Guest pelmetman Posted October 28, 2021 Share Posted October 28, 2021 Birdbrain - 2021-10-28 7:01 PM Poor darlings ... Another day in paradise for em one suspects Yep the forums 5th column are getting angrier and angrier that Brexit Blighty hasn't imploded (lol) (lol) (lol) ......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted October 28, 2021 Share Posted October 28, 2021 pelmetman - 2021-10-28 1:31 PM Brian Kirby - 2021-10-28 11:54 AM pelmetman - 2021-10-27 5:55 PM :D .......... "Germany has downgraded economic forecast from 3.5 per cent to 2.5 per cent Supply chain issues and rising energy prices hurt manufacturing, minister said He spoke as RIshi Sunak said UK will grow 6.5 per cent, defying expectations Economists have put rapid growth down to UK's world-beating vaccine programme, which was rolled out faster than the EU's" I thought I'd try a simplified presentation to help Dave across the finishing line. :-) Lets say both Germany and the UK started off with £100. So, after losing 9.8% initially the UK had £90.20. Then, if (if!) it grows that £90.20 by Sunak's forecast 6.5%, it will end up with £96.10. Germany, OTOH, lost only 4.9% and consequently had £95.10. Then, if (if!) it grows that £95.10 by the forecast 2.5%, it will end up with £97.50. Question: who came out best - UK or Germany? So considering they had less of a knock than Blighty ;-) ........ Question:......Why are "They" predicting that their economy will get back to pre pandemic levels after the UK??? :D ........ They can't blame Brexit can they? >:-) ........ You are now conflating fact with prediction. The falls in GDP in both UK and Germany are a matter of record. The forecasts of UK and German recovery are just that - forecasts. I.e., they have yet to happen. The simplest answer to your question lies somewhere between 'German forecasters are more cautious than UK forecasters', and 'UK forecasters are more optimistic that German forecasters than UK forecasters', via 'whose forecasters have the greatest incentive to produce optimistic forecasts'? The more complex answer is: 'wait and see what actually happens'! :-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted October 28, 2021 Share Posted October 28, 2021 Brian Kirby - 2021-10-28 7:49 PM pelmetman - 2021-10-28 1:31 PM Brian Kirby - 2021-10-28 11:54 AM pelmetman - 2021-10-27 5:55 PM :D .......... "Germany has downgraded economic forecast from 3.5 per cent to 2.5 per cent Supply chain issues and rising energy prices hurt manufacturing, minister said He spoke as RIshi Sunak said UK will grow 6.5 per cent, defying expectations Economists have put rapid growth down to UK's world-beating vaccine programme, which was rolled out faster than the EU's" I thought I'd try a simplified presentation to help Dave across the finishing line. :-) Lets say both Germany and the UK started off with £100. So, after losing 9.8% initially the UK had £90.20. Then, if (if!) it grows that £90.20 by Sunak's forecast 6.5%, it will end up with £96.10. Germany, OTOH, lost only 4.9% and consequently had £95.10. Then, if (if!) it grows that £95.10 by the forecast 2.5%, it will end up with £97.50. Question: who came out best - UK or Germany? So considering they had less of a knock than Blighty ;-) ........ Question:......Why are "They" predicting that their economy will get back to pre pandemic levels after the UK??? :D ........ They can't blame Brexit can they? >:-) ........ You are now conflating fact with prediction. The falls in GDP in both UK and Germany are a matter of record. The forecasts of UK and German recovery are just that - forecasts. I.e., they have yet to happen. The simplest answer to your question lies somewhere between 'German forecasters are more cautious than UK forecasters', and 'UK forecasters are more optimistic that German forecasters than UK forecasters', via 'whose forecasters have the greatest incentive to produce optimistic forecasts'? The more complex answer is: 'wait and see what actually happens'! :-D So you're saying the same forecasters who predicted we would now have 800k job loses, and be up to our necks in a deep recession along with a house price crash........were optimistic??? 8-) ......... Triple Giggles (lol) (lol) (lol) .......... (lol) (lol) (lol) ......... (lol) (lol) (lol) ....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted October 28, 2021 Share Posted October 28, 2021 Brian Kirby - 2021-10-28 7:49 PM The more complex answer is: 'wait and see what actually happens'! :-D So now that you have seen that project fear was a load bollox's ;-) ....... What is your complex excuse for what actually happened? (lol) (lol) (lol) ......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted October 29, 2021 Share Posted October 29, 2021 pelmetman - 2021-10-28 8:30 PM Brian Kirby - 2021-10-28 7:49 PM pelmetman - 2021-10-28 1:31 PM Brian Kirby - 2021-10-28 11:54 AM pelmetman - 2021-10-27 5:55 PM :D .......... "Germany has downgraded economic forecast from 3.5 per cent to 2.5 per cent Supply chain issues and rising energy prices hurt manufacturing, minister said He spoke as RIshi Sunak said UK will grow 6.5 per cent, defying expectations Economists have put rapid growth down to UK's world-beating vaccine programme, which was rolled out faster than the EU's" I thought I'd try a simplified presentation to help Dave across the finishing line. :-) Lets say both Germany and the UK started off with £100. So, after losing 9.8% initially the UK had £90.20. Then, if (if!) it grows that £90.20 by Sunak's forecast 6.5%, it will end up with £96.10. Germany, OTOH, lost only 4.9% and consequently had £95.10. Then, if (if!) it grows that £95.10 by the forecast 2.5%, it will end up with £97.50. Question: who came out best - UK or Germany? So considering they had less of a knock than Blighty ;-) ........ Question:......Why are "They" predicting that their economy will get back to pre pandemic levels after the UK??? :D ........ They can't blame Brexit can they? >:-) ........ You are now conflating fact with prediction. The falls in GDP in both UK and Germany are a matter of record. The forecasts of UK and German recovery are just that - forecasts. I.e., they have yet to happen. The simplest answer to your question lies somewhere between 'German forecasters are more cautious than UK forecasters', and 'UK forecasters are more optimistic that German forecasters than UK forecasters', via 'whose forecasters have the greatest incentive to produce optimistic forecasts'? The more complex answer is: 'wait and see what actually happens'! :-D So you're saying the same forecasters who predicted we would now have 800k job loses, and be up to our necks in a deep recession along with a house price crash........were optimistic??? 8-) ......... Triple Giggles (lol) (lol) (lol) .......... (lol) (lol) (lol) ......... (lol) (lol) (lol) ....... I've tried explaining the difference between a forecast and a prediction to you before, Dave, and you clearly still don't get it. But, to be clear, no, I'm not saying anything of the sort. You are now referring (again!!) to economic forecasts made back in 2016, before the Brexit vote, on the basis of expectations as they then were. You are also referring to your favourite (wrong, and grossly misrepresented) interpretation of those forecasts, as delivered to you in over-simplified, selective, form by your favourite print media in words calculated to make you happy/indignant as suited their agenda. What I am referring to above is that the data you are quoting for the losses in GDP suffered by the UK and Germany are events in the past that have been analysed based on the facts of the events and their consequences. The data you are quoting for the future outcomes for the UK and Germany are based on forecasts, which are not comparable because they are not based on fact. Yet, you insist on comparing them as though both sets of data had equal status. Forecasts fall into that group of data that, as Douglas Bader once wrote, is for the “for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men.” To understand forecasts you have to read the whole forecast and understand the caveats within them. That requires you to read the whole 83 pages of closely reasoned argument in the document you linked to in the "Brexit worse for economy than Covid - Official" string, and not just Osborne's politically slanted foreword. I should also point out that the document is entitled "HM Treasury analysis: the immediate economic impact of leaving the EU", and not "HM Treasury analysis: the immediate economic impact of voting to leave the EU" (your preferred, and incorrect, interpretation of it). It is based upon two overriding assumptions: first that having voted to leave the UK would leave, and second that we would leave within the allocated two years period laid down in the Lisbon Treaty. In the event we left three and a half years after the vote, extending the period of uncertainty (which in respect of the Northern Ireland border and other issues has still not ended). There are also assumptions in that document as to the terms on which we should leave (which were not defined at the time and, as above, still remain unclear). So, back to Bader, trying to rely on what is written in that document nearly five and a half years, a prolonged negotiating period, a pandemic, and a change of government, later, rather places you in the first of Bader's categories, don't you think? So, have a proper read, and then come back with your point by point critique of the forecast (remembering that a forecast is not a prediction) stating where it was wrong taking account of the events that arose over the four and a half years (and not two years) since it was written, which events in most cases invalidate the assumptions on which the forecast was based. But, back to my question above, I assume you now accept that were you German you would now be £1.40 better off than you are as a Brit. Thanks for that. The benefits of Brexit, eh? (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted October 29, 2021 Share Posted October 29, 2021 Brian Kirby - 2021-10-29 12:06 PM pelmetman - 2021-10-28 8:30 PM Brian Kirby - 2021-10-28 7:49 PM pelmetman - 2021-10-28 1:31 PM Brian Kirby - 2021-10-28 11:54 AM pelmetman - 2021-10-27 5:55 PM :D .......... "Germany has downgraded economic forecast from 3.5 per cent to 2.5 per cent Supply chain issues and rising energy prices hurt manufacturing, minister said He spoke as RIshi Sunak said UK will grow 6.5 per cent, defying expectations Economists have put rapid growth down to UK's world-beating vaccine programme, which was rolled out faster than the EU's" I thought I'd try a simplified presentation to help Dave across the finishing line. :-) Lets say both Germany and the UK started off with £100. So, after losing 9.8% initially the UK had £90.20. Then, if (if!) it grows that £90.20 by Sunak's forecast 6.5%, it will end up with £96.10. Germany, OTOH, lost only 4.9% and consequently had £95.10. Then, if (if!) it grows that £95.10 by the forecast 2.5%, it will end up with £97.50. Question: who came out best - UK or Germany? So considering they had less of a knock than Blighty ;-) ........ Question:......Why are "They" predicting that their economy will get back to pre pandemic levels after the UK??? :D ........ They can't blame Brexit can they? >:-) ........ You are now conflating fact with prediction. The falls in GDP in both UK and Germany are a matter of record. The forecasts of UK and German recovery are just that - forecasts. I.e., they have yet to happen. The simplest answer to your question lies somewhere between 'German forecasters are more cautious than UK forecasters', and 'UK forecasters are more optimistic that German forecasters than UK forecasters', via 'whose forecasters have the greatest incentive to produce optimistic forecasts'? The more complex answer is: 'wait and see what actually happens'! :-D So you're saying the same forecasters who predicted we would now have 800k job loses, and be up to our necks in a deep recession along with a house price crash........were optimistic??? 