I'm undecided in or out, but did notice that Goldman Sachs signed that letter saying we should be in - and when GS do something you generally know for sure that it is (1) in their interests and (2) not in your interests. That isn't to mention (though I will) the extremely dodgy dealings they got away with (as usual) in getting Greece into the ERM.
The Politics Thread
- Thread starter Wandering Yid
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Just noticed deedubs third paragraph from the end re security. I know a bit more about this than about football and politics, so should mention that the EU does not currently have the sort of defence arrangements you are alluding to. It is NATO that has the principle of collective defence (an attack on one member is an attack on all etc) and we are not voting to leave NATO in the upcoming ballot. It just so happens that most members of the EU are also members of NATO (haven't been through the list to see if any aren't). Which is also why I think the security / defence arguments that have been used are just one example of many erroneous arguments that we are going to be bombarded with in the next few months. AFAIK there are no security systems or agreements that will be abandoned if we leave the EU.
As in most political discussion the media has it's own agenda and will never allow facts to get in the way.
The real decision is about the present and political future of the UK. The question we should be asking is; do we want to make decisions with our European neighbours or do we wish to plough our own furrow. At present the UK has tried to have both as it has never played a central role like Germany or France but in many ways has been what DeGaule feared we would be, an aircraft carrier for the US and a protector of US financial/political interests.
We are like the little kid in the playground hanging with the Big Boy in the hope the reflected glory would give us status. tbh I think the EU should have kicked us out long ago but of course the thought of 65 million customers going shows the real focus atm.
The UK would probably be best served by staying in the EU and becoming a proper central player, using it's clout to strengthen rather than consistently weakening it with it's self centred short terminism.
There was a letter in Metro yesterday saying that, if the UK left the EU, the rest of Europe "would be banging at our door to trade."
Why? What does this country have to trade? Thatcher killed the coal and shipbuilding industries thirty years ago, Cameron killed what was left of the steel industry with his arrangement with China last year, and Downton Abbey has finished so it's not like that can be sold abroad anymore.
Why? What does this country have to trade? Thatcher killed the coal and shipbuilding industries thirty years ago, Cameron killed what was left of the steel industry with his arrangement with China last year, and Downton Abbey has finished so it's not like that can be sold abroad anymore.
Piers Morgan, Coldplay, Simon '****ing' Cowell, One Direction, Jordan, Alan Sugar, The Monarchy, John 'Bastard' Terry, Paul McCartney, Russell Brand, Wayne Rooney, Sir Bernard Hogan Howe, anyone with a title, Baby Bentleys and Marmite. Should bring in £10 or so.
I dont think thatwe should play a central political role. we joined an Economic community which has now changed, with many wanting a formal union. If we had chosen to go into the Euro, then political union is a must. As we stayed out of the Euro, then economic ties are just fine. The Euro was a mistake for most. Greece could have simply devalued the Dracma and a lot of problems will be solved. The Greece situation will come back and bite. The current half baked system will never work.
Currently NATO is about as useful as a chocolate fireguard. What happened when Putin decidedto annexe the Crimea? A bit of sword rattling and handbags at 5 paces and that was about that. OK Ukraine was not a member of Nato but Putin knew he could call their bluff and they would back down. There may not be a formal defense agreement within the EU but we develop weapons alongside France and Germany and all singing from the same hymn sheet has it's advantages. I'm not old enough to remember but I've read that in the 1914-1918 war the US joined us in 1917 and in the 1939-1945 war it took them until 1941 and only then because Pearl Harbour was attacked. It will be different if Trump is elected but I think that is unlikely. Trump will be looking to pick a fight so Putin won't push his luck.
If we have no political reason to be in the EU then the only logical conclusion to take from that, is to leave. We would have far greater economic freedoms outside it.
There was never an economic reason to enter the EEC, as it was then, it was always political, despite what the politicians and media argued at the time. The proof of that argument is the we didn't join the Euro and have benefited because of that decision.
We already had EFTA and the Commonwealth. We gave up economic advantage to join the EEC and the proof of that argument is the collapse of our industry. We were geared up as a world trade country not just European, all of our production had that market in mind. Our cars were unsuitable for Europe our manufactured goods similar. We worked in the imperial system, even though we had invented the metric system, because it suited our world trade. To change all of this (as we did) is one of the major reasons for our industrial collapse. While we were converting our country, other EU countries (Germany in particular) were busy exploiting our exposed markets. The politicians have served the UK very badly indeed and this has never been fully exposed because of our biased and controlled media who failed to ask the questions and concentrate on irrelevant nonsense to suit what they perceive as their personal interests.
