May challenges EU as Brexit talks hit 'impasse', sterling tumbles

[SheungWan]

36 minutes ago, ivor bigun said:

Tons of work ,all my mates had good jobs,it was a great time to be about ,yes i was a shop manager,and remember sitting in the dark because the unions were on strike ,no electricity, no buses or trains ,no rubbish collected she stopped all that crap, Labour at the time destroyed the country,she gave it back to us, she was by no means perfect but a thousand times better than what came before.
Sent from my SM-A720F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Whether good or bad it was a period to wake up and smell the coffee on an individual basis. That echo approaches with Brexit and the fallout, so best to try and prepare as best one can.

[Nigel Garvie]

37 minutes ago, ivor bigun said:

Tons of work ,all my mates had good jobs,it was a great time to be about ,yes i was a shop manager,and remember sitting in the dark because the unions were on strike ,no electricity, no buses or trains ,no rubbish collected she stopped all that crap, Labour at the time destroyed the country,she gave it back to us, she was by no means perfect but a thousand times better than what came before.

Sent from my SM-A720F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

Indeed the Labour government of the late 1970s did not perform well, it is arguable that the Unions had too much power, but the really significant fact was the doubling of the oil price in 1974 which had a huge impact, this is widely accepted. However the Thatcher years were a disaster by comparison, just check the statistics. Interest rates went through the roof, poverty increased, inequality increased etc etc. This from the National office of statistics on your topic of unemployment. Your sample of "Me and my mates" appears to have blinded you to the reality. 

[Esso49]

2 minutes ago, Nigel Garvie said:

Indeed the Labour government of the late 1970s did not perform well, it is arguable that the Unions had too much power, but the really significant fact was the doubling of the oil price in 1974 which had a huge impact, this is widely accepted. However the Thatcher years were a disaster by comparison, just check the statistics. Interest rates went through the roof, poverty increased, inequality increased etc etc. This from the National office of statistics on your topic of unemployment. Your sample of "Me and my mates" appears to have blinded you to the reality. 

Excellent bit of fact finding.  Pity the Thatcherites have selective memories  or is it I wonder that they are proud she  by turned the City of London into the laundering capital ?  And lets not forget her deregulation and that of her pal RR was a precursor to the crash of 2007/8. And London is still tops for laundering ! Her legacy has lasted, got to give her that. Oh we won't mention the protection that she gave to her corrupt son Mark either ( and some other successive governments )

[SheungWan]

34 minutes ago, Nigel Garvie said:

Indeed the Labour government of the late 1970s did not perform well, it is arguable that the Unions had too much power, but the really significant fact was the doubling of the oil price in 1974 which had a huge impact, this is widely accepted. However the Thatcher years were a disaster by comparison, just check the statistics. Interest rates went through the roof, poverty increased, inequality increased etc etc. This from the National office of statistics on your topic of unemployment. Your sample of "Me and my mates" appears to have blinded you to the reality. 

The initial rise in unemployment to 12% might be partially assigned to the knock-on effects of the oil-price increases in the 1970s. British industry was not exactly in a strong position prior to the shake-out. However, the drop from 12% to 7%, that was during the Thatcher period. To what is that assigned? And how about that significant drop during the John Major years? Be careful with the cherry-picking  analysis. As for the criticism of the 'my mates' contributor, it misses the main point of any period that there are winners and losers and some did something about it. The same thing will apply post-Brexit. Blaming the Tories for everything that moves is so 1970s.

Edited September 24, 2018 by SheungWan

[Nigel Garvie]

24 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

The initial rise in unemployment to 12% might be partially assigned to the knock-on effects of the oil-price increases in the 1970s. British industry was not exactly in a strong position prior to the shake-out. However, the drop from 12% to 7%, that was during the Thatcher period. To what is that assigned? And how about that significant drop during the John Major years? Be careful with the cherry-picking  analysis. As for the criticism of the 'my mates' contributor, it misses the main point of any period that there are winners and losers and some did something about it. The same thing will apply post-Brexit. Blaming the Tories for everything that moves is so 1970s.