8-) ......... Triple Giggles (lol) (lol) (lol) .......... (lol) (lol) (lol) ......... (lol) (lol) (lol) ....... I've tried explaining the difference between a forecast and a prediction to you before, Dave, and you clearly still don't get it. But, to be clear, no, I'm not saying anything of the sort. You are now referring (again!!) to economic forecasts made back in 2016, before the Brexit vote, on the basis of expectations as they then were. You are also referring to your favourite (wrong, and grossly misrepresented) interpretation of those forecasts, as delivered to you in over-simplified, selective, form by your favourite print media in words calculated to make you happy/indignant as suited their agenda. What I am referring to above is that the data you are quoting for the losses in GDP suffered by the UK and Germany are events in the past that have been analysed based on the facts of the events and their consequences. The data you are quoting for the future outcomes for the UK and Germany are based on forecasts, which are not comparable because they are not based on fact. Yet, you insist on comparing them as though both sets of data had equal status. Forecasts fall into that group of data that, as Douglas Bader once wrote, is for the “for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men.” To understand forecasts you have to read the whole forecast and understand the caveats within them. That requires you to read the whole 83 pages of closely reasoned argument in the document you linked to in the "Brexit worse for economy than Covid - Official" string, and not just Osborne's politically slanted foreword. I should also point out that the document is entitled "HM Treasury analysis: the immediate economic impact of leaving the EU", and not "HM Treasury analysis: the immediate economic impact of voting to leave the EU" (your preferred, and incorrect, interpretation of it). It is based upon two overriding assumptions: first that having voted to leave the UK would leave, and second that we would leave within the allocated two years period laid down in the Lisbon Treaty. In the event we left three and a half years after the vote, extending the period of uncertainty (which in respect of the Northern Ireland border and other issues has still not ended). There are also assumptions in that document as to the terms on which we should leave (which were not defined at the time and, as above, still remain unclear). So, back to Bader, trying to rely on what is written in that document nearly five and a half years, a prolonged negotiating period, a pandemic, and a change of government, later, rather places you in the first of Bader's categories, don't you think? So, have a proper read, and then come back with your point by point critique of the forecast (remembering that a forecast is not a prediction) stating where it was wrong taking account of the events that arose over the four and a half years (and not two years) since it was written, which events in most cases invalidate the assumptions on which the forecast was based. But, back to my question above, I assume you now accept that were you German you would now be £1.40 better off than you are as a Brit. Thanks for that. The benefits of Brexit, eh? (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) I'll tell you what Brian ;-) ........... You carry on hoping that Brexit Blighty implodes *-) ......... I'll carry on enjoying my Sunlit uplands B-) ......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted October 29, 2021 Share Posted October 29, 2021 pelmetman - 2021-10-29 12:18 PM .................................... You carry on hoping that Brexit Blighty implodes *-) ......... I'll carry on enjoying my Sunlit uplands B-) ......... As I thought, a complete waste of time! 8-) Why on earth would I hope that Britain implodes? I quite like the old girl, but I liked her far more when it was confident and outward looking. Brexit has now reduced her in stature in almost every sphere and, unlike you, I did not vote for that outcome. I'm no "my country right or wrong" flag-hugger, but because I see room for improvement it doesn't mean I don't like Britain. The problem for those who are flag-huggers is that as the realities of Brexit began to emerge they are beginning to doubt whether what they have brought us to is to our advantage. So, they begin to try to present the rest as "Britain haters", because they daren't question their own cause. It is not Britain that we dislike, but what you and your fellow-travellers have reduced it to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted October 29, 2021 Share Posted October 29, 2021 pelmetman - 2021-10-29 12:18 PM Brian Kirby - 2021-10-29 12:06 PM pelmetman - 2021-10-28 8:30 PM Brian Kirby - 2021-10-28 7:49 PM pelmetman - 2021-10-28 1:31 PM Brian Kirby - 2021-10-28 11:54 AM pelmetman - 2021-10-27 5:55 PM :D .......... "Germany has downgraded economic forecast from 3.5 per cent to 2.5 per cent Supply chain issues and rising energy prices hurt manufacturing, minister said He spoke as RIshi Sunak said UK will grow 6.5 per cent, defying expectations Economists have put rapid growth down to UK's world-beating vaccine programme, which was rolled out faster than the EU's" I thought I'd try a simplified presentation to help Dave across the finishing line. :-) Lets say both Germany and the UK started off with £100. So, after losing 9.8% initially the UK had £90.20. Then, if (if!) it grows that £90.20 by Sunak's forecast 6.5%, it will end up with £96.10. Germany, OTOH, lost only 4.9% and consequently had £95.10. Then, if (if!) it grows that £95.10 by the forecast 2.5%, it will end up with £97.50. Question: who came out best - UK or Germany? So considering they had less of a knock than Blighty ;-) ........ Question:......Why are "They" predicting that their economy will get back to pre pandemic levels after the UK??? :D ........ They can't blame Brexit can they? >:-) ........ You are now conflating fact with prediction. The falls in GDP in both UK and Germany are a matter of record. The forecasts of UK and German recovery are just that - forecasts. I.e., they have yet to happen. The simplest answer to your question lies somewhere between 'German forecasters are more cautious than UK forecasters', and 'UK forecasters are more optimistic that German forecasters than UK forecasters', via 'whose forecasters have the greatest incentive to produce optimistic forecasts'? The more complex answer is: 'wait and see what actually happens'! :-D So you're saying the same forecasters who predicted we would now have 800k job loses, and be up to our necks in a deep recession along with a house price crash........were optimistic??? 8-) ......... Triple Giggles (lol) (lol) (lol) .......... (lol) (lol) (lol) ......... (lol) (lol) (lol) ....... I've tried explaining the difference between a forecast and a prediction to you before, Dave, and you clearly still don't get it. But, to be clear, no, I'm not saying anything of the sort. You are now referring (again!!) to economic forecasts made back in 2016, before the Brexit vote, on the basis of expectations as they then were. You are also referring to your favourite (wrong, and grossly misrepresented) interpretation of those forecasts, as delivered to you in over-simplified, selective, form by your favourite print media in words calculated to make you happy/indignant as suited their agenda. What I am referring to above is that the data you are quoting for the losses in GDP suffered by the UK and Germany are events in the past that have been analysed based on the facts of the events and their consequences. The data you are quoting for the future outcomes for the UK and Germany are based on forecasts, which are not comparable because they are not based on fact. Yet, you insist on comparing them as though both sets of data had equal status. Forecasts fall into that group of data that, as Douglas Bader once wrote, is for the “for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men.” To understand forecasts you have to read the whole forecast and understand the caveats within them. That requires you to read the whole 83 pages of closely reasoned argument in the document you linked to in the "Brexit worse for economy than Covid - Official" string, and not just Osborne's politically slanted foreword. I should also point out that the document is entitled "HM Treasury analysis: the immediate economic impact of leaving the EU", and not "HM Treasury analysis: the immediate economic impact of voting to leave the EU" (your preferred, and incorrect, interpretation of it). It is based upon two overriding assumptions: first that having voted to leave the UK would leave, and second that we would leave within the allocated two years period laid down in the Lisbon Treaty. In the event we left three and a half years after the vote, extending the period of uncertainty (which in respect of the Northern Ireland border and other issues has still not ended). There are also assumptions in that document as to the terms on which we should leave (which were not defined at the time and, as above, still remain unclear). So, back to Bader, trying to rely on what is written in that document nearly five and a half years, a prolonged negotiating period, a pandemic, and a change of government, later, rather places you in the first of Bader's categories, don't you think? So, have a proper read, and then come back with your point by point critique of the forecast (remembering that a forecast is not a prediction) stating where it was wrong taking account of the events that arose over the four and a half years (and not two years) since it was written, which events in most cases invalidate the assumptions on which the forecast was based. But, back to my question above, I assume you now accept that were you German you would now be £1.40 better off than you are as a Brit. Thanks for that. The benefits of Brexit, eh? (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) I'll tell you what Brian ;-) ........... You carry on hoping that Brexit Blighty implodes *-) ......... I'll carry on enjoying my Sunlit uplands B-) ......... So to summarise........you didn't understand Brians post because there were no word bubbles or pictures. At least we know you accept the German vs UK analogy used shows the German to be financially better off than the Brit. You just find it difficult to say so as it hurts so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barryd999 Posted October 29, 2021 Share Posted October 29, 2021 Brian Kirby - 2021-10-29 2:37 PM pelmetman - 2021-10-29 12:18 PM .................................... You carry on hoping that Brexit Blighty implodes *-) ......... I'll carry on enjoying my Sunlit uplands B-) ......... As I thought, a complete waste of time! 8-) Why on earth would I hope that Britain implodes? I quite like the old girl, but I liked her far more when it was confident and outward looking. Brexit has now reduced her in stature in almost every sphere and, unlike you, I did not vote for that outcome. I'm no "my country right or wrong" flag-hugger, but because I see room for improvement it doesn't mean I don't like Britain. The problem for those who are flag-huggers is that as the realities of Brexit began to emerge they are beginning to doubt whether what they have brought us to is to our advantage. So, they begin to try to present the rest as "Britain haters", because they daren't question their own cause. It is not Britain that we dislike, but what you and your fellow-travellers have reduced it to. Absolutely spot on Brian. If anything us remainers are the true patriots. All Brexit has served to do is divide the country, elect the worst government in history, alienate us from the rest of the world (especially Europe) and seriously damage our long term prospects as a trading nation. A true patriot would never have signed up for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tracker Posted October 29, 2021 Share Posted October 29, 2021 Funny how we all have different perceptions of the past? As I recall we joined the 'Common Market', a trading alliance, in order to boost our failing manufacturing and export led wealth creation and generaly improve the long term prospects for the UK - or am I wrong? This was largely thwarted by greedy and disruptive trade unions, multi layered inept company managements, the total misuse of North Sea Oil bonanza to fund inappropriate wars and over generous benefits, all overseen by successive incompetent governments of both flavours lacking any ambition beond staying in power and surviving the next general election - or am I wrong? So to now blame leaving a politically motivated EU that never really helped anyone except themselves seems to smack of short hind sightedness - or am I wrong? So now all you keyboard warriors can tell me how wrong I am? That should be worth a laugh!