Brexit What Happens Next Thread ---multiple merged threads.

[pig]

6 hours ago, kzb said:

The Sick Man of Europe term is a soundbite.  Not being able to pick a year when the sick man problems start is exactly why I asked you to name the year we won this award -because I knew it couldn't be done.  What I was saying is, the term only gained traction and became well-known by ordinary people during the Labour government of 1974-79.

On that plot there is no sign of us being rescued by the EEC in 1973.  I am pretty confident that continuing the plot to recent times would not show any great recovery that could be ascribed to EEC/EU membership.

Bless. 

So we've established pretty much without doubt British sick man 'declinism' goes back to the 60's and perhaps earlier. 

EEC and Thatcherism to follow, and of course there is an interesting debate on how free trade with neighbours and economic liberalism combined to impact Britain.

On your silly bigotry - can't help you there. You just need to get over Brexit, pull your head out of its a*se and try to be curious and open minded about the world

 

[kzb]

16 hours ago, pig said:

Bless. 

So we've established pretty much without doubt British sick man 'declinism' goes back to the 60's and perhaps earlier. (1)

EEC and Thatcherism to follow, and of course there is an interesting debate on how free trade with neighbours and economic liberalism combined to impact Britain. (2)

On your silly bigotry - can't help you there. You just need to get over Brexit, pull your head out of its a*se and try to be curious and open minded about the world (3)

 

It didn't take long to revert to moral superiority and Smart-Alecism did it.

(1) We have established no such thing.  

(2)  Yes how did a £100bn trade deficit develop?  That will be interesting.

(3)  It's obvious to any neutral person following this conversation just who has the most open mind and also who is accustomed to grandstanding in his bubble.

 

[pig]

1 hour ago, kzb said:

It didn't take long to revert to moral superiority and Smart-Alecism did it.

(1) We have established no such thing.  

(2)  Yes how did a £100bn trade deficit develop?  That will be interesting.

(3)  It's obvious to any neutral person following this conversation just who has the most open mind and also who is accustomed to grandstanding in his bubble.

 

 

Its a shame you're unable to engage because its an interesting story - perhaps too often economic debate revolves around Thatcherism without a British and European historical context.

Quote

 

Both political parties had come to the conclusion that Britain needed to enter the European Economic Community (EEC) in order to revive its economy. This decision came after establishing a European Free Trade Association (EFTA) with other, non-EEC countries since this provided little economic stimulus to Britain's economy. Levels of trade with the Commonwealth halved in the period 1945–1965 to around 25% while trade with the EEC had doubled during the same period. Charles de Gaulle vetoed a British attempt at membership in 1963 and again in 1967.

...

However, with the continuing relative decline of Britain's economy during the 1960s, management-labour relations deteriorated towards the end of the Wilson government and this worker discontent led to a dramatic breakdown of the industrial environment under the Conservative Government of Edward Heath (1970–1974). 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_the_United_Kingdom#Relative_decline

[24gray24]

18 hours ago, pig said:

Bless. 

So we've established pretty much without doubt British sick man 'declinism' goes back to the 60's and perhaps earlier. 

EEC and Thatcherism to follow, and of course there is an interesting debate on how free trade with neighbours and economic liberalism combined to impact Britain.

On your silly bigotry - can't help you there. You just need to get over Brexit, pull your head out of its a*se and try to be curious and open minded about the world

 

Some missing items: 

Balance of trade being more important when you have to ship gold. 

Ceasing to be a reserve currency being a great financial loss. 

Government ownership of industries and socialism being a disaster. 

Colonies and their loss on the finances of the home country. 

System of dictatorships replacing colonies.

Repayment of war debts. 

Influence of traditional animosity and alliances. 

Effects of ever closer union on eu. 

Single currency and perpetual transfer payments or depopulation. 

Government over spending.  

[yelims]

Lol

https://www.cityam.com/brexit-20bn-uk-norway-trade-deal-stalls-over-british-beef-and-cheese-as-crucial-deadline-passes/

Brexit: £20bn UK-Norway trade deal implodes over British beef and cheese as crucial deadline passes

[dugsbody]

19 hours ago, kzb said:

The EU has just torn up an arrangement on medical supplies with Switzerland.  A fit of pique In the middle of a medical emergency, because Switzerland won't go along with the level playing field.

Everything you write is tainted by your inability to tell the truth in absolute terms. You're constantly spinning. I mostly just skip your posts now.

[24gray24]

17 minutes ago, yelims said:

Lol

https://www.cityam.com/brexit-20bn-uk-norway-trade-deal-stalls-over-british-beef-and-cheese-as-crucial-deadline-passes/

Brexit: £20bn UK-Norway trade deal implodes over British beef and cheese as crucial deadline passes

Government with PR can't agree to change anything... 

