May ready for tough talks over Brexit

[sandyf]

18 hours ago, Grouse said:

Labour has some good ideas

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/10/labour-party-manifesto-pledges-to-end-tuition-fees-and-nationalise-railways

Yes.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/election-2017-labour-minimum-income-rule-foreign-spouses-migrant-threshold-visa-immigration-uk-a7729846.html

[sandyf]

1 hour ago, Grouse said:

Be careful what you wish for; the Cons ARE selling you a pup

 

Take automotive manufacturing. What do you think WTO rules and no customs union do to supply chains?

 

https://www.smmt.co.uk/2017/01/17-year-high-british-car-manufacturing-global-demand-hits-record-levels/

 

and yes, the NEEDS of the many outweigh the needs of the few. You seem to confuse this with the opinions of the many which is not necessarily the same....

 

Jeremy Bentham invoked what he described as a ‘fundamental axiom, it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong.’

 

I'll take Bentham and his Utilitarianism over Spock in The Wrath of Khan any day ?

Some do not want to acknowledge why they got rid of customs regulations.

The brexiteers want to believe it was an EU whim, nothing to do with being a barrier to trade.

[dick dasterdly]

18 hours ago, Grouse said:

Not a bad idea for the railways, utilities and post office in public ownership

 

scrapping tuition fees would be good but only for proper degrees....

 

18 hours ago, Flustered said:

Which of course could not happen if we stayed in the EU.

 

Cake and eat it?

 

18 hours ago, Flustered said:

A few years old but still relevant.

 

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/08/renationalise-railways-what-no-one-will-tell-you-we-cant-while-were-eu

 

http://www.leftfutures.org/2015/09/eu-membership-means-no-renationalisation/

 

18 hours ago, Grouse said:

Interesting! I'm still confused though...More research methinks

As far as I can see there is still no definitive answer on this subject.

 

It would be interesting to find out the truth.

[nauseus]

3 hours ago, Grouse said:

Be careful what you wish for; the Cons ARE selling you a pup

 

Take automotive manufacturing. What do you think WTO rules and no customs union do to supply chains?

 

https://www.smmt.co.uk/2017/01/17-year-high-british-car-manufacturing-global-demand-hits-record-levels/

 

and yes, the NEEDS of the many outweigh the needs of the few. You seem to confuse this with the opinions of the many which is not necessarily the same....

 

Jeremy Bentham invoked what he described as a ‘fundamental axiom, it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong.’

 

I'll take Bentham and his Utilitarianism over Spock in The Wrath of Khan any day ?

UCL Grouse?

 

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, dick dasterdly said:

 

 

 

As far as I can see there is still no definitive answer on this subject.

 

It would be interesting to find out the truth.

Where's 7-by-7?

 

Call 7-by-71

 

7-by-7!!

 

7BY7!!!!

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

UCL Grouse?

 

Durham, actually!

[nauseus]

Just now, Grouse said:

Durham, actually!

Just wondered, he was a founder of UCL.

 

He also said: "stretching his hand up to reach the stars, too often man forgets the flowers at his feet".

 

[Flustered]

5 hours ago, Grouse said:

And you blame the deficit on whom exactly?

A lop sided playing field where wages and production costs in many EU countries are much lower than the UK.

 

It is common sense that if a product can be made or grown cheaper in another EU country we cannot compete and as many of the EU trade agreements have tariffs imposed on imports, our only option is to buy from within the EU.

 

It's not hard to understand. With comments such as "0.5% cheap at twice the price", it explains why Bremoaners should not be listened to.

 

Looking at your other posts, it is obvious you only have a Guardian/Independent viewpoint on economics and do not understand the real world.

[billd766]

14 hours ago, vogie said:

You did better than me Bill, all I got was......

 

 

It looks sweet but those teeth can give a nasty bite if they have to. A bit like TM I suspect.

 

The EU may find out the hard way.

Edited May 12, 2017 by billd766
Added extra text

[SheungWan]

18 minutes ago, Flustered said:

A lop sided playing field where wages and production costs in many EU countries are much lower than the UK.

 

It is common sense that if a product can be made or grown cheaper in another EU country we cannot compete and as many of the EU trade agreements have tariffs imposed on imports, our only option is to buy from within the EU.

