Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
wortley

The new world

Recommended Posts

"I'm sure it's well regulated, the BVI say they are as well and it's probably true. I think you'll find tax rates, to a majority of the population, are what defines a tax haven not how well its regulated." QUOTE

 

 

You are right the IOM is more highly regulated certainly more so than the UK.. fact.... also you may consider the UK (in your definition) to be a "tax haven" as its tax rates are lower than many other countries - perhaps in an effort to try to attract inward investment/employment ?

Edited by Manxscorpio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I'm sure it's well regulated, the BVI say they are as well and it's probably true. I think you'll find tax rates, to a majority of the population, are what defines a tax haven not how well its regulated." QUOTE

 

 

You are right the IOM is more highly regulated certainly more so than the UK.. fact.... also you may consider the UK (in your definition) to be a "tax haven" as its tax rates are lower than many other countries - perhaps in an effort to try to attract inward investment/employment ?

Edited by Manxscorpio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jonno. Had the Brexiters lost I would very much want them to represent their views.

You seem to suggest that those that were pro-EU should now in effect sit down and shut up....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jonno. Had the Brexiters lost I would very much want them to represent their views.

You seem to suggest that those that were pro-EU should now in effect sit down and shut up....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Brexiterssigned everyone up for AMWAY and sold them snake oil. No one must question anything thats going wrong, the countries going to the dogs at a bewildering pace,it willallbe OKthough if we don'tmntion it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Brexiterssigned everyone up for AMWAY and sold them snake oil. No one must question anything thats going wrong, the countries going to the dogs at a bewildering pace,it willallbe OKthough if we don'tmntion it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jonno. Had the Brexiters lost I would very much want them to represent their views.

You seem to suggest that those that were pro-EU should now in effect sit down and shut up....

 

 

Skip if that's how it came across, I apologise. Democracy must have a constructive voice on both sides...Hislop made an excellent point on Question Time when he said that the losing party in an election doesn't sit silent for five years waiting for their chance again.

 

I also believe that respect for another individuals point of view is also vital. For me however many of the posts have been anything but.

 

Skip, my decision to vote to leave was based on a massively failing EU, even senior pro EU narrators have expressed this with many commentators suggesting that Brexit was pointless as the union has a limited lifespan now.

 

I also read two EU documents, "The Integration of the European State." & "Shared Vision, Common Action. A Global Strategy for the European Union's Foreign And Security Policy."

 

These for me were enough, especially when Schulz said "A countries people shouldn't have the right to decide" and is now saying other members will want to escape.the EU...

 

Escape? now there's a word...

 

Growing up in Toxteth, I certainly have no problem with immigration plus historically the UK has always opened her arms to those in need, It's what we do. Also I certainly didn't align myself with either campaign, for me both were too disingenuous.

 

As too were the actions of both Cameron and Sturgeon, surely our PM was aware of the extra pressure our economy would be under with his resignation? He deliberately compounded fluctuating markets, Cameron, a man who has always been a eurosceptic, it was one of his leading arguments when elected as Tory leader...

 

As for Ms Sturgeon does she honestly believe a none sovereign state with no territorial waters can apply for ascension with the view of joining the union? Of course she doesn't. She know's that only a positive SNP result in another referendum will allow her this... after a long and protracted detachment from it's largest trading partner and the introduction of a currency the Scottish people don't want, an issue which was at the forefront of the previous referendum and one of the major reasons the Scottish people voted to stay within the UK.

 

The fossil fuel issue will be important but China now own their only oil plant which is aged and is in need of millions spent if it is to return to full refining capacity, there has already been a shedding of over 3000 jobs. RD Shell have announced the shutdown of one of the fields as yield is poor and equipment is terminal and under "end of life" procedures. But, I think it's more important to remember that in 1999 Scotland signed a "population proportion" agreement with central government meaning that they'll only have 9% of the oil & gas fields.

 

Why is it that many pro EU voters are positive about Scotland breaking away, again for a currency they don't want and, I repeat, detachment from it's largest trade partner?

