|
|
Post by oracle75 on Nov 17, 2022 9:59:11 GMT
This is a very old argument that is wearing thin. Poorer countries are free to run their economies as they see fit. As are all member states. My point was if they tried to use their own currency they would face enormous economic threats against the strength of the yuan and the dollar. The value of the currency would be on the floor and inflation would be rampant. It is the euro which is supporting their economies.As I said, the EU never promised economic parity. It merely promised a huge market and a strong currency. Which it has. Utter nonsense. Still, I suppose it's no surprise that people who support the EU have no understanding of economics. Greece (and all countries in the Eurozone) have no control of their currency which removes most of the levers that can be used to regulate the economy. They can't devalue the euro. So Greece are trading with a very overvalued currency which has caused a massive recession. Their GDP has halved from 2008. They can't use QE like we did when we hit trouble. And they could only borrow from the ECB/ESM (and briefly from the IMF) and the EU imposed austerity conditions on Greece and very high interest rates - so they're in a debt trap. Contrast that with the UK. We had problems in 2008 also but we printed money and slashed interest rates. We had very low unemployment rates and very few businesses went bust. And inflation also remained low (surprisngly). Sterling declined of course but that helped recovery. If you look at Greece they lost a large number of businesses, unemployment ballooned and they're in a debt spiral from which they will never emerge - unless the EU write off their debts, Which they should do since the EU has caused their debts by the way they handled the 2008 bust. Which approach do you prefer? Accepting that you're in a hole, like we did, and effectively devaluing our currency. Or refusing to accept that you're in a hole and carry on as before and bankrupting the country. That's what happened to Greece because they had literally no way out. The single currency did NOT "support their economies" - it put them in a straitjacket. Do you EUphiles ever LEARN from history? I didn't say poorer countries had control over their CURRENCY. I said they had control over their ECONOMIES. It is up to them how they generate growth, via mechanisms such as corporation tax, special rates on buying up land to develop, or helping to open up new markets. Developing infrastructure. It is also up to them to decide what kind of a country it wants to be. It is getting on well enough now, the economy has stabilised and almost every country in the world lives on debt. The USA debt is over 1 trillion dollars. Leave Greece alone. And perhaps you should stop trying to tell them how to run their country. There is a great deal of wisdom in valuing quality of life over quantity. And finally, a bit less attitude from you might be appreciated. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Nov 17, 2022 11:29:35 GMT
For many years we had no say over how we are governed. Now, we have more say.  Look Vinny you're an intelligent person and you know that's complete fiction so why do you post it? Aside from the occasional election, we're barely a democracy at all, we hardly EVER get a say in HOW we are governed, that is, whether we're in or out of a trade organisation or a political union, what agricultural policy we have, what defence policy we have (yes or no to NATO, I would obviously vote yes as would everyone, but we don't have a choice).. We had no say over our customs policy, our VAT policy, our coal divestment policy was proposed by Brussels willingly copied by the Tories, we had no vote on it. Net zero, yes or no to it, the public does not have the choice. It isn't complete fiction, it's my observation. We normally do not have a say over how we are governed only who by. I would like to see more engagement between government and the public.
More referendums and more local democracy, council level.