 

It's not hard to understand. With comments such as "0.5% cheap at twice the price", it explains why Bremoaners should not be listened to.

 

Looking at your other posts, it is obvious you only have a Guardian/Independent viewpoint on economics and do not understand the real world.

The real world for several of our forum Brexiteers doesn't extend much further than the Express and the Mail. I would have included the Telegraph but there's a paywall and the cheap charlies aren't going to pay for that.

[Flustered]

20 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

The real world for several of our forum Brexiteers doesn't extend much further than the Express and the Mail. I would have included the Telegraph but there's a paywall and the cheap charlies aren't going to pay for that.

And your contribution to the thread is (apart from trying hard to insinuate that anyone who reads the Mail and Express is too poor to buy a Telegraph) ???????. Not all of us get our information from the Sun or the Daily Star.

 

Most of us on both sides to the debate have made many contributions and links regarding TM and the upcoming talks. We have made it perfectly clear where we stand so perhaps you would like to give a clear understanding of what it is that you dislike about Brexit, your references and links together with your solution to the massive inequality in the trade deficit and governance that exists between the UK and the EU.

 

Or is that asking too much?

[nauseus]

5 minutes ago, Flustered said:

And your contribution to the thread is (apart from trying hard to insinuate that anyone who reads the Mail and Express is too poor to buy a Telegraph) ???????. Not all of us get our information from the Sun or the Daily Star.

 

Most of us on both sides to the debate have made many contributions and links regarding TM and the upcoming talks. We have made it perfectly clear where we stand so perhaps you would like to give a clear understanding of what it is that you dislike about Brexit, your references and links together with your solution to the massive inequality in the trade deficit and governance that exists between the UK and the EU.

 

Or is that asking too much?

Looks like a big ask for a reader of the Daily Manhua!

[dick dasterdly]

1 hour ago, Flustered said:

A lop sided playing field where wages and production costs in many EU countries are much lower than the UK.

 

It is common sense that if a product can be made or grown cheaper in another EU country we cannot compete and as many of the EU trade agreements have tariffs imposed on imports, our only option is to buy from within the EU.

 

It's not hard to understand. With comments such as "0.5% cheap at twice the price", it explains why Bremoaners should not be listened to.

 

Looking at your other posts, it is obvious you only have a Guardian/Independent viewpoint on economics and do not understand the real world.

"A lop sided playing field where wages and production costs in many EU countries are much lower than the UK."

 

I agree, but despite this un-level 'playing field' Germany is still doing well - not only because the Euro works in its favour, but also because it has invested in industry/has a far better educational system and has FAR better worker/company policies and balance between the two 'sides'.

 

In short, I blame UK politicians mostly - whilst also blaming the EU for 'open borders' that only encouraged greedy UK companies to take advantage of cheap labour.

 

 

[dick dasterdly]

The UK seems to be 'stuck' between confrontational poses between companies and unions - as the former pursues profits (regardless of anything else) and the latter pursues power (regardless of anything else). 

[dick dasterdly]

1 hour ago, SheungWan said:

The real world for several of our forum Brexiteers doesn't extend much further than the Express and the Mail. I would have included the Telegraph but there's a paywall and the cheap charlies aren't going to pay for that.

And that's the sort of comment that only detracts from the remainer 'cause'....

 

Did it make you feel superior?  I ask as you're obviously entirely oblivious to the fact that it made you appear nothing other than bigoted.

[sandyf]

37 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

"A lop sided playing field where wages and production costs in many EU countries are much lower than the UK."

 

I agree, but despite this un-level 'playing field' Germany is still doing well - not only because the Euro works in its favour, but also because it has invested in industry/has a far better educational system and has FAR better worker/company policies and balance between the two 'sides'.

 

In short, I blame UK politicians mostly - whilst also blaming the EU for 'open borders' that only encouraged greedy UK companies to take advantage of cheap labour.

 

 

It is an unequal situation trying to compare the UK and Germany. In the years following the war they were not allowed military manufacturing so industrial investment went into the grass roots like machinery and vehicles. It wasn't until Airbus came along that the Germans re-entered the aviation industry.

It is a fact of life that Germany is where it is today, it should be remembered that production costs are determined by productivity and as Phillip Hammond said.

