| The Comments |
Mickyfinn,
Either you believe your comments in your post of 25th Sept, or you don't, if you are convinced that the UK is a finished nation that none of the major players will trade with, why continue tryng to convince yourself? I don't agree with you, but will have to be patient in order to be proved correct or not, as the case may be, just like you.
_______________________
IF YOU WISH TO QUOTE ANY OF MY POSTS PLEASE DO SO IN THEIR ENTIRETY AND NOT JUST A FEW SELECTED WORDS TOTALLY OUT OF CONTEXT.
THANK YOU.
2
Like
|
I don't believe the UK is 'finished' (your word) by Brexit simply diminished, or weakened, like the exchange rate. If the country is able to either remain in the single market or make trade deals with a similar number of nations they have at the moment then perhaps that weakening might be somewhat less. However that is going to take some doing and some time to achieve, perhaps 10 years.
The ramifications of Brexit have not even begun. Generations not yet born will still be feeling it after I'm so much dust. The Reformation heralded 100 years of economic decline and wars with Europe. Henry V111 gained a divorce the British lost a religion. The historical comparison may seem far-fetched until you look a little closer. Ambrose Prichard an arch Eurosceptic writing in The Telegraph seems to agree on the comparisons but we have the advantage of seeing history with hind sight..
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/09/25/did-henry-viiis-tudor-brexit-lead-to-englands-trading-glory-or-a/
Brexit means loss in any language and that will be recognised in the future as a disastrous error I'm certain of it.
_______________________
Time is the school in which we learn
Time is the fire in which we burn.
Delmore Schwartz.
1
Like
|
Brexit will not dent economic growth this year at all the Treasury admitted today in a complete reversal of the doom-laden pre referendum scaremongering.
George Osborne used the full weight of the Treasury to try and convince voters if they backed Brexit they would cause the first ever 'DIY recession'.
But three months after polling day, the Treasury today said its current forecasts for this year now said strong growth would continue.
A bit suspect no doubt because this came from the Daily Mail not........The Telegraph
3
Like
|
Amazing what you can find on Bloomberg Micky -
OECD now forecasts the UK economy to grow by 1.8% this year, compared with 1.7% forecast pre-referendum.
The OECD cut its global growth forecasts, saying the economies of Brazil, Germany and the U.S. are slowing and warning that some emerging markets are at risk of exchange-rate volatility.
Your view of history is still a littly awry! History BBC
. After 1500, the English economy began to expand.
Agriculture experienced a revolution. Many of the new techniques that historians used to ascribe to much later occurred at this time:
-
Enclosure turned the great open fields and wastes of medieval times into fenced fields, either for sheep, or as farms. By 1700, most of England apart from the Midlands had been enclosed.
-
Richard Weston brought clover and turnips from Holland. These fodder crops meant that animals could be kept alive through the winter.
-
Thomas Tusser (1557), and Gervase Markham (1614) wrote books that spread the best farming practices.
English seamen sailed and traded all over the world. English businessmen began large-scale commercial enterprises – the German historian Max Weber (1930) put this down to a "Protestant work-ethic", and suggested it was the beginning of 'capitalism':
-
Between 1577 and 1580, Francis Drake sailed round the world. English 'privateers', government endorsed pirates, attacked Spanish treasure fleets. English traders sailed to North America, Africa and Japan. After 1612, the East India Company began to set up trading posts in India.
This message was last edited by tteedd on 26/09/2016.
1
Like
|
Britain will thrive outside the European Union as the bloc turns inward, a top German business leader has said.
Mathias Döpfner, chief executive of media giant Axel Springer, said the UK would be ‘highly attractive’ to investors after it left.
He believes Brexit will see the nation embrace a truly free market, while the EU becomes a ‘transfer union’ in which money is funnelled from rich states to poor ones.
Mr Döpfner said he expected a short-term economic slowdown for Britain, but argued that within three to five years, ‘England will be better off than continental Europe’.
