Brexit has created chaos in Britain – nobody voted for this

[Grouse]

2 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Nah, that was just a myth, it only protected the rights of the barons, hence why we need something post Brexit instead of just reverting back to the Magna Carta.

 

Unusually incorrect there!

[vogie]

9 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Sounds American to me; how about Magna Carta being updated? OK John?

 

[Grouse]

6 minutes ago, StreetCowboy said:

British humans clearly require different rights than Europeans.  Maybe fewer of them, and more economically competitive.  And possibly more tailored to the needs of British people and not Johnny Foreigners who think that they can come here and settle and raise families who might be treated as equals.

Now this is a schism that has never been brought up by the Brexiters, bless them. Our legal underpinnings and those of the USA are rather different to those of most of our European brethren. Being a scoff law, I am unable to comment.

[aright]

59 minutes ago, Grouse said:

There is insufficient data to draw that conclusion. You can say that the USA and EU are not growing as rapidly as China and India.

 

Suggest you stick with self adaptive automotive control systems.

You can say that but I didn't say it did I?

What conclusion did I draw that wasn't warranted?

What do you know about Pascal's Triangle or anything come to think about it?

As to what best suits your talents, I really am at a loss but legover   lego comes to mind.     

 

 

[Kieran00001]

10 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Unusually incorrect there!

 

The importance of the Magna Carta is not it's content but the way it has been perceived, which is largely a myth.  Since the Stuarts, the content of the Magna Carta has been exaggerated, the Levellers said that it gave every man freedom and equality by returning their pre-Norman conquest rights, but it didn't, it was mostly about protecting the barons and bishops, was not intended as a lasting charter but as a temporary solution, and was never intended to Level the Land in what was a feudal society.  The Levellers ended up having to accept that fact, it was the Glorious Revolution that changed things for every man and it was inspired, not by the real content of the Magna Carta, but by the exaggerations, the myth.  The US constitution was also written based on this mythical perception of a universal protection of the Magna Carta.

 

[aright]

19 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

The importance of the Magna Carta is not it's content but the way it has been perceived, which is largely a myth.  Since the Stuarts, the content of the Magna Carta has been exaggerated, the Levellers said that it gave every man freedom and equality by returning their pre-Norman conquest rights, but it didn't, it was mostly about protecting the barons and bishops, was not intended as a lasting charter but as a temporary solution, and was never intended to Level the Land in what was a feudal society.  The Levellers ended up having to accept that fact, it was the Glorious Revolution that changed things for every man and it was inspired, not by the real content of the Magna Carta, but by the exaggerations, the myth.  The US constitution was also written based on this mythical perception of a universal protection of the Magna Carta.

 

I think History disagrees with you but happy to get your references to the contrary.

I should point out it was written in Latin so Grouse is vital to this discussion.

 

Why is it significant today?

The Magna Carta is considered one of the first steps taken in England towards establishing parliamentary democracy.

In the century after Henry III’s version of the Magna Carta, parliament interpreted the document’s message as a right to a fair trial for all subjects.

During the Stuart period, and particularly in the English Civil War, the Magna Carta was used to restrain the power of monarchs at a time when monarchs on the continent were supremely powerful.

What wider role has it played?

There are strong influences from the Magna Carta in the American Bill of Rights, written in 1791. To this day there is a 1297 copy in the National Archives in Washington DC.

Even more recently, the basic principles of the Magna Carta are seen very clearly in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, penned in 1948 just after the Second World War.

[Kieran00001]

7 minutes ago, aright said:

I think History disagrees with you but happy to get your references to the contrary.

I should point out it was written in Latin so Grouse is vital to this discussion.

 

Why is it significant today?

The Magna Carta is considered one of the first steps taken in England towards establishing parliamentary democracy.

In the century after Henry III’s version of the Magna Carta, parliament interpreted the document’s message as a right to a fair trial for all subjects.

During the Stuart period, and particularly in the English Civil War, the Magna Carta was used to restrain the power of monarchs at a time when monarchs on the continent were supremely powerful.

What wider role has it played?

There are strong influences from the Magna Carta in the American Bill of Rights, written in 1791. To this day there is a 1297 copy in the National Archives in Washington DC.

Even more recently, the basic principles of the Magna Carta are seen very clearly in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, penned in 1948 just after the Second World War.

 

The Magna Carta made the first step away from absolute monarchy toward democracy, no doubt about that, but it was not a first bill of human rights, England remained a feudal serfdom, what kind of human rights bill forgets to free the serfs?