“It takes a German worker four days to produce what we make in five, which means, in turn, that too many British workers work longer hours for lower pay than their counterparts.”

You are quite right about the politicians, after all, who is responsible for spending the money. Over the years they have repeatedly thrown money down the drain through bad decisions.

[pitrevie]

1 hour ago, dick dasterdly said:

"A lop sided playing field where wages and production costs in many EU countries are much lower than the UK."

 

I agree, but despite this un-level 'playing field' Germany is still doing well - not only because the Euro works in its favour, but also because it has invested in industry/has a far better educational system and has FAR better worker/company policies and balance between the two 'sides'.

 

In short, I blame UK politicians mostly - whilst also blaming the EU for 'open borders' that only encouraged greedy UK companies to take advantage of cheap labour.

 

 

Yeah lets blame the politicians. I grew up in a generation that invested billions of public money into the UK infrastructure. Electric, Gas, Water steel Telecoms only to see a bunch of greedy b******s in the eighties sell it off. We were told by the same people that nationalisation was bad, The British people owning something for the common good that could contribute to the common pool and even support struggling industries was bad so it was all sold off. 

Where are all these people now who were complicit in this selling off of the family silver as Harold Macmillan called it.

Well many of them are on TV complaining about foreign companies owning much of the UK infrastructure often blaming it on those undemocratic EU institutions that forced the British to give away their state owned companies so that state companies from the EU and China could run them instead.

We denationalised the electrical generating infrastructure so that state owned companies from France and Communist China could run them instead and we are going to give them 30 billion pounds to do so.

Just like our oil was squandered without any thought being given to investing in UK manufacturing capacity and infrastructure, that we were told wasn't the job of the state.

The curious thing is that despite many requests I have yet to have any TV poster step forward and admit they bought shares in the Great British fire sale or even admit to selling them as quickly as possible so they could make a few extra quid.

Funnily enough it was those dreadful leftists like the Corbynistas and the Bennites that opposed it. Yep lets blame the politicians, 

[Flustered]

2 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

"A lop sided playing field where wages and production costs in many EU countries are much lower than the UK."

 

I agree, but despite this un-level 'playing field' Germany is still doing well - not only because the Euro works in its favour, but also because it has invested in industry/has a far better educational system and has FAR better worker/company policies and balance between the two 'sides'.

 

In short, I blame UK politicians mostly - whilst also blaming the EU for 'open borders' that only encouraged greedy UK companies to take advantage of cheap labour.

 

 

Not disagreeing but if people want to understand why Germany became an industrial powerhouse, they have to read up on the re birth of trade unions after WW2.

 

Under Nazi Germany, trade unions were banned and after the war they had to re-organise. They had lost their militancy and the movement started with a small number of unions which were more focused on integration rather than individual skills such as in the UK. The whole work ethic was one of re building Germany after being defeated. 

 

In the UK, the opposite was in place, many trade unions (most of them militant) all wanting improved pay and conditions. After all, the UK had won the war, hadn't it. No one won, everyone was a looser but the countries that surrendered had more resources poured into them to re build by the so called winners (read up on Marshall Plan).

 

It is a long read if anyone is interested but gives a foundation into why Germany has prospered since WW2.

[pitrevie]

18 minutes ago, Flustered said:

Not disagreeing but if people want to understand why Germany became an industrial powerhouse, they have to read up on the re birth of trade unions after WW2.

 

Under Nazi Germany, trade unions were banned and after the war they had to re-organise. They had lost their militancy and the movement started with a small number of unions which were more focused on integration rather than individual skills such as in the UK. The whole work ethic was one of re building Germany after being defeated. 

 

In the UK, the opposite was in place, many trade unions (most of them militant) all wanting improved pay and conditions. After all, the UK had won the war, hadn't it. No one won, everyone was a looser but the countries that surrendered had more resources poured into them to re build by the so called winners (read up on Marshall Plan).

 

It is a long read if anyone is interested but gives a foundation into why Germany has prospered since WW2.

I have lost count how many times this has been mentioned but the UK received twice the amount of Marshal Aid that Germany received. Also Germany started from a far low position it truly was a devastated country.

