- Popular Post
RayC
-
Posts
4,935 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Events
Forums
Downloads
Quizzes
Gallery
Blogs
Posts posted by RayC
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
2 minutes ago, annotator said:It's like with Brexit. Opponents kept on claiming that it would hurt the British economy. And maybe it did a little bit. But so what? Independence was worth a few pounds. The same thing goes for America. Even if it hurts us a bit economically, we'll end up a lot less dependent on the rest of the world. And what's important is that even if it hurts big business, middle class and working class Americans will get a bigger piece of the pie.
Brexit has hurt the UK economy more than a little bit. For example, the OBR estimated that, over time, Brexit would cost the UK economy 4% of GDP (£32bn per annum). If that estimate is anywhere close to accurate, then that is sizeable in anybody's language. On top of that there are the non-financial barriers such as the increased complexity of doing business in the EU. I could go on.
And what of the benefits? Increased sovereignty? In theory, but in practice, very debatable as the trade deals that the UK has agreed with the EU and the US show: They were basically given to the UK as, 'Take it or leave it'. The Johnson Brexiter government also promised a 'bonfire of EU legislation'. It hasn't happened and shows no sign of happening. Why? Perhaps, in contrast to what was claimed by Brexiters, not all EU law is bad. Or perhaps, it is the realisation that if the UK wants to take part in the game, then it is sometimes necessary to play by other people's rules especially when - like in the cases of the EU and US - they have the whip hand.
Having said all that, I think that the comparison with Brexit is a false one. The US can (largely) dictate terms in bi-lateral trade talks. However, what I still don't understand is why (the threat of) a trade war is considered a good thing. If played out, it will likely result in a reduction in the volume of trade, a reduction in choice and increase in price for consumers and/or reduced margins for companies amongst other things. Whose interest does that serve? I also don't see how US sovereignty is enhanced.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
1 hour ago, annotator said:- President Donald Trump unveiled the new rates in letters to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Mexico’s President Claudia Sheinbaum.
- Trump said that if the EU or Mexico retaliates with higher tariffs, “then, whatever the number you choose to raise them by, will be added on to the 30% that we charge.”
- “Mexico has been helping me secure the border, BUT, what Mexico has done, is not enough,” Trump wrote to Sheinbaum.
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/07/12/trump-tariffs-european-union-eu-mexico-trade.html
Go President Trump!
Can you explain why you think (the threat of) a trade war is a good thing?
-
2
-
1
-
15 minutes ago, nauseus said:
Just keep voting until we get it right, right? Like Lisbon. Pah!
Oh dear.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. You must have forgotten that I stated in my previous post that the call for a "People's" vote lacked validity.
-
4 minutes ago, nauseus said:
I can't believe that you asked that first question. The act of signing up without a referendum skewed the whole thing. Politicians know that people get tired of too many changes - they rely on voter laziness and often get their way.
Why should it be skewed? Individuals should ask themselves the same basic question - 'Do I think that membership of the EU is beneficial for the UK? - and vote accordingly. If anything, asking for confirmation after joining should lead to a more informed vote as there is the experience of membership to take into account.
4 minutes ago, nauseus said:I am saying that to be able to decide fairly, then voters would have needed to read at least a good honest key point summary of the Treaty of Rome, then balancing that with what Heath & Co (and Powell) had to say - I know that Powell was not popular but he was neither devious nor a liar. In 1972 inside Parliament there was clearly a large split on the issue, which resulted in three readings and a very narrow win for Teddy - at the same time, a referendum might well have gone the other way.
Access to information was obviously not as widely available in the '70s as it is now, however, I imagine that the broadsheets contained a good deal of facts and informed opinion about the pros and cons of joining the EC.
-
6 minutes ago, nauseus said:
Signed under another installed closet Europhile, Major. NO referendum then either, was there??? Then ratification just scraped through in Parliament (again) after the Masstricht Rebels nearly got us out of the EU before it really started, because if the UK had stalled long enough then the EU would have had to kick the UK out in order to continue with their political project.
