Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Gareth

General Discussions on Brexit

Recommended Posts

Agreed, G4rth.

I don't feel like playing the blame game. I'm sure there were errors all round. But coal's days were numbered, of course.

However, in the end, the situation (miners' strike) was handled completely without compassion by Thatcher, in that whole communities were severely affected, and without the time to psych themselves up for what was inevitable (pit closures).

I hope the UK has learned from that experience. Those on the right may say that she had no option, but there are always options, and she chose some brutal ones, and asked/forced the police to do things which they shouldn't have been mixed up in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just one last point,when the Labour Party closed the mines you are talking about these mines that were death traps,on there last legs in production and the large mines on the coast were screaming out for miners which were all modern and high production mines.yet thatcher with her hatered of miners closed them all even the ones that were making massive profits.it is a very sore point with me when people twist there story around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Jardinier said:

So you'd be happy for the UK to remain and increase its subscription in order to help these poorer states develop?

For me there would need to be other major reforms too but I'd have no problem seeing an increased UK subscription if it was spent in areas where it would do the most good rather than be given to the nations that need it the least... which in some instances I include the UK in that.

All this talk about reunification and investing in the former GDR is well passed its sell by date. The wall has been gone now longer than it was up.

Aren't we being a bit selective regarding Swan Hunter? They were building ships until 2006. It was a labour govt who gave the their final build to Govan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jonno said:

For me there would need to be other major reforms too but I'd have no problem seeing an increased UK subscription if it was spent in areas where it would do the most good rather than be given to the nations that need it the least... which in some instances I include the UK in that.

All this talk about reunification and investing in the former GDR is well passed its sell by date. The wall has been gone now longer than it was up.

Aren't we being a bit selective regarding Swan Hunter? They were building ships until 2006. It was a labour govt who gave the their final build to Govan.

I think that all governments  - all around Europe, even if some don't like to admit it - think that some major changes are necessary in various aspects of EU policy and also in its organisation. However, it's not that long really since the last bunch of new admissions joined up, and I suspect that a longer time is needed for the 27/28 to settle down as a cooperative group. I don't have evidence for that; it's just a gut feeling, if you like.

I'm a bit puzzled by your thoughts about the ex-GDR. Yes, the wall disappeared over 20 years ago now. But equally, and sadly, there exist deprived regions in in a number of countries, even in the more developed west of Europe, which have been in a depressed condition for much more than 20 years. It's easy to think that those areas will remain depressed for an awful lot longer, and investment will need to continue in all of them for some time to come - including to those in the ex-GDR.

You'll remember saying that life's too short to be annoyed. Well, it's also too short for me to further my research in Swan Hunter! If their local paper said it failed as a company in 1993 and was bought up by a Dutch guy, I'm happy to go along with it until someone puts me right. But at this stage, having been away for a few days and then spending a fair bit of time on here, I'm neglecting some dear friends to whom I owe an email or a phone call, so I'll have to say that right now my priorities are with them.

On a different tack, and more closely related to Brexit, I just had a phone chat with our account adviser at our French bank. He thinks that both sides in the negotiations are stringing things out, trying to give up as little as possible until the last minute when suddenly agreements will magically emerge. I hope he's right! The no-deal scenario is unthinkable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know is doesn't happen very often (or perhaps ever in fact judging by recent events) but the Belgians appear to have come up with a good idea aimed specifically at annoying the French and spreading European disharmony. As usual though, no-one will take any notice and will completely ignore them. 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45414751

Ed. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Government telling us about needing International Driving Permits and higher overseas phone costs.   Sounds to me that the government has almost got a very soft Brexit deal signed up with the EU but know that leave voters  won't like it, so are telling us all how much worse things would be without it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I applied for an IDP here in France about ten days ago. We are advised that a French licence may not be acceptable in the UK after March 2019.

Judging from the photo (you may have seen it) of Rees-Mogg, Johnson and IDS with their heads in their hands looking like their game has collapsed, I think wortley might be right in his conclusion that the UK government may be painting a really dark picture of a no-deal Brexit so as to soften up the electorate for what is really to come. Today HMG warned (amongst other things) that UK-made vehicles may not be valid for sale in the EU (https://theworldnews.net/gb-news/no-deal-brexit-uk-made-cars-will-not-be-apos-valid-for-sale-apos-in-eu-government-document-admits)

Even so, both sides (EU and UK) are still attempting to lay down the law in their attempts at one-upmanship. (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/13/france-may-stop-trains-and-planes-from-uk-under-no-deal-brexit?CMP=share_btn_tw)

What is so hard to imagine is that May found a replacement for Davies who is as useless as Davies was.

