Why is the UK struggling more than other countries?

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, James105 said:

Yes, no good deed should go unpunished.. right?  Shame that the UK didn't make put the burden of repayment of this loan on the shoulders of Germany as a condition of their surrender and then this headline may well have read "why is Germany struggling more than other countries".

Exactly.

[nauseus]

8 hours ago, kwilco said:

I think you failed O level economics amongst many other subjects....... do you really think it works like that? Would you like to try giving a more der=tailed reasoning? I didn't think you would or could.

Right...hands up...how many of us failed O level economics? I didn't - for the simple reason that it wasn't offered.

 

But A-Level, yes. 

[Bkk Brian]

1 hour ago, nigelforbes said:

And I have repeatedly stated that the difference doesn't warrant the assertion! Move on.

You can constantly repeat whatever you want, I am making a clear observation that your claim does not even match the evidence in the link you provided. I'll move on when I please is that ok with you?

[nauseus]

On 11/20/2022 at 9:05 AM, RayC said:

Problem is that there is no evidence to suggest that things will get better. It's nothing but blind faith to suggest otherwise.

 

The UK almost never had to enact any legislation from Brussels that it didn't agree with. 

You have to be kidding? 

 

Treaty Law is primary EU legislation and any member signing that treaty is obliged to follow the entire treaty. EU Regulations are also binding on member states. EU Decisions are also binding on one or more (selected) member states.  Even EU Directives are expected to appear in national law in some form, eventually.

 

All this, while having to accept that EU Law held primacy over UK Law! 

 

Little choice but to follow the Brussels Jazz Band - unless a member elects to leave the EU, of course. 

[nauseus]

On 11/20/2022 at 9:08 AM, RayC said:

Another of the favourite old chestnuts rears its' head again

Several to choose from, take your pick.

[nauseus]

On 11/20/2022 at 9:31 AM, Bluespunk said:

I remember the myth they were banned, when in fact they were not. 

Well they should have been spared. They had some skin the game after all.

[superal]

On 11/19/2022 at 10:27 PM, johnnybangkok said:

The UK is signed up to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 14), which states that everyone has the right to seek and enjoy asylum from persecution in other countries. It doesn’t discriminate on mode of transport so whether a person arrives by plane, lorry or rubber dinghy , there are laws in place to how they are treated. 
The fact that you don’t like this is irrelevant. The law is the law and the UK rightfully follows the law. And since you probably thought Brexit was going to improve the immigration issue then as you are clearly seeing every day, you were lied to about that as well. 
Stopped a few Polish guys from working in Cricklewood though. 

Your having a laugh when you say a few Polish guys . Prior to Brexit , the UK was overrun with foreign labour who were working often at cheap rates and putting many Brits on the dole . An example of that was the Olympic stadium in London where initially 40% of labour was either from the E.C. or other countries . Local tradesmen could not get a look in . Major UK construction companies would simply sub contract the work to a Polish company who would only employ Polish workers of whom most were unskilled . Example , unqualified Polish electricians made many installations under supervision . The completed work would be signed off by their qualified electrical engineer .  This practice was carried out throughout the UK . Fast forward to today where we have low unemployment . There is a need today for foreign labour but it needs to be controlled and not let loose as it was done  under E.U. rules . In summary , Brexit has given trading problems which were not helped by Macrons ways. I for one am glad that the UK is free from the shackles of the non-elected E.U. Commission . Post Brexit the UK had the fastest economy growth in Europe until covid came along . The UK will become good again soon under our new found freedom . Moaning stayers should go and live in an E.C. country .

[nauseus]

16 hours ago, kwilco said:

It's same old cliche's somewhere between Jackanory and conspiracy theory. What I can't fathom is how the UK got so stupid.

Read the treaties. 

[nauseus]

On 11/20/2022 at 5:12 AM, ozimoron said:

UK always retained it's sovereignty and foreign policy. The only compulsion from Brussels were economic measures for cooperation signed up for by the UK. The loss of this cooperation cost the UK dearly and will continue to do so until the UK replaces brexit with something close to what they had before.

You have no idea have you? UK sovereignty was steadily eroded over five decades of EEC/EU membership via a succession of treaties and thousands of regulations, enforced by the primacy of EU Law and the CJEU.

 

Foreign policy would have been next - the EU was proposing to create the posts of both EU Foreign and Finance Ministers in its European Parliament sets out its vision of 2017. This same 'vision' also calls for an EU Defence Union and a future convention to establish the European Armed Forces by the 2020's - something that Clegg flatly denied as a "dangerous fantasy" during the pre Brexit debates. 

[nauseus]

20 hours ago, Kwasaki said:

Well democracy can be stupid.

Yup. It's called a democratic right.

[nauseus]

19 hours ago, RayC said:

That is such a lazy argument. It's akin to saying that God must exist because you can't prove categorically that s/he/it doesn't. 

