown, it has become more dependent on trade. Since 1973 the ratio of trade to economic output increased from 48% to 67%. At present 45% of the UK’s exports go to other EU member countries. In response to the concern that the EU might impose high tariffs or punitive measures if the UK leaves, some Brexiteers have said that we can “just trade with Australia and Canada”. These two countries, however,  only account for a meagre 2.9% of British exports. 
 
History is clear: things have gone very well for Britain as a member of the EU.

http://www.inet.ox.ac.uk/news/Brexit

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The werid thing is why do Australians keep telling Brits on what to do esp in this forum, whereas in Australia they have a simular stance to immigration and jobs?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Mr.United_Nations said:

The werid thing is why do Australians keep telling Brits on what to do esp in this forum, whereas in Australia they have a simular stance to immigration and jobs?

Australian's aren't telling you anything... its just Captain Risky who just so happens to be an Australian. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/27/2017 at 8:25 AM, Captain Risky said:


 
The UK’s growth has exceeded the US while tracking it, even since the crisis of 2008. This makes it hard to argue that the EU is dragging the UK down. Alternatively, compare this to the UK’s performance during the “glory days” of the Empire from 1872 to 1914. Back then Britain’s per capita growth was only 0.9% per year, in contrast to its robust 2.1% since joining the EU.
 
An important bonus is that the benefits of growth in Britain have been divided much more fairly than in the US. Statistics compiled by the Institute for New Economic Thinking show that Since 1974, median income in the UK grew by 79%, in contrast to 16% for the US. Thus, Britain has had the best of both worlds while a member of the EU -- not just strong growth, but more equal growth.
 
As the UK economy has grown, it has become more dependent on trade. Since 1973 the ratio of trade to economic output increased from 48% to 67%. At present 45% of the UK’s exports go to other EU member countries. In response to the concern that the EU might impose high tariffs or punitive measures if the UK leaves, some Brexiteers have said that we can “just trade with Australia and Canada”. These two countries, however,  only account for a meagre 2.9% of British exports. 
 
History is clear: things have gone very well for Britain as a member of the EU.

http://www.inet.ox.ac.uk/news/Brexit

 

Its marvellous what you can do with statistics to suit an agenda. Why have they used GDP-per capita? why not the standard measuring figure of GDP. If we was to use GDP-per capita today in the same way the small state of Qatar would be the worlds number one economy.

secondly, if we highlight the years used - the 'glory years' of 1872 to 1914 as the piece calls them and selected to suit their argument - yet between 1870-1900 The UK was the worlds number one economy, and worlds largest trading Nation, London strengthened its position as the world's number one financial capital, the export of capital was a major base of the British economy 1880 to 1913, the golden age of finance. the piece omits a lot detail during them years, for instance the UK was involved in 14 wars/conflicts. - But its a bit of a stretch that the piece is trying to paint a picture that even at the height of the British empire the British Empire pales in comparison to the UK's 43 year membership of the EU - who would actually believe that? in 1870-1900  the UK accounted for 22% of world trade and 29% of the worlds manufactured goods.

in comparison from 1973 EEC/EU membership our economy no longer number one, ranking between 4th and 7th, we fell into recession from 1973 to 1975, having the IMF step in and loan us £3Billion pounds in 1976 and Today our trade accounts for not 22% like in the glory years but 6.5%. making us the 9th largest exporter and 5th biggest importer. 

The piece finishes on mocking Brexiteers for stating we can 'just' trade with Australia and Canada, Like these two countries are insignificant as global trading nations and then goes further to state today both Australia and Canada account for just 2.9% of British exports. - Yet that figure may be true but for balance they don't mention in 1960 pre-EU membership British exports to Canada were 6.4% and exports to Australia were 5.6% (12% combined) far greater than the 2.9% today; in 1983 ten years after joining the EEC/EU those figures had dropped from 6.4% to 2.4% Canada and 5.6% to 1.6% Australia. falling from 12% to just 4% combined, British Imports from Australia fell from 3.9% to 0.98% and 7.4% to 1.9% for Canada. as we turned our backs on the commonwealth countries and disappeared behind the EU's protectionist curtain. Thankfully with Brexit this can now be addressed for the benefit of our nations as a matter of urgency. - Just think the USA is our single biggest trading partner at 12% (2015) and in 1960 combined Canada and Australia accounted for 12% that shows how big those two markets where to the UK. As far as i can see those two great nations have grown their economies of scale and markets there await our return.

Something to ponder.......

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't argue with dogma Steve. :no: I think it's simply that Risky is a pure EU fanatic, for whatever reason.

 

Edited by Manfred von Dreidecker
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

You can't argue with dogma Steve. :no: I think it's simply that Risky is a pure EU fanatic, for whatever reason.

 

I know, but i do it more for other readers who can take it, leave it or recycle it for more than its worth. 