Of course I don't blame the Tories for everything that moves, re read my first sentence. Neither do I have any time for the far left policies of the 1970s. I left school in the mid 1960s when we had virtually full employment under Harold Wilson. I presented a graph which shows that unemployment was much higher overall under Thatcher than it was before her and after her. As the comment says .........to levels not seen since the Great Depression. I suggest you check the meaning of cherry-picking. Incidentally whilst I totally support personal enterprise, your idea that "there are winners and losers and some did something about it" reminds me of the "Get on your bike" Norman Tebbit comment. In an era of high unemployment many do manage to get jobs, but to suggest that everyone with the will to do so can, simply defies logic, if there aren't the jobs available. 

[dick dasterdly]

45 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

The initial rise in unemployment to 12% might be partially assigned to the knock-on effects of the oil-price increases in the 1970s. British industry was not exactly in a strong position prior to the shake-out. However, the drop from 12% to 7%, that was during the Thatcher period. To what is that assigned? And how about that significant drop during the John Major years? Be careful with the cherry-picking  analysis. As for the criticism of the 'my mates' contributor, it misses the main point of any period that there are winners and losers and some did something about it. The same thing will apply post-Brexit. Blaming the Tories for everything that moves is so 1970s.

It was during those years that the criteria for 'unemployed' became ever more restrictive - and, of course, continued/made even more ridiculous by following governments....

 

I seriously doubt that anybody in the uk takes 'unemployment statistics' seriously nowadays.

[SheungWan]

29 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

It was during those years that the criteria for 'unemployed' became ever more restrictive - and, of course, continued/made even more ridiculous by following governments....

I seriously doubt that anybody in the uk takes 'unemployment statistics' seriously nowadays.

They are taken seriously and yes you are right that the criteria was adjusted during those years. Successive governments have been free to try adjusting those figures subsequently but have backed off on stats as they also did by making the BoE independent. Sure, there are constant arguments with each Party trying to put a spin on things, but still no justification for going with the Conspiracy Theory crowd who will elevate their conclusions over and above whatever official and academic stats are available. BTW, the Hard Left try on the same nonsense (see some of the contributions above). What is important are trends and they should be kept directly in view. PS I really don't want to hear about any forum contributor's cousin Bill who, though qualified, has been forcefully kept on the dole in Wigan for 20 years through no fault of his own........

[SheungWan]

1 hour ago, Nigel Garvie said:

Of course I don't blame the Tories for everything that moves, re read my first sentence. Neither do I have any time for the far left policies of the 1970s. I left school in the mid 1960s when we had virtually full employment under Harold Wilson. I presented a graph which shows that unemployment was much higher overall under Thatcher than it was before her and after her. As the comment says .........to levels not seen since the Great Depression. I suggest you check the meaning of cherry-picking. Incidentally whilst I totally support personal enterprise, your idea that "there are winners and losers and some did something about it" reminds me of the "Get on your bike" Norman Tebbit comment. In an era of high unemployment many do manage to get jobs, but to suggest that everyone with the will to do so can, simply defies logic, if there aren't the jobs available. 

I don't like saying it, I really don't, but for those who were able, getting on your bike was a better solution than sitting at home feeling sorry for themselves and blaming others for their predicament. One only has to look at the situation in China where millions migrated to the cities to escape poverty and the poverty trap they were in. A lot to learn from the East. Maybe Brexit will be a wake-up call for some in the UK.

[CharlieH]

Reported post removed.

 

Please be civil to one another and follow the forum rules.

 

7) You will respect fellow members and post in a civil manner. No personal attacks, hateful or insulting towards other members, (flaming) Stalking of members on either the forum or via PM will not be allowed.
 

[superal]

23 hours ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

People only voted to leave the EU, not on any terms or future relationship. So any future relationship and terms are possible. 

 

That’s nonsense. There isn’t even a “divorce” negotiation, as the negotiations are about the future relationships, not about leaving. 