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted October 29, 2021 Share Posted October 29, 2021 Tracker - 2021-10-29 6:00 PM politically motivated EU that never really helped anyone except themselves Which we benefitted from when we were part of the EU Now we are outsiders, and, lets face it, the latest border spat with France shows who is in the strongest position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted October 29, 2021 Share Posted October 29, 2021 Tracker - 2021-10-29 6:00 PM Funny how we all have different perceptions of the past? 1 As I recall we joined the 'Common Market', a trading alliance, in order to boost our failing manufacturing and export led wealth creation and generaly improve the long term prospects for the UK - or am I wrong? 2 This was largely thwarted by greedy and disruptive trade unions, multi layered inept company managements, the total misuse of North Sea Oil bonanza to fund inappropriate wars and over generous benefits, all overseen by successive incompetent governments of both flavours lacking any ambition beond staying in power and surviving the next general election - or am I wrong? 3 So to now blame leaving a politically motivated EU that never really helped anyone except themselves seems to smack of short hind sightedness - or am I wrong? 4 So now all you keyboard warriors can tell me how wrong I am? That should be worth a laugh!! I like a challenge! :-D 1 Yes, and no. We joined the European Economic Community (which we were encouraged to see as the common market) under the Heath government, in 1973. The EEC was even then far more than just a trading alliance, but the government didn't want that to be widely publicised. From Wiki "When proposals for a European customs union were advanced after World War II, there was widespread political opposition in the UK: the Federation of British Industries and the government's economic ministries opposed British participation as the establishment of a common external tariff would mean the end of the Imperial Preference system of trade within the British Empire and the Commonwealth of Nations, and would expose British business to increased competition from the continent, in particular from Germany. Meanwhile the Labour Party believed that it would lead to cost-of-living increase for the British working class, forcing them to consume more expensive agricultural produce from continental Europe instead of cheaper food from the imperial dominions, and that what they saw as the domination of mainland western European politics by anti-socialist Christian democracy would threaten the newly constructed welfare state introduced by the Attlee ministry." In effect Heath fibbed. More here from Wiki on the background: "The 1960s saw the first attempts at enlargement. In 1961, Denmark, Ireland, the United Kingdom and Norway (in 1962), applied to join the three Communities. However, President Charles de Gaulle saw British membership as a Trojan horse for U.S. influence and vetoed membership, and the applications of all four countries were suspended.[citation needed] Greece became the first country to join the EC in 1961 as an associate member, however its membership was suspended in 1967 after the Colonels' coup d'état.[6] A year later, in February 1962, Spain attempted to join the European Communities. However, because Francoist Spain was not a democracy, all members rejected the request in 1964. The four countries resubmitted their applications on 11 May 1967 and with Georges Pompidou succeeding Charles de Gaulle as French president in 1969, the veto was lifted. Negotiations began in 1970 under the pro-European UK government of Edward Heath, who had to deal with disagreements relating to the Common Agricultural Policy and the UK's relationship with the Commonwealth of Nations. Nevertheless, two years later the accession treaties were signed so that Denmark, Ireland and the UK joined the Community effective 1 January 1973." By the time we joined, Britain was know as "the sick man of Europe". So yes, we joined for the reasons you state, but only on the understanding that we had joined a "Common Market", which was a far cry from what we had really joined. Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to deceive. :-) 2 Again, yes and no. Our problem had long been the over-strong unions, created by the inept management you refer to. Joining the EEC, inevitably, did little to remove those inept managements. Yes to North Sea oil. Governments? We got what we voted for, but they didn't ether "join" the EEC, or provide uniform policies. 3. Largely agree, but seems to ignore that for over 40 years the UK was a part of that "politically motivated EU that never really helped anyone except themselves" (i.e.us) and used our membership only to gain unpopular policies that our own government voted for, and then blamed on the EEC/EU. They wanted us, but due to the above splits in both our major parties, no government really played its part properly, leading to much misplaced public distrust of the organisation. We spent years poisoning our own well , and then drank the water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted October 30, 2021 Share Posted October 30, 2021 Brian Kirby - 2021-10-29 6:53 PM Tracker - 2021-10-29 6:00 PM Funny how we all have different perceptions of the past? 1 As I recall we joined the 'Common Market', a trading alliance, in order to boost our failing manufacturing and export led wealth creation and generaly improve the long term prospects for the UK - or am I wrong? 