 

I would like an answer from a remain voter on how they feel the EU works, not for them but everyone here and how it has worked for the bigger EU countries who can and always did stand on their own two feet.

 

All I seem to get is the short termism "look at the share price" or "look at the pound" and "we'll be in meltdown". Or worse, "well, the Leave campaigners lied to us."

 

I also find it a bit hypocritical that many of the pro EU voters are rallying around a notoriously eurosceptic Tory Government, just over 60% infact.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jonno. Had the Brexiters lost I would very much want them to represent their views.

You seem to suggest that those that were pro-EU should now in effect sit down and shut up....

 

 

Skip if that's how it came across, I apologise. Democracy must have a constructive voice on both sides...Hislop made an excellent point on Question Time when he said that the losing party in an election doesn't sit silent for five years waiting for their chance again.

 

I also believe that respect for another individuals point of view is also vital. For me however many of the posts have been anything but.

 

Skip, my decision to vote to leave was based on a massively failing EU, even senior pro EU narrators have expressed this with many commentators suggesting that Brexit was pointless as the union has a limited lifespan now.

 

I also read two EU documents, "The Integration of the European State." & "Shared Vision, Common Action. A Global Strategy for the European Union's Foreign And Security Policy."

 

These for me were enough, especially when Schulz said "A countries people shouldn't have the right to decide" and is now saying other members will want to escape.the EU...

 

Escape? now there's a word...

 

Growing up in Toxteth, I certainly have no problem with immigration plus historically the UK has always opened her arms to those in need, It's what we do. Also I certainly didn't align myself with either campaign, for me both were too disingenuous.

 

As too were the actions of both Cameron and Sturgeon, surely our PM was aware of the extra pressure our economy would be under with his resignation? He deliberately compounded fluctuating markets, Cameron, a man who has always been a eurosceptic, it was one of his leading arguments when elected as Tory leader...

 

As for Ms Sturgeon does she honestly believe a none sovereign state with no territorial waters can apply for ascension with the view of joining the union? Of course she doesn't. She know's that only a positive SNP result in another referendum will allow her this... after a long and protracted detachment from it's largest trading partner and the introduction of a currency the Scottish people don't want, an issue which was at the forefront of the previous referendum and one of the major reasons the Scottish people voted to stay within the UK.

 

The fossil fuel issue will be important but China now own their only oil plant which is aged and is in need of millions spent if it is to return to full refining capacity, there has already been a shedding of over 3000 jobs. RD Shell have announced the shutdown of one of the fields as yield is poor and equipment is terminal and under "end of life" procedures. But, I think it's more important to remember that in 1999 Scotland signed a "population proportion" agreement with central government meaning that they'll only have 9% of the oil & gas fields.

 

Why is it that many pro EU voters are positive about Scotland breaking away, again for a currency they don't want and, I repeat, detachment from it's largest trade partner?

 

I would like an answer from a remain voter on how they feel the EU works, not for them but everyone here and how it has worked for the bigger EU countries who can and always did stand on their own two feet.

 

All I seem to get is the short termism "look at the share price" or "look at the pound" and "we'll be in meltdown". Or worse, "well, the Leave campaigners lied to us."

 

I also find it a bit hypocritical that many of the pro EU voters are rallying around a notoriously eurosceptic Tory Government, just over 60% infact.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

I haven't had chance to read for a few days, but I'd like to return briefly to the idea of "taking back control". That whole idea really revolved around control of the borders. That seems increasingly unlikely because of the requirement for Norway/Switzerland-style agreements to include free movement of people. That argument looks largely lost.

 

But already we have seen that the economy is getting very much out of the country's control.

 

The BoE is suggesting interest rate cuts and new doses of quantitative easing.

 

Bad news from industry, financial services and retailing comes in pretty well every day.

 

I agree that there is a general feeling that democracy should return to the people, but we should remember that nationalism has rarely done anyone any good. Now would be a good time for our political masters to develop policies that will bring people together. I don't want to see communities at loggerheads, and the news of black/white troubles in the USA surely has a lesson for all of us.