In our parliamentary democracy, the government has a mandate to make decisions on our behalf. As long as they stick to their basic manifesto commitments, then that system is fine by me.
Hypothetical as it is, your conclusion if the UK had not signed the Maastricht Treaty is completely wrong. Like the EU, there was no mechanism to remove a member state from the EC or EEC unless they wanted to leave. -
7 minutes ago, Sir Dude said:
Again... subjective response... opinions are like <deleted>, everyone has one (Clint Eastwood). Try to challenge the idea or statement... not attack the person, as you'll get more respect if you do that.
That's exactly what I did: Challenge your idea.
You stated that Brexit has not been delivered, so I asked you to explain what it should have looked like.
You made no attempt to answer the question, but instead adopted a condescending, patronising tone ("You confused people ..."; ".. I forgive your ignorance ..."). When I replied in kind, you play the injured party when you have no grounds for complaint.
-
3
-
2
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, nauseus said:
Read again what I say. I said "The 1975 referendum (under Labour) was a confirmation YES for continued member ship but with the main implications of joining still not well understood by UK voters".
How does a referendum about continuing membership differ in essence from one about joining? The individual will decide whether they think that being a member of the EU is a good thing or not.
11 minutes ago, nauseus said:I have also said that Heath lied before we went in and there was no referendum before then, probably because a divided electorate might have said NO in 1972. My arguments have remained the same over time, that are valid, they preceded Brexit, and have nothing to do with whatever any other arguments you are on about.
I have not suggested otherwise (although what the result of a hypothetical election would have been is, of course, pure conjecture).
-
38 minutes ago, Sir Dude said:
Subjective topic.... haters going to hate. No need for personal attacks... stick to the topic.
Hardly a personal attack. I was replying in kind to your patronising tone.
-
8 minutes ago, Sir Dude said:
You confused people would not like the real answer to that... hence why Reform UK is crushing it. If you are not Bristish, then I forgive your ignorance... but if you are from the UK, then you might as well vote for the Illiberal undemocrats with that opinion.
Congratulations. As incoherent mutterings go that is near the top of the list.
You have just proved beyond reasonable doubt that you are just another in the long list of those who doesn't have the faintest idea what he thinks Brexit should look like.
-
2
-
3
-
-
"(Farage) insisted the Royal Navy should tow boats back to France if deportations fail. “Ultimately, the last solution would be for the Royal Marines to take them back to France. If it comes to that, it comes to that. But I don’t [think] it would need to.”
No need to look any further than this for a reason why Farage should never become PM. Effectively invade France. UK foreign policy circa 1530.
-
1
-
1
-
4
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, Sir Dude said:
Not Brexit really as Brexit hasn't really being delivered due to spinless politicians.
I've asked these questions many times before to many different people, but have yet to receive any constructive answers:
What should Brexit look like? What deal (with the EU) could and should have been brokered?
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, nauseus said:
The UK joined the EEC without a referendum after a very marginal vote in Parliament after Heath's Conservatives prompted the process with the European Communities Act. The 1975 referendum (under Labour) was a confirmation YES for continued member ship but with the main implications of joining still not well understood by UK voters. So, unfortunately, we did actually vote then to continue accepting EEC/EU rules, with European Law having primacy over our own. This level of EU control increased but was only slowly realized after years of EEC/EC/EU mutations and treaties.
Yes, the EEC was a good idea but only as the "Common Market" that most of the British believed it to be at the time. But, by the Treaty of Rome, it was never going to be just that. People like Macron talk about Brexit lies and such, but they never mention the lies told in 1972 by Heath et al ("no essential loss of sovereignty" (my a$$)).
You can't have it both ways, Nauseus.
On the one hand, you complain that we joined the EC without a referendum, but then complain that the result of the 1975 referendum was 'tainted' because the electorate did not fully understand the complexity of the issues: It's the same argument used by those who were in favour of a "People's" vote following the result of the 2016 referendum. Neither has any validity.