[bristolboy]

18 hours ago, aright said:

Saw this today and found it very interesting. The reduction in the share of world GDP by the EU is almost 50%. The EU could hardly be described as a growing dynamic market. The Commonwealth has always had a greater population than the EU but now it has a greater share of world GDP than the EU or the USA. I wonder if the UK discussed a trade deal with them at this weeks Commonwealth meeting In London....I hope so They would provide us with a market greater than the EU. I also heard today that Zimbabwe would be invited back into the Commonwealth contingent on their next General Election being above board. 

 

 

 

But this is exactly what you would expect. Since most of the nations in the commonwealth are developing nations, naturally, they are going to grow at a faster rate than developed nations provided they are somewhat competently managed. There's nothing surprising about this. In fact, it's the rule. It would be shocking if it were not the case.

[StreetCowboy]

31 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

But this is exactly what you would expect. Since most of the nations in the commonwealth are developing nations, naturally, they are going to grow at a faster rate than developed nations provided they are somewhat competently managed. There's nothing surprising about this. In fact, it's the rule. It would be shocking if it were not the case.

What does "PPP terms" mean?  

 

[Khun Han]

Interesting analysis:

 

http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=39114

[aright]

43 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

, what kind of human rights bill forgets to free the serfs?

The Human Rights bill that Historians claim was a Human Rights Bill all be it not totally inclusive. Have you got references apart from yourself from responsible people who claim it wasn't a Human Rights Bill? 

[aright]

5 minutes ago, StreetCowboy said:

What does "PPP terms" mean?  

 

Purchasing Power Parity

[aright]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

But this is exactly what you would expect. Since most of the nations in the commonwealth are developing nations, naturally, they are going to grow at a faster rate than developed nations provided they are somewhat competently managed. There's nothing surprising about this. In fact, it's the rule. It would be shocking if it were not the case.

You are right where the Commonwealth nations are concerned but I didn't post it to show that. My main point was the loss of Global Share of the EU by almost 50%. That was a surprise to me . Is that a figure you expected? If so why?....what's the reason?

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, aright said:

You are right where the Commonwealth nations are concerned but I didn't post it to show that. My main point was the loss of Global Share of the EU by almost 50%. That was a surprise to me . Is that a figure you expected? If so why?....what's the reason?

Because the developing world, including China and most of the Commonwealth nations are catching up. They are growing faster than the EU.It would be one thing if the EU nations had suffered actual shrinkage in their collective GDP. But that's not the case. It's just that their GDP is growing more slowly than the developing world. Which is entirely to be expected. In addition the EU's population is barely growing. So demographics figure into this, too.

[tebee]

4 minutes ago, aright said:

You are right where the Commonwealth nations are concerned but I didn't post it to show that. My main point was the loss of Global Share of the EU by almost 50%. That was a surprise to me . Is that a figure you expected? If so why?....what's the reason?

It's purchasing power GDP, so decline may be down to things getting more expensive in Europe than to any decline in actual GDP

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, tebee said:

It's purchasing power GDP, so decline may be down to things getting more expensive in Europe than to any decline in actual GDP

Well, for  most people, PPP is actual. That's why comparisons based on currency rates are called "nominal."

[aright]

 

[aright]

6 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Because the developing world, including China and most of the Commonwealth nations are catching up. They are growing faster than the EU.It would be one thing if the EU nations had suffered actual shrinkage in their collective GDP. But that's not the case. It's just that their GDP is growing more slowly than the developing world. Which is entirely to be expected. In addition the EU's population is barely growing. So demographics figure into this, too.

 If you loose a significant share of your Global GDP,  other countries, for whatever reason are outselling or outinnovating  you. The developing countries are taking trade from other nations.  Who do you blame for the loss, the top dog, the EU,, and I include the UK, has allowed this to happen, they have not controlled in cost or political terms the market they operate in. They have not controlled their selling environment nor developed new markets.and most probably worst of all in the case of the EU not written new trade deals Do you consider a loss of almost 50% to be acceptable. I don't. 

 

[Grouse]

31 minutes ago, aright said:

 If you loose a significant share of your Global GDP,  other countries, for whatever reason are outselling or outinnovating  you. The developing countries are taking trade from other nations.  Who do you blame for the loss, the top dog, the EU,, and I include the UK, has allowed this to happen, they have not controlled in cost or political terms the market they operate in. They have not controlled their selling environment nor developed new markets.and most probably worst of all in the case of the EU not written new trade deals Do you consider a loss of almost 50% to be acceptable. I don't. 