2 This was largely thwarted by greedy and disruptive trade unions, multi layered inept company managements, the total misuse of North Sea Oil bonanza to fund inappropriate wars and over generous benefits, all overseen by successive incompetent governments of both flavours lacking any ambition beond staying in power and surviving the next general election - or am I wrong? 3 So to now blame leaving a politically motivated EU that never really helped anyone except themselves seems to smack of short hind sightedness - or am I wrong? 4 So now all you keyboard warriors can tell me how wrong I am? That should be worth a laugh!! I like a challenge! :-D 1 Yes, and no. We joined the European Economic Community (which we were encouraged to see as the common market) under the Heath government, in 1973. The EEC was even then far more than just a trading alliance, but the government didn't want that to be widely publicised. From Wiki "When proposals for a European customs union were advanced after World War II, there was widespread political opposition in the UK: the Federation of British Industries and the government's economic ministries opposed British participation as the establishment of a common external tariff would mean the end of the Imperial Preference system of trade within the British Empire and the Commonwealth of Nations, and would expose British business to increased competition from the continent, in particular from Germany. Meanwhile the Labour Party believed that it would lead to cost-of-living increase for the British working class, forcing them to consume more expensive agricultural produce from continental Europe instead of cheaper food from the imperial dominions, and that what they saw as the domination of mainland western European politics by anti-socialist Christian democracy would threaten the newly constructed welfare state introduced by the Attlee ministry." In effect Heath fibbed. More here from Wiki on the background: "The 1960s saw the first attempts at enlargement. In 1961, Denmark, Ireland, the United Kingdom and Norway (in 1962), applied to join the three Communities. However, President Charles de Gaulle saw British membership as a Trojan horse for U.S. influence and vetoed membership, and the applications of all four countries were suspended.[citation needed] Greece became the first country to join the EC in 1961 as an associate member, however its membership was suspended in 1967 after the Colonels' coup d'état.[6] A year later, in February 1962, Spain attempted to join the European Communities. However, because Francoist Spain was not a democracy, all members rejected the request in 1964. The four countries resubmitted their applications on 11 May 1967 and with Georges Pompidou succeeding Charles de Gaulle as French president in 1969, the veto was lifted. Negotiations began in 1970 under the pro-European UK government of Edward Heath, who had to deal with disagreements relating to the Common Agricultural Policy and the UK's relationship with the Commonwealth of Nations. Nevertheless, two years later the accession treaties were signed so that Denmark, Ireland and the UK joined the Community effective 1 January 1973." By the time we joined, Britain was know as "the sick man of Europe". So yes, we joined for the reasons you state, but only on the understanding that we had joined a "Common Market", which was a far cry from what we had really joined. Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to deceive. :-) 2 Again, yes and no. Our problem had long been the over-strong unions, created by the inept management you refer to. Joining the EEC, inevitably, did little to remove those inept managements. Yes to North Sea oil. Governments? We got what we voted for, but they didn't ether "join" the EEC, or provide uniform policies. 3. Largely agree, but seems to ignore that for over 40 years the UK was a part of that "politically motivated EU that never really helped anyone except themselves" (i.e.us) and used our membership only to gain unpopular policies that our own government voted for, and then blamed on the EEC/EU. They wanted us, but due to the above splits in both our major parties, no government really played its part properly, leading to much misplaced public distrust of the organisation. We spent years poisoning our own well , and then drank the water. So according to Brian we should remain a member of the EU because we were lied to by Heath? 8-) ........ (lol) (lol) (lol) ............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted October 30, 2021 Share Posted October 30, 2021 pelmetman - 2021-10-30 1:34 PM..........................So according to Brian we should remain a member of the EU because we were lied to by Heath? 8-) ............. No Dave. Given Rich's post, to which he invited responses, only you could possibly arrive at that conclusion! *-) Rich posed three views on Brexit. The first concerned what drove us to join the EEC. The second concerned why we were in that position. The third concerned whether, by leaving, we are now shooting ourselves in the foot. His question was as to whether you agree with him. Broadly, I do - as you would know if you had read my response. So do you, or do you not, agree with Rich's three views, and why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted October 30, 2021 Share Posted October 30, 2021 Brian Kirby - 2021-10-30 2:39 PM pelmetman - 2021-10-30 1:34 PM..........................So according to Brian we should remain a member of the EU because we were lied to by Heath? 