-
1
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
3 hours ago, oxo1947 said:Most people in the 1970s wanted to join the common market---it made a lot of sense then, No tariffs just send your goods there. 6 countries , so we joined along with Ireland Denmark.
But we didn't join to latter be told we should all change our money, or that another 17 countries the majority which had sub standard living wages or Health care---would then be allowed to just walk in--pile up the numbers waiting for health care and take a lower wage.
We didn't vote then to have a 2nd parliament making rules ---or to have a 2nd high court (E C J) which could over ride the directions of our own supreme court.
If you are American imagine that you did join with Greenland--Canada -Mexico + some other countries -- Just for trade, it then morphed into the same-- a higher court then your own, maybe giving directions that...... well, maybe all this "Amendments" are not really needed ---yer not all of them.
We had some overriding decisions from the EU high court mainly when we wanted to deport someone after their custodial sentence--and we had to abide by them.
So... yes the EU -as it was ie... a trading block was a good idea--what it morphed into wasn't , hence the majority of the UK population could see this and voted to leave.
*** Prior to Brexit, EU law, including decisions of the European Court of Justice (ECJ), had direct effect in the UK and could override conflicting UK law. This was a consequence of the UK's membership in the European Union and its acceptance of EU law supremacy
The EU came into being as a result of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 and the ECJ's powers were formalised as part of the Amsterdam Treaty in 1997. The UK could have vetoed either or both of these treaties if it had wished to do so. It did not; it chose to endorse them.
In a similar vein, to become an EU member, there needs to be unanimity amongst the existing member states i.e. One existing member can effectively veto a country's application; Germany and latterly, Greece has effectively blocked Turkiye's application. If the UK was against EU enlargement it could have vetoed it.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
2
-
2 hours ago, BarraMarra said:
I think I posted this in a previouse thread but if our PM had a back bone and wanted security for his country he would have told Macron " Listen Emanuel we have given you Millions to prevent these boats leaving your shores you have failed. If you fail to show any response I will now send Our Royal Marines and SBS special forces to your beaches and stop them.
And I posted a response in a previous thread: It is a ridiculous suggestion.
Invading France as you suggest would have such far-reaching effects, it is unlikely that the UK would recover for decades.
-
1
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, The Cyclist said:
But they cannot abrogate their responsibilities under French Law or International Agreements.
We've been here before.
If the French authorities choose to ignore their own national laws, then there are ways and means for French nationals and residents to complain and hold them to account.
If other nations believe that France is breaching international laws and agreements then, in a similar vein, there will be a mechanism to hold the French government to account.
2 hours ago, The Cyclist said:France should be rounding them up and deporting them, if France does not want them.
That's exactly what the French authorities are doing
-
3 hours ago, ericbj said:
This is a suggestion. Intercept the boats in British waters, remove all occupants, sink the boats, then land the occupants by landing-craft, undeclared, upon some French beach.
Of course there will be problems of all kinds. But will they be worse than the massive accumulated problem that is building up in Britain today?Yes, this would lead to problems of all kinds and, yes the problems created by doing as you suggest would probably make the illegal migrant problem pale into insignificance.
-
22 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:
So Two Tier application of Laws is a real thing, and according to you, totally acceptable.
Magnificent.
If you are that bothered about how national laws are administered in France, I'm certain that there are processes for addressing such concerns.
-
1 hour ago, The Cyclist said:
There is no if's about it. That is French and British Law and under SOLAS the French have an obligation to stop any vessel not complying with SOLAS to be stopped from proceeding.
I have gave you enough information and you can look them up for yourself.
I did not mention Lee Anderson or BarraMarra
I simply responded to this
A trade deal pales into insignificance when both Countries are ignoring their respective Laws and France is also ignoring an International Maritime Agreement.
It is up to France how they police and enforce their national laws.
If France is breaking international law/ agreements then presumably there is a court/ organisation responsible for arbitrating/ passing judgement on any disputes. The UK could therefore raise the matter to this entity(ies) if it wished.
