Opening gambits in EU / UK exit negotiations;

[Unusual Tournament]

1 hour ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

It really is puzzling how people (from Australia in particular) seem so utterly fanatical about a political union/would-be superstate on the other side of the world to them that they utterly rewrite history in an attempt to prove their point. 

...not really!

[Mr.United_Nations]

And also it seems Australia are doing the same ti thier own.

Anyway what is it with Austrlians on here bashing the UK?

[Black Red Devil]

2 hours ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

It really is puzzling how people (from Australia in particular) seem so utterly fanatical about a political union/would-be superstate on the other side of the world to them that they utterly rewrite history in an attempt to prove their point. 

There's nothing fanatical going on.  It's an international forum and people express their opinions as long as they don't break the rules.  Up to you as a local to show you know better. 

Your constant whining about this is what's truly puzzling and surreal.  You seem to have this constant issue with forum "foreigners" interfering in the highly reserved "English boys club" discussions but everything seems to become all of a sudden acceptable when you visit the US Political forum, for example.  In fact, every thread I poke my nose in, you're in the thick of it.  Donald Trump President is a world event, Brexit's a world event and what happens in the Middle East is a world event.  So what would you expect, only Israeli's and Arabs to post in the Middle East section?  That would cover about the whole of two UM posters that I can think of.

[keithisco]

2 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

There's nothing fanatical going on.  It's an international forum and people express their opinions as long as they don't break the rules.  Up to you as a local to show you know better. 

Your constant whining about this is what's truly puzzling and surreal.  You seem to have this constant issue with forum "foreigners" interfering in the highly reserved "English boys club" discussions but everything seems to become all of a sudden acceptable when you visit the US Political forum, for example.  In fact, every thread I poke my nose in, you're in the thick of it.  Donald Trump President is a world event, Brexit's a world event and what happens in the Middle East is a world event.  So what would you expect, only Israeli's and Arabs to post in the Middle East section?  That would cover about the whole of two UM posters that I can think of.

I myself am curious whether or not you have some vested interest in the process of Brexit. Whether you do or not is actually irrelevant to a public forum, and, quite rightly, you are as free as anyone else to comment or hold an opinion. I would only ask that you do not drag up all of the baggage from the other "Brexit" thread as this is unhelpful when discussing the current situation because de facto UK WILL be leaving and no amount of argument will prevent that.

By the same token whether or not you believe the UK SHOULD be leaving is equally irrelevant for this thread but relevant to the Brexit thread.

In recent news: Michel Barnier has called the UK Govt "mistaken" for suggesting that Trade negotiations be run in parallel with the Divorce bill negotiations. From my point of view, it seems entirely logical for parallel negotiations because they will be handled by two different sets of EU folk. I hold out very little prospect for any trade deal being negotiated due the EU stance of "Nothing will be agreed until EVERYTHING is agreed" which hands the real power to every individual pressure group within the EU. In other words "unless the UK accepts EVERY aspect of their demands then there will be no deal". It is for this reason that I do not really believe that a deal is achievable and the UK should "walk" as soon as this becomes clear

 

[keithisco]

So here we have the actual European Parliament "Red Lines":

Quote

 

The European Parliament approves a motion setting out its position on the forthcoming Brexit negotiations by 516 votes to 133 with 50 abstentions.

MEPs will not participate directly in exit talks but must ratify the final deal. 

A series of amendments to the main motion – mostly tabled by UKIP – were rejected.

The resolution backs the “phased” approach to negotiation favoured by EU leaders, and says the UK should be considered liable for financial commitments it made as a member.

It says any transitional arrangements should be time-limited to three years and overseen by the EU’s Court of Justice.

It also says:

• UK citizens in the EU and EU citizens in Britain should receive “reciprocal” treatment
• the final deal should not include a “trade-off” between trade and security co-operation
• the UK should adhere to EU environmental and anti-tax evasion standards to get close trade ties
• the European Banking Authority and European Medicines Agency should be moved out of London
• the UK should pay towards costs for the EU that “arise directly from its withdrawal”

 

Source:

I particularly like the last one which suggests that the UK pay towards the EU27 costs. It is unclear whether this means the UK has to pay the EU for rewriting the Treaties in which it is mentioned, its Legal costs during the negotiating period, or indeed any other costs the EU27 deems reasonable.

 

[hetrodoxly]

9 hours ago, Eldorado said:

Thatcher was lynched by her own Tory cabinet amid riots on the streets of Britain.  She died alone in a hotel bedroom, hated by half the people of Britain.

(Tony Blair was elected three times too.  He was also lynched by his own.  He's also hated by half the people of Britain)

It's a funny old game.

I don't disagree with most of your post and would say she was hated by more than half of the people of Britain (most not even born at the time) she moved into the Ritz because she couldn't cope with the stairs at home she still had many trusted friends and didn't die alone.

[Eldorado]

*sings*   It ain't what you do it's the way that you do it.   

How do think history will remember us?  The generation just past are being lauded as "Britain's Greatest Ever", so how do you think we'll fare?  I ask that in a friendly but sad tone.  I ask all my fellow middle-aged and elderly Britons on here.

Edited April 5, 2017 by Eldorado

[Space Commander Travis]

She hung on too long without a doubt, probably the best argument there is for having a limit on the number of terms of office one can hold. But that doesn't alter the fact that she had rather more effect on overcoming the stranglehold of the unions than the EEC was likely to have done.