 

As has been pointed out, pretty well every body of expertise around the world warned the UK of the economic consequences of Brexit. I'm afraid that their arguments won't be outweighed by those of a single businessman, no matter how successful. Lord Rothermere, the Daily Mail owner, lives outside the EU, outside the UK and in a tax haven (whatever other words may be used). It is difficult to separate the man and his views from his background. He is not the only one! ;)

 

Bringing the discussion around a little to our Board's main centre of interest ...

 

I was a few minutes ago looking at the BF winter timetables as I may well wish to book a return crossing for Nov/Dec. I was surprised to see, on performing a dummy booking, that fares seem to have changed very little, because at first BF's fuel bill seemed likely to have to increase. Then I realised that BF can buy their fuel using a /$ exchange rate, not a £/$ one. I would assume, then, that DFDS, P&O and other shipping companies will purchase their fuel abroad using funds based in non-Sterling countries. And so will cross-channel haulage companies. And so will airlines. I presume this, too, will have some effect on the economy. (But admittedly I'm just a layman in this area).

 

For the motorist/holidaymaker crossing to the Eurozone, fuel in Europe will cost more because of the collapsing exchange rate. 60 litres of diesel at 1,13/litre costs about 68. In December, this was £48-ish. Now it's £58-ish. Perhaps not sufficient to put people off travelling to Europe. Yet. But multiplied several times over for freight, perhaps it is significant, and retail prices of everything imported to the UK are bound to increase. The pound will buy less product as well as less fuel.

 

There will be, I am sure, repercussions in the retail trade. Consumers will have less money to spend on holidays, luxury goods, etc. Expect belt-tightening, especially perhaps at Christmas. With interest rates due to fall, according to Mark Carney, mortgage repayments may fall a bit, but so will savings rates - again. There will be little justification to save, as prices will be rising rather faster than savings. Better to buy now before the price goes up. Some (many?) less well-off families may leave themselves more open to risk, and we could again see the credit cards maxed out. Firms will be laying off workers. We go back into that dreadful vicious circle of economic contraction.

 

Of course, exports will be cheaper, and we would hope that exports would grow. But do we actually manufacture enough to create the necessary jobs? Or will more jobs be leaving the country, as with Lush, Standard & Poors, and others? And will those new jobs number as many as those predicted to be lost in the financial services sector?

 

It's all very well to be bullish and say that all will be well in the long run. The signs are that the country is in for a real bashing in the short to medium term, and that will require huge efforts to recover from.

 

And as has been pointed out earlier, being in a weak position is far from ideal when negotiating with other countries.

 

Since the 2007/8 financial crisis, and especially because of the Greek problems, there has been much gloating in the UK over a weak Euro. We are watching the tables turn now.

Edited by droopsnout

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

I haven't had chance to read for a few days, but I'd like to return briefly to the idea of "taking back control". That whole idea really revolved around control of the borders. That seems increasingly unlikely because of the requirement for Norway/Switzerland-style agreements to include free movement of people. That argument looks largely lost.

 

But already we have seen that the economy is getting very much out of the country's control.

 

The BoE is suggesting interest rate cuts and new doses of quantitative easing.

 

Bad news from industry, financial services and retailing comes in pretty well every day.

 

I agree that there is a general feeling that democracy should return to the people, but we should remember that nationalism has rarely done anyone any good. Now would be a good time for our political masters to develop policies that will bring people together. I don't want to see communities at loggerheads, and the news of black/white troubles in the USA surely has a lesson for all of us.

 

As has been pointed out, pretty well every body of expertise around the world warned the UK of the economic consequences of Brexit. I'm afraid that their arguments won't be outweighed by those of a single businessman, no matter how successful. Lord Rothermere, the Daily Mail owner, lives outside the EU, outside the UK and in a tax haven (whatever other words may be used). It is difficult to separate the man and his views from his background. He is not the only one! ;)

 

Bringing the discussion around a little to our Board's main centre of interest ...