‘If Britain can create an alternative here, I think that’s highly attractive,’ he told the Financial Times.
Axel Springer owns major media titles on the Continent including Bild, Germany’s best-selling newspaper.
The firm’s 53-year-old boss said the UK could introduce a ‘very healthy’ immigration policy based on talent.
‘You basically integrate and invite the people that you benefit from and not people who only benefit from your social welfare system,’ he said.
Mr Döpfner argued the EU would suffer from the loss of Britain’s ‘healthy influence’.
He said the UK was pragmatic and focused on free markets, helping to drive ‘sensible compromises’ with other members.
Germany and Britain were traditionally close partners within the bloc, resisting demands from France and the Mediterranean states for a more protectionist approach.
Nope can't be true, the UK is going down the pan, it's told so on here......
While on the other hand.....
- FTSE companies saw £23billion wiped off their value as investors sold fast
- The bank has had its value halved in a year due to low interest rates
- Deutsche is linked with other banks and a European collapse could follow
- It lost £5.9billion last year, and a US arm failed a Federal Reserve test
Billions were wiped off stock markets around the world yesterday amid mounting fears over the future of Germany’s biggest bank.
Companies in the FTSE 100 index saw £23billion wiped off their value as investors dumped financial stocks.
The sell-off was triggered by reports that German Chancellor Angela Merkel had ruled out a government rescue of troubled lender Deutsche Bank.
The bank has lost more than half its value in the past year as it struggles to cope with low interest rates and sluggish growth.
This message was last edited by baz1946 on 27/09/2016.
4
Like
|
The UK will oppose any attempts to create an EU army, Defence Secretary Sir Michael Fallon has said.
Okay, can anybody explain this to me please? If we are leaving the EU what difference does it make to us and why would we possibly think that anybody will listen?
0
Like
|
And
Siemens sees no reason not to continue it's investment in the UK.
...........................................
NATO is far wider than the EU and has kept the peace since 1948. Most members of the EU are also members of NATO. France has not been in the Military organisation since the late 60's. There are many problems if the EU sets up a separate organisation.
Sweden is tecnically neutral, are they going to abandon this?
Two command structures will lead to confusion and duplication of effort.
France will need to standardise equipment with the rest of the EU who meet Nato standardisation (a sticking point for France in the 60's).
Nearly all countries in Nato except the UK, USA and I think Estonia do not meet the agreed figure of 2% of GDP on defence spending. Where are they going to find the money for the new structure?
Sir Michael Fallon is right to resist this idea while we are still in the EU and will be right to argue (as a member of NATO) against it when we leave. It is a threat to the national security of all NATO countries.
If however the EU goes on to become a single country then of course it will need a national army, but then it will be a single member of NATO and not have the internal divisions that would make it ineffective and dangerous.
At the moment it is pie in the sky. The present internal climate and internal divisions in the EU would stop it happening. However if the EU does move toward 'ever closer union' it will at some time naturally start making plans for the integration of its forces. I suspect it will be a long road.
1
Like
|
Having just seen a replay of the US presidential debate where the inference was that their current global trade deals were ultimately proved not to be in the best interests of the country ( not checked if this is true however), isn't it essential not to rush our own trade deals but give adequate time and effort to thoroughly check (dot every i and cross every t) to ensure all small print / compromising clauses, have been fully examined?
Rush trade negotiations /clarification of detail post Brexit at our own peril.... Aren't those advocating speed and underestimating the skills and realistic timeframes required to do justice to these complex procedures turning a blind eye to the risks associated with such haste?
1
Like
|
Hi Ads
Was it worth watching? Worth 90mins of my time?
Who do you think gained from it?
0
Like
|
France rejoined the military contingent of NATO in 2009.
1
Like
|
Hi Tteedd
Not sure if its worth seeing the whole 90 mins (the news channels are providing a snapshot) but putting personalities aside (is that possible in the USA???), it certainly begs many questions of a system that sadly appears to have failed so many sections of American society. The debate highlighted a great divide in that regard.