[Black Red Devil]

5 hours ago, keithisco said:

I myself am curious whether or not you have some vested interest in the process of Brexit. Whether you do or not is actually irrelevant to a public forum, and, quite rightly, you are as free as anyone else to comment or hold an opinion. I would only ask that you do not drag up all of the baggage from the other "Brexit" thread as this is unhelpful when discussing the current situation because de facto UK WILL be leaving and no amount of argument will prevent that.

By the same token whether or not you believe the UK SHOULD be leaving is equally irrelevant for this thread but relevant to the Brexit thread.

In recent news: Michel Barnier has called the UK Govt "mistaken" for suggesting that Trade negotiations be run in parallel with the Divorce bill negotiations. From my point of view, it seems entirely logical for parallel negotiations because they will be handled by two different sets of EU folk. I hold out very little prospect for any trade deal being negotiated due the EU stance of "Nothing will be agreed until EVERYTHING is agreed" which hands the real power to every individual pressure group within the EU. In other words "unless the UK accepts EVERY aspect of their demands then there will be no deal". It is for this reason that I do not really believe that a deal is achievable and the UK should "walk" as soon as this becomes clear

 

Forget it.

Edited April 5, 2017 by Black Red Devil

[stevewinn]

On 4/4/2017 at 11:01 AM, Black Red Devil said:

Why would the EU go running to Britain?  You just have to look back at Britain before they joined the predecessor of the EU, the EEC.  Before it joined in 1973 Britain's economy was going backwards at the speed of light.  In the 60's, Germany, France and Italy's GDP was almost double that of Britain and mostly thanks to the common market.  Let's also not forget that all these three countries suffered vast devastation to it's territory and industry, far more than Britain, 20 odd years earlier.  Anyone that believes Thatcherism was Britain's sole savior in the early 70's is deluded.  The common market saved Britain and now that Britain's tummy is full, they want to leave the dinner table and say goodbye by raising their middle finger. What's even more incredible is the idea that, because Britain's economy is 9th in the world per PPP, which is a more realistic measure of the value of income per capita than GDP alone, people are going to maintain the same standard of living.  IMO you're in for a megashock that'll last generations when you go alone. 

What you omit from your post is the factual reasons for the UK's economy before it joined the EEC. You make reference to the three economies of Germany France and Italy as a comparison, But, lets get it right, the United Kingdom - Bankrupted itself standing alone against Germany, fighting a truly global conflict.

You mention the devastation at the end of the war for Germany with industries wiped out, but you wrongly assume this would have held Germany back and given the UK the economic advantage, which you think the UK failed to grasp. - But the truth of the matter is this, At the end of the war a defeated Germany did not have the financial burden to maintain a large military to combat the new threat in Europe from Russia. - This freed Germany to solely concentrate on re-building its industries. the devastation meant any new factories build were modern, with the latest machinery installed making them more efficient - Britain and France on the other hand with scant resources had to maintain a large military to combat the threat from Russia who was in the heart of Europe, Great Britain along with the allies where providing European security, this huge cost in such austere times meant very little investment could be made here at home in our own rebuilding process, as a result British industry suffered from the lack of investment, - as a comparison the UK industry was mainly still pre war 1920's Germans post pre war industry was 1950's. - its the reason why 20 years after the war West Germany's economy was back on track, as a comparison Britain was still on the ration book, and that's before we even consider the huge amounts of money German businesses made through the use and exploitation of forced labour of deported people, Siemens, Volkswagen, Hugo boss making uniforms, including SS. to name a few. - So economically back on its feet in 20 years, reunified a further 25 years later. - against the concerns of France but reassured by the Euro currency as it was supposed to be a tool, a mechanism to control a United Germany, and keep Europe from having a dominate Germany.

moving on from the war, 1960's and early 70's  When the British Government tried to address the competitiveness of the British economy it was met with resistance by the Unions, modernisation and new working practices where fought against, especially automation. the Unions socialist ideals meant they thought it was up to the state to provide employment and support failing and uncompetitive industries. - the Winter of discontent was the turning point, it highlighted the Unions had far to much power and where holding the Country to ransom,  during this period as my dad retells, he worked for the the Ford motor company and went on strike after the company offered them a 15% pay rise. that's right, on strike even when offered fifteen percent pay rise. - in his words "we'd go on strike if they buttered the wrong side of the toast" -

With such militant actions by the Unions the conditions for business and foreign investment simply didn't exist, so at some point some one had to grasp the nettle and tackle this problem head on. - History records that person as the green grocers daughter Margaret Thatcher. loathed by many but action was needed in the national interest, since then and with time we haven't looked back.

wanted to say more but you get the jist.

12 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

And you still have that iron ball around your ankle, the EU.  Imagine the greatness when you definitely leave!

Our Economic performance is down to the fact we retained our Sovereign currency. - So as you rightly say imagine the possibilities  that lay ahead when we'll no longer have the iron ball around our ankle.

[keithisco]

19 minutes ago, stevewinn said:

What you omit from your post is the factual reasons for the UK's economy before it joined the EEC. You make reference to the three economies of Germany France and Italy as a comparison, But, lets get it right, the United Kingdom - Bankrupted itself standing alone against Germany, fighting a truly global conflict.