As I'm sure you'll agree, the UK economy has enough problems without creating more unnecessary strife for itself. In no way, does putting at risk a trade deal with our biggest partner pale into insignificance in this context.
No you didn't mention Lee Anderson or BarraMarra, but those were the two proposals which I commented on initially and were therefore central to my point.
-
35 minutes ago, nauseus said:
No need for RN vessels to enter French waters, as long as the French navy does the same. Just stop this insane taxi service. As the initial escorts, the French are responsible for the boats and people, who only make it as far as France because of the abused EU freedom of movement "pillar".
That's not the point.
If the RN was to station vessels on the edge of French territorial waters effectively mounting a blockage and policing what boats were able to leave French ports, do you think that the French authorities would be happy and take no action? The issue would quickly escalate.
I agree that the abuse of the EU freedom of movement provision makes it easier for illegal migrants to move around mainland Europe. Imo Merkel must shoulder much of the blame. Opening the door to illegal migrants in 2015 was well-meaning, but sent all the wrong messages and has proven to be catastrophic for Europe.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, The Cyclist said:
The French are breaching regulations every day by allowing dinghies to leave French Shores that are non SOLAS compliant.
The are also breaching French Laws every day, by allowing dinghies to Leave French Shores, because in France it is an offence to helm a boat over 6HP without a licence,
When the reach UK waters that offence becomes even bigger, because in UK waters it is an offence to helm a boat carrying more than twelve passengers without a Boat Master's Licence.
Even if that is the case, do you think that would justify Lee Anderson's proposal that the UK stop French trawlers fishing in UK waters or BarraMarra suggestion that the RN effectively blockage French ports? Do you think that either action will happen?
Rhetorical questions: The answer is 'No'.
-
5 hours ago, BarraMarra said:
Over 500 illegals arrived today in Dover and with good weather expected for the next few days. Costing us 8 Million pounds a day housing them. We gave Millions of pounds to France to prevent these Rubber boats leaving France. We have witnessed the french coast guards encouraging them and helping them to leave French waters. In my opinion Starmer should show some balls to Macron and say ok next week we will send our Royal marines to stop them leaving, they will patrol the hot spots and stop them at all costs and we are stopping anymore money till you show us your trying to stop them leaving.
While Lee Anderson might favour that approach, fortunately I doubt that any of the leaders of the UK political parties, including Farage, would be stupid enough send RN vessels into French territorial waters uninvited.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, BarraMarra said:
Yes Ray during the Cod wars in the 70s between English and Iceland Trawlers both England and Iceland cut the Nets on both vessels during the Skirmishes.
Different time and context.
Are you suggesting that adopting Lee Anderson's solution would be without consequence?
-
3 hours ago, Magictoad said:
Yes! We'll have him. He can start with our immigration problems and then move on to Judicial Authority then he can look at our voting system that weighs against the indigenous population and then start on super construction projects. Yes Mr President you are very welcome here in the UK.
I doubt that the UK electoral system and the plight of Celtic Britons are anywhere near the top of President Trump's list of concerns.
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, BarraMarra said:
Lee Anderson ( Reform ) MP was asked if you were invited to the meeting with Macron what would you say to him, his answer was simple " Well Mr Macron if you do not prevent Rubber boats leaving from your Beaches we will stop your Trawlers fishing in our Waters. Simple.
Which would break the recently agreed trade deal and almost certainly lead to a breakdown in diplomatic relations - not just with France but with the EU as a whole - and, almost certainly, the imposition of trade sanctions.
And what happens if French fisherman refuse to comply with this order? Are the RN meant to impound these vessels somehow and/or open fire on them?
Yes, Lee Anderson's "solution" certainly is 'simple'.
-
2
-
Politics Trump announces 30% tariffs on EU and Mexico, starting Aug. 1
in Political Soapbox
Posted
'It will hurt us but it will hurt you more' has never stuck me as a good argument.