Hardly a surprise. 

 

[kzb]

26 minutes ago, dugsbody said:

Everything you write is tainted by your inability to tell the truth in absolute terms. You're constantly spinning. I mostly just skip your posts now.

The Swiss government has informed the European Commission it is ending efforts to reach an agreement on a long-anticipated political treaty that would cover trade between the two countries.

Switzerland refused to agree to the EU demand that the treaty would include freedom of movement stipulations.

“We regret this decision, given the progress that has been made over the last years,” the European Commission said in a statement.

The goods-trading relationship at risk is worth €227bn, with medical-technology companies among the most important exporters into the EU.

https://www.cityam.com/landlocked-brexit-switzerland-eu-talks-collapse-as-bern-walks-away-from-e227bn-trade-deal/

 

[kzb]

52 minutes ago, 24gray24 said:

Some missing items: 

Balance of trade being more important when you have to ship gold. 

Ceasing to be a reserve currency being a great financial loss. 

Government ownership of industries and socialism being a disaster. 

Colonies and their loss on the finances of the home country. 

System of dictatorships replacing colonies.

Repayment of war debts. 

Influence of traditional animosity and alliances. 

Effects of ever closer union on eu. 

Single currency and perpetual transfer payments or depopulation. 

Government over spending.  

I'm not contending that Britain didn't slip down the league table.  That is not the argument.

As you say there are no end of stuff going on, but chiefly it was just inevitable as European countries rebuilt after the war and followed Britain into being more industrial rather than agricultural economies.

The argument is about how joining the EEC could be said to "rescue" Britain from the 1970's.

[kzb]

58 minutes ago, yelims said:

Lol

https://www.cityam.com/brexit-20bn-uk-norway-trade-deal-stalls-over-british-beef-and-cheese-as-crucial-deadline-passes/

Brexit: £20bn UK-Norway trade deal implodes over British beef and cheese as crucial deadline passes

It'll get sorted in the end.  There will be more rounds of negotiations.

[pig]

1 minute ago, kzb said:

I'm not contending that Britain didn't slip down the league table.  That is not the argument.

As you say there are no end of stuff going on, but chiefly it was just inevitable as European countries rebuilt after the war and followed Britain into being more industrial rather than agricultural economies.

The argument is about how joining the EEC could be said to "rescue" Britain from the 1970's.

No the argument is about you 'weirdly' wanting to ignore British decline before 1973 - oh sorry was that 1974 ? - in case it could be seen that joining the EEC could be said to help rescue Britain from (widely documented)) 'sick man' decline stretching back before the 70s.

Imho your position is blatantly ludicrous, but kind of interesting as its on a relatively simple point of history.

[kzb]

9 minutes ago, pig said:

No the argument is about you 'weirdly' wanting to ignore British decline before 1973 - oh sorry was that 1974 ? - in case it could be seen that joining the EEC could be said to help rescue Britain from (widely documented)) 'sick man' decline stretching back before the 70s.

Imho your position is blatantly ludicrous, but kind of interesting as its on a relatively simple point of history.

Britain didn't decline in absolute terms before the 1970's.  There was full employment and constant economic growth.  What you are classing as decline is relative decline, which is an unfortunate term because it leads to this very misunderstanding.

I further contend that the well known troubles of the 1970's didn't really get off the ground until 1974.

That Wikipedia link you gave actually explains this very well.

Economic growth in Britain, though steady through the 1950s, was not nearly as fast as on the continent. The statistics should be interpreted with care: Britain was far ahead of some other European nations in terms of economic development and urbanisation. Countries like Italy, France and Spain, overwhelmingly agrarian in character at the end of the Second World War, were experiencing a process of rapid industrialisation and urbanisation that Britain had already passed through in the 19th century. This explanation is known as the "early start theory" among economists, and explains why European nations showed markedly stronger levels of absolute growth in industry compared to the UK, a country which was already transitioning into a post-industrial, service-based economy.  These countries had large surplus agricultural populations to draw into the cities to work in factories, while the UK as the most heavily urbanised nation in Europe had only a mere 5% of the population employed on the land by 1945 (dropping to 2.7% by 1977). As such, the traditional source of new labour for low-wage factory work, rural labourers, was virtually non-existent in Britain and this constrained growth potential...

.....The "early start" theory said that Britain's rivals were doing so well relatively because they were still moving large numbers of farm workers into more lucrative employment, structural change achieved in the UK in the 19th century. A second theory emphasised the "rejuvenation by defeat", whereby Germans and Japanese managers and politicians had been forced to reequip, rethink and restructure their economies. The third approach emphasised the drag of "Imperial distractions", whereby Britain's responsibilities to its extensive, though rapidly declining empire handicapped the domestic economy, especially through defence spending, and economic aid. Finally, the theory of "institutional failure" stressed the negative roles of discontinuity, unpredictability, and class envy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_the_United_Kingdom#Relative_decline

 

 

[pig]

18 minutes ago, kzb said:

Britain didn't decline in absolute terms before the 1970's.  There was full employment and constant economic growth.  What you are classing as decline is relative decline, which is an unfortunate term because it leads to this very misunderstanding.