You mention the devastation at the end of the war for Germany with industries wiped out, but you wrongly assume this would have held Germany back and given the UK the economic advantage, which you think the UK failed to grasp. - But the truth of the matter is this, At the end of the war a defeated Germany did not have the financial burden to maintain a large military to combat the new threat in Europe from Russia. - This freed Germany to solely concentrate on re-building its industries. the devastation meant any new factories build were modern, with the latest machinery installed making them more efficient - Britain and France on the other hand with scant resources had to maintain a large military to combat the threat from Russia who was in the heart of Europe, Great Britain along with the allies where providing European security, this huge cost in such austere times meant very little investment could be made here at home in our own rebuilding process, as a result British industry suffered from the lack of investment, - as a comparison the UK industry was mainly still pre war 1920's Germans post pre war industry was 1950's. - its the reason why 20 years after the war West Germany's economy was back on track, as a comparison Britain was still on the ration book, and that's before we even consider the huge amounts of money German businesses made through the use and exploitation of forced labour of deported people, Siemens, Volkswagen, Hugo boss making uniforms, including SS. to name a few. - So economically back on its feet in 20 years, reunified a further 25 years later. - against the concerns of France but reassured by the Euro currency as it was supposed to be a tool, a mechanism to control a United Germany, and keep Europe from having a dominate Germany.

moving on from the war, 1960's and early 70's  When the British Government tried to address the competitiveness of the British economy it was met with resistance by the Unions, modernisation and new working practices where fought against, especially automation. the Unions socialist ideals meant they thought it was up to the state to provide employment and support failing and uncompetitive industries. - the Winter of discontent was the turning point, it highlighted the Unions had far to much power and where holding the Country to ransom,  during this period as my dad retells, he worked for the the Ford motor company and went on strike after the company offered them a 15% pay rise. that's right, on strike even when offered fifteen percent pay rise. - in his words "we'd go on strike if they buttered the wrong side of the toast" -

With such militant actions by the Unions the conditions for business and foreign investment simply didn't exist, so at some point some one had to grasp the nettle and tackle this problem head on. - History records that person as the green grocers daughter Margaret Thatcher. loathed by many but action was needed in the national interest, since then and with time we haven't looked back.

wanted to say more but you get the jist.

Our Economic performance is down to the fact we retained our Sovereign currency. - So as you rightly say imagine the possibilities  that lay ahead when we'll no longer have the iron ball around our ankle.

Outstanding post Steve!

[hetrodoxly]

2 hours ago, Eldorado said:

*sings*   It ain't what you do it's the way that you do it.   

How do think history will remember us?  The generation just past are being lauded as "Britain's Greatest Ever", so how do you think we'll fare?  I ask that in a friendly but sad tone.  I ask all my fellow middle-aged and elderly Britons on here.

I didn't know we were being lauded as "Britain's Greatest Ever" i think history will judge us unfairly because that's the way this blame culture world behaves, i never expected anything from the generation before we made our own way in the world being 1 of 11 kids there was no choice, this generation has more than ever before but it's never enough. yep they'll blame me but i know not what for.

[keithisco]

3 hours ago, Eldorado said:

*sings*   It ain't what you do it's the way that you do it.   

How do think history will remember us?  The generation just past are being lauded as "Britain's Greatest Ever", so how do you think we'll fare?  I ask that in a friendly but sad tone.  I ask all my fellow middle-aged and elderly Britons on here.

I would like to think that we will be remembered as "The Generation that won the Peace"... at the very least as the generation that gave the next generation the tools to write a new chapter in the UK re-engagement with the larger world.

I would encourage all to look at the detail behind the EU Parliament "Red Lines" published today... they contain a lot of information re: subservience to the European Court of Justice for any post Brexit trade deal, conformity to EU Tax laws and regulation and worse. Essentially it looks like the EU Parliament has already set its face against allowing the UK to prosper by forcing EU supremacy over an independent nation if it wants any sort of trade deal.

In a clear attempt to create as much mischief as possible within the UK it also included the possibility of revoking Article 50 so stoking the division here. This is why Mr Farage referred to the EU Parliament as "Gangsters".

[skookum]

13 hours ago, keithisco said:

Outstanding post Steve!

And the people who fought to rebuild the country and suffered the hardships should have been denied a vote on the EU because Clegg and his band of remoaners claim their say is irrelevant. 

[keithisco]

From a different viewpoint:

Quote

The EU has passed a resolution setting out how it plans to go about the Brexit negotiations. At the top of the list is the €60 billion bill the UK will get for leaving the EU.

This looks like bad news for Prime Minister Theresa May. The hard-line backers of Brexit think it’s ridiculous Britain should pay. I already explained why a €60 billion bill is in fact cheap.

But the interesting part is that the Europeans have painted themselves into a corner. To get to €60 billion, they’re going to have to highlight just how ridiculous the EU is. An itemised bill will expose the absurdity of the EU budget. Voters in other countries will be amazed what the UK was stupid enough to pay for all these years. And then they’ll wonder about their own commitments.
If the Brexiters have their maths right, the EU will owe Britain plenty of money in return. As Nigel Farage put it, the British are in fact shareholders in EU-owned assets. If the EU forces honouring future commitments on the UK, the UK has a right to sell the assets.

According to British analysis, the legal basis for the €60 billion is iffy in the first place. So it’s more of a negotiation position.