Captain Risky at times surprises, you think the kid knows his onions, only to be disappointed when you push him on the detail especially if the information isn't readily  forthcoming from a google search in order for him to formulate a response, you then find its not his actual knowledge of the subject he's dispensing but a piece he's read, it fits with his ideals and so it gets posted here. Don't get me wrong we all have to search google or other sources to some degree But the Captain's posts are always taken in isolation to the wider picture or goings on, Its akin to reading a few pages in a story book and from that you think you can tell the whole story, i think that's what frustrates a lot of posters not the fact he as opposing views.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, stevewinn said:

Its marvellous what you can do with statistics to suit an agenda. Why have they used GDP-per capita? why not the standard measuring figure of GDP. If we was to use GDP-per capita today in the same way the small state of Qatar would be the worlds number one economy.

secondly, if we highlight the years used - the 'glory years' of 1872 to 1914 as the piece calls them and selected to suit their argument - yet between 1870-1900 The UK was the worlds number one economy, and worlds largest trading Nation, London strengthened its position as the world's number one financial capital, the export of capital was a major base of the British economy 1880 to 1913, the golden age of finance. the piece omits a lot detail during them years, for instance the UK was involved in 14 wars/conflicts. - But its a bit of a stretch that the piece is trying to paint a picture that even at the height of the British empire the British Empire pales in comparison to the UK's 43 year membership of the EU - who would actually believe that? in 1870-1900  the UK accounted for 22% of world trade and 29% of the worlds manufactured goods.

in comparison from 1973 EEC/EU membership our economy no longer number one, ranking between 4th and 7th, we fell into recession from 1973 to 1975, having the IMF step in and loan us £3Billion pounds in 1976 and Today our trade accounts for not 22% like in the glory years but 6.5%. making us the 9th largest exporter and 5th biggest importer. 

The piece finishes on mocking Brexiteers for stating we can 'just' trade with Australia and Canada, Like these two countries are insignificant as global trading nations and then goes further to state today both Australia and Canada account for just 2.9% of British exports. - Yet that figure may be true but for balance they don't mention in 1960 pre-EU membership British exports to Canada were 6.4% and exports to Australia were 5.6% (12% combined) far greater than the 2.9% today; in 1983 ten years after joining the EEC/EU those figures had dropped from 6.4% to 2.4% Canada and 5.6% to 1.6% Australia. falling from 12% to just 4% combined, British Imports from Australia fell from 3.9% to 0.98% and 7.4% to 1.9% for Canada. as we turned our backs on the commonwealth countries and disappeared behind the EU's protectionist curtain. Thankfully with Brexit this can now be addressed for the benefit of our nations as a matter of urgency. - Just think the USA is our single biggest trading partner at 12% (2015) and in 1960 combined Canada and Australia accounted for 12% that shows how big those two markets where to the UK. As far as i can see those two great nations have grown their economies of scale and markets there await our return.

Something to ponder.......

BOLDED: Really stevewinn? I haven't done or said a thing other than post a link from a very well respected university. The source is Oxford University. Surely you're not suggesting that Oxford professors Sir David Hendry, Professor Doyne Farmer and Dr Max Roser are not impartial and have got it wrong... truth is they make no predictions, hold a position or cast's blame on anyone. Rather they have used historical facts to ascertain the truth.

Show me your fount of knowledge... you never do. But you feel you can attack my sources. That's not how it works, mate. I guess you're afraid to just admit that the Daily Mail and the Express is where you get all your twisted ideas. Perhaps if you want your views to be taken seriously you might need to consider more reputable reading material. Citing sources is the only way for your views to be distinguished from wishful thinking. 

 

 

Edited by Captain Risky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, stevewinn said:

Its marvellous what you can do with statistics to suit an agenda. Why have they used GDP-per capita? why not the standard measuring figure of GDP. If we was to use GDP-per capita today in the same way the small state of Qatar would be the worlds number one economy.

secondly, if we highlight the years used - the 'glory years' of 1872 to 1914 as the piece calls them and selected to suit their argument - yet between 1870-1900 The UK was the worlds number one economy, and worlds largest trading Nation, London strengthened its position as the world's number one financial capital, the export of capital was a major base of the British economy 1880 to 1913, the golden age of finance. the piece omits a lot detail during them years, for instance the UK was involved in 14 wars/conflicts. - But its a bit of a stretch that the piece is trying to paint a picture that even at the height of the British empire the British Empire pales in comparison to the UK's 43 year membership of the EU - who would actually believe that? in 1870-1900  the UK accounted for 22% of world trade and 29% of the worlds manufactured goods.

in comparison from 1973 EEC/EU membership our economy no longer number one, ranking between 4th and 7th, we fell into recession from 1973 to 1975, having the IMF step in and loan us £3Billion pounds in 1976 and Today our trade accounts for not 22% like in the glory years but 6.5%. making us the 9th largest exporter and 5th biggest importer. 