 

As to trade unions which appear to be your whipping boys, I don't suppose that bad management or poor investment decisions had anything to do with it. I recall during my entire working life spending a total of one day on strike. One of the great British companies while I was in a trade union was GEC under Weinstock, it had cash reserves in billions. He retired in 1996 only to observe his successors wreck the company.  

 

I am no fan of Scargill but I am certain that had he known the damage that could be caused by being a banker he certainly would not have bothered with trade unions. Despite all that happened in the 2008/9 financial crisis very few were charged as a result of processes which were often illegal and often those responsible walked away with lottery type payoffs.

[Naam]

1 hour ago, pitrevie said:

I have lost count how many times this has been mentioned but the UK received twice the amount of Marshal Aid that Germany received. Also Germany started from a far low position it truly was a devastated country.

the "Marshall cash" helped indeed but as important was and still is the ingenuity of people who founded a wealth of small and midsized companies which manufacture and export worldwide specialised products the normal consumer doesn't even know that they exist. add to that moderate unions (in comparison to other countries) and last not least the work ethics of the average German individual who is proud that he/she plays a part in producing quality.

[SheungWan]

5 hours ago, SheungWan said:

The real world for several of our forum Brexiteers doesn't extend much further than the Express and the Mail. I would have included the Telegraph but there's a paywall and the cheap charlies aren't going to pay for that.

 

4 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

And that's the sort of comment that only detracts from the remainer 'cause'....

 

Did it make you feel superior?  I ask as you're obviously entirely oblivious to the fact that it made you appear nothing other than bigoted.

Looks like I scored a hole in one on that one then.

[Flustered]

1 hour ago, pitrevie said:

I have lost count how many times this has been mentioned but the UK received twice the amount of Marshal Aid that Germany received. Also Germany started from a far low position it truly was a devastated country.

 

As to trade unions which appear to be your whipping boys, I don't suppose that bad management or poor investment decisions had anything to do with it. I recall during my entire working life spending a total of one day on strike. One of the great British companies while I was in a trade union was GEC under Weinstock, it had cash reserves in billions. He retired in 1996 only to observe his successors wreck the company.  

 

I am no fan of Scargill but I am certain that had he known the damage that could be caused by being a banker he certainly would not have bothered with trade unions. Despite all that happened in the 2008/9 financial crisis very few were charged as a result of processes which were often illegal and often those responsible walked away with lottery type payoffs.

Due to the format of the Marshall Plan, you cannot compare apples with apples. The Marshall Plan was not all financial in the way of cash hand outs. Each European country that signed up to the plan was treated in an individual manner whether it be food, machinery, debt restructuring, indirect investment or something else. It was a very complicated plan and has been the subject of many debates and thesis.

 

The story that the UK received more in Marshall aid than Germany is purely a myth or a point of view. The aid cannot be compared as much of Germany's aid was re structuring of prime debt and interest rates.

 

In a nutshell, it is an argument that cannot be resolved except for the fact that Germany was the main beneficiary in the way of financial and industrial reorganisation due to the debts it had incurred before and during the war.

 

Regarding unions...I always ask a simple question that is never answered. If the unions are so great and beneficial, why do they not take over industries companies and run them themselves? Answer, because they would run them into the ground and they know it. Unions in general have no interest where the money comes from to pay wage increases as long as they get them. Also, why are so many Trade Union leaders Marxist activists?

 

I remember the Scargill years very well and his avowed intent to bring down the Government using the miners as a weapon. He had no interest in the miners welfare, only his own agenda. Re the bankers, I agree that many of them and not the banks themselves should have been punished harshly but at least it was not their aim to bring down the government of the day, just line their own pockets.

[Flustered]

14 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

 

Looks like I scored a hole in one on that one then.

Yet another post that has nothing to do with the thread, only self belief in being a legend in your own mind.

 

In short, you are nothing more than a Straw Man.

[Grouse]

6 hours ago, nauseus said:

Just wondered, he was a founder of UCL.

 

He also said: "stretching his hand up to reach the stars, too often man forgets the flowers at his feet".

 

That's a great quote! Thanks for that!