Put all this together and you reach a fascinating conclusion: the EU has picked an opening battle it is likely to lose. The question is why it did so.

Perhaps because EU negotiators know full well the legal basis for a claim on UK cash is iffy. Therefore they must get a negotiated deal on the €60 billion, or they will get nothing.

Without Britain’s financial backing the EU is a lot less powerful. The EU negotiators have upped the stakes on the first hand, hoping Britain will fold because a quick game looks like it was played badly. If we walk away from ridiculous demands at step one, Britain will look bad.

It’s strange how, on the one hand the Europeans keep affirming they want everything agreed upon in one go, while on the other hand they break down the negotiations into blocks that must occur in their order of preference. It’s very hypocritical.

Another part of the EU’s resolution is to bind the UK to EU rules while the negotiations take place. For example, we can’t make trade agreements with other countries.

Let’s do some quick maths here. Scenario 1: we take two years to get out of the EU, but we achieve a trade deal with the EU and only negotiate for other trade deals once we leave.

Scenario 2: we leave the EU today, and we lose free trade with the EU. But we get free trade agreements with major trading partners quickly, including the EU.

It’s not clear scenario 1 is better. The EU makes up just less than half our trade, but it has high tariffs with other countries. If we leave, we are no longer beholden to those high tariffs in our own trade policy. And we’re free to make trade agreements, probably much faster than the EU used to. As long as we do open to trade with the rest of the world, leaving the EU immediately could be better for trade. Especially once the EU realises its citizens want a trade agreement with the UK.

In other words, we have a stronger negotiation position with the EU from outside the EU.

Of course the obvious solution is to have a dozen trade deals ready to sign the moment we leave the EU. The EU can hardly stop informal negotiations.

LINK:

[stevewinn]

20 hours ago, keithisco said:

I would like to think that we will be remembered as "The Generation that won the Peace"... at the very least as the generation that gave the next generation the tools to write a new chapter in the UK re-engagement with the larger world.

I would encourage all to look at the detail behind the EU Parliament "Red Lines" published today... they contain a lot of information re: subservience to the European Court of Justice for any post Brexit trade deal, conformity to EU Tax laws and regulation and worse. Essentially it looks like the EU Parliament has already set its face against allowing the UK to prosper by forcing EU supremacy over an independent nation if it wants any sort of trade deal.

In a clear attempt to create as much mischief as possible within the UK it also included the possibility of revoking Article 50 so stoking the division here. This is why Mr Farage referred to the EU Parliament as "Gangsters".

The Red lines by the EU as outlined by Guy Verhofstadt, but before i go on, - I seen the speech by Verhofstadt in the EU Parliament, its almost beyond belief, he stated Britain will one day, once again join the EU and blames our leaving on infighting within the Tory party. - He like many in the EU fail to understand the British people where given the opportunity to Vote and they Voted Leave.

But anyway; I've been reading the red lines put by the EU, as a precursor to the negotiations they've painted themselves into a corner and leaves the EU with limited room to manoeuvre, If the EU stick to their red lines then the Republic of Ireland will be the next country to leave the EU. firstly on the grounds of open borders between Northern Ireland and the Republic. everyone thinks a hard border will exist between the two, but this is not going to happen. its not in the interest of Rep Ireland, - If a hard border exists it will be enforced by the Republic not at the shared UK-Ireland border but at the borders of the EU.

If no EU-UK trade deal is forthcoming and the EU's external tariff is imposed on the UK then the Republic of Ireland's economy soon enters into recession, and will need bailing out yet again by the EU, crisis two for both the EU and Euro currency. The Republic of Ireland will be forced to seek treaty reform or leave the EU for self interest. - just like Rep of Ireland had to join the EEC because the UK did, they'll have to leave for the same reasons. for the EU to lose one country is one thing, to lose two is a disaster.

No EU-UK deal means the UK has no legal obligations to pay the EU any "divorce" bill, though it will be contested by the EU. - The EU cannot afford to have a free, low tax economy off its northern shore, its why one of the EU red lines demands the UK adheres to "the fight against tax evasion and avoidance, fair competition"  Another red line seeks to prevent the UK becoming a low cost energy economy, by having the UK continuing to adhere to the  "Union's legislation and policies, in, among others, the field of the environment, climate change" Its clear the EU fears the options available to the UK.

On trade the EU is hamstrung by WTO and most favoured nation status, - that means if the EU imposes a tariff rate on a good or service from a non-EU trading partner, it then has to offer the same equal trade advantages to other parties (read UK) that limits the EU's ability to artificially charge the UK higher tariff rates. - seeing how the EU's external tariff on 90% of British exports to the EU would be in the bracket of between 0% to 6%, the UK could simply drop its corporation rate by 6%. negating any costs incurred. (the current UK corporate tax rate 19% 2017) The "nuclear option" with no EU deal would be to drop that rate by either 6% or 9% down to 10%. a level unable to be matched by the EU on the scale required. 

These negotiations haven't even started in earnest yet, I've heard some say the EU is dictating the policy, - i simply smile, as the EU is making all the mistakes early on. 722 Days to go and the EU have painted themselves into a corner. - expert negotiators they said, 

 

 

[Black Red Devil]

On 4/6/2017 at 5:04 AM, stevewinn said:

What you omit from your post is the factual reasons for the UK's economy before it joined the EEC. You make reference to the three economies of Germany France and Italy as a comparison, But, lets get it right, the United Kingdom - Bankrupted itself standing alone against Germany, fighting a truly global conflict.

