Brexit the economy and house prices part 6

Moby

Tromking wrote: »

That’s a bit of historical revisionism you’re guilty of there. France and Germany jealousy guard their joint preeminence in all things EU, and when push came to shove the U.K. was always a junior partner and shut out. Even when arch-europhile Blair was our PM, he was left under no illusion during EU get togethers that it was a Franco-German party he was trying to gatecrash. With that dynamic at play for 40 years, Brexit was inevitable.

Tromking you fail to acknowledge that after the war the UK was in prime spot to be at the centre of re-shaping Europe. We were victorious but broke, France had been occupied and Germany was defeated. Instead of taking reponsibility for the future of Europe however we decided to pre-occupy ourselves with our Empire and we left the French and Germans to crack on with the project. That is why we lost influence! Ardenauer and De Gaulle never thought we were serious about Europe and therefore went ahead without us. When we joined we were therefore always catching up.

andrewf75

Joan_number_1 wrote: »

More hogwash and it demonstrates perfectly how you and those who thanked you completely fail to understand the truth.

Even Fullfact accept the net figure after subsidies & grants as being £8.5 billion net per year and rising.
£127 billion from trade?
Well well well, it seems from your thinking that the UK did no trade before joining the Common Market and that we as a country could not have continued to do so without becoming a member.
Presumably every country outside the EU doesn't trade effectively, or like we didn't manage for centuries before perhaps.


You do know that over half our imports come from outside the EU, don't you?
So show us the "car parks" and hindered tourists from that, please.

The "destructive act of insanity" was in allowing the EU's powers over the UK to increase to such an extent that over half the electorate decided that it was too much and wanted out.

but what you seem not to understand is that it’s not that we can’t trade effectively without the single market, it’s that for 40 odd years we have successfully built our economy on the basis of that level of market access and that we have attracted foreign business here on that basis! Had we never been part of it, I’m sure just like Switzerland we’d have built our economy differently but still successfully. It’s the sudden change that makes it such a big deal. Even our imports from outside the EU come via EU trade deals with third countries.

cogito

andrewf75 wrote: »

Surely when people say “we” in this kind of debate they mean we in the wider sense as in the rich countries of the world. No-one is singling out the UK, but we can only control or influence what we do so that’s what we focus on. But I guess there are always two types of people – those who focus on what we can do to make things better and those who point at others.

Herzlos specifically referred to the British Empire. No 'we' about it. A good example of finger pointing.

andrewf75

cogito wrote: »

Herzlos specifically referred to the British Empire. No 'we' about it.

but that's presumably because we are in the UK and discussing our role, which we can relate to and know more about not suggesting that we are more to blame than anyone else. I just don't see the point of splitting hairs over who is to blame and how much. I just see it quite simply that some of the world is rich and some is poor. Its the moral duty to even that out and in our long term interests - although short term there is too much money to be made exploiting African resources.

Herzlos

cogito wrote: »

Herzlos specifically referred to the British Empire. No 'we' about it. A good example of finger pointing.

Exactly; I'm British and thus I can't really comment on what other countries should do to atone for past offenses. Plenty of other Countries and Empires have things to make up for, and some are doing so. But I don't have any voting ability in any of them.

kabayiri wrote: »

That's just so much hogwash. If you're going to pay for the sins of history, then you should include ALL of history.
...
Ghenkis Khan; Alexander the Great; Napoleon...hmm, where do you want to stop?

I'd stop at recent memory. There are people still alive that would have witnessed Britain returning control of India (1946) or Hong Kong (1997), and plenty more who'll have had parents or grandparents that remember the Empire. There's still active damage from the British Empire, and there is still hostility there.


No-one will have any direct or familial awareness of Ghenkis Khan, Alexander, Napoleon, Egyptian Dynasties and so on. There will still be repercussions but no-one to point that hostility (if it still exists) towards.

I care what happens now and in the future, not the past.

I very much agree - we should be looking at the future, and the future is with integration in a globalized planet. It's in working together to address the root cause of issues that are plaguing the planet rather than turning our backs. It's about open trade, open sharing, open effort.

As far as I can tell, Brexit (for most, I understand you're the exception on here) is about withdrawing to the past, and not trying to embrace a future that you feel the EU will hold us back from.


I mean, we could just ignore Africa and refuse to acknowledge anything that spills over (because Africa isn't far from Europe at all, nor is it that far from the UK.

cogito

andrewf75 wrote: »

but that's presumably because we are in the UK and discussing our role, which we can relate to and know more about not suggesting that we are more to blame than anyone else. I just don't see the point of splitting hairs over who is to blame and how much. I just see it quite simply that some of the world is rich and some is poor. Its the moral duty to even that out and in our long term interests - although short term there is too much money to be made exploiting African resources.

The Chinese are currently the greatest exploiters of African resources by far. Try getting them to acknowledge 'moral duty'.

PS - just noted that you referred to Cinese exploitation earlier.

mrginge

andrewf75 wrote: »

I just see it quite simply that some of the world is rich and some is poor. Its the moral duty to even that out and in our long term interests - although short term there is too much money to be made exploiting African resources.

DrGinge prescribes you a large dose of economic reality.

Herzlos

cogito wrote: »

The Chinese are currently the greatest exploiters of African resources by far. Try getting them to acknowledge 'moral duty'.

We'd stand some chance of doing so via the EU, but not on our own.


Plus, just because China is bad, doesn't mean we're good, no?

kabayiri

Herzlos wrote: »

...
I very much agree - we should be looking at the future, and the future is with integration in a globalized planet. It's in working together to address the root cause of issues that are plaguing the planet rather than turning our backs. It's about open trade, open sharing, open effort.

As far as I can tell, Brexit (for most, I understand you're the exception on here) is about withdrawing to the past, and not trying to embrace a future that you feel the EU will hold us back from.
...

Globalization is basically putting more economic power into the hands of a relatively small elite. That's just how it is.

Boss of Amazon - richest person on the planet. One third of his workers in the USA - receive welfare support.

Now why didn't that example of globalization enrich the vast majority of his workers do you think?

These nice initiatives like allowing half the planet to move around to the other half. They are just distractions really.

Herzlos

And the alternative, isolationism, is keeping the economic power away from the hands of a relatively small elite?


Globalization is generally a breaking down of barriers, so we can spend less time/money/effort dealing with barriers. That little of that money will make it to the poor isn't part of globalization. The lower the bar is on things like trade, the easier it is for the little people to trade themselves instead of the power being with the larger companies.



The power is always going to be with the elites (like Mogg), but we can at least try to keep that power in check (via the ECJ) and keep the efficiency as high as possible (common market) in order to minimize economic waste.