Off Topic UK / EU Future

He didn't say you were pathetic, but rather that your argument was - which is a different thing.

 

There is a terrible dearth of talent in our politics at present. May was elected leader because they thought she would be a safe pair of hands. What is coming out now is that when she was at the Home Office she was useless as witnessed by the call today to completely reorganise it.

 

Leo, did you not remember the Lords cross party committee found the UK not legally liable for much of what is being promised. With sovereignty I feel it is a basic right which should be enjoyed by the UK as it is by most countries in the world. I would want trade deals done much quicker than the nine or ten years it currently takes the EU. Those close to Trump have suggested a UK/US deal could be completed within two years, quite a different time frame.
Immigration - most of the non EU immigration into the UK has been to fill specific roles. Due to the high unemployment and poor growth in many EU countries compared to the high growth UK, we became a magnate for economic migrants. The UK had no choice on the numbers or the suitability of this influx. Rightly, this would not be acceptable to most countries in the world.

The biggest boosts to the UK economy in the last few decades was leaving the ERM and not joining the Euro despite the dodgy advice from the Lib Dems , CBI etc.

I would not bank too much on your prediction of Trump leaving, most predictions about him have failed. He has opened up a can of worms with his focus on fair tariff trading with the US. I would expect the republican Party to adopt his insistence of a level playing field on tariffs. The US does need to address their adverse trading balance with China and the EU.

The EU may have originally been good for Europe but what it has morphed into is a nest of vipers, slowly disintegrating before our eyes.

 

I can read, his social skills still need tweaking.

 

If some of you cannot rise above using simple insults then there is no point in debating this difficult subject.

 

Oh Leo ! Are you going to hit me with that age old mantra that the Tories are better for the economy - something which has been proved wrong time and again. As an adult I have seen 2 Tory majority governments - the first ripped the base out of British manufacturing, led to record unemployment, record emigration, gave us an economy based on sand - which led to a housing bubble, and opened Britain up at the full mercy of the financial crisis (in case you're wondering, Germany was less affected because it is still a manufacturing nation). The second Tory majority has taken us to the brink of the abyss with only uncertainty for years to come. Yet still you criticize Labour on the economy. Over 40 years the Labour Party has borrowed less than the Tories when in power, they have also repaid more. There has also been more private investment in Labour years than Tory ones. It is high time to nail this myth on the head.

You are however right in saying that we need to be debating Britain post Brexit, because Brexit (or Lexit) is not the end of everything.

 

You could always dive to the ground and role over several times like Neymar

 

True - but I wondered about the ass?

 

I do not know what you are referring to re the Lords Cross Part committee. Not liable for what?
The UK never gave up its sovereignty - we simply agreed to share it to an extent. How does it affect us?
We will have to find out how quickly we can conclude trade deals. We have dozens to do to replace those we leave behind with the EU and have no skilled negotiators in the field as the EU has conducted such deals onour behalf. I am not optimistic we will get more and better and quicker. Time will tell but it is a leap of faith to think we will.
Migrants to this country have a very high percentage of employment wherever they are from and whether skilled or not skilled have done essential jobs and paid taxes. All this has boosted our economy.
Leaving the ERM was a good boost - agreed;but a one off unlike continued population growth which has added to expanded GDP growth for years.
I was referring to the fact that even if Trump wins a second term - possible but by no means certain - he has at most four more effective years before he is the outgoing "lame duck" that all US Presidents become.

 

I certainly am. We have debated this before and I have shown you are totally wrong in your incorrect use of statistics when you have tried to show Labour are not economically incompetent. Labour PMs - Wilson left office in 1970 with the UK in crisis after devaluation. Callaghan - left office in 1979 after the winter of discontent and economic and social meltdown. Next was Blair who was successfully re-elected as he had promised to follow the Conservatives economic policy and it worked for him; handed over to Brown and disaster ensued which has caused 10 years of struggling economic recovery.
What you never recognise is that Labour have always taken over a successful economy - and then trashed it while the Tories have had to do the reverse. It is the only reason I ever vote Tory as I don't like their policies but as an economist and accountant I understand figures and cause and effect in the economy. Labour trash it; Tories repair it. Historical continuing and successive fact. You need a period of tory government to make the economy strong enough to allow Labour to do some "nice" things before the break it again and blame the world; their cousin, the Tories, God, the weather and everything else.
Thatcher's government had to break union power which itself had strangled our manufacturing industry. I know you disagree but the unions we helped establish post war in Germany have been far more the reason German manufacturing has survived - because they have to negotiate and not strike.
The Tories since 2010 have slowly (thanks to a nasty coalition which prevented decisive action) repaired the economy. Year by year reducing the annual overspend. Unpleasant but when you overspend by £150b per annum it has to be stopped. It should and would have been quicker if Cameron had been in full control 2010 to 2015.