You mention the devastation at the end of the war for Germany with industries wiped out, but you wrongly assume this would have held Germany back and given the UK the economic advantage, which you think the UK failed to grasp. - But the truth of the matter is this, At the end of the war a defeated Germany did not have the financial burden to maintain a large military to combat the new threat in Europe from Russia. - This freed Germany to solely concentrate on re-building its industries. the devastation meant any new factories build were modern, with the latest machinery installed making them more efficient - Britain and France on the other hand with scant resources had to maintain a large military to combat the threat from Russia who was in the heart of Europe, Great Britain along with the allies where providing European security, this huge cost in such austere times meant very little investment could be made here at home in our own rebuilding process, as a result British industry suffered from the lack of investment, - as a comparison the UK industry was mainly still pre war 1920's Germans post pre war industry was 1950's. - its the reason why 20 years after the war West Germany's economy was back on track, as a comparison Britain was still on the ration book, and that's before we even consider the huge amounts of money German businesses made through the use and exploitation of forced labour of deported people, Siemens, Volkswagen, Hugo boss making uniforms, including SS. to name a few. - So economically back on its feet in 20 years, reunified a further 25 years later. - against the concerns of France but reassured by the Euro currency as it was supposed to be a tool, a mechanism to control a United Germany, and keep Europe from having a dominate Germany.

moving on from the war, 1960's and early 70's  When the British Government tried to address the competitiveness of the British economy it was met with resistance by the Unions, modernisation and new working practices where fought against, especially automation. the Unions socialist ideals meant they thought it was up to the state to provide employment and support failing and uncompetitive industries. - the Winter of discontent was the turning point, it highlighted the Unions had far to much power and where holding the Country to ransom,  during this period as my dad retells, he worked for the the Ford motor company and went on strike after the company offered them a 15% pay rise. that's right, on strike even when offered fifteen percent pay rise. - in his words "we'd go on strike if they buttered the wrong side of the toast" -

With such militant actions by the Unions the conditions for business and foreign investment simply didn't exist, so at some point some one had to grasp the nettle and tackle this problem head on. - History records that person as the green grocers daughter Margaret Thatcher. loathed by many but action was needed in the national interest, since then and with time we haven't looked back.

wanted to say more but you get the jist.

Our Economic performance is down to the fact we retained our Sovereign currency. - So as you rightly say imagine the possibilities  that lay ahead when we'll no longer have the iron ball around our ankle.

So in the first part you mention the main reason Germany, France etc. were advantaged was because they didn't have the burden of securing Europe through budget spending from a Russian invasion and you pinpoint rightly (bolded) that British industry suffered the lack of investment.  Here you can see a timeline of charts of UK spending.  In this period of low economic growth the UK was spending a meager 5.5% on Defense compared to Government spending of 45%.  Hardly a huge cost as you put it and if that's the main reason you attribute the rise of Germany and Frances economy compared to the UK I'm afraid you're off target.  Also, I've got no idea what WW2 force labour has to do with the German Economy post WW2.  Germany was broke!  The main assistance Germany received was from the Marshall Plan, but so did the UK.  In fact the UK was the major recipient (26%) of the $12 billion (equivalent to $120 billion in today's terms) the US gave Europe to rebuild.  So, yes there was a lack of investment but not due to a lack of funds.

In the second part you address the issue of economic stagnation due to the Unions.  In part I agree.  In fact Unions were very powerful in most industrialised western countries so it wasn't purely a UK problem.  What was the contributing factor was a lack of economic investment, like you justly pointed out.  In fact, your Conservative Party tried for 10 years to get into the EEC but it expected the red carpet treatment and the front seat which didn't sit too well, mainly with De Gaulle.  With De Gaulle gone the UK was finally given admission, new business opportunities arose and the economy picked up. 

Lastly, I'm curious to know why you answered my post because apparently if my post was Brexit related, yours was too.  But apparently for some mysterious reason you got the Royal Treatment from the OP while I got the thumbs down.  I feel discriminated and furthermore, I'm getting questioned about my interest in British biz, which almost borders on racial discrimination!! 

[stevewinn]

3 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

So in the first part you mention the main reason Germany, France etc. were advantaged was because they didn't have the burden of securing Europe through budget spending from a Russian invasion and you pinpoint rightly (bolded) that British industry suffered the lack of investment.  Here you can see a timeline of charts of UK spending.  In this period of low economic growth the UK was spending a meager 5.5% on Defense compared to Government spending of 45%.  Hardly a huge cost as you put it and if that's the main reason you attribute the rise of Germany and Frances economy compared to the UK I'm afraid you're off target.  Also, I've got no idea what WW2 force labour has to do with the German Economy post WW2.  Germany was broke!  The main assistance Germany received was from the Marshall Plan, but so did the UK.  In fact the UK was the major recipient (26%) of the $12 billion (equivalent to $120 billion in today's terms) the US gave Europe to rebuild.  So, yes there was a lack of investment but not due to a lack of funds.