Just one example: Before we joined Europe they had 4 to 5% penetration into our Car market, 95% ot the cars on British roads were manufactured in Britain. That situation is now reversed and most of the cars that are manufactured in Britain are no longer British.
Just one more: Electricity, EDF supplies nearly a quarter of our power. This is a French Nationalised Co. So nationlised industry is no good apparently as long as it's owned by the British but ok if the French own it ???
Do people vote for this?
Are they really that stupid?
Just one more: Electricity, EDF supplies nearly a quarter of our power. This is a French Nationalised Co. So nationlised industry is no good apparently as long as it's owned by the British but ok if the French own it ???
Do people vote for this?
Are they really that stupid?
As an engineer I assure you that the metric system is far easier to work with. 1 litre of water having a mass of 1 kg and 1 cubic metre of water having a mass of 1 tonne makes calculations very easy. And give me a litre of beer over a pint any day.
I don't think you can blame the EEC or EU whatever you want to call them for the collapse of our industry, try senior management, i.e. Michael Edwards at British Leyland and the unions with their left wing leaders, i.e. Arthur Scargill and the other twat at Ford, Derrick Somebody.
What chance did the british car industry have when rather than put money into R&D we lost money hand over fist fighting the Unions and paying top management ridiculous sums of money. The germans meanwhile were designing better cars. Car workers were paid bonuses based on profit so it was in their interest to work with management not against. All german car firms had, and I understand still have, union representation on their boards of directors.
You are right, our cars not being suitable for the European market, or any other market for that matter. Our answer to the early BMW 3 series???? The bloody Austin All-aggro or whatever they called it. You had to be a keen gardener to own one of those, it stored abouut 10 gallons of rain water in the boot!!!
Thatcher had to take on the Unions to save this country, like bad tasting medicine to cure an illness, Thatcher leading the country didn't taste very good at all. But cure it she did.
When it comes down to it the Germans employed team work, we used confontation. I'd rather work as a team. To blame the EU for the demise in british industry is akin to blaming immigrants for not having a job.
Im no Socialist, far from it. But in my view, essential services such as water, electric, etc, should be state controlled.
Water yes, Electricty requires investment and probably the private sector can do it cheaper, gas needs major investment and should remain private.
Well said. Purely on international policy grounds I’m a European federalist. From what little I know of Europe, it seems almost inconceivable that a European foreign policy would be half as evil and stupid as the one the US currently perpetrates (if wandering around the middle east killing people essentially at random really constitutes a foreign policy). It seems to me a strong, united Europe would tend to cancel or at least ameliorate the jingoistic ignorance which the US is now able to push forward.
I might add that IMO one currency and many economic policies clearly is unworkable, so it’s either split up again or federate, I think.
Your last line is bang on. In fact most of what you have said is bang on. However, if they got rid of the Euro and returned to National currencies then Federization would not be necessary.
The private companies just don't invest enough, though. They run it as shabbily as they can get away with.
I've extremely unconvinced by the suggestion that private companies do this stuff cheaper.
There always seems to be a massive catch that either gets ignored or is quite well hidden.
As previously stated, the Germans invested in R&D, had a good relationship with the Unions and made better cars. We over paid executives and had our nuts squeezed by the Unions.
Where we invested in R&D and utilised team work, we are now world leaders, i.e. Formula 1. Basically, we ****ed up.
Private companies have to make a profit to survive. Nationalised companies often make losses, which is a burden on the government. I know which one I would chose if I was in government. Could you imagine the losses that would be made if a nationalised company were drilling for oil and gas in the North Sea???
In a perfect world all utilities would be nationalised, the workers would be happy with their lot and would never strike and the management would make all the right decisions. There would be no wars, no poverty, no sickness and no famine.
Unfortunately it ain't like that.
Nationalised companies also make profits, which aren't a burden on the government.
The Royal Mail, for example, was continually in profit for decades until it was decided that they needed to sell it off.
It made the Treasury over £310m in 1999.
They're also often nationalised because they're essential and they're not profit-making.
If they make money, then people want a slice of the pie and find a way to get the government to give it to them.
The idea that a company being run privately is inherently more efficient is a myth.
They all need major investment, as does the horrendous UK rail notwork! Whether they get it or not is another matter!
I agree that whether nationalized or not, the owners have to be relied upon to provide a reliable service. It seems to me that history shows us that whoever's hands these utilities have been in the quality of service has deteriorated.