Each expressed a very different economic approach however.
So many questions are now rightly being asked of politicians and the expectation for them to be more transparent and in touch with the needs of people.
In my mind Hilary Clinton won this debate and Donald Trump appeared to flounder, but too early to say who won the floating vote.
Great sections of American society sadly appear all too frequently to be swayed by personality, superficial issues and not good sound intellectual analysis and debate.... Hopefully this form of debate will act as catalyst to strip aside preconceptions, hype and lies, but only if managed well and fairly by those interviewing and posing the questions.
Sound familiar?
This message was last edited by ads on 27/09/2016.
0
Like
|
Thanks Ads
Glad we do not have a presidential system. Mind you with their long winded selection you can hardly cedit that they could find two mediocre candidates for the US electorate to choose from.
Our political parties manage it (viz the recent labour leader election) but then they are an open target and unlikely to attract the electorate.
Can't decide which would be the better US president from our point of view (Brexit or no Brexit) but we have no say anyway.
1
Like
|
perrypower1 said
Okay, can anybody explain this to me please? If we are leaving the EU what difference does it make to us and why would we possibly think that anybody will listen?
perrypower1 also said previously
Brexit will not actually happen. That is why Boris got a dressing down by Number Ten for saying an Article 50 letter was being prepared and would be issued in January/February 2017. T. May is not daft. The Brexit drama will run and run like Game of Thrones. I'm already looking forward to season two, and Nigel Farage is scheduled to return in season four.
So you have already explained it to yourself. Maybe you should listen to yourself.
_______________________
NO SNIDE COMMENTS PLEASE. STICK TO THE THREAD SUBJECT.
2
Like
|
Theres been discussion about an EU armed force, and what it may mean, and associated discussions around duplication, and interoperability of equipment.
To this I would pose a question: Is it better to have 28 armies, 28 navies, and 28 air forces, and would that provide less duplication?
I'm not suggesting this is how it *should* go, but rather, I suspect this is how some elements of the elite may be thinking.
This ties in with "ever closer union", and it wouldnt surprise me if there became a Unites States of Europe, at some point.
And what would Putin make of all this?
1
Like
|
A European army would be under the control of the French and Germans with a few token generals from other EU states. However essentially it's a Franco/German project.
The French in particular do not like the USA being in military command of Nato. The US and the UK hates the idea of an European Army because it would likely be incompatible with Nato in any military conflict in Europe. Military hardware is not compatible there are language, structural command barriers and the entire project is likely to be a dogs breakfast.
Since WW11 Europe has relied on the USA and Nato for it's overall defence which has allowed the EU states to fall back on military spending. They are supposed to spend 2% of annual GDP on defence but many nations ignore that rule.
Personally I dont think a European army will ever get off the ground because of cost issues. Politically it's desirable especially as the EU moves toward ever closer union but in the end financial consideration will decide it's fate.
_______________________
Time is the school in which we learn
Time is the fire in which we burn.
Delmore Schwartz.
3
Like
|
|
I see the Hungarians are having a vote on migration and EU quotas ,l suppose ,just like the UK they will have to leave the EU if they don't accept the open borders and the rule's that seemly are written in stone from the dictatorship that runs the EU.
1
Like
|
More importantly Article 50 is planned to be triggered in March next year and all EU laws currently affecting the UK to be passported over for the discretionary perusal and amendment of parliament if so decided.
This message was last edited by Destry on 02/10/2016.
_______________________
IF YOU WISH TO QUOTE ANY OF MY POSTS PLEASE DO SO IN THEIR ENTIRETY AND NOT JUST A FEW SELECTED WORDS TOTALLY OUT OF CONTEXT.
THANK YOU.
0
Like
|
That is good news and the electorate will really start to see the full implications and the reality of what the UK will get out of Brexit good and bad.
2020 general election will be interesting
_______________________
“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge”
0
Like
|
|