In the second part you address the issue of economic stagnation due to the Unions.  In part I agree.  In fact Unions were very powerful in most industrialised western countries so it wasn't purely a UK problem.  What was the contributing factor was a lack of economic investment, like you justly pointed out.  In fact, your Conservative Party tried for 10 years to get into the EEC but it expected the red carpet treatment and the front seat which didn't sit too well, mainly with De Gaulle.  With De Gaulle gone the UK was finally given admission, new business opportunities arose and the economy picked up. 

Lastly, I'm curious to know why you answered my post because apparently if my post was Brexit related, yours was too.  But apparently for some mysterious reason you got the Royal Treatment from the OP while I got the thumbs down.  I feel discriminated and furthermore, I'm getting questioned about my interest in British biz, which almost borders on racial discrimination!! 

The short and the jist was contained in my previous post, i notice your posts always follow a theme, you always fail to mention the context in which events are happening, just like your original post, you wanted to paint a picture of a broken Britain saved by the EEC, so failed to highlight the context of a post war Britain to make your point - and much like your latest reply,  5.5% spend on defence is not meagre in the circumstances when you consider the country firstly had to loan money to fight the war, which then bankrupted it in the process.  - What was the GDP of the UK, what was the deficit, and how much was it costing to service the national debt. 

The fact you admit you have no idea  what WW2 force labour has to do with the German Economy post WW2.  Germany was broke! says it all really. Siemens, Volkswagen, Hugo Boss, Bayer ect...  made the equivalent in days money of billions on the back of slave enforced labour, they then funnelled this money, moved production avoiding the worst of the war and then used this money after the war, your simplistic view of Germany was broke dominates your thinking.. - the old saying of:  what Britain got out of the war in Victory Germany got in defeat should put paid to that.

What about the role of natural resources, Germany still had the natural resources close to hand to rebuild, the cost of over land transport was cheaper and easier than the UK having to import vast quantities of natural resources by sea meaning higher rebuilding costs. 

Lets not kid ourselves, the UK wanted in the ECSC for geopolitical reasons to continue the century long balancing act of the great European powers, it was all about containing Germany, France humiliated by its neighbour thought it was their role to, and a road to regain self dignity to contain Germany, they thought a community of  nations, led by France controlling the natural resources of Coal and Steel would make it impossible for Germany to emerge as the power of Europe. and France would rise to dominate Europe, the British posed a threat to this ideal and that's why de Gaulle vetoed UK membership.

Its clear the UK's foreign policy was we had to be in the ECSC to influence policy, and keep pace with French ambitions, The thinking was akin to a car race, as time moved on and the ECSC evolved it made sense instead of being in individual cars trying to out manoeuvre one another, it made political and economic sense to all be in the same car, meaning we all went at the same pace and each could influence the driving and direction, Well it worked well until the wheels started to come off the French economy. it was at this point the ECSC evolved into the common market with trade, this benefited Germany mainly because they grabbed the opportunity with both hands, but what alternative did they have, the Germans knew full well the purpose of institutions as a means to limit, control and contain them - with the guilt hanging over them and little alternative they went all in. - This "all in" was an option or a route the UK could never go down, that's why the UK as always had one foot in, one foot out, we couldn't simply cede powers require to go all in. and History as proved we was right not to. - France on the other hand has gone all in, (to their cost) as a full EU member and more crucially accepting the Euro in a desperate bid to to use the Euro where once they used the ECSC to contain Germany and failed. The Euro currency is the modern equivalent of the ECSC for the French a second attempt at controlling and preventing a German dominated Europe. - the French wrong presumed the Economy of France and Germany being locked together in a single currency would mean the two economies would walk stride for stride. well that hasn't worked to well as it.

So please understand why the UK could never cede powers required for the same role Germany plays in the EU, our approach as a result was and always was going to be on the edges. look through modern History, we tried to get as close as possible without going all in. Full EU member, ERM, (which failed drastically) signatory to all the treaties included EU courts superseding British courts, accepting the resulting erosion in areas of sovereignty, handed over our trade responsibility to the EU institutions, a Net contributor for all but one of our 43 year membership, played our role as a great reformer in all areas of policy - But ultimately this idea you have that the EEC or EU saved the UK, and that rise and fall was all based on economic trade, the common market was a by product a consequence of what was required for the geopolitical aim.

On finishing History has proven our stance the right one, If we'd have gone full in, IE; in adopting the Euro we'd have been bankrupted worse than Greece and that's a fact. We'd have been finished economically.

But, I don't know why people are surprised by the UK's decision to leave the EU, what did people think was going to happen, We where never going to continue and be absorbed into the eventual European Federation. -

 

 

[Black Red Devil]

On 4/8/2017 at 2:18 AM, stevewinn said:

The short and the jist was contained in my previous post, i notice your posts always follow a theme, you always fail to mention the context in which events are happening, just like your original post, you wanted to paint a picture of a broken Britain saved by the EEC, so failed to highlight the context of a post war Britain to make your point - and much like your latest reply,  5.5% spend on defence is not meagre in the circumstances when you consider the country firstly had to loan money to fight the war, which then bankrupted it in the process.  - What was the GDP of the UK, what was the deficit, and how much was it costing to service the national debt. 

The fact you admit you have no idea  what WW2 force labour has to do with the German Economy post WW2.  Germany was broke! says it all really. Siemens, Volkswagen, Hugo Boss, Bayer ect...  made the equivalent in days money of billions on the back of slave enforced labour, they then funnelled this money, moved production avoiding the worst of the war and then used this money after the war, your simplistic view of Germany was broke dominates your thinking.. - the old saying of:  what Britain got out of the war in Victory Germany got in defeat should put paid to that.