Public votes on planning and building for example.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Nov 17, 2022 11:30:45 GMT
Chinese cars are flooding into Europe - Teslas, MG's, Polestars, BMW's etc etc. - how is this happening when their domestic standards are not aligned with Europes? Your link clearly says "could be imported into Europe". Which implies it is not currently the case. To import into Europe China would have to meet European standards and compliance. How they do that is their problem. The Polestar range is a Volvo range, designed in Sweden made in China. Polestar meets EU standards. |
|
|
|
Post by bancroft on Nov 17, 2022 11:58:20 GMT
oracle75Of course there are benefits of having a strong currency like the Euro, the main benefit is for big business to not need to cross borders and by protecting its exchange rate also provides a stable environment that business likes. I never saw why we had to pay 9bn euros to belong to a club to which we had a huge trade deficit. More the crime cost because of European criminals uniquely targeting England was staggering. I expect the UK political landscape to change once again post Ukraine / Russia and then political momentum to increase again for our politicians to get a grip.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Nov 17, 2022 14:22:37 GMT
oracle75 Of course there are benefits of having a strong currency like the Euro, the main benefit is for big business to not need to cross borders and by protecting its exchange rate also provides a stable environment that business likes. I never saw why we had to pay 9bn euros to belong to a club to which we had a huge trade deficit. More the crime cost because of European criminals uniquely targeting England was staggering. I expect the UK political landscape to change once again post Ukraine / Russia and then political momentum to increase again for our politicians to get a grip. The EEC was even laughing at us as "the poor man of Europe" at the same time as taking our membership fees. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 17, 2022 14:59:26 GMT
oracle75 I never saw why we had to pay 9bn euros to belong to a club to which we had a huge trade deficit. What do you think the EU does with that money? It invests a lot of it in its members' economies. Ireland used to be practically a second world country. The EU invested a proportion of those 'membership fee's' in its infrastructure and education system and its economy boomed. The result is that the UK now has a trade surplus with Ireland of £21 billion. That's right: £21 billion!!! .The EU created a lot of wealth for the UK when it invested in Ireland's economy. That's where the membership fees go. They're partially invested to make everyone richer. The EU is currently working to replicate its success in Ireland in Eastern Europe. Imagine the wealth that will be created when their economies really take off. Of course, the UK is no longer paying membership fees to invest in those economies, so it can't expect a share in the spoils. Not to worry, though, it has swapped all that for trade deals with Australia and New Zealand that will actually harm the UK's economy. commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8173/ |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Nov 17, 2022 15:17:19 GMT
Look Vinny you're an intelligent person and you know that's complete fiction so why do you post it? Aside from the occasional election, we're barely a democracy at all, we hardly EVER get a say in HOW we are governed, that is, whether we're in or out of a trade organisation or a political union, what agricultural policy we have, what defence policy we have (yes or no to NATO, I would obviously vote yes as would everyone, but we don't have a choice).. We had no say over our customs policy, our VAT policy, our coal divestment policy was proposed by Brussels willingly copied by the Tories, we had no vote on it. Net zero, yes or no to it, the public does not have the choice. It isn't complete fiction, it's my observation. We normally do not have a say over how we are governed only who by. I would like to see more engagement between government and the public.
More referendums and more local democracy, council level.
Public votes on planning and building for example.
Oh good grief Vinny do get real You say for years we had no say in how we are governed. Well just limiting to this century, ask yourself who decided: - the date of the 2001, 2005, 2007, 2010, 2015, 2017 and 2019 general elections?
- the voting system used?
- if we went to war in 2003 and 2011?
- the military equipment they used?
- our criminal justice system, criminal laws and sentencing?
- the currency we use?
- our rates of income tax, corporation tax, stamp duty, inheritance tax, vehicle excise duty, VAT (as long as above 15%), alcohol and cigarette duty etc every year?
- our speed limits and penalties? (probably the most common law breaking the population does)
- our parking restrictions and penalties (2nd most law breaking?)
- education policy and delivery?
- health policy and delivery?
- state pensions and NI contributions?
- media policy and controls and if we have a state broadcaster?
- policing levels?
- trade deals and block memberships?
- etc etc
In fact all the things people really care about and guess what all determined by the sovereign UK government or its delegated offices thereof.