The piece finishes on mocking Brexiteers for stating we can 'just' trade with Australia and Canada, Like these two countries are insignificant as global trading nations and then goes further to state today both Australia and Canada account for just 2.9% of British exports. - Yet that figure may be true but for balance they don't mention in 1960 pre-EU membership British exports to Canada were 6.4% and exports to Australia were 5.6% (12% combined) far greater than the 2.9% today; in 1983 ten years after joining the EEC/EU those figures had dropped from 6.4% to 2.4% Canada and 5.6% to 1.6% Australia. falling from 12% to just 4% combined, British Imports from Australia fell from 3.9% to 0.98% and 7.4% to 1.9% for Canada. as we turned our backs on the commonwealth countries and disappeared behind the EU's protectionist curtain. Thankfully with Brexit this can now be addressed for the benefit of our nations as a matter of urgency. - Just think the USA is our single biggest trading partner at 12% (2015) and in 1960 combined Canada and Australia accounted for 12% that shows how big those two markets where to the UK. As far as i can see those two great nations have grown their economies of scale and markets there await our return.

Something to ponder.......

Surely you jest, stevewinn? PM May is the one that has clearly stated that she want's trade deals with Australia and Canada and after her recent trip, Turkey too. There was a time when Britain was the biggest industrial manufacturer in the world. This manufacturing base was fuelled with raw product from the British empire and colonies. Britain value added to those imports and that is why trade was so high. Levels that just won't be reached again unless Britain becomes a manufacturing powerhouse again. Another example of you living in the past. 

Notice how i back up my claims with reputable sources and not claim some higher level of intelligence? 

 In the early 1950s, Britain was an industrial giant. Today, it is an industrial pygmy. Manufacturing was industry’s bedrock. In 1952, it produced a third of the national output, employed 40 per cent of the workforce and made up a quarter of world manufacturing exports. Today, manufacturing in this country accounts for just 11 per cent of GDP, employs only 8 per cent of the workforce and sells 2 per cent of the world’s manufacturing exports. The iconic names of industrial Britain are history; in their place are the service economy and supermarkets selling mainly imported goods.

http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/culture/2013/01/meeting-our-makers-britain’s-long-industrial-decline

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Economists have poured scorn on claims of huge benefits from a UK-US trade deal, as Theresa May jets in to meet Donald Trump.

A former member of the Bank of England’s monetary policy committee forecast “very small upsides” from an agreement – easily outweighed by big losses from leaving the EU’s single market.

And others pointed out that cutting tariffs – the most likely quick change – would mean little, because duties between the two countries are already very low.

Marianne Schneider-Petsinger, geoeconomics fellow at the Chatham House think tank, predicted the two leaders would “announce something and signal their intent to sign a quick US-UK trade deal”.

But she said: “To be honest, the realities are very different – it is going to be a lengthy and difficult negotiation, there are many obstacles that have to be mounted.”

Ms Schneider-Petsinger suggested there would be pressure to “privatise the NHS” and undercut British farmers already facing the loss of EU subsidies.

She added: “Or there are questions about whether Trump would be willing to allow British-built cars in tariff-free at the same time as he has threatened to impose high tariffs on cars that are made in Mexico.

“A quick deal that would just address tariffs is not really going to be meaningful, as tariffs are already low. It’s really going to be about rules and regulations – the thorny issues.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uk-us-trade-deal-donald-trump-theresa-may-meeting-benefits-eu-single-market-small-upsides-bank-of-a7546866.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Captain Risky said:

Economists have poured scorn on claims of huge benefits from a UK-US trade deal, as Theresa May jets in to meet Donald Trump.

A former member of the Bank of England’s monetary policy committee forecast “very small upsides” from an agreement – easily outweighed by big losses from leaving the EU’s single market.

And others pointed out that cutting tariffs – the most likely quick change – would mean little, because duties between the two countries are already very low.

Marianne Schneider-Petsinger, geoeconomics fellow at the Chatham House think tank, predicted the two leaders would “announce something and signal their intent to sign a quick US-UK trade deal”.

But she said: “To be honest, the realities are very different – it is going to be a lengthy and difficult negotiation, there are many obstacles that have to be mounted.”

Ms Schneider-Petsinger suggested there would be pressure to “privatise the NHS” and undercut British farmers already facing the loss of EU subsidies.

She added: “Or there are questions about whether Trump would be willing to allow British-built cars in tariff-free at the same time as he has threatened to impose high tariffs on cars that are made in Mexico.

“A quick deal that would just address tariffs is not really going to be meaningful, as tariffs are already low. It’s really going to be about rules and regulations – the thorny issues.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uk-us-trade-deal-donald-trump-theresa-may-meeting-benefits-eu-single-market-small-upsides-bank-of-a7546866.html

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A disgrace, to us as a country and to the world.

Wonderful success Donald! She said.

Donald is an animal. She knows that. And got less votes than Hillary.

World politics is now a mad race to the bottom of the heap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh Cap'n has been back with lots of quotes pulled from leftwing websites, although using some different fonts this time, which at least makes a change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

 

Were you so excited you quoted yourself, or did you just decide that it might look even prettier if you used pink? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, alibongo said:

A disgrace, to us as a country and to the world.

Wonderful success Donald! She said.

Donald is an animal. She knows that. And got less votes than Hillary.

World politics is now a mad race to the bottom of the heap.

The Trump may be the New Mussolini, but if anyone really thinks Hillary would have been nice and liberal and would have pulled away from armed confrontation all around the world, they really do need to get an headologist to examine their brain to see if there's one still present. 

Edited by Manfred von Dreidecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.