What about the role of natural resources, Germany still had the natural resources close to hand to rebuild, the cost of over land transport was cheaper and easier than the UK having to import vast quantities of natural resources by sea meaning higher rebuilding costs. 

 

LOL, I mean what you're suggesting isn't something that I would have expected coming from you.  Basically, what you're saying is that Germany came out of WW2 financially enriched by forced labour and only the British seemed to suffer the effects of WW2 through borrowed money to pay for the war and this negative effect lasted on their economy till Thatcher came along.  Laughable to say the least Steve.

You might want to read up on the economic reforms by a certain Walter Eucken.  Nothing to do with forced labour.  I mean, Europe was in total ruins who were the Germans selling beetles to? Their only customer was the military.  Hardly what you'd call an economic boom.  In fact there was a plan to move the production of VW's to Britain to save it from being dismantled but British manufactures weren't interested.  It's fair to say it wasn't only the EEC that made the German Economy into what it is today but the EEC enhanced the economic reform that took place immediately after WW2.  And, Hugo Boss?!! 

Britain suffered WW2 like many others and it's economy never recovered until the mid 70's unlike many others.  Germany was paying $25 billion a year for the occupation post WW2 therefore your theory that Britain was paying to Defend Germany is flawed.

Finally, one of the richest natural resource regions in Germany is the Saarland.  After WW2 it was under French rule until 1957 and yet German economic recovery was already in full swing by then.

Edited April 9, 2017 by Black Red Devil

[Black Red Devil]

On 4/8/2017 at 2:18 AM, stevewinn said:

Lets not kid ourselves, the UK wanted in the ECSC for geopolitical reasons to continue the century long balancing act of the great European powers, it was all about containing Germany, France humiliated by its neighbour thought it was their role to, and a road to regain self dignity to contain Germany, they thought a community of  nations, led by France controlling the natural resources of Coal and Steel would make it impossible for Germany to emerge as the power of Europe. and France would rise to dominate Europe, the British posed a threat to this ideal and that's why de Gaulle vetoed UK membership.

Its clear the UK's foreign policy was we had to be in the ECSC to influence policy, and keep pace with French ambitions, The thinking was akin to a car race, as time moved on and the ECSC evolved it made sense instead of being in individual cars trying to out manoeuvre one another, it made political and economic sense to all be in the same car, meaning we all went at the same pace and each could influence the driving and direction,

 

I agree but I'm not sure you've realised it, but you've just agreed with what I've been saying all along.  Unless you're suggesting Britain's (economical) pace was higher than that of the French and Germans and they had to slow it down in which case, you would be contradicting what you also previously said and that Britain's economy suffered post WW2 more than the Germans and French due to a variety of factors. 

I think you're starting to debate without reasoning just for the purpose of proving a point that Britain does not need Europe but Europe needs Britain.  In actual fact it's not the British so much, it's more of an English attribute of arrogance and sense of superiority. We are, many of us, basically the same people but Aussies aren't like this (in response to the question why Aussies seem interested in Brexit, obviously IMO).

Edited April 9, 2017 by Black Red Devil

[Black Red Devil]

On 4/8/2017 at 2:18 AM, stevewinn said:

Well it worked well until the wheels started to come off the French economy. it was at this point the ECSC evolved into the common market with trade, this benefited Germany mainly because they grabbed the opportunity with both hands, but what alternative did they have, the Germans knew full well the purpose of institutions as a means to limit, control and contain them - with the guilt hanging over them and little alternative they went all in. - This "all in" was an option or a route the UK could never go down, that's why the UK as always had one foot in, one foot out, we couldn't simply cede powers require to go all in. and History as proved we was right not to. - France on the other hand has gone all in, (to their cost) as a full EU member and more crucially accepting the Euro in a desperate bid to to use the Euro where once they used the ECSC to contain Germany and failed. The Euro currency is the modern equivalent of the ECSC for the French a second attempt at controlling and preventing a German dominated Europe. - the French wrong presumed the Economy of France and Germany being locked together in a single currency would mean the two economies would walk stride for stride. well that hasn't worked to well as it.

So please understand why the UK could never cede powers required for the same role Germany plays in the EU, our approach as a result was and always was going to be on the edges. look through modern History, we tried to get as close as possible without going all in. Full EU member, ERM, (which failed drastically) signatory to all the treaties included EU courts superseding British courts, accepting the resulting erosion in areas of sovereignty, handed over our trade responsibility to the EU institutions, a Net contributor for all but one of our 43 year membership, played our role as a great reformer in all areas of policy - But ultimately this idea you have that the EEC or EU saved the UK, and that rise and fall was all based on economic trade, the common market was a by product a consequence of what was required for the geopolitical aim.

On finishing History has proven our stance the right one, If we'd have gone full in, IE; in adopting the Euro we'd have been bankrupted worse than Greece and that's a fact. We'd have been finished economically.

But, I don't know why people are surprised by the UK's decision to leave the EU, what did people think was going to happen, We where never going to continue and be absorbed into the eventual European Federation. -

 

 

The way I can summarise it is Britain joined when it needed, whinged it's way throughout the membership, never took a leading progressive role and when things got a bit tough, said goodbye.  I agree that some of the policies in the EU (like open borders and immigration) needed better scrutinising, but nothing to suggest abandoning the ship for. 