The UK Parliament watchdog is probing Jacob Rees Mogg's hard Brexit lobby group (the ERG) over its "other sources of funding". More dark money? (https://opendemocracy.net/uk/brexitinc/james-cusick-jenna-corderoy-peter-geoghegan/parliament-watchdog-probes-rees-mogg-s-hard). Is this why the arch Brexiteers were feeling so wretched?

Meanwhile, Carney is saying that a no-deal could be as bad as the 2008 financial crisis. (Yeah, that saw our incomes go down fast!) https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/13/no-deal-brexit-could-be-as-bad-as-2008-financial-crash-carney-says?CMP=share_windows_facebook. And, of course, your licence may not be valid either.

Why is the government planning for a disaster it could prevent? None of these misfortunes could happen if they just gave Brexit up as a bad job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, that is good news, Ed.

You'll see from the article, though, that the choice of London was made largely because of the increasing spend of affluent people in London. Sadly, only a few of those will be UK residents, I suspect. I don't think Chanel will bring great employment opportunities to London, though - the article mentions "dozens" of jobs, but how many dozen?

I think Londoners - genuine Londoners - will be more concerned about Carney's worst-case scenario which is occupying the main headlines, with the BBC page including this: "mortgage rates could spiral, the pound and inflation could fall, and countless homeowners could be left in negative equity."

Or is that just "project fear" again?

I mentioned last night's Question Time in an earlier post, suggesting that it might be interesting. It was awful. Debate at a highly superficial level. I despair.

Edited by Jardinier
Quote from https://www.bbc.com/news/business-45516678

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cabin-boy said:

It's not all doom and gloom on the business front though :

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-45517279

Ed. 

A few dozen jobs won't go far. If the UK government had any sense they would create a couple of million jobs on zero hour contracts. It would cost nothing and they could claim everyone was employed. The gullible British public would believe them and claim a major Brexit triumph.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it would be a "few" dozen.

Newspaper-speak means that if 42 jobs were created, they would write "scores". If it were 32, they would write "tens". If it were 202, "hundreds". So probably, we're talking of perhaps 24 to 40 jobs.

Presumably, the staff concerned would mainly be dealing with export orders from their French warehouses as well as sales to London parfumiers and department stores.

Edited by Jardinier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Jardinier said:

Yes, that is good news, Ed.

I see it as companies playing the long game. Whatever the short term impacts of a (possible) deal may be, or even the medium term consequences on specific sectors, the economy as a whole will keep going, maybe with some adjustments. But companies like Chanel etc are focusing on their long term strategy, and not just the UK and European markets, so need to position themselves for future growth. We are only leaving the EU, not Europe, and not the global economy. If California were to declare independence from the rest of the USA this afternoon I think the remaining 49 states would survive and so would the Hollywood film industry by adapting, restructuring and focusing on its strengths, attractiveness to investors and contribution to the global economy and culture. With the right leadership in place (and I think now is not the time to distract people from the real issues despite the mess they seem to be making of it) the UK can be back up in the top five global economies in a relatively short time frame but it may require significant political reform to get us there. Ed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly right Ed.

Jardinier, you don't trust the figures for jobs being created but you believe it when your told house prices will drop by 30% and the rest of project fear.

We need to take everything we are told with a pinch of salt, from both sides.  Personally I think it could be hard for a while but in the long term it will balance out, remember the EU countries need to trade with us and us with them, if there is no deal smaller deals will be worked out for each sector over the next few years.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps the 400 British Steel workers about to be made redundant could apply for the "few dozen jobs" being created. There will always be new companies coming in creating a few jobs but that will be nothing compared to the potential job losses. This time next year will show who is correct and who will be eating humble pie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, G4rth said:

This time next year will show who is correct and who will be eating humble pie.

Next year will be too soon, you'll need to wait a bit longer (as Solo says) for the system to stabilise and reset itself before being able to judge. Ed. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we are all doomed comes to mind,joking put aside does anyone know in hells name what is going on because to me it is not about the country it is all about the Tory party infighting.One side is putting one side of the story and the other side there side of the story BUT who is telling the truth.just wished they all could put there heads together including all parties to go and get the best deal but we are to far down the line for that.it should of been cross Party agreement which way should go not this shamble it is now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Cabin-boy said:

Next year will be too soon, you'll need to wait a bit longer (as Solo says) for the system to stabilise and reset itself before being able to judge. Ed. 

Some of us will be lucky to have 10 years let alone Jacob R-M's 50 years to show a benefit. The way the sensible experts expect things to go perhaps I should have said unlucky not lucky.😀😀

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, nodwad said:

just wished they all could put there heads together including all parties to go and get the best deal but we are to far down the line for that.it should of been cross Party agreement which way should go not this shamble it is now.