 

No, they aren’t. The 39bn are the UK’s outstanding liabilities. Breaking contractual obligations isn’t something the U.K. wants to use as blackmail. 

People voted exit because of reasons spelt out to them as I described earlier . Is that difficult for you to understand ?

What are you on ? the negotiations are exactly that of agreements regarding current business rules and labour movements etc plus the extent of change and compromise .

The 39 billion ,   a no deal can mean walking away without making that contribution , not legally enforceable , fact .

[cooked]

Article 50 has been enacted, it can only be retracted during a lengthy process in which ALL the EU members must agree. Even if Jeremy does force through a new referendum.

Not going to happen, and throughout all these wearisome 'negotiations' I have been wondering if Teresa isn't just appeasing the remainers in full knowledge that what she ostensibly wanted would never be accepted and that a clean Brexit was what was going to happen.

The EU will be relieved to be rid of Farage and Co asking awkward questions about the accounts of the EU that haven't been signed off for years.

[welovesundaysatspace]

9 minutes ago, superal said:

People voted exit because of reasons spelt out to them as I described earlier . Is that difficult for you to understand ?

"reasons spelt out to them" is what was written on the ballot paper, or the lies and fantasies spreaded by Nigel, Boris & Co.? 

 

You want the vote to be "respected", but the vote only was to leave the EU, nowhere did you vote for any terms of the post-Brexit relationship. The UK should try to get a Norway-style agreement. It would make sense economically, it would keep disruption low, and the Brexiteers would have their vote respected.

 

9 minutes ago, superal said:

What are you on ? the negotiations are exactly that of agreements regarding current business rules and labour movements etc plus the extent of change and compromise .

I've never questioned that this is being negotiated. 

 

9 minutes ago, superal said:

The 39 billion ,   a no deal can mean walking away without making that contribution , not legally enforceable , fact .

Oh, blackmailing it is now. Good luck with that. The UK will have enough problems after crashing out of the EU that it doesn't need the consequences of breaching its payment liabilities on top.

[sandyf]

1 hour ago, superal said:

 

The 39 billion ,   a no deal can mean walking away without making that contribution , not legally enforceable , fact .

Wrong,just because you say it does not make it a fact.

 

The EU will take Britain to the International Court of Justice if it tries to walk away without paying an estimated £50bn ‘divorce bill’, a leak of its negotiating strategy says.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-divorce-bill-eu-take-uk-court-leaked-strategy-documents-a7641406.html

[welovesundaysatspace]

27 minutes ago, sandyf said:

 

The EU will take Britain to the International Court of Justice if it tries to walk away without paying an estimated £50bn ‘divorce bill’, a leak of its negotiating strategy says.

Maybe ignoring laws, contracts and courts is part of the UK’s plan to “take back control” and for “sovereignty”. 

 

[welovesundaysatspace]

27 minutes ago, sandyf said:

 

The EU will take Britain to the International Court of Justice if it tries to walk away without paying an estimated £50bn ‘divorce bill’, a leak of its negotiating strategy says.

Maybe ignoring laws, contracts and courts is part of the UK’s plan to “take back control” and for “sovereignty”. 

 

[Kwasaki]

20 hours ago, SheungWan said:

Be careful with the cherry-picking  analysis. As for the criticism of the 'my mates' contributor, it misses the main point of any period that there are winners and losers and some did something about it. The same thing will apply post-Brexit. Blaming the Tories for everything that moves is so 1970s.

What happened to the UK's gold. ????

[billd766]

44 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

What happened to the UK's gold. ????

 

Gordon Brown flogged it off cheaply.

[Kwasaki]

Just now, billd766 said:

 

Gordon Brown flogged it off cheaply.

Yeah I know it's just the Tory's were being slagged off, there all the same gutless turn coats as ever if you ask me no matter whose in power.

[superal]

3 hours ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

"reasons spelt out to them" is what was written on the ballot paper, or the lies and fantasies spreaded by Nigel, Boris & Co.? 