 

It's not a zero sum

 

The cake is getting bigger

 

 

[aright]

1 minute ago, Grouse said:

It's not a zero sum

 

The cake is getting bigger

 

 

Then so should the appetite.

[simoh1490]

Let's get this out of the way early on:

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/04/22/project-fears-brexit-predictions-wrong-100-billion-new-report/

 

.....says Timothy Congdon, UKIP! Apparently, the DT is having a slow news day.

[bristolboy]

6 hours ago, aright said:

 If you loose a significant share of your Global GDP,  other countries, for whatever reason are outselling or outinnovating  you. The developing countries are taking trade from other nations.  Who do you blame for the loss, the top dog, the EU,, and I include the UK, has allowed this to happen, they have not controlled in cost or political terms the market they operate in. They have not controlled their selling environment nor developed new markets.and most probably worst of all in the case of the EU not written new trade deals Do you consider a loss of almost 50% to be acceptable. I don't. 

 

A percentage loss of market share is not the same thing as an absolute loss. In fact, the GDP of the 28 nations of the EU is much larger today than it was in 1980. Developed nations grow more slowly than developed ones. That's pretty much a universal rule (except for nations like North Korea or Cuba which have terrible economic governance. )So how could you possibly expect the EU to not dramatically decline in its percentage of world GDP?

In addition you still completely ignore the question of demographics. The populations of devoloping nations have grown much much faster than the populations of the EU. So naturally that gives them a huge boost in GDP.

And no, a declining share of world GDP does not mean other countries are "outinnovating you." One of the big reasons developing nations grow more quickly is because they are followers, not leaders. Developed nations have lots of failures in innovation because not all attempts at innovation succeed. Developing nations have the benefit of following only the successful innovations of advanced nations. That's a lot more efficient.

And didn't the EU just conclude a major trade deal with Japan and another with Canada?

You sound like a politician stubbornly clinging to a sound bite about 50% loss of GDP share whilst ignoring factors uncongenial to your argument. In closing, the 28 nataons that now compose the  EU  are much more prosperous than they were in 1980..

[Kieran00001]

8 hours ago, aright said:

The Human Rights bill that Historians claim was a Human Rights Bill all be it not totally inclusive. Have you got references apart from yourself from responsible people who claim it wasn't a Human Rights Bill? 

 

The historians claim it was the origin of human rights, not a human rights bill itself, it inspired the Bill of Rights but didn't give any of those rights other than the rule of law and it was so ambiguously worded that it didn't give everyone any rights at all, hence why it 60 of the 63 charters have been superseded and no longer stand in England. If you read it you will see, there's only 63 rights, it won't take you long and then you wont have to ask other people to read it. for you.

 

Here are some excerpts to set you off.

 

• “If a man dies owing money to Jews, his wife may have her dower and pay nothing towards the debt from it.”
• “No town or person shall be forced to build bridges over rivers except those with an ancient obligation to do so.”
• “All fish-weirs shall be removed from the Thames, the Medway, and throughout the whole of England, except on the sea coast.”
• “There shall be standard measures of wine, ale, and corn (the London quarter), throughout the kingdom. There shall also be a standard width of dyed cloth, russet, and haberject, namely two ells within the selvedges.”
• “All evil customs relating to forests and warrens, foresters, warreners, sheriffs and their servants, or river-banks and their wardens, are at once to be investigated in every county by twelve sworn knights of the county, and within forty days of their enquiry the evil customs are to be abolished completely and irrevocably.”
• “No one shall be arrested or imprisoned on the appeal of a woman for the death of any person except her husband.”

 

[Kieran00001]

8 hours ago, aright said:

The Human Rights bill that Historians claim was a Human Rights Bill all be it not totally inclusive. Have you got references apart from yourself from responsible people who claim it wasn't a Human Rights Bill? 

 

The historians claim it was the origin of human rights, not a human rights bill itself, it inspired the Bill of Rights but didn't give any of those rights other than the rule of law and it was so ambiguously worded that it didn't give everyone any rights at all, hence why it 60 of the 63 charters have been superseded and no longer stand in England. If you read it you will see, there's only 63 rights, it won't take you long and then you wont have to ask other people to read it. for you.

 

Here are some excerpts to set you off.