I've mentioned this before (in the Brexit thread and this one) I have no personal interest in what happens post Brexit and the comments I make aren't fanatical or passionate.  They're just my views on an international forum.  But, from a foreign POV it does appear the UK (or rather England and Wales) have knifed the EU well and truly.

[Space Commander Travis]

Where you get your information from about how successful and benign the EU really is? Do you have an inside source of your own or do you get it all from the Media and perhaps the EU website? I mean, how do you come to know better about ti from where you are than people living under its authoritarian rule? Are you, for instance, aware of how shaky the Common Currency is? Of the towering success the EU has been for countries like Greece and Spain (unemployment in both over 20%)? Does it not make you suspicious, if the EU is a thriving and benign community of nations, how the EU Leaders and the leaders of influential countries that have a vested interest in the EU remaining as a powerful institution are so utterly determined that any nation that feels it does not want to remain part of this happy community should be made to suffer as much as possible? Why do you think they should be anxious to do that? To deter others from wanting to follow suit? But why should they, if the EU is so happy and successful? It's only the Brits that are as xenophobic and stupid to want to abandon it, as people keep telling us. 

Quote

I've mentioned this before (in the Brexit thread and this one) I have no personal interest in what happens post Brexit and the comments I make aren't fanatical or passionate.  They're just my views on an international forum.  But, from a foreign POV it does appear the UK (or rather England and Wales) have knifed the EU well and truly.

So if it's so successful and happy, why should the departure of one small, insignificant country full of stupid racists torpedo it irrevocably, then? If you don't have a nautical or passionate opinion on the matter and it's just of academic interest, why have you been spending so much time explaining to the Brits how stupid they are,

Quote

an English attribute of arrogance and sense of superiority. *

 and haven't even considered looking at it from the alternative position at all? 

 

* But the Aussies are superior to that because they don't have an attitude of arrogance and superiority.

 

:-? 

[Black Red Devil]

4 hours ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

Where you get your information from about how successful and benign the EU really is? Do you have an inside source of your own or do you get it all from the Media and perhaps the EU website? I mean, how do you come to know better about ti from where you are than people living under its authoritarian rule? Are you, for instance, aware of how shaky the Common Currency is? Of the towering success the EU has been for countries like Greece and Spain (unemployment in both over 20%)? Does it not make you suspicious, if the EU is a thriving and benign community of nations, how the EU Leaders and the leaders of influential countries that have a vested interest in the EU remaining as a powerful institution are so utterly determined that any nation that feels it does not want to remain part of this happy community should be made to suffer as much as possible? Why do you think they should be anxious to do that? To deter others from wanting to follow suit? But why should they, if the EU is so happy and successful? It's only the Brits that are as xenophobic and stupid to want to abandon it, as people keep telling us. 

 

The simple answer to this is 28 countries (to become 27) in the EU willing to work together for more prosperity.  How do you explain this involvement for so many years?  The only ones that want to pull out are Nationalistic xenophobic Fascists such as the UKIP (who successfully goofed the people of the UK), Le Pen, Wilders and other fascist movements/parties who are striving on Islamic terrorism.  It's little to do with the negative impact of the EU.

Edited April 9, 2017 by Black Red Devil

[Black Red Devil]

4 hours ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

 

So if it's so successful and happy, why should the departure of one small, insignificant country full of stupid racists torpedo it irrevocably, then? If you don't have a nautical or passionate opinion on the matter and it's just of academic interest, why have you been spending so much time explaining to the Brits how stupid they are,

 and haven't even considered looking at it from the alternative position at all? :-? 

I don't and I haven't been spending much time on the UK section.  Easy to check how many posts I've made on the Brexit thread compared for example to your posts on the Trump threads.  So what's your excuse?  What a hypocrite.

Edited April 9, 2017 by Black Red Devil

[keithisco]

17 minutes ago, Black Red Devil said:

The simple answer to this is 28 countries (to become 27) in the EU willing to work together for more prosperity.  How do you explain this involvement for so many years?  The only ones that want to pull out are Nationalistic xenophobic Fascists such as the UKIP (who successfully goofed the people of the UK), Le Pen, Wilders and other fascist movements/parties who are striving on Islamic terrorism.  It's little to do with the negative impact of the EU.

Bolded part: this is quite evidently directed to everyone who voted leave not just UKIP supporters and such ad hominem attacks are not allowed under house rules, please try to keep such outbursts for the Brexit thread which is littered with such abuse.

Back on-topic: the latest from the Spanish Foreign Minister is that they will not initially veto an approach to join the EU from an independent Scotland (if such a thing occurs), but Scotland needs to be wary. This is a thinly veiled attempt to stir up trouble in the UK with the aim of helping to separate Scotland from the UK. The reason for this is that Spain wants to see an independent Scotland THEN use its veto so stranding Scotland with NO trading partners within Europe as a lesson to Catalunya. I know this from 10 years of living with the corruption and duplicity of the PP (Popular Party) as a Spanish Resident.

However, the SNP (equally duplicitous) will hail this announcement as a reason FOR independence.

Denmark has strongly come out in favour of the UK and will stand by the UK's position in the negotiations.