I further contend that the well known troubles of the 1970's didn't really get off the ground until 1974.

That Wikipedia link you gave actually explains this very well.

Economic growth in Britain, though steady through the 1950s, was not nearly as fast as on the continent. The statistics should be interpreted with care: Britain was far ahead of some other European nations in terms of economic development and urbanisation. Countries like Italy, France and Spain, overwhelmingly agrarian in character at the end of the Second World War, were experiencing a process of rapid industrialisation and urbanisation that Britain had already passed through in the 19th century. This explanation is known as the "early start theory" among economists, and explains why European nations showed markedly stronger levels of absolute growth in industry compared to the UK, a country which was already transitioning into a post-industrial, service-based economy.  These countries had large surplus agricultural populations to draw into the cities to work in factories, while the UK as the most heavily urbanised nation in Europe had only a mere 5% of the population employed on the land by 1945 (dropping to 2.7% by 1977). As such, the traditional source of new labour for low-wage factory work, rural labourers, was virtually non-existent in Britain and this constrained growth potential...

.....The "early start" theory said that Britain's rivals were doing so well relatively because they were still moving large numbers of farm workers into more lucrative employment, structural change achieved in the UK in the 19th century. A second theory emphasised the "rejuvenation by defeat", whereby Germans and Japanese managers and politicians had been forced to reequip, rethink and restructure their economies. The third approach emphasised the drag of "Imperial distractions", whereby Britain's responsibilities to its extensive, though rapidly declining empire handicapped the domestic economy, especially through defence spending, and economic aid. Finally, the theory of "institutional failure" stressed the negative roles of discontinuity, unpredictability, and class envy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_the_United_Kingdom#Relative_decline

 

 

Its a bit predictable thats the bit you're moved to quote lol, but at least you're starting to get acquainted with our post imperial decline. The rest of it is worth reading too.

We're of course not debating the well known problems of the 70s, we're not even debating the problems in the 60's or earlier either. We're really just seeing how far you're going to go in denying they existed as a weird convoluted prop to your Brexit bigotry.

 

 

Edited May 29, 2021 by pig

[24gray24]

17 minutes ago, kzb said:

I'm not contending that Britain didn't slip down the league table.  That is not the argument.

As you say there are no end of stuff going on, but chiefly it was just inevitable as European countries rebuilt after the war and followed Britain into being more industrial rather than agricultural economies.

The argument is about how joining the EEC could be said to "rescue" Britain from the 1970's.

Theyhad  lost all their colonies, were bankrupt after the war, had large swathes of their industry under government control and had a balance of payments problem. They also had a nasty class system and several other problems. 

How did joining the EEC change all that? 

 It did give them a common market. But "ever closer union" lit a fuse on that arrangement. 

Wasn't it rather socialism that made the UK the sick man of Europe?  And when the high point of socialism receeded,  the sickness went away with it.   

[pig]

53 minutes ago, 24gray24 said:

Theyhad  lost all their colonies, were bankrupt after the war, had large swathes of their industry under government control and had a balance of payments problem. They also had a nasty class system and several other problems. 

How did joining the EEC change all that? 

 It did give them a common market. But "ever closer union" lit a fuse on that arrangement. 

Wasn't it rather socialism that made the UK the sick man of Europe?  And when the high point of socialism receeded,  the sickness went away with it.   

Do you still genuinely believe that ?

As you pointed out we had a nasty class system facing up to the pain of imperial decline. 

A stick which obviously had to be borne by the working classes but with a nice house price bubble as carrot

 

[24gray24]

36 minutes ago, pig said:

Do you still genuinely believe that ?

As you pointed out we had a nasty class system facing up to the pain of imperial decline. 

A stick which obviously had to be borne by the working classes but with a nice house price bubble as carrot

 

( House price bubble starts in 1970 at the earliest. No correlation. ) 

The working classes were "taxed till the pips squeak" under socialism. Socialism disappeared, along with the sick man of Europe tag, once Thatcher got in. 

That was her one achievement most people are still happy about. 

[kzb]

2 hours ago, pig said:

We're of course not debating the well known problems of the 70s, we're not even debating the problems in the 60's or earlier either. We're really just seeing how far you're going to go in denying they existed as a weird convoluted prop to your Brexit bigotry.

I agree you are not debating, that much is clear.  Just more sneering at the lower orders.  That's how you lost the referendum.

