Jump to content


The Consequences of Brexit [part 4]

Recommended Posts

Phew, at least that small group won't have been influenced by Russian mischief.

 

Shouldn't that be alleged Russian mischief?:) Or maybe it could also be media mischief. ;)

Edited by apelike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This argument is rather ridiculous and keeps being trotted out. Have you got any evidence that this is the result of the EU? I will give you a small pointer - it was the national governments (through the European Council) that arrived at a bail-out solution under guidance of Gordon Brown (amongst others). It wasn't a European Parliament that authorised bailouts, it was national governments.

 

You either have an utter lack of knowledge or can't face the truth that German finance houses are in charge via the German government and their control on the EU monetary project.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11809841/Greece-sells-airports-to-Germans-as-Bundestag-prepares-for-day-of-reckoning.html

 

I'll not bother with the rest of your post as it's just as ill informed and/or Stockholm Syndrome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You either have an utter lack of knowledge or can't face the truth that German finance houses are in charge via the German government and their control on the EU monetary project.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11809841/Greece-sells-airports-to-Germans-as-Bundestag-prepares-for-day-of-reckoning.html

 

I'll not bother with the rest of your post as it's just as ill informed and/or Stockholm Syndrome.

 

Never mind, the Russians will help you burn it all down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Never mind, the Russians will help you burn it all down.
No need for any further help, enough damage has already been done, that it is now self-sustaining (the most damage done was May triggering Article 50 with Parliament's approval; not the referendum, nor the 2017 GE).

 

The UK government's negotiating strategy (a.k.a "stalling until the 59th minute of the 11th hour") is managing to burn down the UK car industry all by itself.

 

At least now we don't need to wait for the sectoral analysis about the automotive industry. Which, by the evidence of that hearing and its reporting, is unlikely to cover the *real* pivotal issue: the automatic disqualification of any type approval certificates issued by the UK Vehicle Certification Authority for exporting UK-made cars to the EU27, at 23:01 GMT on 29 March 2019. That was clearly mentioned right at the start of the hearing, and the Committee did not pick up on it one bit, neither has the press.

 

It's the REACH situation all over again (products which require a formalised/regulatory "prior approval" system), about the car industry this time. And as with REACH, it's not one which can be solved with a deal, either.

 

For all the earlier talk of 10% WTO tariffs on cars, this disqualification means no car exports to the EU at all (and maybe also further non-EU countries with which the EU has trading agreements of any sort and which cover type-approved EU vehicles, of which the UK benefits for exports), until the issue is resolved and provided that car manufacturers haven't cut their losses (borne from J-I-T UK plants on stop) and trimmed their UK plants and staff in proportion by then.

 

Really makes you wonder what Theresa and Carlos spoke of back in October 2016, that had Nissan's boss 'confident' at the time. Given his comment earlier this year, I very much doubt that he still is as confident by now.

 

If you're working in the automotive sector (however far upstream of the final assembly line), better dust off and refresh your CV :|

 

In other news, I see from the front page of this morning's Daily Telegraph, that the UK press has managed to distinguish itself again, with some more "enemies of the people" (Members of Parliament, this time) plastered all over it. It's beyond shameful.

 

The whole Brexit thing is turning into some car crash alright.

Edited by L00b

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NO to EU policies that privatise member states transport and postal services!

 

NO to the forced privatisation of EU member states ports, electricity networks and airports!

 

NO to EU privatisation!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NO to EU policies that privatise member states transport and postal services!

 

NO to the forced privatisation of EU member states ports, electricity networks and airports!

 

NO to EU privatisation!

Save as to the little fact that running public concerns such as transport networks, postal systems, electricity networks and airports all costs money, which still doesn't grow on magic money trees.

 

So when that running is done on a very lossy basis (as the Greeks did for years on end, and particularly so after deceitfully acceding to the €zone, with money-no-object wages and pensions for public employees on the one side, but then little or no tax collection on the other side), eventually the creditors catch on: in Greece's case, there were no lenders left to prop their profligate management, hence the eventual firesale of assets to offset liabilities and keeping the lights on.

 

Yes, the Greeks got it rough. But then, prior to that, they weren't complaining much when they were retiring at 55 on 90% final salary pensions, with many changing (German-made) cars every year; nor when the vast majority of Greeks, from the lower middle class upwards, were very liberally engaging in extraditing untaxed cash to Switzerland and other tax havens. The collectivisation of the austerity required for the years-overdue balancing of the books was entirely moral: the governments that kept up the charade were democratically elected, everybody had been at the party they were giving, so everybody got a share of the bill.

 

It's called collective responsibility, and you shouldn't have too much difficulty understanding the principle, I'd have thought: it's got 'collective' in it :D

 

Noone can have their cake and eating it for life, I'm afraid: welcome to the real world, hope you survive the crash landing :twisted:

Edited by L00b

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has car boot just accused the EU of forcing the sale of the royal mail?

The conservatives have an ideological attraction to selling of state assets, the EU has nothing to do with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Has car boot just accused the EU of forcing the sale of the royal mail?

The conservatives have an ideological attraction to selling of state assets, the EU has nothing to do with it.

I believe Car Boot was on about the relatively recent Greek firesale of state assets.

 

Maybe Car Boot should read Lafontaine (or Aesop, if he's a classicist), in particular the ant and the grasshopper.

 

It's a centuries-old fable, the underlying principle of which is not exactly new or groundbreaking, and highly relevant to the Greek situation ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's called collective responsibility, and you shouldn't have too much difficulty understanding the principle, I'd have thought: it's got 'collective' in it :D

 

The EU imposes the harshest form of taxation upon a nation - privatisation - which is the theft of the assets of a nation that belong to its people. Collective ownership is hated by the bankers and corporations which really control the EU, for their benefit.

 

All the EU has done is privatise profit and nationalise debt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Has car boot just accused the EU of forcing the sale of the royal mail?

The conservatives have an ideological attraction to selling of state assets, the EU has nothing to do with it.

 

Another Cyclone fact free post.

 

Royal Mail privatisation was a key Lib Dem policy since the mid '00s. The Labour government of the time had similar support for a privatisation initiative that came from the Royal Mail itself. Vice Cable oversaw the entire process as an early 'win' for the Lib Dems in the Coalition Government.

 

The EU's involvement is that the Royal Mail charter obliges the RM to operate a full delivery service, but this is done at a loss, so the government provides a subsidy to RM, preventing fair competition under EU competition rules. This is illegal under the Amsterdam Treaty state aid rules so complaints were raised to the EU Commission by RM competitors which ultimately forced the privatisation of the RM and so enabled the delivery of a key policy of the EU centric LibDems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Has car boot just accused the EU of forcing the sale of the royal mail?

The conservatives have an ideological attraction to selling of state assets, the EU has nothing to do with it.

 

Completely incorrect when it comes to the EU forcing privatisation of the Royal Mail. Perhaps you should remove your EU blinkers?

 

A late 1990's EU Press Release stated that an EU-wide private postal service would be established, and this was to be achieved by a series of EU Directives. This 'liberalised service' allowed privately owned postal companies to directly compete in the UK against the Royal Mail.

 

The Amsterdam Treaty 1997 dictates that any state aid to a commercial organisation must be approved by the EU Commission. After private companies complained to the EU that the Royal Mail was being unfairly subsidised, the EU demanded that the Royal Mail be part privatised, as a stepping stone to full privatisation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.