So don't give us this crap about 'no say in how we are governed' And if you voted Leave believing that you were a fool. |
|
|
|
Post by bancroft on Nov 17, 2022 17:03:48 GMT
oracle75 I never saw why we had to pay 9bn euros to belong to a club to which we had a huge trade deficit. What do you think the EU does with that money? It invests a lot of it in its members' economies. Ireland used to be practically a second world country. The EU invested a proportion of those 'membership fee's' in its infrastructure and education system and its economy boomed. The result is that the UK now has a trade surplus with Ireland of £21 billion. That's right: £21 billion!!! .The EU created a lot of wealth for the UK when it invested in Ireland's economy. That's where the membership fees go. They're partially invested to make everyone richer. The EU is currently working to replicate its success in Ireland in Eastern Europe. Imagine the wealth that will be created when their economies really take off. Of course, the UK is no longer paying membership fees to invest in those economies, so it can't expect a share in the spoils. Not to worry, though, it has swapped all that for trade deals with Australia and New Zealand that will actually harm the UK's economy. commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8173/I don't deny our funds helped other countries, yet because of EU labour undercutting UK workers and the cost of processing EU benefit claimants, hospital patients and criminals the cost was massive. It got so bad farmers were placing transponders on farm equipment. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 17, 2022 17:31:12 GMT
What do you think the EU does with that money? It invests a lot of it in its members' economies. Ireland used to be practically a second world country. The EU invested a proportion of those 'membership fee's' in its infrastructure and education system and its economy boomed. The result is that the UK now has a trade surplus with Ireland of £21 billion. That's right: £21 billion!!! .The EU created a lot of wealth for the UK when it invested in Ireland's economy. That's where the membership fees go. They're partially invested to make everyone richer. The EU is currently working to replicate its success in Ireland in Eastern Europe. Imagine the wealth that will be created when their economies really take off. Of course, the UK is no longer paying membership fees to invest in those economies, so it can't expect a share in the spoils. Not to worry, though, it has swapped all that for trade deals with Australia and New Zealand that will actually harm the UK's economy. commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8173/I don't deny our funds helped other countries, yet because of EU labour undercutting UK workers and the cost of processing EU benefit claimants, hospital patients and criminals the cost was massive. It got so bad farmers were placing transponders on farm equipment. You've missed the point. The point wasn't that the UK's membership fees helped other countries; the point was that the UK's membership fees helped the UK by creating new markets for UK goods (the massive trade surplus with Ireland enabled by membership fees was given as an example). As for benefit claimants, anything I've ever read on that subject showed that EU migrant workers made a net contribution to the economy. In fact, it's claimed that their absence is one of the reasons for the UK economy's current underperformance. I've never known anyone to claim that Eastern European workers are lazy. Quite the opposite. The UK got highly productive workers from its arrangement with the EU. Where is the UK going to get its workers now? Will they be as highly productive as the Eastern Europeans? I should think that if they are less productive than the Eastern Europeans, more of them will be required, thus the number of immigrants will be greater. |
|
|
|
Post by bancroft on Nov 17, 2022 17:36:43 GMT
@darlng
Sure many were good workers yet were undercutting UK workers putting UK workers on the dole.
The other side were those here to do crime which was massive.
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 17, 2022 17:40:50 GMT
@darlng Sure many were good workers yet were undercutting UK workers putting UK workers on the dole. The other side were those here to do crime which was massive. Can you provide some statistics on the crime figures? You say that these workers put Brit workers on the dole. Was this because they were highly productive? Could 9 Eastern Europeans do the work of 10 Brits? If so, wasn't that good for the economy overall? The more productive the worker, the lower the cost of the product and the more competitive its price. I don't know where their replacements will come from. Let's hope they work as hard as the Eastern Europeans. As I asked previously: if they're not as productive as the Eastern Europeans, won't more of them be required? |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Nov 17, 2022 17:42:22 GMT
I don't deny our funds helped other countries, yet because of EU labour undercutting UK workers and the cost of processing EU benefit claimants, hospital patients and criminals the cost was massive. It got so bad farmers were placing transponders on farm equipment. You've missed the point. The point wasn't that the UK's membership fees helped other countries; the point was that the UK's membership fees helped the UK by creating new markets for UK goods (the massive trade surplus with Ireland enabled by membership fees was given as an example). As for benefit claimants, anything I've ever read on that subject showed that EU migrant workers made a net contribution to the economy. In fact, it's claimed that their absence is one of the reasons for the UK economy's current underperformance. I've never known anyone to claim that Eastern European workers are lazy. Quite the opposite. The UK got highly productive workers from its arrangement with the EU. Where is the UK going to get its workers now? Will they be as highly productive as the Eastern Europeans? I should think that if they are less productive than the Eastern Europeans, more of them will be required, thus the number of immigrants will be greater. The argument was that they were prepared to work for lower wages. I don't know where you live but if you live in a high volume agricultural area, Easter Europeans now almost monopolise the workforce and many are not directly employed by the farmer or food processor, they are employed by an agency invariably run by the Polish. They lived in cramped accommodation often provided by the employment agency, they operated a warm bed system to work in shifts and the agency deducted money from their wages, sometimes in an extortionate way. Here endeth a lesson but posters can't forever spend time educating those who haven't a clue how things work. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 17, 2022 17:44:27 GMT