 

I was a few minutes ago looking at the BF winter timetables as I may well wish to book a return crossing for Nov/Dec. I was surprised to see, on performing a dummy booking, that fares seem to have changed very little, because at first BF's fuel bill seemed likely to have to increase. Then I realised that BF can buy their fuel using a /$ exchange rate, not a £/$ one. I would assume, then, that DFDS, P&O and other shipping companies will purchase their fuel abroad using funds based in non-Sterling countries. And so will cross-channel haulage companies. And so will airlines. I presume this, too, will have some effect on the economy. (But admittedly I'm just a layman in this area).

 

For the motorist/holidaymaker crossing to the Eurozone, fuel in Europe will cost more because of the collapsing exchange rate. 60 litres of diesel at 1,13/litre costs about 68. In December, this was £48-ish. Now it's £58-ish. Perhaps not sufficient to put people off travelling to Europe. Yet. But multiplied several times over for freight, perhaps it is significant, and retail prices of everything imported to the UK are bound to increase. The pound will buy less product as well as less fuel.

 

There will be, I am sure, repercussions in the retail trade. Consumers will have less money to spend on holidays, luxury goods, etc. Expect belt-tightening, especially perhaps at Christmas. With interest rates due to fall, according to Mark Carney, mortgage repayments may fall a bit, but so will savings rates - again. There will be little justification to save, as prices will be rising rather faster than savings. Better to buy now before the price goes up. Some (many?) less well-off families may leave themselves more open to risk, and we could again see the credit cards maxed out. Firms will be laying off workers. We go back into that dreadful vicious circle of economic contraction.

 

Of course, exports will be cheaper, and we would hope that exports would grow. But do we actually manufacture enough to create the necessary jobs? Or will more jobs be leaving the country, as with Lush, Standard & Poors, and others? And will those new jobs number as many as those predicted to be lost in the financial services sector?

 

It's all very well to be bullish and say that all will be well in the long run. The signs are that the country is in for a real bashing in the short to medium term, and that will require huge efforts to recover from.

 

And as has been pointed out earlier, being in a weak position is far from ideal when negotiating with other countries.

 

Since the 2007/8 financial crisis, and especially because of the Greek problems, there has been much gloating in the UK over a weak Euro. We are watching the tables turn now.

Edited by droopsnout

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the painful truth is that we should never have joined the EU in the first place. Our traditions and culture are different from continental countries which do have a lot in common, being derived from the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic periods. However we joined in the hope of economic success which -- in the main -- has been achieved. Thus Brexit could mean we will revert in time to the way we would have been had we never joined. I suspect that the politicoes going on about "British Interests" was not very diplomatic, suggesting as it does that we were in it for what we could get out of it, especially economically but not politically or socially. But now we are on our way out and only time will tell if we've thrown out the economic baby with the political and social bath water. Personally I have always thought we were living on fantasy island so Brexit could prove to be a much needed dose of reality.

Edited by Hawser Trunnion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the painful truth is that we should never have joined the EU in the first place. Our traditions and culture are different from continental countries which do have a lot in common, being derived from the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic periods. However we joined in the hope of economic success which -- in the main -- has been achieved. Thus Brexit could mean we will revert in time to the way we would have been had we never joined. I suspect that the politicoes going on about "British Interests" was not very diplomatic, suggesting as it does that we were in it for what we could get out of it, especially economically but not politically or socially. But now we are on our way out and only time will tell if we've thrown out the economic baby with the political and social bath water. Personally I have always thought we were living on fantasy island so Brexit could prove to be a much needed dose of reality.

Edited by Hawser Trunnion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

To change direction a little, can anyone here name a current politician whom they would trust to lead us through the next, say, five years?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

To change direction a little, can anyone here name a current politician whom they would trust to lead us through the next, say, five years?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To change direction a little, can anyone here name a current politician whom they would trust to lead us through the next, say, five years?

 

Not this one, certainly. Proof that when you fail at politics the only choice left is to become an enforcer for the mob (if Doncaster has a mob) or at least that's what he looks like he's auditioning for. Enjoy! Ed. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p040cdd8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To change direction a little, can anyone here name a current politician whom they would trust to lead us through the next, say, five years?