[SheungWan]

19 minutes ago, Flustered said:

Due to the format of the Marshall Plan, you cannot compare apples with apples. The Marshall Plan was not all financial in the way of cash hand outs. Each European country that signed up to the plan was treated in an individual manner whether it be food, machinery, debt restructuring, indirect investment or something else. It was a very complicated plan and has been the subject of many debates and thesis.

 

The story that the UK received more in Marshall aid than Germany is purely a myth or a point of view. The aid cannot be compared as much of Germany's aid was re structuring of prime debt and interest rates.

 

In a nutshell, it is an argument that cannot be resolved except for the fact that Germany was the main beneficiary in the way of financial and industrial reorganisation due to the debts it had incurred before and during the war.

 

Regarding unions...I always ask a simple question that is never answered. If the unions are so great and beneficial, why do they not take over industries companies and run them themselves? Answer, because they would run them into the ground and they know it. Unions in general have no interest where the money comes from to pay wage increases as long as they get them. Also, why are so many Trade Union leaders Marxist activists?

 

I remember the Scargill years very well and his avowed intent to bring down the Government using the miners as a weapon. He had no interest in the miners welfare, only his own agenda. Re the bankers, I agree that many of them and not the banks themselves should have been punished harshly but at least it was not their aim to bring down the government of the day, just line their own pockets.

Now there's a straw man question and a straw man answer. Great value for money on this thread. Two for one.

[Grouse]

6 hours ago, Flustered said:

A lop sided playing field where wages and production costs in many EU countries are much lower than the UK.

 

It is common sense that if a product can be made or grown cheaper in another EU country we cannot compete and as many of the EU trade agreements have tariffs imposed on imports, our only option is to buy from within the EU.

 

It's not hard to understand. With comments such as "0.5% cheap at twice the price", it explains why Bremoaners should not be listened to.

 

Looking at your other posts, it is obvious you only have a Guardian/Independent viewpoint on economics and do not understand the real world.

I am actually an Economist aficionado! I do like the Indy but not the Guardian.

 

Do you recall Henry Ford saying that he wanted to pay his workforce adequately so that they could also buy Fords?

 

To me, we should let low wage economies flourish for similar reasons and sell them Jaguars and... er.... whatever we make now. Marmite? Insurance? 

[Grouse]

28 minutes ago, Flustered said:

Due to the format of the Marshall Plan, you cannot compare apples with apples. The Marshall Plan was not all financial in the way of cash hand outs. Each European country that signed up to the plan was treated in an individual manner whether it be food, machinery, debt restructuring, indirect investment or something else. It was a very complicated plan and has been the subject of many debates and thesis.

 

The story that the UK received more in Marshall aid than Germany is purely a myth or a point of view. The aid cannot be compared as much of Germany's aid was re structuring of prime debt and interest rates.

 

In a nutshell, it is an argument that cannot be resolved except for the fact that Germany was the main beneficiary in the way of financial and industrial reorganisation due to the debts it had incurred before and during the war.

 

Regarding unions...I always ask a simple question that is never answered. If the unions are so great and beneficial, why do they not take over industries companies and run them themselves? Answer, because they would run them into the ground and they know it. Unions in general have no interest where the money comes from to pay wage increases as long as they get them. Also, why are so many Trade Union leaders Marxist activists?

 

I remember the Scargill years very well and his avowed intent to bring down the Government using the miners as a weapon. He had no interest in the miners welfare, only his own agenda. Re the bankers, I agree that many of them and not the banks themselves should have been punished harshly but at least it was not their aim to bring down the government of the day, just line their own pockets.

Here's the facts

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan

[Grouse]

http://www.wired.co.uk/article/improbable-quest-to-build-the-matrix

 

Improbable!!!

 

This is great news!

 

Two 26 year old Cambridge graduates start up now valued over 1Bn! Now let's see if we can develop this!

 

Such a shame they had to use Japanese investment. Where is our investment community? 

 

Serious pointy head stuff this...

[Basil B]

13 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Unions in general have no interest where the money comes from to pay wage increases as long as they get them. Also, why are so many Trade Union leaders Marxist activists?

The principle of the Labour Party's economic plan for the UK after the next election...

[Grouse]

6 minutes ago, Basil B said:

The principle of the Labour Party's economic plan for the UK after the next election...

I did not say that 

 

correct / delete please