You've missed the point. The point wasn't that the UK's membership fees helped other countries; the point was that the UK's membership fees helped the UK by creating new markets for UK goods (the massive trade surplus with Ireland enabled by membership fees was given as an example). As for benefit claimants, anything I've ever read on that subject showed that EU migrant workers made a net contribution to the economy. In fact, it's claimed that their absence is one of the reasons for the UK economy's current underperformance. I've never known anyone to claim that Eastern European workers are lazy. Quite the opposite. The UK got highly productive workers from its arrangement with the EU. Where is the UK going to get its workers now? Will they be as highly productive as the Eastern Europeans? I should think that if they are less productive than the Eastern Europeans, more of them will be required, thus the number of immigrants will be greater. The argument was that they were prepared to work for lower wages. I don't know where you live but if you live in a high volume agricultural area, Easter Europeans now almost monopolise the workforce and many are not directly employed by the farmer or food processor, they are employed by an agency invariably run by the Polish. They lived in cramped accommodation often provided by the employment agency, they operated a warm bed system to work in shifts and the agency deducted money from their wages, sometimes in an extortionate way. Here endeth a lesson but posters can't forever spend time educating those who haven't a clue how things work. Are Brits rushing to fill the vacancies now that they've left? |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Nov 17, 2022 19:42:33 GMT
It's ok to not agree with me, I just didn't get a feeling that we were much of a democracy before the referendum. I still don't think we're much of one now. Did we have a say over agricultural policy? www.theguardian.com/world/2002/oct/25/eu.politics2No. We had the CAP. And kept getting vetoed when our elected government got nowhere at the EU. Did we have a say over fisheries policy? No, we had the Common Fisheries Policy and kept getting vetoed there too so that foreign fishermen could fish our waters. Did we have a say over immigration policy Steve ? No, we had EU free movement. In many policy areas we had little to no say, as voters. EU policies such as coal divestment left us with a shortage of electrical generation in the grid. energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/oil-gas-and-coal/eu-coal-regions/coal-regions-transition_enThe shortage of locally generated electricity and dependence on imported electricity has pushed electricity prices up. And despite the EU introducing MEPs, they made no difference to us as voters. The CAP was not reformed, the CFP was not reformed. In 2016 the referendum gave us, the people, a voice. It was the start of something, not the end of something. Voting shouldn't just be an election time thing. There's still a lot of work ahead. We're still not much of a democracy. I'd like a referendum on the voting system, with PR and FPTP as the options. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Nov 17, 2022 21:17:59 GMT
It's ok to not agree with me, I just didn't get a feeling that we were much of a democracy before the referendum. I still don't think we're much of one now. Did we have a say over agricultural policy? www.theguardian.com/world/2002/oct/25/eu.politics2No. We had the CAP. And kept getting vetoed when our elected government got nowhere at the EU. Did we have a say over fisheries policy? No, we had the Common Fisheries Policy and kept getting vetoed there too so that foreign fishermen could fish our waters. Did we have a say over immigration policy Steve ? No, we had EU free movement. In many policy areas we had little to no say, as voters. EU policies such as coal divestment left us with a shortage of electrical generation in the grid. energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/oil-gas-and-coal/eu-coal-regions/coal-regions-transition_enThe shortage of locally generated electricity and dependence on imported electricity has pushed electricity prices up. And despite the EU introducing MEPs, they made no difference to us as voters. The CAP was not reformed, the CFP was not reformed. In 2016 the referendum gave us, the people, a voice. It was the start of something, not the end of something. Voting shouldn't just be an election time thing. There's still a lot of work ahead. We're still not much of a democracy. I'd like a referendum on the voting system, with PR and FPTP as the options. So not only was your 'For many years we had no say over how we are governed.' wild arsed fiction, you're still posting false statements with that 'Did we have a say over immigration policy Steve ? No, we had EU free movement.' Did you never realise our immigration problems came from the non EU immigrants that we had full control over? As for coal we've run out of it and the UK was behind those anti coal burning policies so the EU had no effect on UK policy other than to delay restrictions on it. This 'Project Look What We'll Pretend We Saved You From' just shows how worried you and others are that it's all been a pyrrhic victory and you vocal exponents of 'Brexit at any cost by any lies necessary' will become social pariahs. Well you may be right on that fate. |
|