[zugzwang]

7 minutes ago, 24gray24 said:

( House price bubble starts in 1970 at the earliest. No correlation. ) 

The working classes were "taxed till the pips squeak" under socialism. Socialism disappeared, along with the sick man of Europe tag, once Thatcher got in. 

That was her one achievement most people are still happy about. 

 

Free market capitalism fell over and died in 2008. The UK economy has been on life support ever since. The national debt, already a postwar high, is doubling every decade.

Happy? The British are like whipped dogs at the heel of the globalist overlords.

[micawber]

19 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

The British are like whipped dogs at the heel of the globalist overlords.

You're not an RT bot, are you?

[kzb]

2 hours ago, 24gray24 said:

Theyhad  lost all their colonies, were bankrupt after the war, had large swathes of their industry under government control and had a balance of payments problem. They also had a nasty class system and several other problems. 

How did joining the EEC change all that? 

 It did give them a common market. But "ever closer union" lit a fuse on that arrangement. 

Wasn't it rather socialism that made the UK the sick man of Europe?  And when the high point of socialism receeded,  the sickness went away with it.   

Well yes, but then I am puzzled how the early boomers had such an easy life in this bankrupt country back then.

It's exactly my point that joining the EEC made no difference, and the EEC did not rescue us in the 1970's as many seem to think.

The sick man thing only entered the mainstream during that 1974-79 Labour government, that is what I've been saying.  I guess all the strikes didn't do us any good either.

But on the other hand, the actual socialists were against EEC membership.  Joining the EEC was a Tory project.  The unions were against it, and the TUC advised members to vote No.

In those days basic foodstuffs were a much larger proportion of working class budgets.  I actually have childhood memories of my mother, in the primitive food stores of the time, complaining loudly how the price of butter, cheese or whatever had gone through the roof due to the Common Market.  The imposition of high EEC food prices in the early 1970's stoked industrial strife.  The unions were insistent that their members' wages kept up with inflation, hence how they succeeded in getting the workers out on strike.  It's true that inflation was high all over the world, and the "oil shocks" were also to blame.  But we had two sources, the oil shocks and the EEC.

 

[rollover]

Šefčovič puts pressure on London ahead of Brexit talks

Brussels sees the Northern Ireland protocol as a solution to the problems created by Brexit.

European Commission Vice President Maroš Šefčovič has warned U.K. negotiators of growing impatience among EU countries over Northern Ireland trade issues and other outstanding post-Brexit problems. Šefčovič said the next meeting of the EU-U.K. Joint Committee, a forum set up to oversee the Brexit withdrawal deal, in the week of June 7 should agree a joint "road map" for settling differences over the operation of the Northern Ireland trade border.

“To be quite honest all these solutions are coming from our side,” Šefčovič told the FT.

“It’s quite clear that, if we do not see positive developments, that the atmosphere would be more sour, more difficult to look for political compromises. The political environment would be much more challenging,” he said.

 

Politico

[zugzwang]

1 hour ago, micawber said:

You're not an RT bot, are you?

Facts have to be faced. Inside or outside of the European Union, without a radical change of direction the UK will go bankrupt.

[micawber]

12 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

Facts have to be faced. Inside or outside of the European Union, without a radical change of direction the UK will go bankrupt.

I was teasing of course, but you did nearly make me spit out my coffee. Well done.

[micawber]

18 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

Facts have to be faced. Inside or outside of the European Union, without a radical change of direction the UK will go bankrupt.

Actually, I think that it's a fate share by the whole of the developed world. I follow David Hunter's macro view of things. He thinks that there is one more cycle left before financial armegedon. He sees a market crash within a year or so, followed by spending like you haven't yet seen, then inflation and then capitulation as the developed countries realise that they can no longer afford the generous schemes to date. Then, around the end of 2020's, things will look very very bleak.

I'm saving up for my popcorn now.

[winkie]

2 hours ago, kzb said:

 

The sick man thing only entered the mainstream during that 1974-79 Labour government, that is what I've been saying.  I guess all the strikes didn't do us any good either.

In those days basic foodstuffs were a much larger proportion of working class budgets.  I actually have childhood memories of my mother, in the primitive food stores of the time, complaining loudly how the price of butter, cheese or whatever had gone through the roof due to the Common Market.  The imposition of high EEC food prices in the early 1970's stoked industrial strife.  The unions were insistent that their members' wages kept up with inflation, hence how they succeeded in getting the workers out on strike.  It's true that inflation was high all over the world, and the "oil shocks" were also to blame.  But we had two sources, the oil shocks and the EEC.

 

We will be saying the same about leaving the EU.....food prices have shot up since leaving.

How about we start growing more food to eat ourselves and not so much food to feed animals?......can't blame Europe for high prices then.......take back control.

Edited May 29, 2021 by winkie
't