 

The other favourite Brexiter counter-argument, that they know someone whose business is now thriving therefore Brexit is beneficial, is like saying that I knew someone who smoked 40 Capstan full strength per day and he lived to 90. Therefore, smoking must be good for you. It simply isn't true. It is another false argument.

 

The facts are simple: (Almost) Every piece of research conducted into Brexit has found that it has had and - based on certain assumptions - will continue to have negative economic effects. If Brexiters do not accept these hypotheses, arguments and conclusions then the onus on them to find flaws in the assumptions and methodologies. The fact that there are few, if any, studies which have done so suggest that the original research is credible and valid.

 

Why do Brexit supporters find it so difficult to acknowledge this?

I acknowledge that Brexit had negative economic effects. There you go. Not rocket science. 

 

But with the prospect of the EU vision of a total European merge being realized, I'd say there's a good chance we will end up being intact, and better off, in the long-term

 

 

Edited November 21, 2022 by nauseus
+ we

[nauseus]

17 hours ago, kwilco said:

It's same old cliche's somewhere between Jackanory and conspiracy theory. What I can't fathom is how the UK got so stupid.

I bet there's lots of things that you can't fathom.

[RayC]

34 minutes ago, nauseus said:

You have to be kidding? 

 

Treaty Law is primary EU legislation and any member signing that treaty is obliged to follow the entire treaty. EU Regulations are also binding on member states. EU Decisions are also binding on one or more (selected) member states.  Even EU Directives are expected to appear in national law in some form, eventually.

 

All this, while having to accept that EU Law held primacy over UK Law! 

 

What you say is correct - apart from the first sentence - but you should have read what was written more closely. I'll repeat it here for ease of reference:

 

"The UK almost never had to enact any legislation from Brussels that it didn't agree with." 

 

This is a true statement. It is a fact that between 1997 - 2014, the UK was forced to enact 3% of EU legislation which it had voted against. This, btw is a similar figure to Germany.

 

In any organisation, there will almost inevitably be times when certain players find themselves in a minority. However, the notion that the UK was somehow a persecuted minority when it was an EU member is another fallacy.

 

No matter how hard you try to wish away these statements, they will still remain correct when you reopen your eyes. I have posted a link supporting my statement about "the 3%" in direct reply to you on 3 previous occasions. I will not do so again.

 

Some may argue that the chaos and negative economic effects which Brexit has caused to the UK over the past 6 years - and which looks likely to continue for the foreseeable future - is a price worth paying to regain this "3% of sovereignty". I strongly disagree.

[RayC]

59 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Several to choose from, take your pick.

You're telling me!!? They just keep coming no matter how many times they are factually rebuked.

 

Some unkind souls might suggest that Brexiters were illogical.

[RayC]

20 minutes ago, nauseus said:

I acknowledge that Brexit had negative economic effects. There you go. Not rocket science. 

Thank you. Maybe some of your fellow Brexiters will follow your lead (although I doubt it)?

 

20 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

But with the prospect of the EU vision of a total European merge being realized, I'd say there's a good chance we will end up being intact, and better off, in the long-term

 

 

(Time for a sing along)

 

".. and then you go and spoil it all by saying something stupid ..."

 

There is no evidence to support anything in your second paragraph.

[nauseus]

20 minutes ago, RayC said:

What you say is correct - apart from the first sentence - but you should have read what was written more closely. I'll repeat it here for ease of reference:

 

"The UK almost never had to enact any legislation from Brussels that it didn't agree with." 

 

This is a true statement. It is a fact that between 1997 - 2014, the UK was forced to enact 3% of EU legislation which it had voted against. This, btw is a similar figure to Germany.

 

In any organisation, there will almost inevitably be times when certain players find themselves in a minority. However, the notion that the UK was somehow a persecuted minority when it was an EU member is another fallacy.

 

No matter how hard you try to wish away these statements, they will still remain correct when you reopen your eyes. I have posted a link supporting my statement about "the 3%" in direct reply to you on 3 previous occasions. I will not do so again.

 

Some may argue that the chaos and negative economic effects which Brexit has caused to the UK over the past 6 years - and which looks likely to continue for the foreseeable future - is a price worth paying to regain this "3% of sovereignty". I strongly disagree.

It is you who should have read what was written more closely. There are no votes on treaty law - sign it or not. That's it. Your 3% number has nothing to do with this.

[nauseus]

13 minutes ago, RayC said:

Thank you. Maybe some of your fellow Brexiters will follow your lead (although I doubt it)?

 

(Time for a sing along)

 

".. and then you go and spoil it all by saying something stupid ..."

 

There is no evidence to support anything in your second paragraph.

Read my other post about the proposals for foreign and finance ministers. Oh and the army too.

[Bluespunk]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

Well they should have been spared. They had some skin the game after all.