 

You want the vote to be "respected", but the vote only was to leave the EU, nowhere did you vote for any terms of the post-Brexit relationship. The UK should try to get a Norway-style agreement. It would make sense economically, it would keep disruption low, and the Brexiteers would have their vote respected.

 

I've never questioned that this is being negotiated. 

 

Oh, blackmailing it is now. Good luck with that. The UK will have enough problems after crashing out of the EU that it doesn't need the consequences of breaching its payment liabilities on top.

Do your research , not a legal payment and as for the your other comments , I rest my case

[superal]

2 hours ago, sandyf said:

Wrong,just because you say it does not make it a fact.

 

The EU will take Britain to the International Court of Justice if it tries to walk away without paying an estimated £50bn ‘divorce bill’, a leak of its negotiating strategy says.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-divorce-bill-eu-take-uk-court-leaked-strategy-documents-a7641406.html

www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-raab/raab-brexit-deal-attainable-but-no-deal-means-no-eu-payment-telegraph-idUSKCN1LS39O

[welovesundaysatspace]

5 minutes ago, superal said:

www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-raab/raab-brexit-deal-attainable-but-no-deal-means-no-eu-payment-telegraph-idUSKCN1LS39O

 Raab tells you there won’t be a payment. May yells you Chequers isn’t dead. And Boris & Co. told you it would be the easiest deal in history. Problem is, at some point reality kicks in. 

[welovesundaysatspace]

5 minutes ago, superal said:

www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-raab/raab-brexit-deal-attainable-but-no-deal-means-no-eu-payment-telegraph-idUSKCN1LS39O

 Raab tells you there won’t be a payment. May yells you Chequers isn’t dead. And Boris & Co. told you it would be the easiest deal in history. Problem is, at some point reality kicks in. 

[sandyf]

1 hour ago, superal said:

www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-raab/raab-brexit-deal-attainable-but-no-deal-means-no-eu-payment-telegraph-idUSKCN1LS39O

Everyone is entitled to their opinion but the only opinion of any significance is that of the court.

 

TM had an opinion on Art 50 and look where that got her.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

 Raab tells you there won’t be a payment. May yells you Chequers isn’t dead. And Boris & Co. told you it would be the easiest deal in history. Problem is, at some point reality kicks in. 

Raab and co sounds like persons who can get their BS through to the British people but will hit a concrete wall, when trying to get their lies to EU representatives. 

 

British version of Donald Trump. 

[sandyf]

1 hour ago, superal said:

Do your research , not a legal payment and as for the your other comments , I rest my case

Your comment is obviously based on the interpretation of the HoL in respect of Art 50 and ECJ jurisdiction over the treaties.

The EU have said they would refer the matter to the International Court of Justice, different court, different ball game. The House of Lords point of view becomes redundant.

 

It is all academic anyway, will never come to that, only brexiteers would think that the UK could renege on its liabilities and not be alienated by every country on the planet.

[oldhippy]

8 hours ago, superal said:

www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-raab/raab-brexit-deal-attainable-but-no-deal-means-no-eu-payment-telegraph-idUSKCN1LS39O

A divorce without any payments?

Then who will pay the (rather high...) pensions of the British ex members of the European parliament - Farage isn't going to be pleased with that!

 

[Nigel Garvie]

You join a golf club, you sign a contract to pay your fees for the year, this covers staff costs, green fees, etc. You decide to leave half way through the year, your problem, you have to pay for your outstanding  obligations.......simple.

 

 

[Jip99]

10 minutes ago, Nigel Garvie said:

You join a golf club, you sign a contract to pay your fees for the year, this covers staff costs, green fees, etc. You decide to leave half way through the year, your problem, you have to pay for your outstanding  obligations.......simple.

 

 

 

 

Not if you pay by monthly instalments.......

Edited September 25, 2018 by Jip99

[Jip99]

12 hours ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

The UK ............after crashing out of the EU 

 

 

LOL!....... you do make me laugh......

[Jip99]

12 hours ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

The UK ............after crashing out of the EU 

 

 

LOL!....... you do make me laugh......