It wouldn't have made any difference. The country is split down the middle and not necessary on party lines. I'm afraid there is no way you can reconcile the irreconcilable. We either leave and half the country will resent the other half or we don't leave and the same thing happens. Either way it might be prudent to increase the pay of the army and the police, they might be needed if food and medicine shortages materialize.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are a ship without a rudder and no captain on the bridge and half of the ships crew jumping ship.what a nightmare it has come to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point about the country being split down the middle is a really important one.  There is no conceivable outcome to the Brexit process that can possibly heal that - as G4rth says, whichever way it goes, approximately half the country is going to feel disenfranchised.  In that respect it is almost immaterial where the Brexit discussions go or how competently or otherwise they are handled - of course those things matter, and matter a lot, but as far as healing a divided country is concerned, they can't make any difference.  I wonder how many politicians are even starting to think about that long-term issue, that will remain an issue long after Brexit is resolved or not resolved.  Against that backdrop, where we do or don't manage to get to by 29 March next year is almost a red herring.  But hardly any of our politicians can see past their fixation on that date. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Gareth said:

The point about the country being split down the middle is a really important one.  There is no conceivable outcome to the Brexit process that can possibly heal that - as G4rth says, whichever way it goes, approximately half the country is going to feel disenfranchised.  In that respect it is almost immaterial where the Brexit discussions go or how competently or otherwise they are handled - of course those things matter, and matter a lot, but as far as healing a divided country is concerned, they can't make any difference.  I wonder how many politicians are even starting to think about that long-term issue, that will remain an issue long after Brexit is resolved or not resolved.  Against that backdrop, where we do or don't manage to get to by 29 March next year is almost a red herring.  But hardly any of our politicians can see past their fixation on that date. 

The only way it can possibly be resolved is if we leave and it's an instant success. I've not seen anyone, not even the most pro brexit supporters, suggest that that is even a remote possibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other way would be for a lot of eating of political humble pie, and to do the whole thing again properly.  From the start.

The PM (a new one) should put hand on heart and apologise to the country, on behalf of the government and parliament, for the way the referendum was handled.  Make it clear that the principle of asking the country for its mandate on this issue was right but concede that the referendum that took place was politically motivated, politically conducted, ill-informed on both sides, and tried to shoe-horn the public into voting the way the PM of the day wanted them to vote without providing full impartial information and arguments in support of both choices.

I honestly believe that an open referendum, in which people felt they had full and accurate information on which to make their choice, devoid of any feeling that they are trying to be coerced into voting one way or the other by the government, and in which there could be no possibility of feeling misled one way or the other afterwards, would have produced a result that was (a) more clear cut than the one we got, and (b) one that everybody would have been happy to accept, whichever way they voted.

Stable horse and horse has bolted etc.  So any attempt to do it all again from scratch could probably not be devoid of the baggage of this bungled mess.  But starting again might be the only way we can deal with this mess and end up with a country that can unite behind the outcome.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gareth said:

The other way would be for a lot of eating of political humble pie, and to do the whole thing again properly.  From the start.

The PM (a new one) should put hand on heart and apologise to the country, on behalf of the government and parliament, for the way the referendum was handled.  Make it clear that the principle of asking the country for its mandate on this issue was right but concede that the referendum that took place was politically motivated, politically conducted, ill-informed on both sides, and tried to shoe-horn the public into voting the way the PM of the day wanted them to vote without providing full impartial information and arguments in support of both choices.

I honestly believe that an open referendum, in which people felt they had full and accurate information on which to make their choice, devoid of any feeling that they are trying to be coerced into voting one way or the other by the government, and in which there could be no possibility of feeling misled one way or the other afterwards, would have produced a result that was (a) more clear cut than the one we got, and (b) one that everybody would have been happy to accept, whichever way they voted.

Stable horse and horse has bolted etc.  So any attempt to do it all again from scratch could probably not be devoid of the baggage of this bungled mess.  But starting again might be the only way we can deal with this mess and end up with a country that can unite behind the outcome.

 

That is what should happen but with this lot there is no chance,Iam lucky been a oap now but feel for the younger people who should have being allowed to vote because it there lives that is going to be effected with this shambles

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, nodwad said:

That is what should happen but with this lot there is no chance,Iam lucky been a oap now but feel for the younger people who should have being allowed to vote because it there lives that is going to be effected with this shambles

I think that's the biggest issue. The likelihood is that, after a few more years of demographic churn, the population will be clearly majority in favour of membership.

So we we will inevitably re-apply ten or 20 years down the line but many of the opt outs, rebates, massive concessions and UK favourable/UK driven legislation that made our membership so valuable will have been lost along the way.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...