8-) ............. No Dave. Given Rich's post, to which he invited responses, only you could possibly arrive at that conclusion! *-) Rich posed three views on Brexit. The first concerned what drove us to join the EEC. The second concerned why we were in that position. The third concerned whether, by leaving, we are now shooting ourselves in the foot. His question was as to whether you agree with him. Broadly, I do - as you would know if you had read my response. So do you, or do you not, agree with Rich's three views, and why? Have you not accepted that we were lied to when folk were asked to vote in the FIRST referendum? :-| ......... Coz I kinda think you did :D ...... "In effect Heath fibbed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted October 30, 2021 Share Posted October 30, 2021 pelmetman - 2021-10-30 5:46 PM Brian Kirby - 2021-10-30 2:39 PM pelmetman - 2021-10-30 1:34 PM..........................So according to Brian we should remain a member of the EU because we were lied to by Heath? 8-) ............. No Dave. Given Rich's post, to which he invited responses, only you could possibly arrive at that conclusion! *-) Rich posed three views on Brexit. The first concerned what drove us to join the EEC. The second concerned why we were in that position. The third concerned whether, by leaving, we are now shooting ourselves in the foot. His question was as to whether you agree with him. Broadly, I do - as you would know if you had read my response. So do you, or do you not, agree with Rich's three views, and why? Have you not accepted that we were lied to when folk were asked to vote in the FIRST referendum? :-| ......... Coz I kinda think you did :D ...... "In effect Heath fibbed." No, though I'll accept that Heath was "economical with the truth". I had no difficulty finding out about the EEC and what it was. The Sunday papers, at least the broadsheets, at the time, were full of EEC analysis. Anyone could have found out what was involved, if they had bothered, for the price of a paper. To lie, IMO, one has to deliberately tell what one knows is untrue. What Heath did was to emphasise the economic and trade aspects of the EEC at the expense of the political side to justify a decision he and his government had, properly, made. Hence I said, "in effect" he fibbed. The first referendum was held after we'd joined, in 1975, under Wilson, to see if we wanted to leave, and not to see if we wanted to join. 64% of the electorate voted, and the result was 67% remain. So, people were then happy with his decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted October 30, 2021 Share Posted October 30, 2021 Brian Kirby - 2021-10-30 6:48 PM pelmetman - 2021-10-30 5:46 PM Brian Kirby - 2021-10-30 2:39 PM pelmetman - 2021-10-30 1:34 PM..........................So according to Brian we should remain a member of the EU because we were lied to by Heath? 8-) ............. No Dave. Given Rich's post, to which he invited responses, only you could possibly arrive at that conclusion! *-) Rich posed three views on Brexit. The first concerned what drove us to join the EEC. The second concerned why we were in that position. The third concerned whether, by leaving, we are now shooting ourselves in the foot. His question was as to whether you agree with him. Broadly, I do - as you would know if you had read my response. So do you, or do you not, agree with Rich's three views, and why? Have you not accepted that we were lied to when folk were asked to vote in the FIRST referendum? :-| ......... Coz I kinda think you did :D ...... "In effect Heath fibbed." No, though I'll accept that Heath was "economical with the truth". I had no difficulty finding out about the EEC and what it was. The Sunday papers, at least the broadsheets, at the time, were full of EEC analysis. Anyone could have found out what was involved, if they had bothered, for the price of a paper. To lie, IMO, one has to deliberately tell what one knows is untrue. What Heath did was to emphasise the economic and trade aspects of the EEC at the expense of the political side to justify a decision he and his government had, properly, made. Hence I said, "in effect" he fibbed. The first referendum was held after we'd joined, in 1975, under Wilson, to see if we wanted to leave, and not to see if we wanted to join. 64% of the electorate voted, and the result was 67% remain. So, people were then happy with his decision. He LIED......and I was to young to vote ;-) ........ In 2016 I was one of the few million of voters who had the benefit of having 40 years of hindsight when I voted :D...... Which kinda shows that a lot more than the likes of me were unimpressed with your EU Utopia (lol) (lol) (lol) ....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted October 30, 2021 Share Posted October 30, 2021 pelmetman - 2021-10-30 6:58 PM Brian Kirby - 2021-10-30 6:48 PM pelmetman - 2021-10-30 5:46 PM Brian Kirby - 2021-10-30 2:39 PM pelmetman - 2021-10-30 1:34 PM..........................So according to Brian we should remain a member of the EU because we were lied to by Heath? 8-) ............. No Dave. Given Rich's post, to which he invited responses, only you could possibly arrive at that conclusion! *-) Rich posed three views on Brexit. The first concerned what drove us to join the EEC. The second concerned why we were in that position. The third concerned whether, by leaving, we are now shooting ourselves in the foot. His question was as to whether you agree with him. Broadly, I do - as you would know if you had read my response. So do you, or do you not, agree with Rich's three views, and why? Have you not accepted that we were lied to when folk were asked to vote in the FIRST referendum? :-| ......... Coz I kinda think you did :D ...... "In effect Heath fibbed." No, though I'll accept that Heath was "economical with the truth". I had no difficulty finding out about the EEC and what it was. The Sunday papers, at least the broadsheets, at the time, were full of EEC analysis. Anyone could have found out what was involved, if they had bothered, for the price of a paper. To lie, IMO, one has to deliberately tell what one knows is untrue. What Heath did was to emphasise the economic and trade aspects of the EEC at the expense of the political side to justify a decision he and his government had, properly, made. Hence I said, "in effect" he fibbed. The first referendum was held after we'd joined, in 1975, under Wilson, to see if we wanted to leave, and not to see if we wanted to join. 64% of the electorate voted, and the result was 67% remain. So, people were then happy with his decision. He LIED......and I was to young to vote ;-) ........ In 2016 I was one of the few million of voters who had the benefit of having 40 years of hindsight when I voted :D...... Yet despite that hindsight, you voted for Brexit which was built on a pack of lies, falsehoods and misrepresentations, and chose to hang on every word of a pathological LIAR where LIES trip off his tongue daily. Video exposing Boris Johnson’s ‘lies’ to Parliament hits 20 million views Johnson has made several claims in Parliament that simply are not true, according to a viral video uploaded by lawyer Peter Stefanovic. https://www.bigissue.com/news/politics/video-exposing-boris-johnsons-lies-to-parliament-hits-20-million-views/ The politics of lies: Boris Johnson and the erosion of the rule of law It is truly dizzying to live in the UK these days, if you have a good memory. Life under Boris Johnson’s government means that whatever they tell you today, it will all have changed by tomorrow. Whatever you remember, it never happened like that. What Johnson did was not as it seemed, or it was someone else’s fault. Johnson came to power thanks to lies, half-truths and sleights of hand. Back in 2019, his friends in the Conservative Party and his critics who cared about the future of the United Kingdom all hoped that he would not be able to continue in that vein as Prime Minister. In any case, the actual lies are only part of the problem; the bigger issue is the blurring of the truth behind the bulls**t, as the American philosopher Harry Frankfurt deduced back in the 1980s. If you lie, you must know the truth, and keep an eye on the facts as your reference system. That way, truth ultimately retains its validity. The bulls**tter, on the other hand – and Frankfurt believed this to be key – is indifferent to the truth; he simply takes liberties with truth and facts. He is not interested in “reality”. He is only interested in making his claims stick. He manipulates everything to suit his cause, in order to hide that he is up to no good. He obscures the facts as points of reference and by so doing undermines the political culture of a democracy that depends on the distinction between what is true and what is false. https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2021/07/politics-lies-boris-johnson-and-erosion-rule-law The lies, falsehoods and misrepresentations of Johnson and his government https://boris-johnson-lies.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted October 30, 2021 Share Posted October 30, 2021 is it me?.......Or can anyone else smell rank Lefty Chimp (?) ......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurtainRaiser Posted October 30, 2021 Share Posted October 30, 2021 pelmetman - 2021-10-30 8:35 PM is it me?.......Or can anyone else smell rank Lefty Chimp (?) ......... Is it me?........ or can anyone else smell the lack of being a cohesive argument and a just a daft personal slur? Again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted October 31, 2021 Share Posted October 31, 2021 CurtainRaiser - 2021-10-30 11:33 PM pelmetman - 2021-10-30 8:35 PM is it me?.......Or can anyone else smell rank Lefty Chimp (?) ......... Is it me?........ or can anyone else smell the lack of being a cohesive argument and a just a daft personal slur? Again. That's because you have gone Nose blind ;-) ......... You can no longer smell your own hypocrisy :D ........ What you need is NEW Chimpbreze :-> ......... It eliminates the smell of rotting Lefty Loser Corbynite Chimps B-) ........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurtainRaiser Posted October 31, 2021 Share Posted October 31, 2021 pelmetman - 2021-10-31 9:39 AM CurtainRaiser - 2021-10-30 11:33 PM pelmetman - 2021-10-30 8:35 PM is it me?.......Or can anyone else smell rank Lefty Chimp (?) ......... Is it me?........ or can anyone else smell the lack of being a cohesive argument and a just a daft personal slur? Again. That's because you have gone Nose blind ;-) ......... You can no longer smell your own hypocrisy :D ........ What you need is NEW Chimpbreze :-> ......... It eliminates the smell of rotting Lefty Loser Corbynite Chimps B-) ........ So still cannot put up a cohesive argument? Just more juvenile slurs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted November 1, 2021 Share Posted November 1, 2021 CurtainRaiser - 2021-10-31 9:58 AM pelmetman - 2021-10-31 9:39 AM CurtainRaiser - 2021-10-30 11:33 PM pelmetman - 2021-10-30 8:35 PM is it me?.......Or can anyone else smell rank Lefty Chimp (?) ......... Is it me?........ or can anyone else smell the lack of being a cohesive argument and a just a daft personal slur? Again. That's because you have gone Nose blind ;-) ......... You can no longer smell your own hypocrisy :D ........ What you need is NEW Chimpbreze :-> ......... It eliminates the smell of rotting Lefty Loser Corbynite Chimps B-) ........ So still cannot put up a cohesive argument? Just more juvenile slurs? I dont argue with idiots ;-) ........... I ridicule them :D ......... The really stupid idiots haven't noticed that >:-) ......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted November 1, 2021 Share Posted November 1, 2021 pelmetman - 2021-11-01 8:04 AM I dont argue with idiots ;-) ........... I ridicule them :D ......... ... :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted November 1, 2021 Share Posted November 1, 2021 malc d - 2021-11-01 9:30 AM pelmetman - 2021-11-01 8:04 AM I dont argue with idiots ;-) ........... I ridicule them :D ......... ... :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D I see you've noticed Malc :D .......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.