 

• “If a man dies owing money to Jews, his wife may have her dower and pay nothing towards the debt from it.”
• “No town or person shall be forced to build bridges over rivers except those with an ancient obligation to do so.”
• “All fish-weirs shall be removed from the Thames, the Medway, and throughout the whole of England, except on the sea coast.”
• “There shall be standard measures of wine, ale, and corn (the London quarter), throughout the kingdom. There shall also be a standard width of dyed cloth, russet, and haberject, namely two ells within the selvedges.”
• “All evil customs relating to forests and warrens, foresters, warreners, sheriffs and their servants, or river-banks and their wardens, are at once to be investigated in every county by twelve sworn knights of the county, and within forty days of their enquiry the evil customs are to be abolished completely and irrevocably.”
• “No one shall be arrested or imprisoned on the appeal of a woman for the death of any person except her husband.”

 

[Eloquent pilgrim]

2 hours ago, bristolboy said:

A percentage loss of market share is not the same thing as an absolute loss. In fact, the GDP of the 28 nations of the EU is much larger today than it was in 1980. Developed nations grow more slowly than developed ones. That's pretty much a universal rule (except for nations like North Korea or Cuba which have terrible economic governance. )So how could you possibly expect the EU to not dramatically decline in its percentage of world GDP?

In addition you still completely ignore the question of demographics. The populations of devoloping nations have grown much much faster than the populations of the EU. So naturally that gives them a huge boost in GDP.

And no, a declining share of world GDP does not mean other countries are "outinnovating you." One of the big reasons developing nations grow more quickly is because they are followers, not leaders. Developed nations have lots of failures in innovation because not all attempts at innovation succeed. Developing nations have the benefit of following only the successful innovations of advanced nations. That's a lot more efficient.

And didn't the EU just conclude a major trade deal with Japan and another with Canada?

You sound like a politician stubbornly clinging to a sound bite about 50% loss of GDP share whilst ignoring factors uncongenial to your argument. In closing, the 28 nataons that now compose the  EU  are much more prosperous than they were in 1980..

You make a valid point about developing nations growing more quickly than developed ones, and you are of course correct that their populations have grown more rapidly, although I believe this is now slowing.

 

However, it is my opinion that this serves as an excuse and not a bona fide reason. If you look at the GDP of the USA, it was 26.16%  of world GDP in 1980, and today stands at about 25% In that time it has fluctuated in the mid 20’s, peaking at 33% in 1985 and reaching a low of 21% in 2011.

 

The USA has had the same competition in growth and demographics of other nations to deal with as the EU, yet has maintained its share of world GDP, while the share of the EU has fallen dramatically from 38% in 1973 to just under 20%. So the addition of 20 members has seen its % of world GDP almost halved. Maybe some of the lame duck economies that have been welcomed into the fold might also have had some bearing on this unacceptable demise. This is of course, just my opinion on a very complex issue (*∆°)

 

It is also a concern that despite a slowing of population growth in the EU, we see youth unemployment figures like 43% in Greece, 36% in Spain, 31% in Italy and even 21% in France

Edited April 23, 2018 by Eloquent pilgrim

[sandyf]

16 hours ago, vogie said:

So are you saying you voted for Nigel Farage?

How do you work that one out?  Unlike Aright I have never claimed to vote for anyone other than a name on the ballot paper, or did you miss the statement on voting for the Prime Minister.

[sandyf]

16 hours ago, aright said:

In the case of Mr Selmayer no. Who the official in the Commission is doesn't matter. You are either democratic or undemocratic . You seem to think it's alright to be undemocratic sometimes. Coming close only counts when you are throwing hand grenades. Once again address the length of the chain, rubber stamping issues and my part in the election of Mr Selmayr or sign off. 

Sticks in your throat, doesn't it. To acknowledge that in voting for the Prime Minister you were instrumental in the selection of an EU commissioner. Deliberate side stepping with some issue that has nothing to do with selection in the UK.

[nauseus]

11 hours ago, Khun Han said:

Interesting analysis:

 

http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=39114

Yes. Thanks. I like that line "Time has a habit of exposing fakes!" 

[nauseus]

9 hours ago, Grouse said:

It's not a zero sum

 

The cake is getting bigger

 

 

But no icing for the EU. 

[tebee]

4 minutes ago, nauseus said:

But no icing for the EU. 

In US$ terms it done fairly well, although damaged by the 2008 crisis

 

 

Source  https://tradingeconomics.com/european-union/gdp