 

The Lords cross Party Committee concluded that the UK owes the EU nothing when we leave. You either have sovereignty or not, black or white. We do not currently have sovereignty at the moment but will hopeful regain it.

Current trade deals with have with other countries through being part of the EU can easier be replicated very quickly. We do have skilled negotiators and have been recruiting for months. Whatever the outcome of migration from the EU the UK had no control. 90% of countries in the world would find that unacceptable, so do I.

 

You need to improve your comprehension skills:

(Your bold text). No where does this call you names. It offers an opinion on your "argument". You, quite deliberately, are not mentioned.
Sorry to tell you chap, but you've got it wrong. Again. No name calling skills necessary.

 

I was just hoping we could keep the debate at a sensible level only for you to disappoint.

 

Where have you 'shown that I was totally wrong in my figures' Leo ? You may have disputed them but that is another matter. Anyway - just to set the record straight over Germany. Germans have just as much right to strike as their brothers in the UK. The way Germany is different is that it has, at least since 1945, not had the history of social class antagonisms that Britain has. There are peculiar reasons for this namely that there emerged a completely new managerial class in the country after the war (the old one was too tainted by Nazism) so workers and management were not really as divided as in the UK. Maybe this was a part of the Stunde Null (Zero hour). It was expected in Britain that Britons would simply go back to the same old positions of social class that had existed before the war - it was all much more mixed up in Germany. There was a great deal of underplaying of class in World War 2 - this 'We're all in it together' and hopes were raised of a different future - which didn't happen. It shouldn't be forgotten that many of those so called obstructive trade union leaders of the 60s and 70s had, as young men, been at places like Dunkirk or El Alamein.

 

I am surprised by that - I do not disbelieve you but wonder if you have the whole story. As I understood it we do not pa all our dues in the year due but there is a time lag and things like pensions etc need to be assessed as to future liabilites etc. A whole host of things. If the Lords did indeed research everything and concluded we have no outstanding debt then fine - if we owe £30b in back fees, also fine - none of us would want the UK to walk away owing money - so it is a matter fact. I will try to find their research.
Sovereignty is the authority of a state to govern itself. The fact that if we choose to then we can withdraw from the EU proves we still have that power which means we shared some sovereignty but it was on loan and we can recover it if we choose. So not really quite as black and whire as you suggest.
Other countries may have given favourable terms to a 550millions block that they would not replicate with a 65 million nation. Time will tell how many deals will need to be struck again. You cannot assume we can have the same deal as a small population as one ten times bigger.
We had no control over citizens of Europe as we agreed that all EU citizens ARE our citizens. The issue is with non EU immigrants and we have certainly got a say on those.

 

I think I have debunked the myth that Labour are competent many times. I do not expect you to ever agree as you are not open to persuasion on that. Labour and its acolytes have to peddle the myth they are competent but the public have shown time and again in voting that they are not believed.
I am not sure I want to repeat the same debate that will end nowhere again.
Gemans have the right to strike but the way we helped set up the union / boss /worker relationship in Germany has meant the Germans do not resort to strike blackmail very often

 

The Lords cross party committee basically said we owed nothing but obviously making payments would foster better relations. I disagree on sovereignty, we agreed to lose it but now want it back.

You cannot assume other countries that we currently have a trade agreement with will not simply carry on trading with us on the same or similar terms. It makes sense for all parties involved to make trade as smooth as possible. You agree we have no control over EU citizens. This would be no problem unless large scale movement is involved. Merkel had the chance to sort this with Cameron, it must be her biggest regret along with her now reversed 'open door policy'.

 

You would be wise not to overplay Britain's role in German Union history Leo - a history which goes back to 1848. The plan drawn up by the British military regime was that anyone interested in forming a Union must obtain special permission from the military government. Only 18 months after this would they be allowed to collect subscriptions. Only after 1947 were these allowed on a regional or national level. Strikes were banned until October 1948. The same rules were applied by the American military government. All of this does not sound like 'helping' but rather hindering.

 

You really need to attempt a rebuttal at my response to your assertions first.

I took each of your four "advantages" by turn and responded to them rationally, however emotive I may have been in using "BS" for "rhetoric" and in the last two sentences which were separate to and distinct from the four points.

You're using a tactic known as deflection. I often come across this debating young earth creationists and science deniers, invariably when they can no longer argue the issues at hand.

Ignore my emotions and stick to the four points that you raised and I answered: sovereignty; border control; protectionism; dialogue.

 

I do not overplay it. I simply said we had a hand - as did the Americans - and German unions function in a way that is cooperative to German industry as opposed to our unions where strife and political motivation and money from members is more important to them than either representing their members real long term interests.