 

Not this one, certainly. Proof that when you fail at politics the only choice left is to become an enforcer for the mob (if Doncaster has a mob) or at least that's what he looks like he's auditioning for. Enjoy! Ed. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p040cdd8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To change direction a little, can anyone here name a current politician whom they would trust to lead us through the next, say, five years?

 

It would be easier if one could nominate the dead. If we limit ourselves to the living, I could name a number that I would trust to look after their own interests rather than their electorates. I could name a few that I would trust to be honest but would I trust them to run the country? Probably not. Who would I trust to run the country, a very short list, Ken Clarke and John Major from the right of centre and Chuka Umunna and Gordon Brown from the left of centre. With the turmoil I believe is coming preferably all together. Sorry, I forgot Nicola Sturgeon I'd add her into the mix as well,.

Edited by G4rth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To change direction a little, can anyone here name a current politician whom they would trust to lead us through the next, say, five years?

 

It would be easier if one could nominate the dead. If we limit ourselves to the living, I could name a number that I would trust to look after their own interests rather than their electorates. I could name a few that I would trust to be honest but would I trust them to run the country? Probably not. Who would I trust to run the country, a very short list, Ken Clarke and John Major from the right of centre and Chuka Umunna and Gordon Brown from the left of centre. With the turmoil I believe is coming preferably all together. Sorry, I forgot Nicola Sturgeon I'd add her into the mix as well,.

Edited by G4rth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the painful truth is that we should never have joined the EU in the first place. Our traditions and culture are different from continental countries which do have a lot in common, being derived from the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic periods. However we joined in the hope of economic success which -- in the main -- has been achieved. Thus Brexit could mean we will revert in time to the way we would have been had we never joined. I suspect that the politicoes going on about "British Interests" was not very diplomatic, suggesting as it does that we were in it for what we could get out of it, especially economically but not politically or socially. But now we are on our way out and only time will tell if we've thrown out the economic baby with the political and social bath water. Personally I have always thought we were living on fantasy island so Brexit could prove to be a much needed dose of reality.

In other words go backwards.

If the EU has given the UK economic success then why change it?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the painful truth is that we should never have joined the EU in the first place. Our traditions and culture are different from continental countries which do have a lot in common, being derived from the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic periods. However we joined in the hope of economic success which -- in the main -- has been achieved. Thus Brexit could mean we will revert in time to the way we would have been had we never joined. I suspect that the politicoes going on about "British Interests" was not very diplomatic, suggesting as it does that we were in it for what we could get out of it, especially economically but not politically or socially. But now we are on our way out and only time will tell if we've thrown out the economic baby with the political and social bath water. Personally I have always thought we were living on fantasy island so Brexit could prove to be a much needed dose of reality.

In other words go backwards.

If the EU has given the UK economic success then why change it?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

 

It would be easier if one could nominate the dead. If we limit ourselves to the living, I could name a number that I would trust to look after their own interests rather than their electorates. I could name a few that I would trust to be honest but would I trust them to run the country? Probably not. Who would I trust to run the country, a very short list, Ken Clarke and John Major from the right of centre and Chuka Umunna and Gordon Brown from the left of centre. With the turmoil I believe is coming preferably all together. Sorry, I forgot Nicola Sturgeon I'd add her into the mix as well,.

An interesting combination. I can go along with it OK, but would add Caroline Lucas. Those six working together might actually achieve something, and there would be a good spread of experience, realism and idealism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

 

It would be easier if one could nominate the dead. If we limit ourselves to the living, I could name a number that I would trust to look after their own interests rather than their electorates. I could name a few that I would trust to be honest but would I trust them to run the country? Probably not. Who would I trust to run the country, a very short list, Ken Clarke and John Major from the right of centre and Chuka Umunna and Gordon Brown from the left of centre. With the turmoil I believe is coming preferably all together. Sorry, I forgot Nicola Sturgeon I'd add her into the mix as well,.

An interesting combination. I can go along with it OK, but would add Caroline Lucas. Those six working together might actually achieve something, and there would be a good spread of experience, realism and idealism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...