That all you got? Someone tries to spread a myth about bananas being banned and you just deflect from this attempt by brexiteers to mislead and misinform...

[BritManToo]

42 minutes ago, RayC said:

You're telling me!!? They just keep coming no matter how many times they are factually rebuked.

 

Some unkind souls might suggest that Brexiters were illogical.

I would suggest remainers were illogical because,

1. The UK has already left.

2. No political party wants to rejoin.

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, Bluespunk said:

That all you got? Someone tries to spread a myth about bananas being banned and you just deflect from this attempt by brexiteers to mislead and misinform...

It was a poor try to have a laugh (banana/skin/get it) but there is no point with the misery guts gang, is there?

[Chomper Higgot]

50 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

I would suggest remainers were illogical because,

1. The UK has already left.

2. No political party wants to rejoin.

And yet it is reported the UK Government are at this moment negotiation a Swiss-Style Trade Agreement with the EU.

 

The Swiss Trade Agreement includes alignment of standards, being subject to the ECJ, and is within the EU area of freedom Freedom, Security and Justice.

 

Apparently Rees-Mogg has gone into conniptions over the matter, his nanny just doesn’t know how to calm him down.

[RayC]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

 There are no votes on treaty law - sign it or not. That's it. Your 3% number has nothing to do with this.

Two more completely erroneous, factually incorrect and misleading statements.

 

EU Treaties - or amendments to treaties - require unanimous approval from all member states: Any individual EU member state can veto Treaty change. Therefore, this idea that the UK - or any other member state - could have been (can be) dragged, kicking and screaming against their will into a United States of the EU is complete and utter nonsense.

 

My original statement that the UK almost never had to enact any legislation from Brussels that it didn't agree with still holds true.

[candide]

3 hours ago, superal said:

Post Brexit the UK had the fastest economy growth in Europe until covid came along

For how many months?

[RayC]

1 hour ago, BritManToo said:

I would suggest remainers were illogical because,

1. The UK has already left.

2. No political party wants to rejoin.

Two tangential and largely irrelevant statements.

 

The fact that the UK has left the EU is completely irrelevant when it comes to the false statements being made about the EU by Brexiters.

 

It's true that no UK political party has committed outright to rejoining the EU, but the LibDems have stated that they will rejoin the Single Market; the Labour party and the Greens would seek closer ties and the SNP see their future inside the EU (albeit outside of the UK).

[RayC]

2 hours ago, nauseus said:

Read my other post about the proposals for foreign and finance ministers. Oh and the army too.

Seems like a good idea to me for the EU to speak, through a single person on the international stage, on matters such as the economy and international relations where the bloc is in agreement.

 

There is no suggestion that either of these positions would replace similar posts at the national level. 

 

In any event, it is no way that it is a prelude to a "total European merge" (as you put it). That would require a new Treaty/ Treaty change, something that requires unanimous approval from the member states!

[candide]

2 hours ago, nauseus said:

It is you who should have read what was written more closely. There are no votes on treaty law - sign it or not. That's it. Your 3% number has nothing to do with this.

The text of a treaty doesn't come out of nowhere. The main actor is the Council of elected governments. It is elaborated by the Council based on consensus, usually during conventions, then during an intergovernmental conference. The ratification is just a formal procedure, the government's of member states have elaborated it and approved it before.

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/documents-publications/intergovernmental-conferences/

 

Edited November 21, 2022 by candide

[Bluespunk]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

It was a poor try to have a laugh (banana/skin/get it) but there is no point with the misery guts gang, is there?

It was deflection.

[Mavideol]

On 11/20/2022 at 3:37 PM, Mac Mickmanus said:

Just that I have never heard anyone from England mention it at all , ever.

because you never heard anybody mention it at all....  it doesn't mean there aren't people mentioning it

[Mac Mickmanus]

9 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You seem to have missed the nuance in the reply. One needs an old fashioned British sense of humour to get it though.

Seems to me a lot of people mislaid a sense of humour during lockdowns and can't find it again. Rare to see a happy person any more.

Sad, angry world we live in now.

OK, Could you explain the joke/humour to me ?

[nauseus]

2 hours ago, RayC said:

Two more completely erroneous, factually incorrect and misleading statements.

 

EU Treaties - or amendments to treaties - require unanimous approval from all member states: Any individual EU member state can veto Treaty change. Therefore, this idea that the UK - or any other member state - could have been (can be) dragged, kicking and screaming against their will into a United States of the EU is complete and utter nonsense.

 

My original statement that the UK almost never had to enact any legislation from Brussels that it didn't agree with still holds true.

But when did either ever happen concerning anything of substance? Treaties that were rejected once were just rehashed and offered again (Denmark and France) - all have been accepted in one way or another. 

 

You are dreaming. However, as you say. the ultimate choice was always available to the UK, as Brexit demonstrates.